Is there actually an "anti-trans community?"
I'm not being facetious, here. What I mostly see are individuals who disagree to various degrees with various assertions that come from trans-activists. I suppose there are some groups who have platforms that you could classify as anti-trans.
I suspect a lot of those groups arose, not due to animosity to trans-people, but because they perceived the priorities of their previous groups to be shifting towards trans-activism.
If I were a supporter/member of the National Heart Association, I want them to put their resources towards education, outreach, and research regarding heart disease. If they decided to focus a significant portion of their efforts towards researching liver disease, I might be unhappy and perhaps form another group that is specifically for heart disease and not liver disease. And I might resent the liver disease people for successfully hijacking the platform of the NHA.
So I ask you, is it OK to have a group that focuses exclusively on the concerns of biological women? Is it ok to have a group that only focuses on sexuality (lg or lgb) issues? If not, why is it unacceptable for an organization to have a narrow focus?
These organizations aren't simply focused on the issues of women and silent on the matter of trans rights, they are explicitly opposed to trans rights.
Most take the position that trans existence is illegitimate. They treat every trans woman as a male pervert trying to invade their female spaces, and every trans man is misguided, mutilated woman bowing to the patriarchy.
I can't see any way in which these trans-exclusionary groups won't be in direct conflict with trans-inclusive LGBT and feminist activism. There's simply too much overlap in areas of operation and irreconcilable differences in desired outcomes.
So...the bigots on one side are insignificant and the things they say should be ignored, but the bigots on the other side are significant and meaningful?
What you seem to not understand is that it's a matter of perspective. It doesn't matter what the issue is, one always considers the fringe nutjobs near their own side to be harmless cranks and not worth discussing, while at the same time thinking that the fringe nutjobs on the other side are problematic and the other side needs to address/disavow/ or do...something...about them.
You don't watch YouTube much do you? There are a lot of channels devoted to this issue on YouTube, and they are very influential in influencing people's opinions. Unfortunately reasonable people don't draw hits. Novelty does. Outrageousness does. It's a world defined by shock jocks. Rational people are boring. (This is true for both sides.)
Even the mainstream media is tabloid media. Jessica Yaniv is a crank who gets attention because she's over the top outrageous. She's another sort of fringe in the trans community. The things she does make her visible and that visibility affects peoples opinions of the trans community (negatively).
My point is that loud voices, fringe or not, get heard and have influence. You can't really dismiss them without addressing them.
Ok. But only if the reverse is also true.
If people who push back on some points of trans-activism must disavow their fringe, then those who argue for the trans positions should also have to make it clear that the bigots on their side are unwelcome allies as well.
I mean, you wouldn't want to ally or make common cause with anti-lesbian bigots, would you?
And animus against lesbians who do not want to have sex with women with penises should also be a dealbreaker.
If one side must ostracize its bigots, then so must the other.
Is there any evidence that the broader trans community is making common cause with trolls like Yaniv? There's plenty of evidence of the trans community explicitly disavowing people like Yaniv. Numerous complaints about how her actions are making it more difficult for the broader public to take trans issues seriously and that she has had a deleterious impact on their activism. What more do you want from these people? It's not in their power to stop her, she's a pro se, frivolous litigant.
Yaniv is an interesting example because it shows exactly how reactionary, anti-trans people nutpick in order to advocate opposition to trans rights. Take the discourse over Canada passing C-16, which codified gender identity as a protected class into Canadian civil rights law.
Reactionaries like Peterson would claim, baselessly and often in clear bad faith, that such a law would result in criminalizing misgendering and the thought police would be at every doorstep rounding up those that refuse to cowtow to the SJWs. And the law passed. And the sky did not fall.
Then comes Yaniv and her frivolous lawsuits. Which failed, even though gender identity had been made a protected class. She was even ordered to pay recompense to those she dragged through the process (that impressed me because we have very little recourse against meritless lawsuits in the US). She absolutely did harm to the victims of her frivolous complaint, but, again, the doomsaying of the reactionary, anti-trans types was again proven false. She did lose her lawsuit, and while she can still continue to go on doing frivolous litigation, there's no indication that future legal stunts will be any more successful.
And yet these old tropes are still bandied about as if they haven't explicitly been debunked. C-16 is passed into law and trans people are being protected. The woke police never arrested Peterson. Yaniv couldn't force some salon worker to shave her balls. the sky is firmly above us still, and trans people have their civil rights protected. There has been no acknowledgement from the reactionaries when their wildly hyperbolic predictions never came to pass.
Emily has, in the course of these threads, made the observation that men and women are treated differently when they question some of the trans positions. I haven't been keeping score, so I can't say if she's right or wrong. But I recall she and I making essentially the same argument at one point where my point was addressed and hers dismissed. So I see where her viewpoint comes from.
The mistake you are making here is that you hear "women's opinions are dismissed," think it's absurd and dismiss it when you should be asking "Why does she feel that way?" That doesn't mean you have to agree with her points, but it does mean you should give them the respect of addressing them.
EmilyCat believes I am dismissive of her opinions because she is a woman, while I contend I am dismissive of her opinions because they are clearly rooted in animus and are not worthy of respect.
EC has repeatedly in this thread attempted to conflate the positions taken by these trans-exclusionary organizations as those taken by women more broadly. I have repeatedly pointed out that these TERF groups are in fact extremist groups, and that the majority of lesbian women are not threatened by the existence of trans people. In the split between LGBT groups and trans-exclusionary types, the latter is by all indications the smaller.
I am not dismissive of TERF positions because they are voiced by women, I am dismissive of TERF opinions because I reject the bastardized version of feminism they are rooted in. And so do the majority of feminsts and the queer community, who make up the most vocal opposition to these TERF viewpoints.
You've been treating me disrespectfully well before now. Don't try to use this as a veneer to shield your behavior.