Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[Cloo]

So someone on Twitter says that self-identification is 'gaslightly' and I asked how so. Reply:

This will render a generation entirely dependent on adults telling them how to feel in every and any situation. This helplessness is advantageous to abusers of either sex. And before you say it, sex is absolutely relevant to danger.

I replied that that was quite an extrapolation.

 

[TopCat]

Being able to make things and design things on this planet instead of being a gobshite on the internet makes me a lot more above you, what have you done in the world that has changed anything?

Haha you and your big ego. How it must comfort you.

 

[Treacle Toes]

So someone on Twitter says that self-identification is 'gaslightly' and I asked how so. Reply:


I replied that that was quite an extrapolation.

I am not sure what they wrote even makes sense.

 

[Shechemite]

So someone on Twitter says that self-identification is 'gaslightly' and I asked how so. Reply:




I replied that that was quite an extrapolation.

Yes. I’m struggling to understand the argument there. Self-identification = helplessness/dependence = gaslighting?

 

[TopCat]

Indeed, someone who says "no blacks" on a personal ad could well indeed be a massive fucking racist. Or they're simply not turned on by dark skin. Since racists can be attracted to dark skin, it doesn't seem unreasonable to extrapolate that the inverse can happen, people who aren't raging bigots who aren't attracted to dark skin.

Trying to police that sounds like an ethical and moral minefield at best. I'm not sure what good it would do either.

I think language is often telling and that it's useful in the debate over whether refusing to consider having sex with trans people is transphobic.
How a person words their dating ad to exclude trans people would I think be telling as to whether they are a massive cunt or not.

 

[TopCat]

So someone on Twitter says that self-identification is 'gaslightly' and I asked how so. Reply:




I replied that that was quite an extrapolation.

A gender studies student perhaps?

 

[TopCat]

Yes. I’m struggling to understand the argument there. Self-identification = helplessness/dependence = gaslighting?

I think they are bemoaning the prospect of not being able to decide for themselves (by appearence and mannerisms) a persons gender.

 

[co-op]

You seem to be reluctant to ackowledge that this is also happening here, and that some of the most virulent anti-trans rhetoric is now coming from people in the UK - including the people running the Women's Place Is On The Platform speaking tour.

I genuinely don't know enough about the coalition against the GRA to be able to comment meaningfully on it. And I'm more than happy to agree (and have done on other posts) that there are radical feminists who clearly are aggressively hostile to any transwoman, any explanation of their reality that isn't just 'a man in a dress' and generally utterly dismiss debate. They seem to me no better than the self-styled trans activists who go in for the 'suck my girl-dick' stuff.

I very much doubt any trans activist would work the the Iranian regime even if such an alliance was enouraged or possible.

I also don't really think it's fair to say trans-activists are working with the British Army or other reactionary organisations, other than in their roles as employers of people. They are not having meetings about policy, or feeding each other juicy stories for the media.

My point wasn't that they are working with the Iranian regime or would; clearly they wouldn't at present because there is literally only downside to any such alliance. The point is that if we are to judge rad fems by the company they keep politically, then we might also want to question some of the deeply reactionary ideological company that is marching alongside transactivists theory. People like the Iranian Mullahs who will happily force gay men to become transwomen.

And this is before we even get on to the colonial appropriation of any gender-fluid social identity that has been constructed in non-western cultures (of which there are many, with ancient roots) but which are now demanded to be "transgender" and to conform to the latest demands of US and European activists.

They are also not swallowing their principles and working with men's rights activists or other groups who are opposed to feminists - mostly because the majority of trans-activists would say they were feminists, and many have a radical critique of the gender binary.

I'd really question 'many' and those transpeople who argue this stuff publicly get shouted down pretty harshly from what I've seen. No surprise there; the whole 'a woman born in a man's body' narrative cannot stand up to any "radical critique of the gender binary".

 

[Cloo]

Yes. I’m struggling to understand the argument there. Self-identification = helplessness/dependence = gaslighting?

They have 'explained' it thus:

It's real. Every child, woman, even men, scan a room of strangers and makes discrimination based on who's safe. You want to undermine that mental process from the get go? Imagine being raised to consider your own self preservation reflexes as wrong

I think one has to understand this viewpoint as coming from an idea that trans women are men, and a man in a woman's space must be a threat.

I expressed that I find this a very cynical view of humanity and people's mental capability to adapt and understand.

 

[LDC]

And this is before we even get on to the colonial appropriation of any gender-fluid social identity that has been constructed in non-western cultures (of which there are many, with ancient roots) but which are now demanded to be "transgender" and to conform to the latest demands of US and European activists.

Probably too much of a massive subject (and derail) here but that is a really interesting subject, also alongside other people cross-dressing in the past who are now being claimed as 'trans' who almost certainly didn't identify as such.

 

[smokedout]

I genuinely don't know enough about the coalition against the GRA to be able to comment meaningfully on it. And I'm more than happy to agree (and have done on other posts) that there are radical feminists who clearly are aggressively hostile to any transwoman, any explanation of their reality that isn't just 'a man in a dress' and generally utterly dismiss debate. They seem to me no better than the self-styled trans activists who go in for the 'suck my girl-dick' stuff.

My point wasn't that they are working with the Iranian regime or would; clearly they wouldn't at present because there is literally only downside to any such alliance. The point is that if we are to judge rad fems by the company they keep politically, then we might also want to question some of the deeply reactionary ideological company that is marching alongside transactivists theory. People like the Iranian Mullahs who will happily force gay men to become transwomen.

Sorry this seems like a crude comparison to me, like trying to smear trans exclusionary rad fems by saying the Saudi regime or Hitler would agre with them (and pretty much every other dictatorial regime in history, except Iran). The point about the company that some rad fems have kept, and the allegiances they have formed, is that they are prepared to work with the worst kind of misogynists as long as it harms transpeople. I think that speaks to their integrity, and suggests their hatred of trans people overrrides any other feminist concerns.

And this is before we even get on to the colonial appropriation of any gender-fluid social identity that has been constructed in non-western cultures (of which there are many, with ancient roots) but which are now demanded to be "transgender" and to conform to the latest demands of US and European activists.

I'm not sure this is really happening. The Hijra in for example India and Pakistan have been self-organised for a long time. Of course in the English language they would come under the transgender definition but I haven't seen any demands from Western trans-activists over how they should organise politically or what their demands should be.

I'd really question 'many' and those transpeople who argue this stuff publicly get shouted down pretty harshly from what I've seen. No surprise there; the whole 'a woman born in a man's body' narrative cannot stand up to any "radical critique of the gender binary".

Again I disagree. Self confessed autogynophiles like Miranda Yardley, who project their sexual fetish onto all transpeople, have been shouted down and rightly so given the company she keeps and the rhetoric she comes out with. Most trans-activists and theorists have a radical critique of gender - the women in a man's body - itself a crude way to describe to the sceptical how gender dysphoria can feel - is not really a model many people use anymore.

It's perhaps worth noting that the idea of male/female brains is the dominant social narrative - Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus was on the best seller's list a long time. It's therefore unsurprising that some trans-people have adopted this concept. But I would argue that on the whole trans people have a far more radical analysis and understanding of gender than the general population.

 

[Athos]

Probably too much of a massive subject (and derail) here but that is a really interesting subject, also alongside other people cross-dressing in the past who are now being claimed as 'trans' who almost certainly didn't identify as such.

Like Marsha Johnson and Silvia Rivera. The oft repeated myth that the early gay rights movement was led by trans women.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Again I disagree. Self confessed autogynophiles like Miranda Yardley, who project their sexual fetish onto all transpeople, have been shouted down and rightly so given the company she keeps and the rhetoric she comes out with. Most trans-activists and theorists have a radical critique of gender - the women in a man's body - itself a crude way to describe to the sceptical how gender dysphoria can feel - is not really a model many people use anymore.

It's perhaps worth noting that the idea of male/female brains is the dominant social narrative - Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus was on the best seller's list a long time. It's therefore unsurprising that some trans-people have adopted this concept. But I would argue that on the whole trans people have a far more radical analysis and understanding of gender than the general population.

Please do not lie about me. I am not a ‘self confessed autogynephile’. On the contrary, I argue for honesty and compassion for those who live with this.

I have written on this subject many times and always referenced the scientific literature which defines the typology and which lends empirical evidence. You only have to look at social media timelines to see this typology does seem to correspond with what goes on in the real world. Here’s a for example:

17 Signs I Am An Autogynephile And Didn’t Know It

Transgender culture does not have a radical analysis of gender. On the contrary, it specifies gender as being ‘an inner sense of being male or female’. This reduces the material reality of sex to nothing more than thoughts and feelings. How anyone on the left can square this with leftist political analysis is beyond me. Such a metaphysical interpretations of material oppression is something the founders of the modern left: JS Mill, Marx, Engels and Gramsci would find this anathema: have we all forgotten about dialectical materialism?

Instead of smearing people, how about engaging in honest and productive discussion? The bullying, no-platforming and refusal of transgender activists to defend core beliefs in open debate are all rather telling. How can we possibly move forward if we can’t have a feee discussion?

 

[smokedout]

Like Marsha Johnson and Silvia Rivera. The oft repeated myth that the early gay rights movement was led by trans women.

And yet here, in her most famous piece of writing, Rivera referes to herself and peers as transwomen, repeatedly talks about the transgender movement and refers throughout to Marsha using female pronouns.

But you know better don't you. I've said it before, you're a nasty piece of work.

 

[co-op]

Most trans-activists and theorists have a radical critique of gender - the women in a man's body - itself a crude way to describe to the sceptical how gender dysphoria can feel - is not really a model many people use anymore.

When I criticised it on these pages about 2 years ago I was widely denounced as a transphobe.

 

[TopCat]

And yet here, in her most famous piece of writing, Rivera referes to herself and peers as transwomen, repeatedly talks about the transgender movement and refers throughout to Marsha using female pronouns.

But you know better don't you. I've said it before, you're a nasty piece of work.

This thread is not your finest hour.

 

[smokedout]

When I criticised it on these pages about 2 years ago I was widely denounced as a transphobe.

Well I suppose that depends on the context but I don't remember that thread. I think it was a term used by early trans-activists, like Sylvia Rivera as shorthand for how some people experienced being trans

Transvestites are homosexual men and women who dress in clothes of the opposite sex. Male transvestites dress and live as women. Half sisters like myself are women with the minds of women trapped in male bodies. Female transvestites dress and live as men. My half brothers are men with male minds trapped in female bodies. Transvestites are the most oppressed people in the homosexual community. My half sisters and brothers are being raped and murdered by pigs, straights, and even sometimes by other uptight homosexuals who consider us the scum of the gay community. They do this because they are not liberated.

 

[smokedout]

This thread is not your finest hour.

I hope to have many finer hours than this.

 

[smokedout]

This thread is not your finest hour.

And I stand by that comment. I can't think of many things much nastier than rewriting someone's history to suit your personal prejudices and then using that to attack what that person stood for.

 

[TopCat]

And I stand by that comment. I can't think of many things much nastier than rewriting someone's history to suit your personal prejudices and then using that to attack what that person stood for.

Well for the record you have knowingly played the cunt throughout.

 

[Athos]

And yet here, in her most famous piece of writing, Rivera referes to herself and peers as transwomen, repeatedly talks about the transgender movement and refers throughout to Marsha using female pronouns.

But you know better don't you. I've said it before, you're a nasty piece of work.

She refers to herself as a drag queen, and explicitly rejects the label transgender, in that article! Throughout her life, she repeatedly referred to herself as a 'street queen', 'drag queen', 'transvestite', 'half sister', etc..

Similar for Johnson.

But don't let the truth stand in the way of your name-calling.

 

[smokedout]

Sorry to labour this point, but thats Silvia Rivera who suffered a violent attack at the hands of the political current Athos has defended throughout and which led to her atgtempting suicide and withdrawing from politics.

[2] Women in the GLF were uncomfortable referring to Rivera – who insisted in using women’s bathrooms, even in City hall – as ‘she.’ Pressure mounted. The year 1973 witnessed clash that would take Rivera out of the movement for the next two decades… As they passed out flyers outlining their opposition to the ‘female impersonators,’ Rivera wrestled for the microphone held by emcee Vitto Russo, before getting hit with it herself. Rivera explained, ‘I had to battle my way up on stage, and literally get beaten up and punched around by people I thought were my comrades, to get to that microphone. – Benjamin Shepard, That’s Revolting!, pp 126 – 127 [3] Sylvia Riviara recounted the event: “Jean O’Leary, a founder of Radicalesbians, decided that drag queens were insulting to women… I had been told I was going to speak at the rally. And that’s when things just got out of hand. I’m very militant when it comes to certain things, and I didn’t appreciate what was going down with Jean O’Leary stating that we were insulting women… She told Vito Russo to kick my ass onstage… but I still got up and spoke my piece.” – Susan Glisson (Ed), The Human Tradition in the Civil Rights Movement, p 325 [4] “[T]his incident precipitated yet another suicide attempt on her part… the events of that day in 1973 ultimately took something out of Sylvia Rivera. In the succeeding years, Sylvia Rivera’s participation in ‘the movement’ waned. Although she attended every Christopher Street Liberation Day Parade (with the exception of two) until her death, Sylvia’s formal participation in organizations like the GLF and the GAA came to a halt.” – ibid.

 

[Brainaddict]

On the contrary, it specifies gender as being ‘an inner sense of being male or female’. This reduces the material reality of sex to nothing more than thoughts and feelings.

The second sentence does not follow from the first. Someone's 'inner sense' takes place within an entire socio-economic structure that creates gender. Haven't followed this whole thread but there were claims above that being trans is an individualistic attempt to escape socially created notions of gender. But the converse argument is that those who oppose people being trans are demanding that individuals take on the burden of opposing vast social forces. It could be compared to telling people not to buy Starbucks and iphones if they are anti-capitalist. Would people on this thread guilt-trip an anti-capitalist about consuming within a capitalist framework? Then why guilt-trip a trans person about living the gender they feel themselves to be within a social framework they also don't control?

 

[smokedout]

She refers to herself as a drag queen, and explicitly rejects the label transgender, in that article! Throughout her life, she repeatedly referred to herself as a 'street queen', 'drag queen', 'transvestite', 'half sister', etc..

Similar for Johnson.

But don't let the truth stand in the way of your name-calling.

She rejects labels altogether, but that didn't stop herself from describing herself as transgender throughout much of her life, or calling the later manifestation of her organisation the Street Transgender Action Revolutionaries

 

[Athos]

Sorry to labour this point, but thats Silvia Rivera who suffered a violent attack at the hands of the political current Athos has defended throughout and which led to her atgtempting suicide and withdrawing from politics.

I've consistently condemned outright all physical attacks on trans people. Such attacks are not the same as suggesting women have a right to discus what it means to be a woman. That you repeatedly seek to conflate the two is a mark of your dishonesty.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

The second sentence does not follow from the first. Someone's 'inner sense' takes place within an entire socio-economic structure that creates gender. Haven't followed this whole thread but there were claims above that being trans is an individualistic attempt to escape socially created notions of gender. But the converse argument is that those who oppose people being trans are demanding that individuals take on the burden of opposing vast social forces. It could be compared to telling people not to buy Starbucks and iphones if they are anti-capitalist. Would people on this thread guilt-trip an anti-capitalist about consuming within a capitalist framework? Then why guilt-trip a trans person about living the gender they feel themselves to be within a social framework they also don't control?

Well, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ as adult human female and male respectively, this follows: female and male are biological realities with material consequemces, not identities.

The argument is not so much the opposition to people being trans, more what it means to be trans: particularly whether a man who has lived say 60years as a man and who has benefitted rom this, can lay claim to being ‘a woman’ just because they say so (see for example Kellie Maloney or Caitlyn Jenner).

I think if the transgender community were able to accept that humans are sexually dimorphic, that ‘transgender women’ are biologically male, that women and ‘trans women’ have different lives, and that we are all subject to sex-based socialisation that begins at birth, a lot of the heat would be taken out of this debate and common ground (based on equity and material reality)could be found.

 

[weepiper]

Are women not allowed to think drag queens are insulting to us?

 

[bimble]

..hence blaming a transwoman's tweet for Topshop's changing room policies.

Just whilst we’re accusing one another of mislabelling people, the person you were talking about above does not identify as a trans woman.

 

[smokedout]

Just whilst we’re accusing one another of mislabelling people, the person you were talking about above does not identify as a trans woman.

Fair enough, that was a mistake, they describe themselves as trans-feminine I believe.

 

[smokedout]

Well, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ as adult human female and male respectively, this follows: female and male are biological realities with material consequemces, not identities.

The argument is not so much the opposition to people being trans, more what it means to be trans: particularly whether a man who has lived say 60years as a man and who has benefitted rom this, can lay claim to being ‘a woman’ just because they say so (see for example Kellie Maloney or Caitlyn Jenner).

I think if the transgender community were able to accept that humans are sexually dimorphic, that ‘transgender women’ are biologically male, that women and ‘trans women’ have different lives, and that we are all subject to sex-based socialisation that begins at birth, a lot of the heat would be taken out of this debate and common ground (based on equity and material reality)could be found.

Do you google your own name every morning?