So, if someone signs a letter arguing that “all lives matter,” then learns the specific history of that phrase in conjunction with the “Black Lives Matter” movement and regrets their endorsement of the letter, that demonstrates that they don’t really have any principles?
Not when that criticism is framed as “YOU ARE BEING HARMFUL!! STOP BEING HATEFUL!!!”
That’s not intelligent or logical. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to engage with anyone who shouts at me like that. When someone is implying I want to do harmful things to a small sliver of humanity just because I care about preventing harm to a much bigger swath of humanity–one that includes that small sliver–I’m not going to feel comfortable engaging with that person in an intellectual way. I’m going to want to shout back at them and imply bad things about their motivates too. If we’re both carrying on like this, we aren’t going to come up with a solution we can both live with. That isn’t good.
Okay, I agree that can be obnoxious… but what do you propose? It’s an open discussion, and anyone can chime in. And you are free to criticize or ignore such obnoxiousness as you see fit.
Thanks for responding, Powers. I know we’re all here to help one another come to a better understanding of this multilayered issue, with respect to everyone’s unique point of view. After all, we’re all a gender and a sex and every individual should be allowed the same rights - which also means respecting everyone else. And I sincerely hope we’re not here to ‘call people out’ but to understand, empathize and educate. Otherwise it would feel eerie to be ‘called out’ or sense a veiled threat that others on the thread were welcome to jump on and stomp down a new voice. But I’m sure that’s not the case here.
To clarify: I didn’t write that trans-women felt that physical attributes were “more important”. I didn’t use those words anywhere. I said that trans-women seemed to regard the biological female body as more real than their gender identity. Otherwise, they would be content with their gender identity, assured and complete in it. I had concluded that trans-women themselves, by the very act of transitioning, seemed to regard the objective physical biology of a woman as more real. There’s a subtle difference between more important and more real, but that’s part of the point. Nobody’s saying that “cis” women are more important than trans-women. But even trans-women (or quite a few, anyway) seem to think the “female body” is more real than their gender identity. But you offered a response to that point:
I appreciate you explaining that “if it was really more important, then a transwoman would not really feel she was a woman before transitioning. But transgender individuals by and large state that this is not the case; they are quite confident of their status whether they’ve physically transitioned or not.” And that “the reason they seek physical transition is to resolve the conflict between the mental and the physical. That doesn’t mean one is more important than the other.”
I like this point. It sounds right to me. So surely then - the very existence of a “conflict between the mental and the physical”, which is resolved by physical transitioning, only further proves that the physical is more important or at least more real than the mental - otherwise how could it possibly resolve the conflict? If the mental was more important or more real than the physical, then the mental reality would be sufficient to resolve the conflict and physical transitioning would be unnecessary. This logic illuminates the point I’m trying to make, that even trans-women appear to see the female body as an objective reality which transcends (or cis-cends!) their subjective gender identity.
I just want to clarify again that my original post is only to support the right of women to be called women. I also support the right of trans-women to become women - and in the meantime to refer to themselves as women and to be referred to as women by those who care to. I support all of that. But I can’t support what I’ll call for lack of a better word, “birth-women”, being forced to refer to themselves as cis-gender women or birth-women or any other term they find personally offensive. After all, everyone has a right to be offended.
I also wanted to suggest that maybe the reason no one else has responded to my post yet is because they’re actually thinking about and considering this valid point of view.
I look forward to reading and hearing more of this amazing thread!
This kind of climate develops only when people are rewarded for engaging in it. They are rewarded when onlookers blindly hop on the bandwagon of outrage rather than think deeply. They are rewarded when businesses and universities cave under pressure and fire people for merely having a dissenting opinion. They are rewarded when their yelling and screaming is spun as a sign of oppression rather than an attempt to stifle debate.
I’m starting to think cancel culture is going to doom itself because you can’t cancel everyone. Backlash is inevitable.
I do not see how your conclusion is more logical than the reverse: If the physical was more important or more real than the mental, then the physical reality would be sufficient to resolve the conflict and physical transitioning would be unnecessary.
Not necessarily, but she specifically said she changed her mind after learning who else signed, and that she thought she was in ‘good company’. That doesn’t sound like she deeply cares about free speech - sounds like she’s afraid of the mob herself.
This kind of thing exists on all sides. Everyone has bandwagon hoppers, outrage tourists, rewards for yelling and screaming, to some degree. I remain unconvinced it’s more of a problem on the left vs on the right, or on the pro-trans side vs the anti-trans side.
They’re also rewarded when political leaders listen to them and throw out or isolate anyone who dares to voice a different opinion. This idea that you have to sign up to a whole package of beliefs or you’re not a real leftist and also should die in a fire is what I mean by groupthink.
Are there really tons of feminists tweeting crude insults and death threats to trans activists?
There are tons of assholes doing this, and not just to trans activists, but to cis women feminists who dare speak up for trans rights – some of those assholes may call themselves feminists.
As for left vs right; yes the right does it too, but I think it does more harm to the left. The right is more trying to appeal to people’s self-interest, whereas trans rights are only going to benefit 1% of the population. Other groups are only going to support them if they think it’s the moral thing to do. If you’re trying to claim the moral high ground then it’s not a good look to abandon principles like freedom of speech, or to turn on your allies for sincerely disagreeing with you. And it’s not a good electoral calculation to treat 1% of the population as more important than 50%, either.
Do you have any examples? I’m curious if it’s the other ‘side’ or random assholes.
It’s always random assholes, on any and all sides, when we’re talking about threats. Decent people don’t make death or rape threats.
I’m male and I don’t like the Karen meme, but not because it is sexist, even though it is. I dislike it because of all the people with that name. If I ever use a real name to describe someone without that name, everyone should feel free to remind me of how much I dislike the Karen meme.
I also dislike it because, while I’ve never asked to see the manager that I remember, I, too, will be afraid in the future of asking to see the manager even if it is the most manager-worthy injustice that ever managered, for fear of looking like an entitled Boomer X-er.
No, that does not follow.
The conflict is real.
The reason the conflict is resolved by physical transition (in many cases – NOT ALL!) is because the mental state is “more real” and thus less mutable.
To be sure, some transgender people do feel comfortable retaining the physical traits with which they were born. But even for those who don’t, and who want to transition, it’s not because their gender isn’t “real” unless it’s confirmed by surgery. It’s because their gender is very real and cannot be altered, and so the only way for them to resolve that conflict is by modifying the “less-real” part – the physicality.
Powers &8^]
How are women’s rights being hurt by gender ideologists? That’s the part I don’t quite understand.
“Anyone who says they are a woman is a woman” = “Woman” is a totally bullshit category, no more meaningful than whatever a diggerybop is.
How much of this thread have you read? I’m not being snarky; it just seems strange to me that you’re asking this as if this question hasn’t been answered multiple times already.
That said, it hasn’t been answered comprehensively, so I’m going to list a few. By allowing males to identify as women with few if any stipulations, women can longer have:
-
Single-sex sports for women and girls where they don’t have to compete with naturally stronger and faster males. Women have been marginalized from athletic opportunities for centuries. Instead of trying to maximize what fewer opportunities women have to compete, they are seeing few opportunities because they have to go against increasing numbers of male competitors.
-
Accurate reporting of crimes committed by sex. Women have a vested interest in knowing if certain patterns of violence (rape, domestic violence, etc) are getting worse or better. If we can’t track it accurately and precisely by sex, then our ability to address it will be impaired.
-
Accurate data collection of sex-based inequalities in areas where women are underrepresented. Similar point above. If we can’t track these things accurately and precisely, then our ability to address it will be impaired.
-
Women’s groups and meetings that are solely focused on female interests. Many of the problems that women face directly or indirectly are tied to their unique biology. Reproductive health issues. Abortion rights. Maternity leave. Access to birth control. Women need to be able to organize around these issues as women (as opposed to objectified body parts) and not prioritize the concerns of males or females who don’t want to be called women. Males can now lead feminist groups and dictate the agenda.
-
Access to single-sex rape crisis centers, domestic violence, and homeless shelters. For women who have been traumatized by male violence, these things can make the difference between getting help and staying in a bad situation.
-
Single-sex public accommodations where nudity occurs. Girls—a group notoriously self-conscious already—are now being forced or pressured to undress in front of male classmates. Why is this fair for them? And what need is being served that requires this to happen?
-
The right of female inmates not to be housed with male inmates. Same point as above, plus now we’re talking about increasing their risk of sexual assault and other crimes. One in 50 prisoners identifies as transgender amid concerns inmates are attempting to secure prison perks. Why shouldn’t women see gender ideology as creating a giant loop hole any predatory male could walk through?
-
Grants, scholarships, affirmative action programs, and representative positions specifically in place to mitigate female disadvantages and underrepresentation.
-
Lesbian-specific organizations solely catering females. If heterosexual males now have a claim to the word “lesbian”, then the word lesbian ceases to mean anything. Lesbians now have to defend over and over again their “preference” for women with vaginas, when only a few years ago this was universally understood as a given.
Can we start with this part? Because I realize this is what Rowling is talking about but I’m not seeing it anywhere in the real world.
Powers &8^]