Is this woman a transphobe?

[Athos]

You are entitled to that opinion. The law differs (except for refuges). Your views are no more powerful than people arguing against racial equality laws.

I've no issue with your substantive views on the issue, but the attempted smears of all opponents is not only a tactical error (which has demonstrably driven many into the hands of extremists), but it's based on a flawed analogy. Can you really not see the contextual differences between balancing white/black rights versus female/male rights?

 

[Athos]

How rude! Who else do we know who does that whenever it suits them?

No cross thread beef. If you're still smarting from being shown up on that other thread, argue you case there rather than sniping here.

 

[Border Reiver]

And yet the Racial Discrmination Act came about from a set of circumstances that could not, wholly, be applied to Trans history. You simply saying "that's the same, treat it as such" isn't helpful. Imo, of course.

The laws protecting such groups are largely identical with a few minor exceptions. It is equally unlawful to exclude trans women from most female spaces as to deny someone of a different race or sexuality.

 

[Border Reiver]

I’m talking about what I think it morally right, not the law.

That is another discussion.

The question here is

"Is a social media platform justified in banning someone who expressed opinions that trans women should not be allowed access to female spaces."

They would ban extreme racists and sexists, so why not ban extreme trans rights deniers?

 

[bmd]

The laws protecting such groups are largely identical with a few minor exceptions. It is equally unlawful to exclude trans women from most female spaces as to deny someone of a different race or sexuality.

But what did we take from White people to give Black people those rights?

 

[Edie]

That is another discussion.

The question here is

"Is a social media platform justified in banning someone who expressed opinions that trans women should not be allowed access to female spaces."

They would ban extreme racists and sexists, so why not ban extreme trans rights deniers?

It is not a separate discussion. You are allowed to express opinions in society that are not consistent with the law. Including on social media.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That is another discussion.

The question here is

"Is a social media platform justified in banning someone who expressed opinions that trans women should not be allowed access to female spaces."

They would ban extreme racists and sexists, so why not ban extreme trans rights deniers?

You don't get to decide what the discussion is.

One of the problems here is that there is no easy equivalence between racism and transphobia.

(I also think it was unhelpful and wrong of the person on Twitter to attempt this equivalence.)

Until both sides of this divide find a way to accept that the views on sex/gender of the other side are different but legitimate, or at least understandable and coherent, the impasse will continue, and people will continue to talk past one another where there is a collision between their interests.

In that, this is very different from racism or sexism or homophobia.

 

[Santino]

"pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations"

I repeatedly said that he was asking questions that were diversions. He continued asking such questions. He is on ignore as he was taking up too much bandwidth.

I disagree, his questions were about the meaning of what you posted. How is that sealioning?

 

[Athos]

That is another discussion.

The question here is

"Is a social media platform justified in banning someone who expressed opinions that trans women should not be allowed access to female spaces."

They would ban extreme racists and sexists, so why not ban extreme trans rights deniers?

That's you trying to artificially narrow the debate; there's nothing in that question that suggests the discussing should be limited to the current legal position.

 

[Knotted]

For what it's worth, I liked the rejection of both gender and sex essentialism as outlined in the links hitmouse provided. I also thought Edie's proposals for same sex spaces were sensible. Not sure how transgendered people would view either of those though, and there maybe factors that are being overlooked. But how would I know? I'll leave it at that.

 

[Athos]

I disagree, his questions were about the meaning of what you posted. How is that sealioning?

Is not. It's a ruse to try to save face whilst avoiding engaging with difficult questions when he was clearly out of his depth.

 

[hitmouse]

For what it's worth, I liked the rejection of both gender and sex essentialism as outlined in the links hitmouse provided. I also thought Edie's proposals for same sex spaces were sensible. Not sure how transgendered people would view either of those though, and there maybe factors that are being overlooked. But how would I know? I'll leave it at that.

Fwiw, obviously trans people aren't a homogenous group and will disagree on things, the same as anyone else, but pretty sure both the links I posted were written by trans people. (Just realised I replied to a post starting fwiw with a post starting fwiw there.)

 

[LDC]

Traumatized women wanting some spaces where they don't feel threatened is just like racism. Fucking hell, brilliant analysis.

 

[bmd]

Traumatized women wanting some spaces where they don't feel threatened is just like racism. Fucking hell, brilliant analysis.

But then we come back to the definition of women wrt Transgender. They are women. Some will be traumatised.

I would prefer it if we could simply say that these spaces are for natural born women. I would also prefer it if we didn't discriminate against Transgender women because of that differentiation.

 

[Athos]

I would prefer it if we could simply say that these spaces are for natural born women. I would also prefer it if we didn't discriminate against Transgender women because of that differentiation.

These two are at odds, though. Saying a place is just for cis women does discriminate against trans women. The question is really whether or not any discrimination is justified. Currently the law says it is in very narrow circumstances; some want to see those circumstances extended, some what to see them done away with.

 

[Raheem]

Public facilities like toilets and changing rooms should be all-in-one single use as that simply resolves the issue.

What issue are you referring to here? If the issue really were some women's difficulty sharing space with someone who might have a penis, it's not totally clear how unisex changing rooms resolve that.

 

[Shechemite]

That is another discussion.

The question here is

"Is a social media platform justified in banning someone who expressed opinions that trans women should not be allowed access to female spaces."

They would ban extreme racists and sexists, so why not ban extreme trans rights deniers?

extreme?

 

[Border Reiver]

That's you trying to artificially narrow the debate; there's nothing in that question that suggests the discussing should be limited to the current legal position.

Try this reasoning. Extreme opinions that support unlawful actions against racial groups are forbidden by some social media sites including Twitter. Denying the rights of trans women is advocating unlawful action against that group. Twitter forbids such posts for the same reason as racist posts.

 

[Santino]

The law is good and anyone who advocates breaking it is bad. I am very smart.

 

[Border Reiver]

extreme?

Denying that trans women with a GID are legally women and advocating denial of their legal rights. That is extreme.

 

[Athos]

Try this reasoning. Extreme opinions that support unlawful actions against racial groups are forbidden by some social media sites including Twitter. Denying the rights of trans women is advocating unlawful action against that group. Twitter forbids such posts for the same reason as racist posts.

Lol. Advocating a change in the law isn't advocating unlawful action. Not to mention that much civil disobedience is unlawful - you'd have seen Twitter ban MLK? !

 

[Border Reiver]

The law is good and anyone who advocates breaking it is bad. I am very smart.

No. Twitter uses the Law to decide on which posts it will allow. Posts advocating unlawful denial of protected rights are often banned.

 

[Border Reiver]

Lol. Advocating a change in the law isn't advocating unlawful action. Not to mention that much civil disobedience is unlawful - you'd have seen Twitter ban MLK? !

Try advocating white safe spaces from fear of black crime. Or safe spaces to protect against fear of predatory homosexuals. Or immigrant free spaces. Or Non Jewish suburbs. Or banning mosques...

 

[Athos]

No. Twitter uses the Law to decide on which posts it will allow. Posts advocating unlawful denial of protected rights are often banned.

Then you're reducing the question of whether Twitter should have done something to whether or not Twitter applied its policies. Not only is that not how most people would understand the question, its also a boring and trivial point.

 

[Santino]

Try advocating white safe spaces from fear of black crime. Or safe spaces to protect against fear of predatory homosexuals. Or immigrant free spaces. Or Non Jewish suburbs. Or banning mosques...

Don't do this anyone - he's trying to trick you.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Probably the nastiest bit of this for me is the way Vicky was 'outed' to her employer for the opinion she expressed on Facebook.

Way too much of this kind of thing going on.

 

[Athos]

Try advocating white safe spaces from fear of black crime. Or safe spaces to protect against fear of predatory homosexuals. Or immigrant free spaces. Or Non Jewish suburbs. Or banning mosques...

Those things are unequivocally unjustifiable discrimination, and not analogous to the OP, for the reasons set out already.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Try advocating white safe spaces from fear of black crime. Or safe spaces to protect against fear of predatory homosexuals. Or immigrant free spaces. Or Non Jewish suburbs. Or banning mosques...

With these examples, you don't quite make the point you think you do.

It's almost like the people you're talking to have thought about these issues before.

 

[Border Reiver]

Those things are unequivocally unjustifiable discrimination, and not analogous to the OP, for the reasons set out already.

Why is denying the established legal rights of trans women different from denying the established rights of ethnic minorities? Both could be seen as hate speech. Twitter believes that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why is denying the established legal rights of trans women different from denying the established rights of ethnic minorities? Both could be seen as hate speech. Twitter believes that.

Can you quote the bit about 'denying the established legal rights of trans women'? All I see is this:

I proudly stand for the rights of women and the single-sex exemptions that are enshrined in equality law