Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[Yossarian]

Urban has multi-page discussions about all kinds of topics. It's weird how a few people have said this one should be deleted. Is the argument that these discussions are distressing to trans people so just shouldn't happen ever? If discussions about the nature of gender are too harmful to take place then we're in a strange place.

I don't know about deleted, but I think the discussion would be much better if it was split into several different threads - there are so many different issues involved, it would be better for everybody - especially new arrivals on the boards - if the varying threads of conversation happened in separate places.

There are a lot of people here with wise things to say, but I don't think there will be many newcomers willing to join in at page 222 of a conversation.

 

[Pickman's model]

The thing is that the idea of Gender Identity only works if its universal, is something that everybody has, not just trans people but everyone. And not just universal but also the only real criteria for membership of the class 'women' or 'men', so if you think you're a woman it must be because you possess the Gender Identity 'woman' and for no other reason.

Yeh. But if you're a woman but don't feel like a woman, then not-woman is atm man. But what if it isn't?

 

[Sunset Tree]

I don't know about deleted, but I think the discussion would be much better if it was split into several different threads - there are so many different issues involved, it would be better for everybody - especially new arrivals on the boards - if the varying threads of conversation happened in separate places.

There are a lot of people here with wise things to say, but I don't think there will be many newcomers willing to join in at page 222 of a conversation.

That's true of a lot of long-running threads on urban. I don't disagree with that really. Never been a fan of catch-all topic threads that run for years, they become like micro-communities and a lot of people just won't look into them. Whereas starting a new thread about a specific aspect of a topic will get a broader range of posters replying. I hate logging into urban and seeing the same threads every day.

 

[mojo pixy]

I think a whole swathe of people that have been used to being "right on" for like, ever, are discovering they aren't quite as right on as they thought they were, and it stings like fuck. I guess lefty homophobes in the 60s and 70s had something similar to work through.

I was sexually assaulted as a kid by an old gay man, but I expect if I refused a gay doctor on that basis I reckon I'd be in with a chance of being called homophobic. I'd have to accept that, or I might be inclined to pull gymnastic contortions of logic to explain it was my PTSD and not really bigotry.

Whatever. This discussion is going around in circles and I'm dizzy.

 

[JimW]

I think a whole swathe of people that have been used to being "right on" for like, ever, are discovering they aren't quite as right on as they thought they were, and it stings like fuck.

Haha, that's almost the polar opposite of my position. The twitterati who seem the worst are just the sort of people I'd be delighted to find myself on the opposite side of a question to, but given a concern for the rights and well-being of trans people I'm willing to give them a listen.

 

[Santino]

That's true of a lot of long-running threads on urban. I don't disagree with that really. Never been a fan of catch-all topic threads that run for years, they become like micro-communities and a lot of people just won't look into them. Whereas starting a new thread about a specific aspect of a topic will get a broader range of posters replying. I hate logging into urban and seeing the same threads every day.

"Member Since: Nov 11, 2017"

 

[8ball]

Yeh. But if you're a woman but don't feel like a woman, then not-woman is atm man. But what if it isn't?

Good point. Other points occur to me with that formulation, though.

What if how much you feel like a woman changes over time? What if some of us who don’t think we feel like a woman/man were to notice if we lost that sense (sometimes things like this can be like a fish’s attitude to water)?

Maybe ‘non-woman’ in the case of your particular point was a misleading place to start.

 

[Sunset Tree]

"Member Since: Nov 11, 2017"

I've been on here for years I made a new account for reasons of personal security/anonymity as my old account was too linked to my real life identity. I didn't feel safe posting on it so I stopped for years before coming back on this one.

 

[Pickman's model]

Good point. Other points occur to me with that formulation, though.

What if how much you feel like a woman changes over time? What if some of us who don’t think we feel like a woman/man were to notice if we lost that sense (sometimes things like this can be like a fish’s attitude to water)?

Maybe ‘non-woman’ in the case of your particular point was a misleading place to start.

Subtle point - interesting

 

[Pickman's model]

That's true of a lot of long-running threads on urban. I don't disagree with that really. Never been a fan of catch-all topic threads that run for years, they become like micro-communities and a lot of people just won't look into them. Whereas starting a new thread about a specific aspect of a topic will get a broader range of posters replying. I hate logging into urban and seeing the same threads every day.

You have the option of starting threads yourself, you know

 

[mojo pixy]

Haha, that's almost the polar opposite of my position.The twitterati who seem the worst are just the sort of people I'd be delighted to find myself on the opposite side of a question to, but given a concern for the rights and well-being of trans people I'm willing to give them a listen.

Fair enough, at the end of the day we either believe people who speak for themselves, or we don't.

 

[Sunset Tree]

You have the option of starting threads yourself, you know

Yeah, tbh I'm as guilty of it as anyone, it's easier just to drop your post into the existing thread.

 

[Teaboy]

For me what is interesting is that there seems to be a one way flow. People start neutral, and someone asks them if they're in favour of trans rights and they say "of course"! So they're on the side of GRA and transactivism (because, why not, what's the problem), then they hear something they don't get, or something doesn't sit right but are too afraid to ask because they're very aware of the way "cis scum" and "awful TERFs" are talked about, and how people are ostracised for having wrong think so they stay quiet, but it still doesn't sit right so eventually they ask questions, then they get told to fuck off and read about it, get blocked by people they thought were cool, and then end up changing their position because there are too many inconsistencies which no one seems to be able to answer.

Yes. For me it was a couple of u75 female posters flagging concerns. People who I have a lot of respect for and I know to be fundamentally good people. I do believe these things can be worked through but shouting and accusations are not helping. Whilst this thread is clearly not the front line its not far from it but what I see are decent people trying to work through something which is relatively new and really quite complicated.

 

[8ball]

Fair enough, at the end of the day we either believe people who speak for themselves, or we don't.

There is a bit of a difference between listening to people’s pain and completely buying into their ideas about the causes and etiology of that pain, though.

That’s why doctors prefer to hear about your symptoms rather than what you resultantly looked up on the internet.

I don’t think we understand this stuff (any of us) very well yet, because of the way the distress some people experience is so profoundly filtered by assumptions about gender, some of which we might not be fully aware of, whether trans or not.

 

[bimble]

Fair enough, at the end of the day we either believe people who speak for themselves, or we don't.

Is it the case that whatever I might tell you about myself (if I truly felt it to be true) you’d automatically believe me and agree sincerely- not just out of politeness - that it’s a fact?

 

[Sunset Tree]

Difference between making sure marginalised groups have a voice and making sure they're the dominant voice.

 

[TopCat]

I do want to listen to trans people.

I keep reading this car crash of a thread in the vague hope I might learn something. There lots of things I've never really thought about or understood and I would like to know more, but I really don't think I'm going to learn much here.

From the chunks of this thread I've read, trans people's voices are being drowned out by a load of people with very little experience or knowledge and various amounts of fear and loathing.

You learnt what CIS is alledged to mean.

 

[mojo pixy]

There is a bit of a difference between listening to people’s pain and completely buying into their ideas about the causes and etiology of that pain, though.

That’s why doctors prefer to hear about your symptoms rather than what you resultantly looked up on the internet..

I had to look up aetiology, and after doing so I'm not sure I agree. If I hurt my back by falling, or if I have a stomach ache after eating raw acorns, the doctor will want to know how I think my pain started.

Is it the case that whatever I might tell you about myself (if I truly felt it to be true) you’d automatically believe me and agree sincerely- not just out of politeness - that it’s a fact?

Pretty much, yeah. What's the alternative? Calling you a liar / deluded? Some people might want to do that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The thing is that the idea of Gender Identity only works if its universal, is something that everybody has, not just trans people but everyone. And not just universal but also the only real criteria for membership of the class 'women' or 'men', so if you think you're a woman it must be because you possess the Gender Identity 'woman' and for no other reason.

This is perhaps a key question. I don't agree that the idea only works if it is universal. Why can there not be a plurality of positions that find a way of coexisting? This is why I said before that it is a huge shame that such a chasm has opened up between a group who are critical of the workings of gender stereotypes and many others who are also critical of the workings of gender stereotypes solely because they disagree over the validity of the concept of transgender. There ought to be a great deal of common ground, and if, ultimately, there will always be an area of disagreement, surely they should be searching for a way to accommodate that disagreement whereby both sides understand what it is they disagree about and agree to be respectful about it. To give an analogy, I'm atheist. If I'm totally honest, I find religious belief silly. But that doesn't stop me from making common cause with religious people over all kinds of things. It would be rotten politics to do anything else - it would be the politics of someone like Sam Harris.

I think it's very unfortunate that extreme positions, which actually very few people hold, have come to dominate the discussion. The one extreme, represented by the likes of Jeffries or Long, offers no solution to trans people beyond getting themselves to a shrink so that they can overcome their delusion. Worse than that, they appear at root not to care about trans people, specifically trans women, and they most certainly take glee in pointing at the worst offenders among trans activists and presenting them as typical when they are most certainly no such thing. Ironically, those who claim that trans women are a grotesque caricature of women themselves present grotesque caricatures of trans bogeymen in order to attack them. As politics, such a position and such tactics fucking stink, and their logical conclusion is a coalition with cunts like Davies against people they ought to be making common cause with over every single issue except this one very narrow point.

 

[smokedout]

So I did. I went and educated myself. Weighed up the arguments and found out that those awful TERFs I didn't like had actually a lot of interesting stuff and quite well reasoned things to say.

For me what is interesting is that there seems to be a one way flow. People start neutral, and someone asks them if they're in favour of trans rights and they say "of course"! So they're on the side of GRA and transactivism (because, why not, what's the problem), then they hear something they don't get, or something doesn't sit right but are too afraid to ask because they're very aware of the way "cis scum" and "awful TERFs" are talked about, and how people are ostracised for having wrong think so they stay quiet, but it still doesn't sit right so eventually they ask questions, then they get told to fuck off and read about it, get blocked by people they thought were cool, and then end up changing their position because there are too many inconsistencies which no one seems to be able to answer.

It's very rare (infact I haven't seen it) going the other way, wherever people are anti GRA and come out being pro.

Now either all the people in the one way flow are bigots undercover, or there's a problem with the way the debate is held from the outset.

Perhaps one of the problems is that anyone starting to read some gender critical blogs and websites will immediately come away with a huge amount of disinformation. They will be told it's been proved most transsexuals have a sexual fetish called autogynephilia. They will be told it's been proved that trans women commit violent offences at the same rate as men, they will be told a man who makes rapes jokes has called himself a woman and demanded a senior role in the Labour Party, that a trans indenitified male demanded Top Shop let men in their changing rooms and Top Shop complied because they were scared, that Jessica Winfield had to be moved from a women's prison because she was sexually harassing fellow inmates and that an NHS worker tried to force a woman to have a smear test against her wishes.

They will probably be shown lots of tweets from anonymous teenagers without any mention of the abuse and in the past violence that has come from the trans critical side, they will have the proposed new law completely misrepresented as meaning any man could just fill out a form and demand access to a womens refuge. And that one man in Canada pretended to be trans and sexually assaulted someone without any mention that this is the only time it has happened in the world, and that trans women have been accessing womens support services for years now without incident. They might even be shown websites like transcrime that list criminal offences committed by trans people as if this is representative, and be told huge numbers of children are being given drugs to stop puberty when in reality the number is tiny. They will be told studies showing rates of being victims of crime or suicide attempts by trans people have been debunked, and that a study has proved half of trans prisoners are sexual offenders. And on and on and on. None of these things are true on close inspection, and they represent the milder side of trans critical feminism, they might be told a lot worse.

And they will probably come out of it hating trans people, and repeating these myths, all of which have been repeated on this thread. And when trans people get upset and angry about what they recognise as a highly orchestrated propaganda campaign then their emotional and understandable reaction to that will be used against them to prove that trans people really are aggresive and nasty and refuse to have a debate. And then they will take the red pill and believe the oppressed is the oppressor and Sheila Jeffries and Venice Allan will congratulate themselves on a job well done. Same tactics that have been used against marginalised groups throughout history, and this time being used by people on the left.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

So basically smokedout, you're saying once women are told to fuck off and "go do research" your opinion is that these women go directly to "hate sites"? How many women have you actually bothered asking how they came to that conclusion?

I think you are really selling women short here.

I can tell you the first thing I did was go to trans people, then liberal feminists, then academics.

This talk in particular I found very good, fair, described what I was seeing accurately and the thought's. From a university employed philosopher. It didn't come to any conclusions specifically other than point out some logical inconsistencies.



(she will probably will just be accused of TERFERY, too)

So for you to talk of women coming to the conclusion they do because they can't research properly, and OBVIOUSLY can't understand the difference between information and disinformation is uncharitable at best and sexist at worst.

We aren't fucking idiots. And it doesn't go the way you describe at all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So for you to talk of women coming to the conclusion they do because they can't research properly, and OBVIOUSLY can't understand the difference between information and disinformation is uncharitable at best and sexist at worst..

Smokedout didn't specify 'women'. He said 'anyone'.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

Smokedout didn't specify 'women'. He said 'anyone'.

I wrote specifically about women accused of terfery. Smokedout responded to me with "anyone" but seeing as that "anyone" are people accused of terfery and women. It's a bit moot. "not all women some men too" doesn't exactly chime well.

 

[smokedout]

So basically smokedout, you're saying once women are told to fuck off and "go do research" your opinion is that these women go directly to "hate sites"? How many women have you actually bothered asking how they came to that conclusion?

I think you are really selling women short here.

I can tell you the first thing I did was go to trans people, then liberal feminists, then academics.

Indeed, a lot of them are academics, perfectly innocent very pleasant middle class women like Sheila Jeffries with letters after their name. It is a slick movement, well resourced and well established compared to the twitter mob of kids opposing them.

This talk in particular I found very good, fair, described what I was seeing accurately and the thought's. From a university employed philosopher. It didn't come to any conclusions specifically other than point out some logical inconsistencies.



(she will probably will just be accused of TERFERY, too)

I can't watch that now but will later.

So for you to talk of women coming to the conclusion they do because they can't research properly, and OBVIOUSLY can't understand the difference between information and disinformation is uncharitable at best and sexist at worst.

We aren't fucking idiots. And it doesn't go the way you describe at all.

Well a lot of women, on this thread and elsewhere have been to those sites and not come to these conclusions. And all those things I mentioned have appeared on websites that might not appear to be hate sites, many of the people behind those lies have spoken on the Women's Place tour.

If people can understand the difference between information and disinformation then why have all the things I mentioned been presented as unequivocal truths at times on this thread?

 

[bimble]

If people can understand the difference between information and disinformation then why have all the things I mentioned been presented as unequivocal truths at times on this thread?

It would be great if you didn't lump everyone who perhaps differs from your point of view together like this, it is part of the problem. You think you're the only one who can tell information from conjecture?
I'm interested to hear what you think of the lecture FabricLiveBaby! posted a link to.

 

[Mation]

It would be great if you didn't lump everyone who perhaps differs from your point of view together like this, it is part of the problem. You think you're the only one who can tell information from conjecture?
I'm interested to hear what you think of the lecture FabricLiveBaby! posted a link to.

Anyone who repeats the things smokedout mentions in post # 6672 as truth and in support of their concerns is repeating disinformation. Anyone whose concerns are based on that disinformation really can't understand the difference between information and disinformation.

 

[bimble]

Yep I agree, its just I've not done any of those things mentioned in that post, and I had a look and saw that there basically are no robust statistics out there to support or disprove the crime claims etc, so I resent their lumping people together and saying anyone gender critical will 'end up hating trans people and repeating lies'.

 

[Mation]

I had a look and saw that there basically are no robust statistics out there to support or disprove the crime claims etc

Just to make sure I'm not misinterpreting you, are you saying that you can see that there is no robust evidence to support the crime claims but that you don't take that lack of evidence to mean that the claims are untrue?

 

[bimble]

Just to make sure I'm not misinterpreting you, are you saying that you can see that there is no robust evidence to support the crime claims but that you don't take that lack of evidence to mean that the claims are untrue?

The claims can't be verified as there are no proper stats out there to support or disprove them. So yes they are unfounded and I would never repeat 'trans women are as violent as men' because nobody knows. It seems unlikely to me.

 

[Mation]

The claims can't be verified as there are no proper stats out there to support or disprove them. So they are unfounded.

Right. But you're aware that many people are repeating them as though they are true and have good evidence to support them, yes? Because I'm pretty sure that's who smokedout was talking about, there. If that's not you and what you're doing, why would you think that particular criticism was levelled at you?