Is this woman a transphobe?

[Orang Utan]

krtek a houby i know your heart is in the right place but it’s rare that your posts here offer any insight or counter argument, they’re just needlessly antagonistic platitudes and knee jerk signalling that your on the correct side of the debate. Can you please just read the posts you are responding to properly and consider them thoroughly before responding. I try to stay out of it in the most part but I do read and consider everything as thoroughly as I can, even the ones I disagree with or find offensive.

 

[Knotted]

That's an extrapolation.

I'm fairly sure you haven't understood.

 

[Red Cat]

I'm fairly sure you haven't understood.

I'm fairly sure I have, I just don't agree with you.

You made a huge leap from a description of something quite specific to a description of wider ideologies that you assume it forms a part of or leads to.

 

[Knotted]

I'm fairly sure I have, I just don't agree with you.

You made a huge leap from a description of something quite specific to a description of wider ideologies that you assume it forms a part of or leads to.

I was pointing out that exact problem with framing things in terms of ideologies!

 

[Red Cat]

I was pointing out that exact problem with framing things in terms of ideologies!

There are different definitions of ideology. You could say that those definitions themselves are ideological.

What do you mean by ideology?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's political disagreements though not ideological disagreements. I think if you look at the ideological thinking on either side they're pretty heterodox and fluid. To be honest I have a hard time keeping up with where the GC side is at now. These are not centralised movements with doctrinaire lines. When people start talking about ideologies, it gets my heckles up because it's one step away from outright conspiracy theorising. Do these ideologies not have a real social basis? And I think it's common for people to rally to certain causes together while in ideological disagreement - trans people are in it together not because they share an ideology about gender, but because they are dealing with the same threats to living peacefully in society without battery and with access to trans healthcare.

There is a political ground that's popular in the US and the UK (at least) that sits between that hazy space between conservativism and fascism. Think Nigel Farage here and Donald Trump there as political figureheads. This milieu is all about free speech and the agenda of the "liberal elites" and their "woke ideology" that wants to suppress them ie. the "ordinary people" (ie. white/cis/straight/male people who at best are ignorant and uncomfortable with challenges to their thinking and at worst outright bigots or even organised fascists). I see it all the time both irl and on line. They were galvanised in opposition to feminism some years back and then (in the US in particular), they were galvanised by the Black Lives Matter protests. They've moved on to trans people and environmental activists now and who knows what next. They see their way of life under existential threat. Sometimes the threat is explicitly stated in terms of "cultural Marxism". And no I don't see such people as following an explicit ideology because it's way too messy to be identified as something so definite, but they do characteristically see things in terms of concrete ideological enemies.

This is why I don't think it's good to think in terms of ideology and the clash of ideologies, because in doing so you're dipping a toe into this sort of thinking.

The splits that have occurred on here, at the Anarchist Book Fair, and elsewhere, surely show that this is not something that easily reduces to sides. But there is pull and push creating sides (at least in the eyes of some), for sure, and that certainly involves ideology.

For some, anyone who doesn't meet certain tests of ideological purity is in danger of having their position reduced to being 'over there'. We've seen this happen on here. It happened recently on a thread discussing Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a long-time campaigner for the rights of gay people in a part of the world that still criminalises them. But she once refused to agree that trans women are women when pressed to do so, preferring to say that trans women are trans women (following up with a statement of support for trans people). She fails the purity test so she is 'over there'. In the extreme version, she is a bigot, no better than the rest of them. That certainly feels like an ideological push to me.

 

[kabbes]

I like Nafstand and Blakar’s* (2012) definition of ideology as a taken-for-granted, more-or-less coherent system of ideas and beliefs concerning the world and social practices, operating largely outside awareness. This points to the fact that an ideological stance on transgender (or anything else) is not just a particular idea that has been reasoned to via some form of neutral logic, independent from other everything else in a person’s life. Instead, it is part of a wider ideological system that one lives through and lives out, including the embodied rituals and practices both constitute and construct their particular reality.


*Nafstad, Hilde Eileen, and Rolv Mikkel Blakar. “Ideology and Social Psychology.” Social and personality psychology compass 6.4 (2012): 282–294. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00428.x

 

[Red Cat]

Which is fairly close to what I understood as a Marxist definition (although class was obviously part of that too). No doubt there was a history before Marx too.

I certainly don't think of it as a conscious and explicit political position, which is why I didn't understand the linking of santino's description of ideology with wider political movements as if that was what ideology is.

 

[NoXion]

It's called "ideology" because unlike rejecting someone on the basis of race or sex, rejecting someone on ideological grounds is not generally seen as an inherently prejudiced thing to do. It's "fair game", especially if you can frame your rejection in terms of protecting the rights of the socially disadvantaged. It's an especially insidious sleight of hand when employed by bigots, because it allows them to cloak their rejection of people as a rejection of an ideology. Even if said ideology is a complete strawman.

 

[Riklet]

I was at Bristol Transformed a few years back and there was a trans woman on the all woman pannel talking about various things. Only bit I really remember is her saying "it's ok to debate certain topics but I will not debate my gender identity, that is not up for debate... I identify as a woman and I am a woman". To me that was ideology.

I think arguing about ideology is all a bit pointless because overall most people are going to want to be kind and refer to someone how they want to be referred to. And to help them as well. I certainly would. Most people clapped and applauded (although there was a tension in the room) and it was clear that not just gender but also sex are now viewed as something fluid and socially constructed and up for debate (or not)

It made me think though, as deep down I felt uncomfortable as I disagreed, which is most important anyway... how we act in the real world or philosophical arguments we have in our heads. Philosophically I was thinking this trans woman's experience was not the same as all the other women in the room but how much does it matter? Is it just semantics? But does this change when (in extreme and rare cases) someone comits rape or a sex crime? I personally dont see how we can have it both ways in society.... unquestioningly accept trans people as their gender but then send trans women to men's prisons when they turn out to be rapists. There has to be continuity.

 

[Red Cat]

It's called "ideology" because unlike rejecting someone on the basis of race or sex, rejecting someone on ideological grounds is not generally seen as an inherently prejudiced thing to do. It's "fair game", especially if you can frame your rejection in terms of protecting the rights of the socially disadvantaged. It's an especially insidious sleight of hand when employed by bigots, because it allows them to cloak their rejection of people as a rejection of an ideology. Even if said ideology is a complete strawman.

Well, I'm sure you know best.

 

[smokedout]

There is clearly an ideological disagreement at the heart of these arguments, which is whether or not, or to what degree, gender identity should supersede or replace sex in matters of law, policy, social rules etc. Feel free to claim either side is an ideology or not, the fact is that the ideological disagreement remains.

But what was being discussed was the claim that trans people are an ideology which consists of a "quasi-religious belief in a gendered soul separate from a biological reality". Apart from being nonsense on all kinds of levels that suggests that to be trans is not an authentic part of the human experience but a set of beliefs, that could be discarded and can therefore be dismissed. It's saying being trans in itself is an ideology, not what political demands might flow from that.

As a comparison you might say that believing same sex relationships should be legally treated on an equal footing with heterosexual relationships is an ideology, although I wouldn't personally I'd call it a political demand. But to suggest that same sex attraction is ideological in itself is both incorrect and homophobic just as saying experiencing a gender identity which is discordant with the sex assigned at birth is ideological is incorrect and transphobic.

 

[mmskyscraper]

I’m sure in a few years we’ll look back on the trans-debate times and smile. Hopefully because of how mental it all was, and not because they were the good old days.

 

[NoXion]

Well, I'm sure you know best.

 

[Dystopiary]

I’m sure in a few years we’ll look back on the trans-debate times and smile. Hopefully because of how mental it all was, and not because they were the good old days.

Some of your "we" might well do. People whose lives are adversely affected by this horrible shit, and those that care about them - highly unlikely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But what was being discussed was the claim that trans people are an ideology which consists of a "quasi-religious belief in a gendered soul separate from a biological reality". Apart from being nonsense on all kinds of levels that suggests that to be trans is not an authentic part of the human experience but a set of beliefs, that could be discarded and can therefore be dismissed. It's saying being trans in itself is an ideology, not what political demands might flow from that.

As a comparison you might say that believing same sex relationships should be legally treated on an equal footing with heterosexual relationships is an ideology, although I wouldn't personally I'd call it a political demand. But to suggest that same sex attraction is ideological in itself is both incorrect and homophobic just as saying experiencing a gender identity which is discordant with the sex assigned at birth is ideological is incorrect and transphobic.

There is ideology here, though. It's not ideologically neutral to say 'sex assigned at birth'. I would say that sex is recorded at birth, not assigned. 'Assigned' implies that some different decision could have been made, and that it can be changed at some point afterwards, but while birth certificates can be changed, that doesn't change your sex as in the biological reality of biological sex. The distinction between gender and sex often gets blurred and I think this often causes confusion.

I suspect that Santino was getting at this kind of disagreement. It's a hard one to get around for sure.

 

[mmskyscraper]

Some of your "we" might well do. People whose lives are adversely affected by this horrible shit, and those that care about them - highly unlikely.

Millions of people’s lives are affected by all kinds of horrible shit, this is way down the list. Sorry, but it is.

 

[Orang Utan]

There is ideology here, though. It's not ideologically neutral to say 'sex assigned at birth'. I would say that sex is recorded at birth, not assigned. 'Assigned' implies that some different decision could have been made, and that it can be changed at some point afterwards, but while birth certificates can be changed, that doesn't change your sex as in the biological reality of biological sex. The distinction between gender and sex often gets blurred and I think this often causes confusion.

have your forgotten about those who are born whose ‘biological sex’ isn’t clear?

 

[Dystopiary]

Millions of people’s lives are affected by all kinds of horrible shit, this is way down the list. Sorry, but it is.

It might be way down the list for you. If that's the case, I don't get why you posted unless it was to troll.

 

[mmskyscraper]

It might be way down the list for you. If that's the case, I don't get why you posted unless it was to troll.

Oh God.

You don’t win people over by getting histrionic because they think differently to you. But well done for shutting any chance for debate down.

Over and out.

 

[Shechemite]

Just logging back in to say that Dystopiary is fucking sound, and their consistent empathy, a la DLR, is something we could all learn from.


oh and krtek a houby, there are already people in camps (such as in ‘your’ country, eg Muckamore). I don’t want you to have to live your life in such a place, but if you had more respect for those that do, I’d have more respect for you. You’re not going to be the ‘first into the camps’. Theres already lots of people in them.

 

[Shechemite]

Oh and the willingness of quite a few posters on here to go along with Kremlin/Tehran/Doha campaigns of pushing conspiracism to the western public when it suits (you know all that mad antisemitic shit which didn’t happen, at all) was possibly not a great idea when it comes to protecting trans people

 

[smokedout]

There is ideology here, though. It's not ideologically neutral to say 'sex assigned at birth'. I would say that sex is recorded at birth, not assigned. 'Assigned' implies that some different decision could have been made, and that it can be changed at some point afterwards, but while birth certificates can be changed, that doesn't change your sex as in the biological reality of biological sex. The distinction between gender and sex often gets blurred and I think this often causes confusion.

I suspect that Santino was getting at this kind of disagreement. It's a hard one to get around for sure.

It's not ideological at all, it's merely using language which recognises intersex people. There is nothing ideological or grammatically incorrect in noting that sex as a social and legal category is assigned at birth following an observation of certain physical traits usually by a physician. That's what happens. There is no intelligent designer creating categories, we create them based on certain correlations and clusters of traits.

You might prefer to say sex is recorded, that's not grammatically incorrect either but it does ignore what happens in the case of ambiguity so I would argue the first is more complete. But ideology doesn't come into it.

 

[spring-peeper]

There is ideology here, though. It's not ideologically neutral to say 'sex assigned at birth'. I would say that sex is recorded at birth, not assigned. 'Assigned' implies that some different decision could have been made, and that it can be changed at some point afterwards, but while birth certificates can be changed, that doesn't change your sex as in the biological reality of biological sex. The distinction between gender and sex often gets blurred and I think this often causes confusion.

In Canada, we have four choices of sex/gender. The UK only offers two choices, male or female.

Below are the results from a google search.

"Do Canada passports have gender? There are 3 options for the “sex” field on passports for Canadians and travel documents for non-Canadians: F—female. M—male. X—another gender."

"You can request that your Birth Certificate shows your gender as F, M, or X. You can also make a request for a Birth Certificate that does not show any gender marker. To request no gender marker, the only form you have to complete and submit is a Request for Birth Certificate form."

When the "X" option was introduced, it reminded me of the time when "Ms" was introduced. I always used it because my marital statuss is none of your business.

Using the gender neutrall option is my gender is none of your business.

 

[Rob Ray]

Oh God.

You don’t win people over by getting histrionic because they think differently to you. But well done for shutting any chance for debate down.

Over and out.

Ooh a YOR BEING EMOTIONAL flounce, haven't seen one of those for a while.

 

[weltweit]

I don't understand Urban's obsession with Trans issues, there have been multiple bad tempered threads, surely everyone has said their piece multiple times by now, yet on they go?

 

[krtek a houby]

I don't understand Urban's obsession with Trans issues, there have been multiple bad tempered threads, surely everyone has said their piece multiple times by now, yet on they go?

Human rights are constantly under attack.

You may possibly think what use is talking about it, but what use is not talking about it?

 

[weltweit]

Human rights are constantly under attack.

You may possibly think what use is talking about it, but what use is not talking about it?

Has anyone changed their tune as a result of others repeating theirs?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Has anyone changed their tune as a result of others repeating theirs?

I have.

 

[A380]

Has anyone changed their tune as a result of others repeating theirs?

I've changed my views on these issues because of threads on here. Don't like to post as I realise I don't have answers and as a CIS male my opinions aren't that relevant.