Done with this part of the discussion. Unfortunately some people appear totally incapable of even considering the possibility that they may have some bigotry within them. I would think decent folks would be open to this so they could do all possible to make sure they root it out, if present. I guess ego can make this kind of thing difficult. Hopefully I’m wrong about you.
EDIT: I would think something like “David Duke constantly says XYZ about black people; many or most black people find this very insulting; please try and craft your arguments in a way that avoids saying XYZ about black people” wouldn’t be controversial in any way. But I guess it is when it comes to trans people.
You are quite wrong. I have considered it, and have been reflecting on this very issue, informed by the fact I have a trans person in my family and have seen firsthand many of the things being discussed here. After a lot of honest thought, I am now really quite certain that I am right, not at all bigoted, and have arrived at my position - an altered one, I might add - through honest thought (which is the opposite of bigotry) and the application of the values of truth, freedom, and and liberal, progressive view of how human society should function to the benefit of all its members.
Like any reasonably smart person, I continue to reflect on this and am always open to new evidence or argument. I’ve certainly changed my mind on big issues before.
I find much of the trans right movement, sadly, to be represented by misogynists, bigots, and men who value virtue signalling over the rights of women and whose ferocity in attacking anyone who opposes them, ESPECIALLY if it’s a woman, is beyond the pale in a civilized society. That said, I don’t think for an instant that includes you. I just don’t think you’ve thought this through and like many, many people with good liberal values, yours is the reflexive and easy position to take. You seem like a really good person; you’re just (a little) confused here.
Just posting again the thing that has kicked off the latest tangent:
It is bizarre to find this being labeled as hateful. Scrap that: it’s terrifying. If we can’t assert a fundamental property of nature—that one’s personal self-concept doesn’t change what their physical being actual is—then what can we discuss?
If @RickJay had said “That does not, however, actually transform one’s biological sex into the opposite sex”, would that have been problematic? Because that’s what he means. Sex cannot be linguistically erased without dire consequences to women and girls.
I came to my position in the footsteps of cis woman feminists and trans people. The vast majority of cis woman feminists I’ve met and interacted with on this topic believe strongly in trans allyship. And the vast majority of the trans people I’ve met have come to where they are in the face of discrimination (and even brutal violence for many).
The reason it’s hateful in this specific context is because it’s irrelevant – utterly irrelevant to the discussion. The only possible reason to use this language is to dismiss. Transgender has nothing to do with “turning men into women”. That’s the kind of thing the fundamentalist evangelicals say about trans people, with a sneer.
The reason it’s hateful is because it’s irrelevant – utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
It absolutely is not irrelevant. It is central to every concern we’ve been talking about in this thread.
A person’s self-concept is inadequate in defining who should be seen as a woman in the eyes of the law.
That’s it. That’s the position. It is held by everyone who believes sex-based rights are threatened by gender affirmative policies. By saying this is hateful you’re employing a silencing tactic used to keep women from advocating for their rights. It is also maligns gays and lesbians who are increasingly finding their sexual orientations being likened to bigotry.
I agree that a sincere transwoman isn’t likely to be a threat, but how do we know who’s sincere and who isn’t? The issue is that male predators will go to extreme lengths to harass and victimize women including making changes to their appearance that mimic the changes a transwoman would make. An article was posted earlier in this thread about a guy who hid in a port-a-potty to watch women pee…I don’t find it outlandish to believe that a man who would get into a literal shit hole, would also grow his hair out, stuff a bra, and put on women’s clothing in order to victimize women.
We need some sort of criteria to distinguish between who is a transwoman and who’s trying to game the system. For me, that criteria would be something that a male predator would not do and only a transwoman would do. What would be something that a man who’s willing to hide in a shit hole wouldn’t do? Idk. Until we do know, I think it’s fair to say that transwomen should use male or unisex spaces.
That you appear to think “turning men into women” has anything to do with transgender just cements that there’s no possibility of communication on this issue. We’re basically speaking different languages.
I think a reasonable criteria for access to gender-specific spaces would be that the person is going through some kind trans-related medical transition for some period of time. For example, someone who has been on hormone therapy for 1 year is sincere and not doing it just to sneak a peek in the locker room. Plus, the hormone therapy will help with gender aligned appearance and behavior, which would mean there is less likely to be issues in these gender-specific spaces.
Not all disagreement on this subject is rooted in bigotry. To accuse people of being clouded by bigotry because one is not willing to consider the counter-argument as coming from a place of equal intellectual rigor and honesty reveals a kind of insecure morality (vanity?), IMO, that can only be re-assured when one is able to demonize the opposing view.
I think it’s also reflexive for many liberals because trans rights feels like an extension of the civil rights movement for racial minorities. No self-respecting liberal would be against civil rights. Ergo, it makes sense to be in support of trans rights.
But trans rights activists are not fighting for things society already considers to be rights. They are pushing for an idea to be turned into a right–the right to be recognized however one sees themselves and be treated accordingly under institutional policies and regulations. This is a brand new thing that can easily lead to abuses if we’re too doe-eyed. So we need to be thoughtful about it and not act like dissenting opinions are all coming from a place of hatred and oldfogeyism.
So, they have to show their proof that they’ve been on hormone therapy for a year everytime they head into the locker room? I can think of so many problems that would arise from that…being harrassed by Karen’s, being accused that their docs are forged, being asked multiple times in one visit by different employees due to a shift change to show their proof that they’re in the correct locker room…it just doesn’t seem workable to me.
Why doesn’t using a unisex space seem workable to you?
Sure they are. Trans people are relatively routinely brutalized; routinely fired for being trans; routinely booted from housing for being trans; routinely underserved in mental health and other care needs; and much more. There may be some disagreements about athletics, bathrooms, and some other things on the margins, but the vast majority of the trans advocacy movement is about protecting trans people from being beaten, killed, fired, becoming homeless, etc.
A unisex space seems like a theoretical solution due to the cost and effort to retrofit the design of our society. I can’t see that being implemented. Every public restroom and locker room area are divided into men/women. In some places there is a unisex room, but that’s far from everywhere. The vast majority just have mens/womens rooms, so everyone needs to be able to fit into those spaces.
Someone who is medically transitioning often looks visibly different. I totally understand that not everyone may be able to tell immediately, but in time everyone can learn the signs. The people who complain about a transwomen on hormone therapy in the locker room will be like people who complain a butch lesbian shouldn’t be there either. But a transwoman can’t just use the mens room since she may look completely feminine depending on how much she’s transitioned. And I’m sure most women wouldn’t want a masculine transman with full beard and body hair using the women’s locker room just because he has XX chromosomes.
Maybe in certain parts of the social media. Not in the real world, as far as I can tell. In the real world, trans people are still being fired, made homeless, beaten, murdered, committing suicide, etc., at alarming rates. That’s where the focus should be, and mostly is. That there are assholes on the internet is nothing new, but that doesn’t tell us much about the actual trans advocacy movement.
I wish very badly that sensible logic could be found in the above, but alas, none is to be found.
What was Bruce Jenner prior to 2003? Was he a man or was he a woman?
If Bruce wasn’t a man, what does the word “transition” refer to when we say Bruce transitioned? Why did he call himself a man, if he wasn’t a man? Where did the idea he was a man even come from, if he wasn’t a man?
Should all the Olympic records Bruce broke be assigned to women now?
Was Bruce’s ex-wife attracted to a man during their relationship? Did Bruce father their kids or did Bruce mother them?
If transgender has nothing to do with “men turning into women” then you are backing an ideology that is incoherent. It is one that requires denying the importance of the physical body when distinguishing men from women. If Bruce was always a woman despite only declaring trans identity in the last 10 years, then you might as well be saying all men are potentially women. The potential changes to actual as soon as they utter the magic phrase: “I feel like a woman”.