tigersgogrrr wrote:

JonB wrote:

Would you say trans women are women?

Can someone say no to this without being labelled a transphobe? Is it really a binary question? EDIT: It's such a ridiculous minefield.

I wasn't asking you, but I think it's quite straightforward.

davyK wrote:

That's the problem. Thought crime next.

What are you talking about?

tigersgogrrr wrote:

JonB wrote:

Would you say trans women are women?

Can someone say no to this without being labelled a transphobe?

Is it really a binary question?

EDIT: It's such a ridiculous minefield.

I'll happily say no. Not out of any fierce rejection of the idea. It just doesn't make much sense to me.

T isn't new.

JonB wrote:

tigersgogrrr wrote:

JonB wrote:

Would you say trans women are women?

Can someone say no to this without being labelled a transphobe? Is it really a binary question? EDIT: It's such a ridiculous minefield.

I wasn't asking you, but I think it's quite straightforward.

davyK wrote:

That's the problem. Thought crime next.

What are you talking about?

Straightforward? Doesn't appear to be given the amount of debate! Certainly doesn't appear straightforward to me.

There’s a difference between something being straightforward (trans women are women)

And that straightforward thing being acceptable and tolerable and understandable to lots of people

Loving the idea that trans rights is a new thing

And also that we should preach tolerance for those who refuse to accept the straightforward thing, while those who suffer marginalisation and victimisation both legally and societally for existing get little sympathy. I know it’s not what you mean Davy but it comes across a bit “hey won’t someone think of the reactionary people who find it hard to understand ‘new’ things and accept change while that trans kid kills themselves?”

The bit that still amazes us how important it is to people so utterly unaffected by this sub1% of the population to defend the status quo rather than just, you know, say “huh, so that’s cool. I guess we should calmly and carefully and together think about how that impacts pro sports”

davyK wrote:

That's the problem. Thought crime next.

What are you talking about?

Shouty people making people afraid to express an opinion. Drives it underground instead of bringing it out in the open.

Oh no, not shouty people. The horror. Surely that's a social media problem rather than a trans-rights people being mean problem. I mean, the individuals that attract the most 'shouty people' (read vicious abuse and death threats) are marginalised groups like trans-people, for saying basically anything at all. If they can put up with it, I'm sure you can handle a little exuberant pushback on your opinions.

davyK wrote:

It isn't. People are complicated.

Language, semantics and emotions come into play. If we treat people well it goes a long way. I always try and see the human in front of me no matter what category we mentally assign.

Actions are what really count. I do admit to the linguistic machinations to be tiring and an awful lot is read into what people say. Sure...it's an indication of whichever bias we are applying at the time, but it doesn't always follow what a person would do or how they would behave when interacting with someone.

We do need to make an effort and be conscious of what we say does to a person though. We also have to live wlth the fact that we all have bias.

Tolerance.

Tolerance is the least we can offer. Acceptance of the dignity of another is what we should strive to.

There is a really solid core to your post though which I think is essential reading. At the moment, all you and I and everyone else discussing it here is seen as words on a screen except for those who know each other personally.

What matters most, as you say, is actions.

I might disagree with a number of people who, for simplicity's sake might be more on Rowling's side of the debate, but if those people and everyone else is able to treat LGBTI+ people with respect and dignity like any other human, then those actions matter.

Yes, that would mean using their identity, not their dead name, being respectful as with anyone else. Just as we would hopefully try and be decent and kind to people from any other background that might be challenging to us.

Except Nazis. Fuck them.

What did I say that doesn't fall under the banner of 'robust discourse'? I didn't say anything personal, or abusive. I wasn't shouty.

I also wasn't referring to anyone here - I clearly said it's a general social media problem.

People do have to shout to be heard, if you don't the majority just fuck you over anyway, so why wouldn't you?

JonB makes a good analogy with the civil rights in America.

I was responding to Chopper's post and Jon's reply. Just used the word shout as that's what has to be done, wasn't thinking about your post tbh Davy.

JonB wrote:

ChopperByrne wrote:

Trans activism is now the biggest enemy of trans rights.

Rather than pick through the whole post, I'd rather just ask how you can possibly believe this. It's like saying black people who used violence to fight for civil rights were the biggest enemy of racial equality, rather than, say, Nazis or the KKK, or segregation laws. Astonishing.

A new sig appears.

The statement ‘trans women are woman’ is simplified and ‘dumbing down’ in significant ways and those claiming it’s straightforward whilst decrying the dumbing down of the debate aren’t being very self aware.

So let me have a stab at answering. Trans woman are woman in the sense that they’ve decided they’re women. That is, the definition of a woman is ‘someone who thinks they’re a woman’. You may believe that a. someone thinking they’re a woman makes them a woman and that b. That definition of a woman is the only definition you’re willing to accept.

Or you may be one of those people, like plenty of trans people, who when they say ‘trans woman are woman’ mean ‘my gender identity is ‘female’ and in that sense I’m a woman. I ‘identify’ as a woman and yet I recognise that one could reasonably and on occasion rightly, define a woman in a different way, and when that happens I’m happy to recognise I am not a woman in that sense. So as a trans woman I do not need screening for cervix cancer for example and I won’t expect health authorities to offer it to me.’
I think this perspective raises the question, what does ‘femaleness’ or female gender identity mean aside from aesthetic and social markers and how do you avoid stereotyping what a ‘woman’ is to preferences for certain colours and dresses and mannerisms etc. However this idea has the strong benefit of not demanding biological male access to female spaces and so it can take loads of the heat out of the conversation. The reality is this is not the dominant voice. The dominate voice is ‘trans woman are woman so should have access to all female spaces’.

Or you may believe that genetics, the potential to bear children (sometimes this goes wrong - my wife and I can’t conceive, but this doesn’t deny the natural potential), primary and secondary sex characteristics, the lived experience of puberty, periods etc make someone a woman. You may believe that ‘nature’ has some inherent claim on us and we have a responsibility to recognise that. LOADS of feminists are saying this and pretending their view is inherently transphobic and not worthy of respect is silly. Not least because the majority of the British population agrees with them.

So belief systems and ideology are in play on both sides here and using the acceptance of a slogan to demonise (that is label transphobic) people is typically not the way to win arguments in a liberal democracy which believes in reasoned debate.

I’d certainly be interested to see engagement with objections about the circularity of the definition. ‘Trans woman are women’, ‘what’s a woman?’ ‘A woman is anyone who feels they’re a woman’.

Knight wrote:

I’d certainly be interested to see engagement with objections about the circularity of the definition. ‘Trans woman are women’, ‘what’s a woman?’ ‘A woman is anyone who feels they’re a woman’.

That's not circular. What you're actually saying is you don't agree with that definition of what the word "woman" means. (Is it a biological term, or a wider more encompassing term that includes gender?)

There is a huge difference between "a tree is something we call a tree" and "a man is someone who calls themselves a man" which is surely pretty self evident? (Whether you agree with it or not.)

As others have said though, the risk of these discussions is they become purely semantic - a way to reduce the debate to one about language rather than actual living humans.