Is this woman a transphobe?

[co-op]

So on the Aimee Challenor thread I mentioned that women get suspended off twitter for saying they are women and that twitter has gained a reputation for being aggressively anti-gender critical feminists and pro-TRAs. I was challenged for examples - fair enough - and I gave one, but this one came up in my twitter feed today which is another example where I genuinely struggle to see how anyone can meaningfully call this thread "transphobic"



I've cut and pasted the rest of the thread below;

No, I wouldn't like to talk about it. I have not said one thing that is transphobic (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often). I proudly stand for the rights of women and the single-sex exemptions that are enshrined in equality law, and if that is considered transphobic then the problem is with the definition not with my stance.

I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity especially when it damages women and girls - the oppression of women is based on biology not gender identity and this movement is seeking to remove not only every protection women and girls have but to redefine what it means to be female.

The left is eating itself with identity politics and it pains me to witness it. Centuries of oppression and fighting to even be recognised as deserving of equality have been eroded in just a few years. Ask yourself this question, is it OK for me to identify as black because I feel black and I listen to Bob Malrley? Would it be fine for me to then claim to be more oppressed than those who don't get to choose the colour of their skin? Is it OK for a person to claim to be disabled because they "feel disabled" and claim all the protections and systems put in place to allow disabled people to be equal within society? If the answer to those questions is no (rightly so) then why is it OK for a man to claim womanhood based on how he feels and what he wears?

Women and girls cannot identify out of their oppression in the same way that black and disabled people cannot identify out of theirs. I would never and will never discriminate against anyone nor would I treat anyone any differently based on their identity, in fact I have campaigned for LGBT rights and will continue to do so. I have been a left wing trade unionist and feminist my whole life and I will not apologise for my belief that a person who is born male cannot magically change sex and become more oppressed than females. I don't think you or any man (no disrespect) can understand how upsetting it is to see so many left wing men, who have spent the past 5 years telling women like myself, to shut up, sit down, don't talk, and calling them bigots, transphobes and TERFs for standing for their rights, suddenly "stand in solidarity with women and girls" because it is the latest cause celebre. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing and the intellectual disconnect involved in this is staggering.

I am not and never have been transphobic but I am also not a menstruator, chest feeder, vagina haver, I am a woman and all of the violence and sexual harassment I have faced at the hands of men has been because I was born female, not because I have a gender identity. The LGB movement has been sidelined for trans rights and queer theory - the two motions for national conference forwarded by the LGBTQ+ conference are both about trans issues which says it all - what about the young girls struggling to come to terms with being lesbians as well as being sexualised by society, who speaks for them now? Who is protecting them from the harm that being called a bigot for not wanting to have a relationship with a pre-op trans-identifying male is causing them? Who is standing for young homosexual boys as they struggle in a world of toxic masculintiy to come to terms with their sexuality when they are being told that if they like 'girl' things then they are "born in the wrong body" and must really be a woman?

We talked last night about free speech, I am guessing that only applies in certain situations. How come every other group gets to define what is ".......phobic" but women and girls must be told what misogyny and sexism is? If these views are problematic then do what you need to do but I will not apologise for standing for women.

Anyway, this is what happened.




What am I missing if I don't think this thread is "transphobic"?

 

[hitmouse]

Quick thought experiment: Imagine someone wrote the following sentences:

I have not said one thing that is misogynist (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often).

I have not said one thing that is racist (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often).

I have not said one thing that is homophobic (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often).

What would you assume about that person?

 

[co-op]

Quick thought experiment: Imagine someone wrote the following sentences:

I have not said one thing that is misogynist (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often).

I have not said one thing that is racist (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often).

I have not said one thing that is homophobic (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often).

What would you assume about that person?

The things is, those aren't the sentences written - and as far as I can work out there is no equivalent to the whole horrendous trans "debate". The use of the word "transphobia" to rule out any criticism of a political position such as gender critical feminism as motivated only by "hate" has no analogue anywhere else and this is why I am so baffled and confused by this issue.

To return to the original post can you at least highlight the "transphobic" sentences?

 

[maomao]

Compares being trans to thinking she's black because she listens to Bob Marley.

 

[hitmouse]

If you accept transphobia as a valid concept, then it's possible to have a conversation about what side of the line this stuff falls on. If you don't accept transphobia as being a valid concept, which it appears that you don't, then the answer to the question in your OP is obviously going to be no and you're not going to change your mind, so I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is.

As for: "The use of the word "transphobia" to rule out any criticism of a political position such as gender critical feminism as motivated only by "hate" has no analogue anywhere else and this is why I am so baffled and confused by this issue." - lots of words, including the ones I suggested above, are used to describe lots of political positions as being motivated by hate. From one perspective, describing "gender critical feminism" as transphobic is not inherently different to describing "traditional family values" as homophobic, but obviously if you like one of those positions and don't like the other, then criticism of them is going to seem very different.

 

[Ax^]

what thread on here only saw the Reddit stuff

 

[Edie]

I have to agree that we women can not identify out of sexual harassment and discrimination, and it’s hard to disagree with anything else she has written. But it’s also true that trans men and women deserve protection from abuse and violence. It is the ridiculous nature of left wing politics that pits one against the other.

 

[smmudge]

I think what annoys me most is that they bring in disability as a way to back up their argument but don't seem to have read anything about social models of disability, which argue exactly the opposite of what they're saying.

Also all the transphobia, that's annoying too.

 

[iveivan]

“I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity”

The presumption in the post is that trans people do not exist and people who say they are are frauds. That‘s transphobic.

 

[co-op]

If you accept transphobia as a valid concept, then it's possible to have a conversation about what side of the line this stuff falls on. If you don't accept transphobia as being a valid concept, which it appears that you don't, then the answer to the question in your OP is obviously going to be no and you're not going to change your mind, so I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is.

Of course I accept transphobia is a valid concept but I can't see the transphobia in this thread which got someone banned off twitter. Where is the transphobic bit? Or is it ALL transphobic? Is it, by definition transphobic to be gender-critical (ie to believe that sex is real but gender is a social construct, imposed in order to control - mostly - women). How is that motivated by "hate"? It can be wrong, but does it have to be motivated by hatred, is it essential to believe that in order for me to understand transphobia?

 

[co-op]

“I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity”

The presumption in the post is that trans people do not exist and people who say they are are frauds. That‘s transphobic.

Where does it say trans people don't exist? Or that they are frauds?

 

[Edie]

“I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity”

The presumption in the post is that trans people do not exist and people who say they are are frauds. That‘s transphobic.

No. My understanding is that you have to accept biological reality, that humans are sexually dimorphic and women’s discrimination and assault is based on our biology. But that does not exclude the idea (not biological reality) that some humans have a conflict between their biological sex and gender identity and are called trans.

You can believe both those statements, and that trans humans deserve protection, and to suggest that is transphobic is meaningless. Transphobic is hatred of trans humans and wanting to deny them rights or protection.

 

[iveivan]

Where does it say trans people don't exist? Or that they are frauds?

That is what the text I quoted above says. This also says it, “a person who is born male cannot magically change sex and become more oppressed than females”.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There is stuff in there I would take some issue with, and I'm not sure the comparisons with race and disability help. But gender-critical positions like this one are consistent positions that do not of necessity come from a position of hate or discrimination, so yes I agree that it is absurd for someone to be banned from twitter for expressing them.

 

[maomao]

Twitter is a pretty absurd thing though. Privatised free speech.

 

[Edie]

There is stuff in there I would take some issue with, and I'm not sure the comparisons with race and disability help. But gender-critical positions like this one are consistent positions that do not of necessity come from a position of hate or discrimination, so yes I agree that it is absurd for someone to be banned from twitter for expressing them.

Yes. They could wind down the emotion a bit to be fair though. They’ve been banned from Facebook not denied human rights.

 

[co-op]

That is what the text I quoted above says. This also says it, “a person who is born male cannot magically change sex and become more oppressed than females”.

You know there are trans people who agree with those statements? And that it makes no claim at all about the legal, political and healthcare rights of transpeople (to name just a few)? It's just saying that biologically people don't change sex, they can live as a person of another sex - that's a social role, that's gender - but they can't actually claim to literally be the other sex. To argue this seems (a) (to me) commonsense but also (b) something that doesn't say that someone "doesn't exist".

 

[Pickman's model]

i think that the tories played a blinder when they introduced the review of the gra which did so much to make the terf / trans thing such an issue in left wing politics. if they'd wanted to divide mainly like-minded people into two camps split on an issue which to onlookers seems arcane they couldn't have done better. well done theresa may! and it's being discussed as a left-wing thing even though the matter at hand isn't a banning on a political forum but a twitter ban.

 

[co-op]

Yes. They could wind down the emotion a bit to be fair though. They’ve been banned from Facebook not denied human rights.

Banned off twitter - this came up in the other thread, it was being queried that twitter operate a pretty heavy hand on GC posters. The person in the thread is getting emotional because she's being asked in for a chat by her employer - that's actually quite threatening as we probably all know.

 

[wtfftw]

[.

 

[Edie]

Banned off twitter - this came up in the other thread, it was being queried that twitter operate a pretty heavy hand on GC posters. The person in the thread is getting emotional because she's being asked in for a chat by her employer - that's actually quite threatening as we probably all know.

Oh sorry I got muddled up with the mention of Facebook in the tweet. And yes being questioned by her employer about it is extraordinary.

In your view, how has the left managed to get into this mess- and exert this level of control over society/employers/social media- do you think? Cos I’d be more interested in discussing that than re-hashing the trans thing as that leads to tears.

 

[Border Reiver]

Terms transphobes and terf are not valuable. Other differentiation leads to better defined terms and illuminates the political problem of gender difference and sexual difference.

The question is "Is a statement about gender and biological sex factually (scientifically) correct and is it currently legal (not crimnial) and lawful (not a tort).

Excluding transsexuals/transgender persons from a societal, legal or scientific grouping by either pole of the debate leads to major problems.

 

[co-op]

I think this is where the problem is. By having gender as a social construct and womanhood based on (born) biology it basically is denying trans people. It doesn't make an actual difference to that if the problem is with society and culture not individually.

I hope that makes sense.

Thanks for the reply. I don't think that's right because I don't think that this "By having gender as a social construct and womanhood based on (born) biology" is the same as this "it basically is denying trans people". It is denying the theory that gender identity is innate and sex is a social construct, which seems to be where trans/queer theory is just now, but that's just a fecking theory, it wasn't handed down on tablets of stone by God, we are allowed to criticise that surely?

I remember horrendous trot on labour kind of rows back in the day, I'm sure most of us over a certain age do, but no one ever said that the debate wasn't allowed, in fact everyone seemed to relish it, far too much probably. No one said "you are denying my right to exist" - and that's because no one was, in fact the argument itself was a proof that all participants did exist.

 

[LDC]

In your view, how has the left managed to get into this mess- and exert this level of control over society/employers/social media- do you think? Cos I’d be more interested in discussing that than re-hashing the trans thing as that leads to tears.

I think it's mostly happened due to the rejection of class and positions that are more antagonistic to capitalism by large parts of the left, and then the replacement of those with largely moral individual positions; and then this position being one that chimes with the prevailing feeling of alienated individualism and rights that's deeply embedded in modern day liberal capitalism.

E2A: That and I think a large number of the people involved are a traumatized mess and this deeply hurts them. And the internet.

 

[Border Reiver]

Reading the thread I have not seen a verbatim example of what caused the problem. What exactly was said?

 

[co-op]

In your view, how has the left managed to get into this mess- and exert this level of control over society/employers/social media- do you think? Cos I’d be more interested in discussing that than re-hashing the trans thing as that leads to tears.

That's a massive subject and I don't know that it'd lead to any fewer tears tbh. What I am absolutely sure of is that I know almost no one my age (late 50s/early 60s generation) who isn't massively turned off by the hard-trans position and I know people (all women) who are literally flipping to the political right on it, just to try and stop the gender-identity thing going any further, it's become the hardest wedge issue I have ever known. A good friend is going to vote tory in Scotland on it next month, my age & for the first time in her life, (Alba second vote). I feel like the world's gone mad.

 

[Border Reiver]

Thanks for the reply. I don't think that's right because I don't think that this "By having gender as a social construct and womanhood based on (born) biology" is the same as this "it basically is denying trans people". It is denying the theory that gender identity is innate and sex is a social construct, which seems to be where trans/queer theory is just now, but that's just a fecking theory, it wasn't handed down on tablets of stone by God, we are allowed to criticise that surely?

I remember horrendous trot on labour kind of rows back in the day, I'm sure most of us over a certain age do, but no one ever said that the debate wasn't allowed, in fact everyone seemed to relish it, far too much probably. No one said "you are denying my right to exist" - and that's because no one was, in fact the argument itself was a proof that all participants did exist.

Both "gender" and "sex" are constructs. Neither are "natural" categories.

 

[hitmouse]

Of course I accept transphobia is a valid concept but I can't see the transphobia in this thread which got someone banned off twitter.

Do you think that there are any transphobes within "gender-critical feminism"? Would you be able to give an example of someone who you do think is transphobic, so I can understand where you're setting the bar here?

Is it, by definition transphobic to be gender-critical (ie to believe that sex is real but gender is a social construct, imposed in order to control - mostly - women). How is that motivated by "hate"? It can be wrong, but does it have to be motivated by hatred, is it essential to believe that in order for me to understand transphobia?

I think that gender is a social construct and that humanity as a whole would be happier and better off if we could get rid of it. While it exists, though, I think there are people who seem to be better suited to a gender role which isn't the one assigned to them by society.
I also dunno how useful "hatred" is as a term - someone can, for instance, argue that migrants should be kept out of the country because they think wages will be higher with a more restricted supply of labour. That position doesn't need to be motivated by any kind of hatred, but it'd still be fair to call it anti-migrant, and I wouldn't really object to anyone calling it xenophobic.

Banned off twitter - this came up in the other thread, it was being queried that twitter operate a pretty heavy hand on GC posters. The person in the thread is getting emotional because she's being asked in for a chat by her employer - that's actually quite threatening as we probably all know.

Is she being asked in by her employer? It reads to me like it's her trade union which wants to talk to her, which is quite a different thing.

 

[Edie]

The problem is two fold I think. The first is left wing politics has increasingly focussed on individualism, to the point now that with ‘intersectionist’ politics we can be down to units of one. Far from promoting human rights, this has (counterintuitively and not intentionally) resulted in increased experiences of discrimination in the privileged West. And less commonality, less power, and actually, less identity.

The second is the ideological move away from family and traditional gender roles. Ironically this has also led to a loss of identity. No one is as sure of where they stand any more. This has been good and useful in some ways, but damaging in others. We have lost a connection to the old ways- identity, transitions (especially coming of age), shared beliefs. These things stick society together. The left has pulled the identity of the working class apart at the seams since the 60s now looks on in surprise as it weakens. (The right have taken the traditional approach of just reinstating wealth and power inequality of course).

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Both "gender" and "sex" are constructs. Neither are "natural" categories.

That's highly questionable tbf, unless you're going the whole hog and calling all things constructs, which is all very well but not very useful. It's very hard to explain the workings of sexual reproduction without employing the category 'sex'.