Is this woman a transphobe?

[teuchter]

I'm not talking about urban75 posters from ten years ago nor people who write sitcoms. I'm talking about people i know in real life.

 

[smokedout]

I'm not talking about urban75 posters from ten years ago nor people who write sitcoms. I'm talking about people i know in real life.

So am I. Perhaps you have a different perspective. One that isn't much use.

 

[smokedout]

A lot of people seem to be rewriting the past and claiming to have been hugely supportive trans allies whilst doing nothing and not knowing any trans people - who remember all too well what things were like back then, on the left as well as the right.

And funnily enough the people back then who genuinely were trans allies, as in actively supportive, knew trans people and were comfortable with trans people, still are.

 

[Knotted]

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.

OK I see where spanglechick was coming from now. Yes fair enough.

 

[Athos]

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.

I agree that this is at the heart of it. But wonder whether some women conceptualise those who've caused them trauma as males, rather than cis men. That focus on biology is understandable if that was the medium through which that trauma occurred e.g. through the use of penis and/or directed at a vagina, or differences in stature and strength. (And is perhaps the reason women haven't typically sought a common cause with, say, cis men who have been the victims of other cis men.) It'll be hard for statistics about the lack of any significant risk posed by trans women to dissuade people from that visceral position - a healthy mistrust of males - which is ingrained in many as a survival mechanism. But I think it'll come as more and more people get to know ordinary trans people (despite the counterproductive activity of a tiny minority of extremists at either end of the spectrum).

 

[teuchter]

A lot of people seem to be rewriting the past and claiming to have been hugely supportive trans allies

If that's aimed at what I have written - that is not what I am claiming, either for myself or broadly for the "people I know" who might be now described as "gender critical" to some extent.

Those people won't ever have satisfied your definition of "hugely supportive trans allies" because they disagree with many trans activists on exactly how far trans rights should extend. That fact might be enough for you to call them "transphobic" but I do not think that is an appropriate term for the positions they take, for the reasons I tried to explain.

 

[smokedout]

If that's aimed at what I have written - that is not what I am claiming, either for myself or broadly for the "people I know" who might be now described as "gender critical" to some extent.

Those people won't ever have satisfied your definition of "hugely supportive trans allies" because they disagree with many trans activists on exactly how far trans rights should extend. That fact might be enough for you to call them "transphobic" but I do not think that is an appropriate term for the positions they take, for the reasons I tried to explain.

So these people who "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." were opposed to trans rights and are still opposed to trans rights but call themselves gender critical. So what.

The Gender Recognition Act became law in 2004, the first legislation protecting trans people's rights to use spaces inline with their gender came in 1979, was strengthened in 1999 and formalised fully in the 2010 Equality Act. It seems your newly gender critical friends are somewhat behind mainstream society, as are you. I imagine most people for example would find you comparing calling for the elimination of trangenderism to calling for eliminating racism to be pretty abhorrent, and deeply transphobic. Eliminationist in fact. And yet it flits off your tongue without a thought.

 

[smokedout]

OK I see where spanglechick was coming from now. Yes fair enough.

There are lots of other factors at play including the ones you mention, as well as good old fashioned generational panic and resistance to change, conspiratorial concerns about medicalisation and big pharma, general anti-wokeness, ingrained and perhaps unacknowledged traditional views about gender and more legitimate debates (on the left and within feminism at least) such as concerns about the rise of identity politics and conflicts over whether the upcoming generation are attacking or strengthening the gender binary - support for trans people, along with sex workers - really represents a very big schism in feminist thought. Within radical lesbian feminism in the UK for example in many ways this is a replay of the lesbian sex wars of the 1980s, which was less visible but equally vicious and involved many of the same individuals.

On top of this has come a huge amount of opportunism from the right, who see the gender critical movement both as a way of pursuing reactionary goals, but also something which is useful to divide feminism and drum up support for the culture wars. This had led to groups like LGB Alliance, who are in reality a handful of slightly odd cranks angry that the LGB scene isn't like it was in the 80s and 90s, becoming far more influential than they deserve. Transgender Trend are run by a former cult member and sculpter who now presents herself in the right wing press as the leading global expert on trans children, she's nothing of the sort, she's a crank, but has gained prominence because she's useful to Murdoch, The Mail, The Spectator and the rest of them in stoking a moral panic which they are currently pushing very heavily (and they will drop them like hot stones when they think it's run out of steam and decide to switch to targetting a different minority).

 

[belboid]

The Gender Recognition Act became law in 2004, the first legislation protecting trans people's rights to use spaces inline with their gender came in 1979, was strengthened in 1999 and formalised fully in the 2010 Equality Act.

Prior to 1970 people could self-identify, access affirmative medical care and correct their birth certificates without issue. Michael - née Laura - Dillon inherited a baronetcy (as a male) in 1958.

Q&A with Zoë Playdon

Zo ë Playdon is the author of the new book The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes and the Unwritten History of the Trans Expe...

deborahkalbbooks.blogspot.com

 

[teuchter]

So these people who "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." were opposed to trans rights and are still opposed to trans rights but call themselves gender critical. So what.

They disagree with (presumably) you and others about what exactly those rights should be. Maybe some of them disagree with some legislation too. Maybe some of them don't. That is not the same as being "opposed to trans rights". But you will happily accuse them of being "opposed to trans rights" with the implication that they are opposed to all or most rights afforded to trans people, just you will happily accuse them of transphobia. That's your approach, that's up to you, but that's the kind of approach that just ramps up anger and misunderstanding.

I imagine most people for example would find you comparing calling for the elimination of trangenderism to calling for eliminating racism to be pretty abhorrent, and deeply transphobic. Eliminationist in fact. And yet it flits off your tongue without a thought.

Here you go again. Now you're telling me I'm deeply transphobic, because of a comment I made that was related to a discussion of whether "eliminating transgenderism" amounted to "genocide". The call to eliminate transgenderism is in a particular document where a judgement has to be made about what exactly that document means by "transgenderism". My opinion is that what the document calls for does not equate to the commonly understood meaning of genocide. Therefore, my opinion is that it's not fair to call someone who was a signatory to that document a "genocide apologist". That's what the discussion was about - the ramping-up and misuse of language to make opposing viewpoints sound as extreme and unpleasant as possible. For you, me expressing that opinion about the use of language is enough for you to decide that I am deeply transphobic. OK then.

 

[elbows]

They disagree with (presumably) you and others about what exactly those rights should be. Maybe some of them disagree with some legislation too. Maybe some of them don't. That is not the same as being "opposed to trans rights". But you will happily accuse them of being "opposed to trans rights" with the implication that they are opposed to all or most rights afforded to trans people, just you will happily accuse them of transphobia. That's your approach, that's up to you, but that's the kind of approach that just ramps up anger and misunderstanding.

Do you think its fair enough to question people as to the detail of the rights they support and oppose? Once people come out in loud opposition to something I think its quite legitimate to ask them what rights they do believe in, and to read much into any silence that may result. I certainly wont be forgetting in a hurry that plenty of vocal critics of the proposed changes to the GRA didnt seem to understand what rights were already enshrined in law, and that they fell suspiciously silent when I repeatedly asked them whether they supported the existing rights trans people have in UK law.

 

[smokedout]

They disagree with (presumably) you and others about what exactly those rights should be. Maybe some of them disagree with some legislation too. Maybe some of them don't. That is not the same as being "opposed to trans rights". But you will happily accuse them of being "opposed to trans rights" with the implication that they are opposed to all or most rights afforded to trans people, just you will happily accuse them of transphobia. That's your approach, that's up to you, but that's the kind of approach that just ramps up anger and misunderstanding.

Disagreeing with legislation which provides for trans rights is the same thing as being opposed to trans rights. Trans people in most circumstances have the right to use spaces inline with their gender and a right to change their legal sex. If you oppose that you oppose trans rights such as they are in the UK, European and international human right's laws.

Therefore, my opinion is that it's not fair to call someone who was a signatory to that document a "genocide apologist". That's what the discussion was about - the ramping-up and misuse of language to make opposing viewpoints sound as extreme and unpleasant as possible. For you, me expressing that opinion about the use of language is enough for you to decide that I am deeply transphobic. OK then.

Opposing the use of the term genocide is very different, I said myself I didn't think it was helpful. You compared calling for the elimination of transgenderism - which the authors of that document are quite frank about meaning the complete removal of any recognition of trans people in law, a worldwide ban on aspects of trans research and trans healthcare and the removal of social practices which support trans people - to calling for the elimination of racism. Would you have compared someone calling for the elimination of homosexuality to someone calling for the elimination of racism? Or the elimination of Islam? It was a deeply unpleasant thing to say and shows that behind the pomposity and pious liberalism you're a pretty nasty piece of work who has brought nothing to the table in this debate..

 

[teuchter]

Do you think its fair enough to question people as to the detail of the rights they support and oppose? Once people come out in loud opposition to something I think its quite legitimate to ask them what rights they do believe in, and to read much into any silence that may result. I certainly wont be forgetting in a hurry that plenty of vocal critics of the proposed changes to the GRA didnt seem to understand what rights were already enshrined in law, and that they fell suspiciously silent when I repeatedly asked them whether they supported the existing rights trans people have in UK law.

For sure it's fair enough to question people on the detail of what they do or don't support. That questioning might reveal some ignorance or half baked thoughts. In some cases, perhaps it would reveal some attitudes that I would agree are transphobic. Questioning people can be productive where just accusing them of transphobia, as soon as you think they don't agree with you, isn't.

 

[8ball]

Prior to 1970 people could self-identify, access affirmative medical care and correct their birth certificates without issue. Michael - née Laura - Dillon inherited a baronetcy (as a male) in 1958.

Q&A with Zoë Playdon

Zo ë Playdon is the author of the new book The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes and the Unwritten History of the Trans Expe...

deborahkalbbooks.blogspot.com

I thought Michael Dillon was listed as an heir, his older brother actually holding the baronetcy, but that even this led to a whole load of trouble.

Edit: Have found elsewhere that a few years after this, his brother died and he was set to inherit the baronetcy, which was fiercely contested by his cousin.

Anyhoo - fascinating stories in that link. Tempted to buy the book.

 

[elbows]

I reject the idea that alling out transphobia cannot be productive, especially once the silence on certain details has already spoken volumes and given some people are so fucking slippery.

 

[Rob Ray]

They disagree with (presumably) you and others about what exactly those rights should be. Maybe some of them disagree with some legislation too. Maybe some of them don't. That is not the same as being "opposed to trans rights".

Can you name an instance in which any of the major gender critical groups and advocates are calling for more (or even the same levels of) trans rights compared to now?

 

[teuchter]

Opposing the use of the term genocide is very different, I said myself I didn't think it was helpful. You compared calling for the elimination of transgenderism - which the authors of that document are quite frank about meaning the complete removal of any recognition of trans people in law, a worldwide ban on aspects of trans research and trans healthcare and the removal of social practices which support trans people - to calling for the elimination of racism. Would you have compared someone calling for the elimination of homosexuality to someone calling for the elimination of racism? Or the elimination of Islam? It was a deeply unpleasant thing to say and shows that behind the pomposity and pious liberalism you're a pretty nasty piece of work who has brought nothing to the table in this debate..

This was the exchange

sometimes, its just too crazy. KS is accused there (in the linked highly recommended extremely long piece) of 'genocide apologism', i mean, srsly.

do you mean in the Grace Lavery piece? Thats the only one I can see makes any such reference. But what else would you call a demand for the 'elimination of the practise of transgenderism'?

I guess an elimination of racism or sexism would count as genocide as well then.

Calling for the elimination of the practice of homosexuality, however unpleasant that might be, would not be equivalent with calling for genocide. Calling for the elimination of homosexuals would.

It was a point about the misuse of language. I'll leave you to make the worst possible assumptions about what I meant and why I made that point because it doesn't look like there's any point attempting to change that.

 

[belboid]

This was the exchange







Calling for the elimination of the practice of homosexuality, however unpleasant that might be, would not be equivalent with calling for genocide. Calling for the elimination of homosexuals would.

It was a point about the misuse of language. I'll leave you to make the worst possible assumptions about what I meant and why I made that point because it doesn't look like there's any point attempting to change that.

Do you think there is a single person out there who believes you?

 

[teuchter]

Do you think there is a single person out there who believes you?

Yes.

 

[Rob Ray]

teuchter

Can you name an instance in which any of the major gender critical groups and advocates are calling for more (or even the same levels of) trans rights compared to now?

 

[Knotted]

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.

To give you an example. The gc rhetoric around the Kathleen Stock case is "forced out of her job for stating sex is real" and "forced out of her job for saying what 99.9% of people think". Regarding the "sex is real" side of it, I've never seen a trans person say anything different and indeed the sis/trans distinction is precisely a recognition of biological sex differences. The rhetoric surrounding the case is thus demagogic - trying to paint the other side as radical extremists threatening everything and everyone not just women and sex based rights. Of course it appeals to right wingers/culture warriors, it's designed to do that. The LGB alliance which Stock is a trustee of have openly allied with the conservative Heritage Foundation, so I suspect both parties to that see it as a mutually beneficial alliance where they can and will put aside their differences in order to tackle trans rights.

 

[teuchter]

teuchter

Can you name an instance in which any of the major gender critical groups and advocates are calling for more (or even the same levels of) trans rights compared to now?

No. Why do you ask? I don't especially follow any such groups, nor do I necessarily agree with them, but seeing as trans rights are not their cause, why would you expect them to be?

 

[belboid]

Yes.

You’re wrong

 

[Rob Ray]

Because you say these groups aren't opposed to trans rights. In order for that to be true there would need to be some evidence that in a situation where trans people are seeing considerable pressure for a major rolling back of their existing rights that GC activists are against that process. If they aren't, and in fact are largely pro such actions and indeed behaving as activists towards that goal, then saying they aren't opposed to trans rights is not only meaningless, it's actively misleading.

Given that, by your own admission, you don't actually have the first clue what they're saying, I do wonder what you're actually bringing to the table here when holding forth and accusing other people of mischaracterisation etc. How would you even know?

 

[teuchter]

Because you say these groups aren't opposed to trans rights.

Where did I say that?

 

[Rob Ray]

They disagree with (presumably) you and others about what exactly those rights should be. Maybe some of them disagree with some legislation too. Maybe some of them don't. That is not the same as being "opposed to trans rights".

Here is your characterisation of the conversation, arguing that GC people are not saying things that are opposed to trans rights. Now you say you've not read what they're saying and don't know what they oppose. Why on earth are you on this thread?

 

[smokedout]

Calling for the elimination of the practice of homosexuality, however unpleasant that might be, would not be equivalent with calling for genocide. Calling for the elimination of homosexuals would.

It was a point about the misuse of language. I'll leave you to make the worst possible assumptions about what I meant and why I made that point because it doesn't look like there's any point attempting to change that.

You are wrong on both counts. The international definition of genocide is as follows:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Each of the last four points could be inflicted on both trans and gay people without killing them. In fact they all have been historically and the declaration under discussion comes close on points b,c and d. The elimination of homosexuality or 'transgenderism' on these grounds could be genocidal were it not for the fact that genocide in law refers to national, ethnical, racial or religious groups only.

Perhaps you should learn what words means before complaining about misuse of language?

 

[teuchter]

To give you an example. The gc rhetoric around the Kathleen Stock case is "forced out of her job for stating sex is real" and "forced out of her job for saying what 99.9% of people think". Regarding the "sex is real" side of it, I've never seen a trans person say anything different and indeed the sis/trans distinction is precisely a recognition of biological sex differences. The rhetoric surrounding the case is thus demagogic - trying to paint the other side as radical extremists threatening everything and everyone not just women and sex based rights. Of course it appeals to right wingers/culture warriors, it's designed to do that. The LGB alliance which Stock is a trustee of have openly allied with the conservative Heritage Foundation, so I suspect both parties to that see it as a mutually beneficial alliance where they can and will put aside their differences in order to tackle trans rights.

Maybe people have been misled about the Kathleen Stock thing thanks to rhetoric. I don't really know; I find it difficult to untangle everything, because when i read the pieces outlining the problems with her, I can see the point of some of it and yet they also contain stuff that seems like misrepresentation to me, and therefore I don't end up trusting them.

Either way though, whether or not people have been misled, I was explaining what I see as one reason why some people would be receptive to that rhetoric. That they may be receptive can not just be explained away by calling them transphobic, in my view.

That is based on my observations of people that I know well.

 

[teuchter]

Here is your characterisation of the conversation, arguing that GC people are not saying things that are opposed to trans rights.

No, that's not what I'm saying there. And in that case I am talking about individuals rather than advocacy groups.

Now you say you've not read what they're saying and don't know what they oppose.

What I've said is that I don't especially follow GC advocacy groups, and don't necessarily agree with them. That is not the same as saying I have never read any of what they've said or have no idea of what they oppose.

 

[teuchter]

You are wrong on both counts. The international definition of genocide is as follows:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Each of the last four points could be inflicted on both trans and gay people without killing them. In fact they all have been historically and the declaration under discussion comes close on points b,c and d. The elimination of homosexuality or 'transgenderism' on these grounds could be genocidal were it not for the fact that genocide in law refers to national, ethnical, racial or religious groups only.

Perhaps you should learn what words means before complaining about misuse of language?

Have you taken that from the UN convention here?

United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect

www.un.org

If you want to get pedantic about technical definitions, I could point out that the full wording is as follows:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Which actually limits it to "national, ethical, racial or religious" groups.

But that really doesn't matter, because the context of the "genocide apologist" comment was an article for general readership, not a technical or legal document, which means it's quite appropriate to take "genocide" to be intended to communicate the meaning that you'll consistently find in most dictionaries, which is the murder of an entire group of people.

The word was used in that article for shock value. It's up to the writer's judgement whether that's effective. Maybe it is for some readers. For other readers it won't be.