I don't agree with the other posters who are mentioned, but Athos, in discussion after discussion on this you have consistantly defended the trans-exclusionary line. You have never really acknowledged that bigotry and prejudice may exist on that side, or that there has been a long running and virulent anti-trans campaign from a very small group of radical feminists that dates back nearly fifty years and which goes way beyond concerns about the proposed new laws. You have repeatedly portrayed trans-activists as violent and abusive based on a handful of people and one incident whilst ignoring or apologising for the violence and abuse that has come from the other side. You post incessently and aggresively on every discussion about trans-issues, despite seeming to admit you have no skin in this game personally, and you always take the anti-trans line on behalf of this subset of radical feminists, even if it is couched in your so-called support for trans-people. You have even adopted the lexicon of this group, calling them by their latest loaded moniker 'gender critical feminists' as if it is only possible to be critical of gender if you are trans-exclusionary - a gross insult by the way to all the feminists, such as Dworkin,
who are both gender critical and supportive of trans-people.
You have never once shown any empathy with what is at stake in this debate for transpeople, who mostly just want to be able to go to the toilet and access services if they need them like everyone else takes for granted. I don't know if you're transphobic but perhaps if you thought about some of this shit you wouldn't rub so many people up the wrong way who are genuinely and actively supportive of transpeople.
Come on, you know a lot of this is untrue. If necessary, I can go back and find relevant quotes, but, in the meantime, I'd say:
I've commented empathetically many times across many different threads about the challenges trans people face, and condemning the abuse they receive. I've certainly never denied or defended it.
I've been very explicit in pointing out that not all trans activists behave in the ways of which I'm critical.
I have acknowledged that some of the criticism of trans people is motivated by bigotry. But I don't consider it all is, or that the fact that some is, undermines that which is not.
I've often said that trans people should have facilities that meets their needs. But, however much you might try to over-simplify the discussion, it's not 'just' a matter of trans people having the everyday stuff they need; that only looks at one half of the picture - there's also the issue of women's concerns, which I'm not so willing to discuss so lightly.
I picked 'gender critical feminists' precisely because it was it was less loaded than, say, TERFs. But, if you can come up with a better description, I'd happily adopt that; I'm not trying to make a point with the name.
Yes, I post on a lot of these threads; but, why shouldn't I? Plenty of other posters do the same. You've not questioned their lack of skin I the game, nor explained your own (which is fine, as long as that standard is applied equally). I think your real objection is that I disagree with you.
I appreciate that what I say might upset some people (albeit ir receives support from others). But that's not my intention, and, if it were just a matter of idle curiosity I'd leave it (as I had begun to do until recent developments), but I happen to think it's becoming a really important issue.
I've thought about this issue a lot. And I can honestly say that I don't consider myself transphobic. I believe much of the effort to smear me that way is a dishonest attempt to close down discussion. And its unhelpful and polarising reduce it to good versus bad (on either side); it needs a more nuanced discussion about how best to accommodate competing good intentions, whilst minimising negative unintended consequences. I think your line and tactics actively hinder that discussion.
Most importantly, I don't know how you can say I take a trans- exclusionary line. I've repeatedly and consistently said I favour trans inclusion, and stated my own inclusionary position (in fact, you criticised me for saying a number of times how I consider trans women to be women). Once again, you're conflating the issues of my answer to the question and my stance on whether women have the right to ask the question.
That's the whole of my point: that, regardless of my conception of trans women's gender, women (including trans women) ought to be able to discuss this without abuse or the fear of abuse. Is that something with which you disagree? It that a transphobic position, in your opinion?
Notwithstanding that much of our discussion to date has been ill-tempered, I'd be happy to move forward more positively, to really try to nail down exactly what divides us (in particular what it is in my fundamental position that you consider transphobic), and to see if there's any way to overcome that. Perhaps by each of us setting out some fundamental principles (as I've done above, with the principle of women's freedom to discuss what it means to be a woman), for the other to explain whether or not they agree with them, and why? Maybe you could answer that point, then set out some of yours, for me to accept or reject? (Can do it on another thread or by pm, if you think it'd be a derail, here.)
Are only trans people allowed an opinion then? If so, are you trans?
