This premise is absolute bullshit. “Treating people differently” =/= discrimination.
Hence the whole thing falls down, modus tollens, and there is no paradox.
And that is why it’s important to encourage debate. If this board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, then it’s no loss if people who aren’t interested in or aren’t capable of fighting ignorance flounce. Like it or not, the general public is not very informed on this topic. And, at least as of a few years ago, the majority of Americans polled on the topic answered that gender = sex at birth. That can change. But not by declaring them wrong and banning any discussion otherwise. Nobody has to participate, but let’s not prevent those who can from doing so.
Misogynist? Hell, they can call you an outright wifebeater.
That’s not a trade-off, that’s a win-win.
They are not the same. Or, I should say, they are not used the same by people I know, who identify as both trans (so, binary) but still genderqueer.
Alos, IMO, genderqueer is the much more politically-charged and in-group term, non-binary is more neutral and clinical-sounding term that’s less likely to freak the mundanes.
I wish, wish, wish so much that the stupid, stupid tagline never made it across to Discourse.
This board is not primarily “dedicated to fighting ignorance”, and hasn’t been for decades. It’s a social message board first, a debate club a very distant second. And social spaces shouldn’t be havens for hatred in the guise of enquiry. The mod staff eventually learned this for scientific racism and MRA misogyny, one hopes they’ll be quicker for transphobia-disguised-as-feminism
And one person’s “flounce” is another person’s “driven away by hatred”.
I hope that this won’t be the case, or at least that “question the validity of transgender identities” isn’t interpreted in such a way as to exclude questions raised in good faith. I credit my current understanding and acceptance of transgender identities largely to the many informative and insightful threads I read here around 15 years ago. In these threads, posters such as Eve and Una patiently explained various aspects of transgender identities, ranging to the fundamental to the trivial, to various posters who had uttered questions or misconceptions that were born of curiosity or ignorance. Prohibiting posters from posting these questions or misconceptions, or punishing them for doing so, could well have an adverse effect on education and progressive public discourse on transgender issues.
Now it’s true that in addition to these good-faith questions and misconceptions, there were some posters who made malicious comments, or who stubbornly clung to their misconceptions even after it was definitively explained to them how these were wrong and hurtful. And when such a line is crossed, I’m all for warning or blocking the offending posters. But I hope that it will never be forbidden here to merely question whether transgender identities are valid, at least from people who are seriously raising them for the first time. As other posters have pointed out in this thread, there is still so much ignorance surrounding this issue that it’s going to have to be cleared up again and again for many years to come. I hope that people can count on the SDMB as a place where questions—even insensitive ones—can be addressed in an environment where people aren’t immediately shouted down for ostracized on account of their ignorance.
(As an aside, I’m reminded in a way of the scene in the new Borat film where Borat walks into a synagogue flaunting every possible antisemitic stereotype there is. Hearteningly, the two Jewish women who encounter him there don’t immediately complain or cast him out but rather sit down with him to patiently debunk his many egregious misconceptions.)
Saying people are equal is very different to saying one type of person is another, particularly when we allow and support segregation on the basis of sex in certain areas like sports.
I was more thinking we should not be forbidden to link to such people’s stories.
Those things aren’t equivalent. More accurate comparisons would be the ones I gave earlier: saying Mormons aren’t Christian, Dreamers aren’t Americans, or that someone isn’t the race they consider themselves to be.
Perhaps it is. But if it is then we’re allowed to be misandrist on the board. We’re allowed to say we don’t want to get undressed in front of a man, have a male doctor do a smear test, and in the catcalling thread, so far as I remember women’s fears were not called irrational. Perhaps this needs to change.
Re debate vs social forum, I suggested for a different issue that free(er) discussion be allowed in the debate forums and the pit, and the other forums be made a ‘safe space’. Perhaps that could work for this issue too?
None of those things contribute to a culture of oppression and violence, except maybe the “Dreamers aren’t Americans” bit. Verbal sexual harassment contributes to a culture of oppression and violence in much the same way that transphobic commentary does. They are, in that specific sense, analogous.
You are still saying discussion should be banned because of the consequences, not because your position is correct. Sexual harassment is not a question of fact or a debate of any kind.
You are correct that it is, in another sense, not analogous. Analogies are never analogous in all senses. In the area under discussion, they are analogous.
And yes, discussion can be banned on a messageboard because of the consequences. As an analogy (and I’ll remind you once more that analogies are not analogous along every axis), you may not discuss my real name and address here, even if you find them out, because of the consequences of such a discussion, even if you thought that (for example) discussing them would enlighten folks about something I’d said in a thread.
When the consequence of a particular line of discussion is that it contributes to a culture of oppression and violence, that line of discussion can fruitfully be banned on a messageboard.
I’m trying to gather some citations on why misgendering someone is bad news bears.
Here’s one for youth.
Identity misclassification, or the experience of not having one’s social identity correctly recognized by others, is psychologically disruptive. These experiences undermine belonging and coherence needs (Bosson, Weaver, & Prewitt-Freilino, 2012), disrupt the social identity process (Burke, 1991), and reflect a failure to have one’s social identity accurately verified by others (cf. Swann, 1990).
Here’s one about medical stigma.
Addressing trans people in a way that does not match their gender identity negatively affects their mental and physical health and may impact their future engagement with the health care system, according to Australian experts. Addressing trans people using names, pronouns or titles that do not match their gender identity is known as misgendering and the authors say the impact of stigma and misgendering on the physical and mental health of trans individuals was “profound and lasting”.
The Experience of Misgendering Among Trans or Gender Diverse People
Misgendering is a common and distressing experience for many trans and gender
diverse people. Existing research (e.g., McLemore, 2015; 2018) suggests that being
misgendered is associated with negative mental health factors, including increased
depression and anxiety and decreased self-esteem.
Frequency of
misgendering was correlated with depression, stress, and felt stigma, but not with anxiety.
Feelings of stigmatization when being misgendered were correlated with depression, stress,
felt stigma, and anxiety.
Researchers attempted to integrate the Sexual Minority Stress Model
(Meyer, 1995; 2003) and Joiner’s (2005) interpersonal-psychological theory of suicide using
an online sample of 816 participants. Non-affirmation was indirectly associated with suicidal
ideation through internalized transphobia and negative expectations for the future, suggesting
that misgendering may be a significant contributor to high rate of suicidality among trans and
gender diverse populations.
“Treating people differently because of their gender” =/= “gender discrimination”?
~Max
I want to say that I don’t believe this at all. I don’t think trans people are being deceptive or have some kind of ulterior motive, I do think someone who has transitioned should be treated as that sex socially, including preferred pronouns. I just believe that biology matters in how we define people, at least for some purposes.
In the interests of being biologically accurate, when biology matters, would you say that defining a group of people as “those with a cervix”, or “those who menstruate” would be more accurate and useful then?
Yep, it works if you add gender to it, too.
Modnote: Please move this discussion to another thread or at least drop it from this one.
Maybe a light touch on enforcement would dispel your concerns. If it’s not to much trouble, just post a quick “here’s our nonnegotiable position on transgender identities” and lock the thread. Say the mods treat questions of this nature like topics posted in the wrong category: don’t opt for strong moderation (like warnings) unless you have repeat offenders.
~Max
There is an ongoing thread in which an actual poster with an actual transgender child has posted about the issue of whether E would be permitted to refer to incidents in the past which E experienced as having a daughter with es birth name.
That thread also presents the example of whether when speaking about incidents in the context in which Caitlyn Jenner was known as Bruce Jenner and presented as a man, whether it was valid to use the name “Bruce Jenner” and use masculine pronouns.
Unlike the issue of whether Caitlyn Jenner is what gender she asserts, which shouldn’t be debatable, I think the question of speaking about the past is more of a debatable point.
However, I agree with the general point, that saying to someone “you are not the gender you are telling me you are” is transphobic. I dropped out of that Rowling thread because it got very disturbing. Being told that supporting transwomen amounts to misogyny is a pretty hateful thing to say.
Okay, well we can agree to disagree on whether treating people differently because of gender constitutes gender discrimination. There’s a second paradox based on eg: misgendering being a personal attack or hate speech. Bouddica90 has explicitly taken that position,
The paradox is that personal attacks aren’t allowed, but we have posts where people say “transwomen aren’t women”. Which brings me to the three possible resolutions I mentioned:
~Max