Is this woman a transphobe?

[8ball]

Ultimately I think you ought to ask yourself the same question for each: is doing [whatever this is] going to pass a basic check for empathy?

A slightly more specific litmus test for this seems to me to be: would I ever post, "ooh look at this - [whatever it is]" on my social media or work comms? Where people affected by this exist.

So, would I post:

"ooh look at this - a podcast investigating whether the BBC makes too many concessions to Stonewall"
or
"ooh look at this - lesbians being pressured into sex by trans people"
?

I'll let you guess the answers to that yourself.

Not sure I understand this post. Seems very odd to conflate an empathy check with what I’m likely to mention on social media, still less work comms.

 

[mauvais]

Not sure I understand this post. Seems very odd to conflate an empathy check with what I’m likely to mention on social media.

Some things you can freely share or draw attention to because there is little or no question of doing harm.

Right this instant you could look at the top story on BBC News and post, "ooh look - John Major thinks the government handling of the Paterson case is shameful - article" , and this wouldn't raise any eyebrows.

But there are certain things out there that, if you chose to draw attention to them, people would look at you and think: WTF is your agenda? Why are you bringing this up? Are you trying to make this a comment on of all [some group]?

Because you would have failed that basic check.

We all make these decisions all the time.

 

[8ball]

Some things you can freely share or draw attention to because there is little or no question of doing harm.

Right this instant you could look at the top story on BBC News and post, "ooh look - John Major thinks the government handling of the Paterson case is shameful - article" , and this wouldn't raise any eyebrows.

But there are certain things out there that, if you chose to draw attention to them, people would look at you and think: WTF is your agenda? Why are you bringing this up? Are you trying to make this a comment on of all [some group]?

Because you would have failed that basic check.

We all make these decisions all the time.

I think you have confused an empathy check with a “will this make me look good?” check.

 

[mauvais]

I think you have confused an empathy check with a “will this make me look good?” check.

Only if you're self-obsessed.

 

[8ball]

Only if you're self-obsessed.

I’m not sure whether this is the most naïve thing I’ve ever read.

 

[mauvais]

I’m not sure whether this is the most naïve thing I’ve ever read.

We all filter things on an empathetic basis to avoid upsetting people, or harming the vulnerable, and not just out of self-interest. Are you telling me you don't?

 

[8ball]

We all filter things to avoid upsetting people, and not just out of self-interest. Are you telling me you don't?

No.

 

[mauvais]

No.

Right. So, going back to my point: would you not expect a public service media organisation to be capable of, and do, the same?

I'm being a bit coy about whether I think it does or not, for my own reasons, and I'm sure that doesn't help the clarity of this discussion.

 

[8ball]

Right. So, going back to my point: would you not expect a public service media organisation to be capable of, and do, the same?

No, I wouldn’t necessarily expect a public service media organisations to censor itself because someone might be upset by it, or accuse them of having an agenda.

I don’t think that impulse worked out well in Rotherham.

 

[mauvais]

No, I wouldn’t necessarily expect a public service media organisations to censor itself because someone might be upset by it, or accuse them of having an agenda.

I don’t think that impulse worked out well in Rotherham.

Now this is a fair point. But at this juncture you're presented with new questions like: is this issue serious enough to violate this principle? Is there a clear justification of the public good in pursuing this?

That's another couple of questions you can apply as tests of the aforementioned publications.

 

[8ball]

Now this is a fair point. But at this juncture you're presented with new questions like: is this issue serious enough to violate this principle? Is there a clear justification of the public good in pursuing this?

That's another couple of questions you can apply as tests of the aforementioned publications.

These are questions for the publishing body to ask itself. Most people aren’t going to have any idea of something like, for example, the real-world prevalence of lesbians being pressured into sex by trans women.

 

[smokedout]

I could probably shed some light on the BBC's culture but I'm not sure I could do so more candidly without opening myself up to problems - not that I understand it much of it anyway.

Firstly, try to remember that the BBC consists of a lot more than its news editorial teams, and the behaviours manifested in its news editorial do not necessarily reflect the rest of the organisation, including presence and diversity of different voices.

It is no secret that it finds it institutionally very difficult to apologise or change direction until forced to do so, and accordingly, has suffered some high profile, entirely predictable, drawn-out defeats on various subjects in recent years. It is beginning to suffer a fresh one on content raised here and the Cade element probably won't be the end of it.

Some of the problems it faces are classic 'oil tanker' institutional ones, such how to reconcile the tradition of bland corporate twiddling with increasingly serious errors in an increasingly unforgiving landscape. In this case it has a problem with reconciling its corporate ideas about what it thinks the problem is, lack of impartiality and not serving all audiences, with what the actual problem is: a lack of human empathy.

There has been considerable internal disquiet recently over that article and other episodes such as the Nolan podcast. Very senior leadership has begun to listen, in one particular new appointee's case very positively, but it remains to be seen as to whether they are willing to bring about change rather than offer platitudes. I personally have the opportunity to raise a grievance with one of them. I have no idea how that will go.

It's about much more than Cade. There's a summary of why trans people are pissed off about it here if it's any use: The BBC has failed trans people: Our demands following the #BBCCoverUp

 

[8ball]

It's about much more than Cade. There's a summary of why trans people are pissed off about it here if it's any use: The BBC has failed trans people: Our demands following the #BBCCoverUp

Since the original article has been amended (and I didn’t see it) - does much of this relate to the current state of the article?

 

[smokedout]

Since the original article has been amended (and I didn’t see it) - does much of this relate to the current state of the article?

You could always read it and see. But yes, it relates to the inclusion of self selecting survey carried out by a group which believe trans people are rapists simply by existing, it lies that no trans person would talk to them and points out they were made aware of Cade's sexual offending in advance of publication, it shows the BBC perpetuated a transphobic hoax and asks why the only country this piece was translated for was Brasil where 175 trans women were murdered last year.

 

[mauvais]

It's about much more than Cade. There's a summary of why trans people are pissed off about it here if it's any use: The BBC has failed trans people: Our demands following the #BBCCoverUp

Indeed - I mention Cade just because it's the bit they had to retract/revise after getting really burned by the facts.

 

[smokedout]

I think the reference to Brasil is particularly important, because even if you've drunk the gender critical kood aid and convinced yourself that trans people are 'the safest demographic', they aren't in Brasil, or Saudi Arabia, or many other parts of the world and this stuff has global reach. It's not just the narky UKIP bigot next door who is emboldened by this kind of propaganda but regimes and movements who share the end goal of the elimination of transgenderism but are happy to get there by much more direct and bloody means.

 

[8ball]

You could always read it and see. But yes, it relates to the inclusion of self selecting survey carried out by a group which believe trans people are rapists simply by existing, it lies that no trans person would talk to them and points out they were made aware of Cade's sexual offending in advance of publication, it shows the BBC perpetuated a transphobic hoax and asks why the only country this piece was translated for was Brasil where 175 trans women were murdered last year.

Ok, can take a look later. I would say, though, that this looks like a case of very poor research, a lack of prior understanding (especially in terms of the way some groups present an outwardly moderate appearance as a front), and a general failure of journalistic standards, as opposed to failing an “empathy check”, or not taking account of potential offense caused, though in the current environment I’d expect them to be especially careful about potential harm, and it seems in this case they haven’t.

 

[mauvais]

I haven't got the energy to argue the toss all day but I stand by my point. It would be better for most people if the public service broadcaster had, amongst its primary concerns alongside impartiality and the like, generating empathy and being kind. When you look at that article and ask yourself these questions - is this kind? is this empathetic/sympathetic to people where it can be? and if not, is it necessary? - then you might be find yourself in a more informed position as to the consequences of its publication, and whether it's worth it. In this case at least, you as a bystander are capable of making those assessments.

When applied to something that is focused on a vulnerable minority group, largely based on social media commentary, and by its own admission doesn't quantify the situation it describes, I think it is fraught with difficulty at the very least. Not to mention other qualities of the thing.

The problem is not all about the article detail or journalistic standards. The BBC would like it to be, because this would fit into defence of individual facts and the current C-level impartiality focus. It's about what it is holistically doing and whether it is good, which is something far more challenging.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I dunno if referencing the bekind hashtag is such a great idea, because to be quite honest every single time that I've encountered it it is usually some pathetic sap chucking at me because they don't like what I said about a person in a position of power, often massive power.

 

[8ball]

I dunno if referencing the bekind hashtag is such a great idea, because to be quite honest every single time that I've encountered it it is usually some pathetic sap chucking at me because they don't like what I said about a person in a position of power, often massive power.

Though tbf a “don’t be a dick” rule among journalists wouldn’t be all bad.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Though tbf a “don’t be a dick” rule among journalists wouldn’t be all bad.

Are you saying journalists are dicks? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BEKIND HASHTAG



Yep, genuine conversation happening in some awful corner of fb right now.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It’s more than that.

Maybe you might have to be socialised as a woman for a long time to properly understand the righteous white hot rage that grows in many of us (especially in recent years) towards male violence and male entitlement.

I have that rage, but I don’t see trans women as men. That isn’t my starting point.

It’s possible to not have that rage, see trans women as men, and for your trans-exclusion to be detached and philosophical. Or even to be de facto “pro trans”. I’d suggest many of the cis male posters here fit Ito this category. And some of the cis female ones.

But when you combine that belief that deep down, trans women are men, with the justified rage against male violence and entitlement, you get a position that is fiercely driven. I think left and right in that context are entirely fucking irrelevant.

I’ve had to do a lot of intellectual and soul-searching work to understand why a minority of my intelligent, compassionate, left wing feminist friends were holding a position so far from my own. It has taken me years, and this is where I’ve got to.

I still disagree with those women. I still want to be a voice for what ime seems like an often overlooked majority of cis women who do include trans women into a broader category of womanhood… but I’m certain that in a lot of cases, the views opposing are not about latent social conservatism - they are about the trauma of a lifetime of structural violence and patriarchal oppression.

I think this is a very good analytical breakdown of the various voices. I fall into the ‘philosophical cis male’ camp which is why I’m no longer engaging (except for this post). I don’t have a dog in the fight.

 

[Edie]

I think this is a very good analytical breakdown of the various voices. I fall into the ‘philosophical cis male’ camp which is why I’m no longer engaging (except for this post). I don’t have a dog in the fight.

It’s an excellent post. It pretty much sums up my view. I do think trans exists, I think trans people are having a human experience of being the wrong gender, and they deserve respect and protection. Best of luck to you smokedout if you do decide to go for a transition (if you’ve not already), and to iona

And I don’t have anything further to say on the subject to be honest

 

[iona]

and to @iona

Sorry not been following the thread, was that a general best of luck or in reference to something further back that I missed?

 

[Edie]

Sorry not been following the thread, was that a general best of luck or in reference to something further back that I missed?

Just a general atb x

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It’s an excellent post.

And I also wanted to highlight it as there’s a view that trans-inclusive feminists are being ignored. So for that reason but it’s difficult to disagree with.

 

[Knotted]

It’s more than that.

Maybe you might have to be socialised as a woman for a long time to properly understand the righteous white hot rage that grows in many of us (especially in recent years) towards male violence and male entitlement.

I have that rage, but I don’t see trans women as men. That isn’t my starting point.

It’s possible to not have that rage, see trans women as men, and for your trans-exclusion to be detached and philosophical. Or even to be de facto “pro trans”. I’d suggest many of the cis male posters here fit Ito this category. And some of the cis female ones.

But when you combine that belief that deep down, trans women are men, with the justified rage against male violence and entitlement, you get a position that is fiercely driven. I think left and right in that context are entirely fucking irrelevant.

I’ve had to do a lot of intellectual and soul-searching work to understand why a minority of my intelligent, compassionate, left wing feminist friends were holding a position so far from my own. It has taken me years, and this is where I’ve got to.

I still disagree with those women. I still want to be a voice for what ime seems like an often overlooked majority of cis women who do include trans women into a broader category of womanhood… but I’m certain that in a lot of cases, the views opposing are not about latent social conservatism - they are about the trauma of a lifetime of structural violence and patriarchal oppression.

I think there are definitely what I think of old school TERFs out there. ie. literal trans (women) exclusionary radical feminists who perhaps at the same time would be willing to fight for the sex based rights of trans men but who are very definitely pissed off feminists who also take a sceptical position on the trans question. I think what you've written is a good summary of the state of affairs on this thread and a good summary of that old school TERF position. However I don't think that's quite the place the bulk of gender critical feminists are at. I also think that the two voices on this thread who are articulating the mainstream GC viewpoint on this thread are actually both male.

Regarding this current mainstream GC view (among women), my sense is that there may be rage at the general state of affairs that women live with but the overriding immediate concern is fear that this trans agenda is advancing. Whatever its origins I think it is now first and foremost a single issue backlash against the Gender Recognition Act. The feminism is still there, but it's now the small print. I think the main issues are

1) Protect women's spaces from transwomen
2) Protect children from the encroaching trans ideology
3) A quite abstruse (IMO) concern about the erosion of biological concepts

My sense is that it's 2) that is actually the most powerful driver. If you look at what JK Rowling wrote in that essay, she thinks that she may have been encouraged to transition because of her childhood trauma if she were a child now. There's a recent interview between Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel on youtube where they opine that parents are encouraging gay children to transition in order to avoid the stigma of being gay. They think that trans women are a physical threat, but they also think the trans agenda is out of control and brainwashing the schools, the doctors and of course the kids. The former threat is a bit obscure simply because there are so few trans women, but the latter is vague, amorphous and affecting everyone all the time. Most of the rhetoric is about TRA's not about trans women and under this view trans men are just as much an ideological threat as trans women (unless they jump through all sorts of ideological hoops).

If you look at 1), 2) and 3) above, the message conservative men receive from them is

1) The trans agenda is harming women - protect women!
2) The trans agenda is after your children - protect children!
3) Enshrine the differences between men and women like in the bible or in whatever cod evolutionary psychology theory they're into.

Ironically enough, this message actually reaffirms male gender roles rather than challenging them. And because the GC movement is single issue it's happy for these men (and similarly minded women) to misread the message because they want to create as broad a movement as possible. The goal is not to advance feminist ideas, the goal is to defeat the trans rights activists and reverse the GRA.

 

[teuchter]

I don't think (3) is really "abstruse".

There are those who have spent years or decades fighting for people to be free of the expectations and restrictions associated with gender stereotypes. They want people to be able to grow up and choose to do the things that they want to do rather than things that are expectations of them on the basis of whether they are male or female.

At the same time, they have fought for it to be recognised that there are certain things that are unavoidably determined by whether you are "biologically" male or female. These are things that lead to various inequalities, and most of those inequalities are to the advantage of men.

I really don't see why it's hard to understand why anyone coming from this kind of background will have trouble with what seems to be a confusing redefinition of what sex and gender are, or what those words should be taken to mean. Whether in common parlance or legislation. And I don't see why they should be by default labelled as "transphobic". They may be fearful (rightly or wrongly) of the consequences of various positions but there is no reason to assume they are "fearful" of trans people in a way that is comparable with, say homophobia. Many of these people have spent their life being much more accepting of anyone who wants to deviate from gender "norms" than mainstream society and indeed championing associated causes. They are not people who are frightened of, or disgusted by, anyone who wants to live any aspect of their life in a way that adopts things traditionally associated with those born in the other biological sex. That's what the word "transphobia" implies to me, and that's not what's going on at all.

It's not entirely insignificant that Kathleen Stock is/was based in Brighton, somewhere with a long and well known history of being friendly to people who don't want to be constrained in their behaviour and life by the biological sex they were born with. I doubt I'm the only one reading this thread who knows, directly or indirectly, people who are or were or have been part of that Brighton scene, people who it just seems a nonsense to describe as "transphobic" and yet who will identify largely or partly with what (for now) seems to be labelled as "gender critical". I don't see why they should be held responsible for the fact that "conservative men" might reinterpret and reappropriate some of what is being talked about. I doubt I'm the only one who will know and understand why those people are angry at the way they are being labelled, and why some of them don't currently feel that they can even discuss things publicly.

I though spanglechick's post further up was a good one by the way, but I think that what I try and clumsily describe above is also an important part of things. And yes I am just another man and another often confused bystander to this whole thing. As a bystander, someone who listens to quite a few conversations in real life with woman of my generation and also my parents' generation as they try to navigate around it all. As well as reading the threads on here.

 

[smokedout]

Many of these people have spent their life being much more accepting of anyone who wants to deviate from gender "norms" than mainstream society and indeed championing associated causes. They are not people who are frightened of, or disgusted by, anyone who wants to live any aspect of their life in a way that adopts things traditionally associated with those born in the other biological sex. That's what the word "transphobia" implies to me, and that's not what's going on at all.

Are you sure? On this lefty tolerant message board not one person objected to the would you fuck a tranny threads just over a decade ago. Watch any edgy sitcom popular with Gen x'rs from the 90s and later and you'll probably hit a transphobic joke in the first 10 minutes. The male gay scene in particular was very hostile to trans women, somewhat ironically in retrospect because a lot of gay men didn't consider trans women to be men - in fact one of the reasons the Black Cap in Camden was so popular is that it was the only gay bar in London that actively welcomed trans people.

I was fucking there. I've been around lefty people who championed those causes you speak of for most of my life. There were very few people championing trans people, or gender nonconforming people for that matter. What there were was lots of snide comments, people referred to as 'it', hilarious jokes and mutterings about why can't they just learn to accept their bodies on the very rare occassion the subject came up. Meanwhile the likes of Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer were regularly spreading anti-trans propaganda in the left wing press. Stonewall back then didn't want anything to do with us either. A lot of people on the left were transphobic as fuck as it happens, and there were few who challenged them. There's a reason it took me decades to come out despite being surrounded by all these wonderful trans friendly people you speak of.

 

[smokedout]

Having said that, and whilst I do think latent transphoba is behind a lot of the gender critical movement, especially the men, I think what spanglechick said is pretty on the ball. There are people on boths sides who have often been deeply traumatised by the behaviour of cis men and that's one of the reasons this conversation can be so fraught.