Is JK Rowling transphobic?

[DSeid]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I appreciate the summary. FWIW, I’m not at all convinced BB’s arguments hold much water; but at the point where monstro accused me of gaslighting for god-knows-why reason, I kinda lost interest in her argument, either.

Again, I think that the discussion of hypothetical trans people who AFAICT don’t actually exist doesn’t do much to advance conversation, any more than discussion of “I identify as an attack helicopter” does. We’re much better off grounding the discussion in terms of what actually comprises the experience of trans folk than in hypotheticals. I don’t know if those hypotheticals are all offensive, but they’re certainly distracting from reality.

I understand your reaction to that term.

Meanwhile individuals presenting as the gender of their anatomy while declaring their identity as the other is not just a hypothetical. Here is a bit about some “transgender men who identify as feminine” for example. And again I am all for their freedom to be whatever they want to be, to express themselves however they want to without fear, with pronouns respected … I just don’t see the issues of the person below as the same as someone who has been gender dysphoric as long as they can remember. These are not just hypotheticals. They exist and have a right to.

One of the featured individuals:

Society must learn that every combination of gender and gender expression is possible. But mostly that it’s such a fun thing to experiment with and I encourage everyone to do it.

On a separate note, another opinion piece from a feminist who argues that “Trans rights should not come at the cost of women’s fragile gains.”

… Gender equality has not been achieved. Men still earn more than women for equivalent work, run most of the biggest companies, dominate representative politics and commit the great majority of violent crime. But the drift towards gender-neutral language (at least when discussing matters that affect women) makes it increasingly hard to articulate all this. How can you describe the maternity penalty as a factor in women’s disadvantage in the workplace, without committing the “essentialist” faux pas of associating women with pregnancy and motherhood? Gender-identity politics (that is, the belief that a deeply personal sense of one’s own gender supersedes physical sex) tends, whether intentionally or not, to obscure women’s interests. …

… Too often, gender neutrality is accomplished by neutralising services or analyses centred on women. But it is also important to understand that, far from loosening the shackles of gender, modern trans ideology often tightens them. Feminism offers the radical proposition that what you like, what you wear and who you are should not be dictated by your chromosomes, hormones or any other marker of biological sex. Trans ideology reverses that. Perhaps men do like beer and women can’t read maps, runs the theory, but some individuals have simply been assigned to the wrong category. …

… There is a word for a situation where women talking about female bodies is considered impermissibly antisocial, where describing the consequences of sexism for women is systematically impeded, where resources for women are redistributed to male users while resources for men are left in male hands, and where “male” and “female” are rigidly associated with masculinity and femininity. That word is not “progressive”, “liberal” or any of the other terms usually associated with trans activism. The word is misogyny. Trans rights should not come at the cost of women’s fragile gains.

Personally I think she is misrepresenting so-called “modern trans ideology” in the main, but is it possible to have a conversation that includes her POV, even if just to dispute it, without saying that she is causing transgendered people to die and has an unspoken end game agenda to roll back all transgender protections?

[RickJay]

@monstro

I’m sorry that my harshness took you out of the debate. I really am. I like you as a poster and enjoy engaging you in discussion. But I’m going to stand by my harshness because I believe it is deserved. How is a woman supposed to react to a situation similar to the one in the link above that doesn’t earn her a big TERF label from the Judgy McJudgerson Jury?

Well… Zuby is kind of obviously just, as the British would say, taking the piss. It’s kind of like asking how a person should react to a fictional character in a movie. I don’t think anyone would be called names for pointing out that he’s fucking around.

There are some very weird real life examples, like transwomen who says lesbians are transphobes if they don’t want to have sex with people with dicks. That’s really a thing. Zuby, however, isn’t really a thing and maybe isn’t an outstanding example.

[Richard_Parker]

@you_with_the_face

Please read this blog that monstro linked to. I has a great takedown on this viewpoint.

In short, even when you compare women on the far right side of the testosterone bell curve to biological men on the far left side, there is a chasm of difference between them. We’re not talking about “gifts”. We’re talking about inherent disadvantages due to the absence of certain gonads.

This is not relevant or in tension with my point.

Also, not that it matters, but the state of the science is that cellular hormone receptors are more important than overall hormone levels. Both are driven by SRY gene, but the latter is much more difficult to measure.

[you_with_the_face]

@Richard_Parker

This is not relevant or in tension with my point.

Ok, so then I must not understand your point then. The blog explains the athletic advantages androgenization imparts from puberty and beyond. These are permanent changes that don’t suddenly disappear after a year of HRT.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@monstro

It was obvious (to me) that for most of this discussion, I’ve been talking about the possibility of guys rigging the system and claiming “woman” for attention-seeking, edgelordy reasons.

Good grief. If I’d realized you were talking about guys rigging the system and being edgelords from the beginning, I wouldn’t have been so pissed off at your examples. I thought you were proposing that there were goateed linebackers who made a sincere claim of being transwomen.

If you’re now saying that was never your claim–well, gaslighting doesn’t really enter into it, I’ll take your word for it. Maybe make that a little clearer next time.

So: yes. The world is full of assholes, trolls, and edgelords. Their claims of being women “when I lifted the weight” can be safely dismissed, just like any other claim made in bad faith.

[filmore]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

So: yes. The world is full of assholes, trolls, and edgelords. Their claims of being women “when I lifted the weight” can be safely dismissed, just like any other claim made in bad faith.

In the realm of sports with financial benefits, should there be some sort of qualifications to claim a certain gender and compete that way? If there are no qualifications, then it seems like it would be ripe for abuse. For example, a man who is at the lower end of a competitive sport like tennis could likely be very competitive if he competed as a woman. He may win very little money in the men’s tournament, but could potentially make millions in the woman’s. How would the league decide if he was just faking to win the money versus truly having gender dysphoria? Considering the lengths some athletes go through to take prohibited drugs, it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch for someone to pretend to be a woman in order to make millions in prize money.

ETA: It looks like a man ranked lower than 500 could make the switch to womens tournament and be on top:

Another event dubbed a “Battle of the Sexes” took place during the 1998 Australian Open between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world’s top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as “a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager”. The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[58] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.Braasch said afterwards, “500 and above, no chance”. He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier and put spin on the ball that female players can’t handle.

[BigT]

@monstro

I noticed that you didn’t castigate BigT for scolding me for having negative feelings.

Likely because I never did. That was a misinterpretation on your part, likely due to a lack of clarity on my part. I thought I had made that clear in my previous post.

The conversation about thoughts and feelings was about the nature of how transphobia or any other form of bigotry works. It was never about you personally. You put forth two ideas that I argued against:

(1) Beliefs don’t matter as long as one treats a trans person with respect and uses the correct pronouns.
(2) The idea that beliefs matter is something we only say about transphobia, and not other forms of bigotry.

Neither of these are about your own personal beliefs. They are about how bigotry itself works. I argue what I believe is the mainstream opinion that bigotry is a set of beliefs that affect actions, and that, while it’s good to try and do the right actions, it is ultimately the beliefs that matter.

I also attempted to explain why using a behaviorist paradigm. Any such beliefs will inevitably affect behaviors. Bigoted actions are, at their core, due to bigoted beliefs. The belief that black people are inferior came first–the racist epithets and discrimination are the results of those beliefs.

The result is that, if a person refuses to give up their bigoted beliefs, it will inevitably come out in their actions. Behaviors can only change beliefs if the person are willing to allow them to be changed. And that is the behaviorist reason for arguing that one must seek to change beliefs, not just actions.

None of this is about you, who had a bit of a misunderstanding that seems to have been cleared up a while ago. You no longer see someone who appears male to you as faking being female. You accept that they may in fact have a female gender identity. Any transphobia you did have was solved a long time ago.

I am only arguing against people like Rowling, who support doing all the right actions, but then ultimately appear to have transphobic beliefs (based on her “sex is real” summary of a transphobe who argues that “trans women are men” and uncharacteristic refusal to repudiate people interpreting her post as transphobic).

Because, despite trying to show trans people respect and using the correct pronouns (as she says in her disclaimers) Rowling’s beliefs result in her defending a transphobe and hurting all her trans and trans ally fans. Her bigoted beliefs ultimately resulted in bigoted actions.

Again, in case you skim a bit, I am not chastising or scolding you for your feelings, or calling you transphobic, or anything like that. And I very much regret anything I did that came off that way.

My passion is often misinterpreted as scolding–it’s a flaw in how I communicate that I am working on. Please forgive me.

[BigT]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

So: yes. The world is full of assholes, trolls, and edgelords. Their claims of being women “when I lifted the weight” can be safely dismissed, just like any other claim made in bad faith.

Yes, bad faith actors exist. However, you cannot determine who they are by how they look or whether they have a particular mien. You determine bad faith actors by how they act, and whether their actions are congruent with their claims. They also have to have something to gain–if they don’t, then they are unlikely to be disingenuous. And, anyways, it hardly matters.

Sports at first seems like it may be a relevant issue. But this can be laid to rest by realizing that sports are interested in segregating by sex, not by gender identity. It is the biological difference they are interested in. So someone who merely claims to be a different gender but has not made the biological changes does not count.

The issue that is still up for debate/experiment is in transitioned women. Are the relevant biological factors the same as in those who were born women? And, if there are differences, are they significant or insignificant? We need testing to see.

It is much less likely that someone who actually identifies as male would transition to be female, risking the gender dysphoria and the changes that would likely make them worse at sports than they previously were. So bad faith actors in this respect are much less likely to occur.

Where it can occur is in trolling. There is something to be “gained” (from the troll’s perspective) by pissing people off. Bigots are also a possibility–they can gain making trans people seem unreasonable to accommodate.

But then I’d argue that you should use that trollery or bigotry to argue their disingenuousness. And, frankly, since said people are usually not well acquainted with trans culture or concepts, they usually stand out like a sore thumb.

Don’t use whether they look or act in ways you consider to match their stated gender identity. There are masculine acting and looking women, even among those who are cisgender.

[chaidragonfire]

All I will say is…

People will say anything to get money and power.

Once they get that money and power, you will see their true nature.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@BigT

Yes, bad faith actors exist. However, you cannot determine who they are by how they look or whether they have a particular mien. You determine bad faith actors by how they act, and whether their actions are congruent with their claims. They also have to have something to gain–if they don’t, then they are unlikely to be disingenuous. And, anyways, it hardly matters.
…
Where it can occur is in trolling. There is something to be “gained” (from the troll’s perspective) by pissing people off. Bigots are also a possibility–they can gain making trans people seem unreasonable to accommodate.

But then I’d argue that you should use that trollery or bigotry to argue their disingenuousness. And, frankly, since said people are usually not well acquainted with trans culture or concepts, they usually stand out like a sore thumb.

Don’t use whether they look or act in ways you consider to match their stated gender identity. There are masculine acting and looking women, even among those who are cisgender.

Focusing on the gain is important, and a big piece of why these examples are so noxious. I have never heard from someone who’s actually trans that coming out was easy, nor that some sort of logistical/social gain was a significant part of the reason.

Given that we’re supposed to understand monstro’s goateed linebacker as an edgelord (if I’m reading her latest post correctly), is there anyone in this thread who thinks we should take their claim of womanhood seriously? Is there anyone who thinks that disingenuous claims should be treated the same as sincere claims?

I’m pretty sure that we should take people at their word as to what gender they are; I’m pretty far along the spectrum in that direction. But that applies only to claims made in good faith.

This is not specific to gender. I feel the same way about claims of religion, political leanings, etc.

[monstro]

How do we establish “good faith” without gate-keeping? That is what I’m trying to figure out.

I know Zuby isn’t a good example because his tongue was firmly planted in his cheek the whole time. But if another very male-presenting person was able to have couple of friends falsely vouch for his “gender fluidity” and they pulled a similar stunt except in the context of something non-athletic (membership to a women’s organization), do we just go along with it and keep our suspicions to ourselves? Or would it be acceptable for that organization to require a minimum period of publicly declared “womanness” before being accepted into the club, just to prevent edgelords and attention-seekers from gaining entry?

It seems that most of us are in favor of gate-keeping in the context of sports. Is gate-keeping in other gender-exclusive arenas also acceptable? If an organization requires proof that an individual has lived openly as a woman for a minimum of five years, is that organization being TERFy? Or are they just defining “woman” in a way that screens out folks who are just experimenting or being stupid?

[DSeid]

@BigT

… while it’s good to try and do the right actions, it is ultimately the beliefs that matter. …

To my read BigT this is a “mainstream belief” only in the sense that it is a Christian religious dogma - that only belief can save one’s soul, that belief comes first and foremost, that in the most “ultimately” sense, it is the beliefs that matter.

It is not the perspective of many other religions (e.g. Judaism) which place more emphasis on the what we do than the why we do it, and it really is not the mainstream secular perspective, which is more think whatever you want to think but control your actions (thus all of our beliefs can co-exist). Of course as a society we may desire others share certain beliefs with us but what is required for us to be able to function as a society is a shared understanding of what actions are and are not permissible.

Moreover actions are objective. We can know what people really do. You are making a guess as to what Rowling’s beliefs are, based mainly because your beliefs wouldn’t lead you to make the same statement so you jump to the conclusion that therefore her statement must be motivated by bigotry. Reading minds though is tricky subjective work. You do not share her lived life (believed to have suffered domestic abuse during her first marriage, dealing with poverty and the difficulties of finding work as a single mother, dealing with the impact of pregnancy and motherhood on her work after success that was different than most “natal men” have to even consider, so on). You and she may come to make different statements based on different lived lives with neither of you motivated by bigotry.

IMHO part of what helps civil discussion is doing our best to not see the other in the worst possible light.

But let’s assume in some specific case your conclusion that someone committed to following the agreed upon actions of tolerance (inclusive of no hate speech) does indeed hold a belief that others of us would consider bigoted. Obviously they do not assess their belief as based on bigotry. Is calling them a bigot likely to get them to alter that belief, to open themselves to to the self-reflection that maybe they hold a bigoted belief without conscious awareness of it? No. Does it alter others’ thought processes in a positive way? No.

Better to focus on actions of tolerance, to have self-doubt of our great ability to read minds, and to engage and discuss in good faith with others without name-calling when possible.

[Richard_Parker]

Reading back through this I am not sure I made my point clearly, so I thought I would give it another shot:

When it comes to sexual dimorphism, there are tons of edge cases and exceptions. Some people have an extra chromosome. Some have an SRY gene on their X chromosome. Some have a mutation in the gene that determines cellular hormonal response. Some have genitalia typical of both sexes.

Some trans people have some of these atypical characteristics. Some don’t. But the point is that for all the talk of “biological women,” it isn’t actually a well-defined category at the margins. It is no rebuttal to say we should just set aside those edge cases, because the subject of discussion is the edge cases, i.e., what should we do with sex segregation when it comes to the rare people whose gender identity doesn’t match some criteria for sex.

If this debate is just about gatekeeping concerning the sincerity of gender identity, that is quite a different debate. I would point out that a very similar and much more pervasive problem arises with religious accommodation. Our society operates just fine giving special accommodations based on religious identity in employment and prisons and schools and on and on and that has zero biological basis. It is solely judged by whether the adherent appears to be sincere.

[DSeid]

LHOD

Likewise to you as to BigT, an assessment of “good faith” is, without mindreading ability, a subjective call, and different people may assess the same person differently. Based on what I’ve read I assess Murray as an edgelord more likely than not, others here do not.

We can agree that the action taken should be to respect Murray’s (and a wide variety of others’, even “Zuby”) stated identity up to some pretty broad limits. But the context of the discussion in the U.K. is an in process review of the Gender Identity Act in which some are advocating that stated identity be given full legal consideration as that gender, period. You think that if you assess someone as not being in good faith they should not be taken at their word. I’d say still taken at their word even if I think bad faith to certain points but not all. How do you codify your assessment? And I am automatically a bigot for an unacted upon belief that a specific person might not be in good faith?

[monstro]

I disagree with you that there is nothing to be gained by telling someone their beliefs are bigoted, DSeid.

If I met an elementary school teacher who went around saying that they believe that boys are smarter than girls (while assuring everyone they treat them the same way), I would have no problem letting them know that they are sexist. And I wouldn’t have any problem debating them with facts and figures to convince them they are wrong.

The problem with Rowling’s case is that saying “sex is real” is nothing like “boys are smarter than girls.” Reasonable people can interpret different things from what she said. “Boys are smarter than girls” isn’t ambiguous at all. It is clearly bigoted.

Similarly, I don’t think bigotry is necessarly indicated in a belief that posits there should be minimum requirements before an individual is recognized as a member of a gender. It could be coming from a place of transphobia or it could be coming from a desire to prevent abuses to the system. So I think shrieking "BIGOTRY!"at this belief is not setting the groundwork for a good discussion.

I don’t think folks should ever hesitate to call someone out for expressing clearly bigoted beliefs. I think bigoted beliefs should be tactfully challenged with minimal spittle and froth when it makes sense to do so. But they should always be called out for what they are. If someone is going around saying “boys are smarter than girls”, they need to be sat down with a quickness. Especially on a message board where lurkers are. The person you’re arguing with may not change their mind, but you might influence the lurkers.

[monstro]

@Richard_Parker

Reading back through this I am not sure I made my point clearly, so I thought I would give it another shot:

When it comes to sexual dimorphism, there are tons of edge cases and exceptions. Some people have an extra chromosome. Some have an SRY gene on their X chromosome. Some have a mutation in the gene that determines cellular hormonal response. Some have genitalia typical of both sexes.

Some trans people have some of these atypical characteristics. Some don’t. But the point is that for all the talk of “biological women,” it isn’t actually a well-defined category at the margins. It is no rebuttal to say we should just set aside those edge cases, because the subject of discussion is the edge cases, i.e., what should we do with sex segregation when it comes to the rare people whose gender identity doesn’t match some criteria for sex.

The problem is that no definition of gender is perfect. If we say that gender is a social construct, then we exclude all the individuals who feel as if they are a particular gender but are not considered that gender according to social norms. If we say that gender is a feeling or personality, then we exclude people who identify as a gender who don’t have a certain feeling or personality. If we say that gender is whatever an individual says it is, using their own idiosyncratic definition, then we end up with people identifying as a gender just to play games and get attention. We also end up with gender being a meaningless concept even though we give it great social importance.

If this debate is just about gatekeeping concerning the sincerity of gender identity, that is quite a different debate. I would point out that a very similar and much more pervasive problem arises with religious accommodation. Our society operates just fine giving special accommodations based on religious identity in employment and prisons and schools and on and on and that has zero biological basis. It is solely judged by whether the adherent appears to be sincere.

Sincerety in religion looks a certain way. If a person attends worship services, prays, follows dietary practices, is somewhat knowledgable of religious doctrine and dogma–then it is safe to assume they are sincere. If a person do doesn’t do any of these things, then we don’t get labeled bigots for questioning their religious sincerity. We might be called “nosy” or “judgmental”, but not “bigot”.

But gender doesn’t work this way. A person can dress in masculine clothing, exhibit masculine behaviors, groom themselves in a masculine way, be in the possession of male genitalia and still sincerely call themselves “woman”. And they can also be insincere, but one risks being called bigoted for expressing their suspicions out loud.

[you_with_the_face]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Given that we’re supposed to understand monstro’s goateed linebacker as an edgelord (if I’m reading her latest post correctly), is there anyone in this thread who thinks we should take their claim of womanhood seriously? Is there anyone who thinks that disingenuous claims should be treated the same as sincere claims?

Not trying to be difficult with you, but how can one ascertain a disingenuous claim of womanness? I mean, it’s not like a person is always going to be declaring this with a wink and nod. Just like racists hide behind plausible deniability, so too will those trying to be subversive with gender.

I don’t even think disingenuous claims are of primary concern. Without gate-keeping, I can see a lot of people socially, medically and maybe even surgically transitioning simply because they think the grass is greener on the other side. As crazy as this might sound, Incels are the first group that comes to mind. A lot of them are deeply unhappy with their perceived status on the masculine totem pole and convinced that women are a highly privileged class. They believe lady folk just sit on our pretty pedestals, alternating between getting fucked by Chad and being showered with love and money by Brad. They believe sexism affects men only, not women. A lot of them also have body dysmorphia and obsess over their puny wrist thickness, jaw size, and height…attributes that could be prized in a woman. So why wouldn’t many of them view transitioning as a solution to their discontent?

I’ve never encountered a person like this IRL, but I don’t think it’s necessary to meet one before discussing the implications of an open door trans policy. And again, just so that it’s clear, I’m not saying an incel (or anyone else) shouldn’t be allowed to transition. *What I’m saying is that no one should feel compelled to perceive an incel who decides to live as a woman as having the same gender identity as a biological female woman, purely on the basis of self-identification. *It’s not like changing pronouns will completely wipe out 20 years or more worth of hatred and distorted thinking; whatever beliefs an incel harbors about gender will persist even if they go on HRT and get electrolysis.

The current climate is such that even talking about this possibility is taboo, so we are not really prepared to handle it in a politically correct manner. (And when I say “we”, I mean women, because men seem to not be giving this a lot thought.) I predict this will ultimately harm the trans community. Calls for zero gate-keeping may be well meaning, but if it means society is going to start pressuring women to consider bona fide misogynists as “one of them” and not blink an eye when a self-identified woman starts speaking for all women in a way that furthers sexism, then it’s not sustainable. You’ll see more critics misgendering trans women to score debate points (like Forstater did), and this could make it harder for all trans voices (not just those from incel types) to be heard and respected.

[DSeid]

Richard Parker

The cases at the margins have been decided based on the sport and level of competition. Again see the ruling regarding Caster Semenya. Some arbitrariness will be unavoidable and rules will have to be based on the data that we have that is relevant to the sport and the level of competition. Where there is a paucity of data the decision will have to made on which direction it is better to err, potentially being unfair to natal women who are not edge cases who at an elite level could be at an unfair competitive disadvantage, or potentially being unfair to the edge cases, be they those like Semenya or natal males who self-identify as women?

Either way is unfair to someone and someone will have good grounds to complain.
monstro,

The example you use isn’t quite my “hate speech” exception but it clearly is one in which no subjective mindreading is required and the speech itself is the action. Nevertheless I stand by that beginning your interaction by telling them that they are sexist would make anything else you say or do less likely to have any positive impact.

My take is that it is more productive to try to get the person to acknowledge the sexist impact of their speech (which promote stereotypes that become self-fulfilling and which can be implicitly acted upon) without futilely trying to make them accept that such means their motivations are ugly. A discussion disputing the claim itself is then one that is at least possible; but their mind would be completely closed to such a discussion if it started out with calling them the ugly thing they are.

[you_with_the_face]

@Richard_Parker

It is no rebuttal to say we should just set aside those edge cases, because the subject of discussion is the edge cases, i.e., what should we do with sex segregation when it comes to the rare people whose gender identity doesn’t match some criteria for sex.

So then what’s the solution then? Throw out all criteria and let women’s sports be open to anyone who calls themselves a woman? Even if it might drastically increase the likelihood that a biological female is maimed or killed in a contact sport?

If this debate is just about gatekeeping concerning the sincerity of gender identity, that is quite a different debate. I would point out that a very similar and much more pervasive problem arises with religious accommodation. Our society operates just fine giving special accommodations based on religious identity in employment and prisons and schools and on and on and that has zero biological basis. It is solely judged by whether the adherent appears to be sincere.

Yes, but unlike religion, there is a push to blur the lines between biological sex (which is associated with anatomical differences) and gender identity (which is whatever someone says it is). So the dilemmas
presented by self-identified religion are vastly different. Pitting a Christian boxer against a Muslim one is a fair fight as long as they are in the same weight class. You can’t argue that same thing when it’s a male vs female without straining credibility (but I’m sure someone will try).

[monstro]

I would never shriek at someone “YOU’RE SEXIST!!!” and then end the discussion. I’m always going to engage someone intellectually (as far as I’m able to) and be respectful of them if I believe they are deserving of respect.

But I’m not going to avoid using a word (bigot, sexist, racist, etc.) just because it hurts a person’s fee fees. Using certain words will probably make someone defensive and angry, but it won’t necessarily close their mind as long as you come at them intelligently and compassionately enough.

I probably wouldn’t say “YOU’RE SEXIST!” anyway. I would say something like, “You know you have some sexist beliefs, right?” If I believed a person really was righteous in how they behave to others, I would label their thoughts as bigoted. Not them as a person.