Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[theprestige]

That these two groups, cis women and trans people, are inherently in conflict is begging the question.

I dunno about inherently, but they're observably in conflict. And the way the trans-activists seem to be going about their side of the conflict, it sure seems like they think it's inherent. The center of gravity for this seems to be transsexuality's inherent need to either assert a biological identity they do not actually share with their target gender, or to erase the very real biological distinction between them and their target gender. Both of these approaches necessarily put them at odds with women.

Then there's the observation of all these individual trans people who really do seem to think they have an inherent conflict with women, from Jessica Yaniv to competitive athletes to those sick sad souls who are harassing lesbians for not being into dick. And the observation that there are no mainstream trans-activist voices repudiating this behavior. The Stonewall CEO goes with accusing the victims of being closet bigots, instead.

Then there's the push to aggressively cancel any dissenting voices in medical research or public policy. And the death threats, etc.

All of this is conflict trans people are creating or pursuing. If there is an inherent conflict now, it's due to this behavior by trans people - both the individual bad actors, and the activists who minimize, deny, or excuse their bad behavior.

 

[Olmstead]

Again, how is "trans crime of day stories" anything different than white racists citing black crime horror stories to justify racism?

It would probably raise some eyebrows if opposing voices responded with: "Black people aren't dangerous as long as they identify as white."

Maybe that's what's different.

 

[d4m10n]

Again, how is "trans crime of day stories" anything different than white racists citing black crime horror stories to justify racism?

Again, you've smuggled in the premise that the differences between males and females are superficial and insignificant like the differences between various "races," and once again you expect the reader not to notice or object.

Meanwhile, back in reality, it actually matters that males are generally stronger and more sexually aggressive, which is part of why they were segregated from females in the first place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, you've smuggled in the premise that the differences between males and females are superficial and insignificant like the differences between various "races," and once again you expect the reader not to notice or object.

Meanwhile, back in reality, it actually matters that males are generally stronger and more sexually aggressive, which is part of why they were segregated from females in the first place.

Also, once again casts females as being the white people, and males as being the black people in this analogy.

 

[Graham2001]

I dunno about inherently, but they're observably in conflict. And the way the trans-activists seem to be going about their side of the conflict, it sure seems like they think it's inherent. The center of gravity for this seems to be transsexuality's inherent need to either assert a biological identity they do not actually share with their target gender, or to erase the very real biological distinction between them and their target gender. Both of these approaches necessarily put them at odds with women.

Then there's the observation of all these individual trans people who really do seem to think they have an inherent conflict with women, from Jessica Yaniv to competitive athletes to those sick sad souls who are harassing lesbians for not being into dick. And the observation that there are no mainstream trans-activist voices repudiating this behavior. The Stonewall CEO goes with accusing the victims of being closet bigots, instead.

Then there's the push to aggressively cancel any dissenting voices in medical research or public policy. And the death threats, etc.

All of this is conflict trans people are creating or pursuing. If there is an inherent conflict now, it's due to this behavior by trans people - both the individual bad actors, and the activists who minimize, deny, or excuse their bad behavior.

It's also remarkably similar to how conspiracy theorists like alt-medders and 9/11 Truthers (remember them) behave.

 

[The Atheist]

Also, once again casts females as being the white people, and males as being the black people in this analogy.

Anything to attack the sheilas.

All's fair in love and war, and the extreme pro-trans lobby has declared war on you.

You can look on the bright side; by their actions, that extreme group is winning you more supporters and turning people off trans-positive action.

Solely as a result of this thread I've moved my position from trans supportive to the extent I gave my time to their cause, right along the spectrum to: "They can piss off and I don't care if they're discriminated against."

 

[gnome]

Solely as a result of this thread I've moved my position from trans supportive to the extent I gave my time to their cause, right along the spectrum to: "They can piss off and I don't care if they're discriminated against."

This is exactly what I don't really get. That doesn't seem to me very different from "I disagree with this objectionable behavior by these environmentalists, so I've decided to pollute more intentionally."

The behavior of advocates doesn't change what's right or wrong.

 

[mgidm86]

It would probably raise some eyebrows if opposing voices responded with: "Black people aren't dangerous as long as they identify as white."

Maybe that's what's different.

If you're walking on a sidewalk and two black guys who identify as white women are walking toward you, how many offenses will you commit if you cross the street?

 

[The Atheist]

This is exactly what I don't really get. That doesn't seem to me very different from "I disagree with this objectionable behavior by these environmentalists, so I've decided to pollute more intentionally."

It's infinitely different. Pollution is everyone's problem. Trans women, not so much.

The behavior of advocates doesn't change what's right or wrong.

It does to me. They're moved from seeking equality to repression of women's rights.

 

[theprestige]

This is exactly what I don't really get. That doesn't seem to me very different from "I disagree with this objectionable behavior by these environmentalists, so I've decided to pollute more intentionally."

The behavior of advocates doesn't change what's right or wrong.

Pollution is an objective fact I have to deal with, regardless of the behavior of the people around me.

Trans accommodation is a subjective request from the people in question. Their behavior, attitude, and the reasonableness of their request all factor into my decision of whether they're entitled to my accommodation.

 

[Paul2]

Bump for SuburbanTurkey

Do you agree with the principle that rights may need to be balanced between groups of people when those rights are conflicting? [And] That balancing does not equal bigotry. It's a feature of democracy.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Bump for SuburbanTurkey

It's begging the question that trans rights are in conflict with the rights of cis people (or more specifically cis women)

But if I were accept your more broad question, such conflicts must be settled treating these two groups as equal stakeholders. Clearly this is not the case here, where transphobes are fighting tooth and nail against even basic recognition as trans people as a class characteristic, such as attempting to maintain a status quo (or worsen it) that official state recognition is de-facto out of reach for most trans people in the UK, or that access to trans-affirming care is not available.

Forgive me if I don't take the TERF complaints at face value while they simultaneously deny the rights of trans people to even officially exist. They will not be happy until the law treats them as mentally diseased crossdressers.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Forgive me if I don't take the TERF complaints at face value while they simultaneously deny the rights of trans people to even officially exist.

Can we please stop that?

If you're 5 foot 4 and I refuse to just magically think you are 6 foot 10 I am not "denying you existence" I am disagreeing with you about an aspect of your existence. That's a very different thing.

We are not obligated to agree with absolutely every opinion someone has about themselves, regardless of what the cult of "identity" says.

Especially, as I keep going back to, it makes no objective difference in how we treat them.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Can we please stop that?

If you're 5 foot 4 and I refuse to just magically think you are 6 foot 10 I am not "denying you existence" I am disagreeing with you about an aspect of your existence. That's a very different thing.

We are not obligated to agree with absolutely every opinion someone has about themselves, regardless of what the cult of "identity" says.

Especially, as I keep going back to, it makes no objective difference in how we treat them.

Sure, people disagree about whether trans people are "real" or just mentally ill weirdos.

It's high stakes to deny minority groups recognition. If you're wrong, you're accurately described as a bigot, just like the bigots that denied the notions that gay people weren't just perverts, or the bigots that denied black people weren't some form of subhuman.

That's the stakes here, like it or not.

ETA: It makes tremendous difference how the system treats these people, be it getting access to trans specific medical care, anti-discrimination law, and the like. If it's all just delusion, there's no legal or even much ethical requirement to accommodate them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sure, people disagree about whether trans people are "real" or just mentally ill weirdos.

I don't. I've made my opinions clear and they boil down to neither "real" (within the context being used here, as in I say that's a bad way of wording it) or mentally ill.

"Wrong" or "misguided" or even "distinction without difference" are still valid opinions.

You can disagree with them, but I'd wish you'd stop misrepresenting them.

 

[theprestige]

It's begging the question that trans rights are in conflict with the rights of cis people (or more specifically cis women)

This seems like a good time to repeat the question: What trans rights, specifically, are we talking about?

I can think of some things I consider basic human rights, that trans people are entitled to same as anyone else, and that don't create any sort of conflict between them and cis people.

I can also think of some things that, while not what I would consider rights, are reasonable accommodations that shouldn't create any sort of conflict. A lot of the calls for tolerance and acceptance of trans identity fall into this category.

And I can think of some things that I consider not rights at all, but entitlements. They can be demanded, but nobody is obligated to grant them, especially if they conflict with women's rights. Much of the problem with this category could be resolved by saying those aren't women's rights (or that transwomen are women).

Anyway, we could probably have a productive discussion about trans acceptance and public policy, if you will tell us what trans rights, specifically, you have in mind here.

 

[Paul2]

Like how we balance the rights of gay or interracial couples with those who find the very idea disgusting and repulsive. Really Loving v Virginia was entirely wrong for not striking a balance.

No, not like that. Do you deny that rights must never be balanced when in conflict, or that rights never come in conflict, or what?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This seems like a good time to repeat the question: What trans rights, specifically, are we talking about?

I can think of some things I consider basic human rights, that trans people are entitled to same as anyone else, and that don't create any sort of conflict between them and cis people.

I can also think of some things that, while not what I would consider rights, are reasonable accommodations that shouldn't create any sort of conflict. A lot of the calls for tolerance and acceptance of trans identity fall into this category.

And I can think of some things that I consider not rights at all, but entitlements. They can be demanded, but nobody is obligated to grant them, especially if they conflict with women's rights. Much of the problem with this category could be resolved by saying those aren't women's rights (or that transwomen are women).

Anyway, we could probably have a productive discussion about trans acceptance and public policy, if you will tell us what trans rights, specifically, you have in mind here.

Considering the context of the UK, making getting a GRC not a gauntlet of long wait times and red tape would probably be a good start, as well as getting access to trans affirming medical care through the NHS, both things that TERFs like the LGB alliance stand firmly against.

There's really not much difference between denying rights and delaying meaningful exercise of those rights for years on end, which is routinely how long it takes in the UK.

 

[Paul2]

It's begging the question that trans rights are in conflict with the rights of cis people (or more specifically cis women)

I know that this thread is about trans rights, but we first have to agree on the general principle before we see how it might apply to any particular group, and see immediately below.

But if I were accept your more broad question, such conflicts must be settled treating these two groups as equal stakeholders.

Agreed.

Clearly this is not the case here, where transphobes are fighting tooth and nail against even basic recognition as trans people as a class characteristic, such as attempting to maintain a status quo (or worsen it) that official state recognition is de-facto out of reach for most trans people in the UK, or that access to trans-affirming care is not available.

I admit I'm unclear on the implications of official state recognition in the UK, but on its face, it sounds like a good thing.

Forgive me if I don't take the TERF complaints at face value while they simultaneously deny the rights of trans people to even officially exist. They will not be happy until the law treats them as mentally diseased crossdressers.

I would frame that as considering a complaint separate from other positions a particular person might take. It's surely possible for some bigot to have a complaint about the group that the bigot is bigoted against that is valid despite their bigotry.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Considering the context of the UK, making getting a GRC...

What's a GRC?