This is by no means comprehensive, but here are a few: the right to life (i.e. to not be brutalized and killed), the right to privacy (to not be outed), the right to adequate health care, the right to not be fired or refused housing due to being trans, and the right to utilize public facilities and services. I don’t think women’s rights threaten any of these (and vice versa).
That may be true in America, but I’m not convinced it is in the UK. All the institutions are resolutely pro-trans, and most people are either supportive or indifferent. The fact check I posted earlier suggested the number of murders was below the national average and the rate of domestic violence somewhat higher, but definitely not ‘sky high’.
I’m certainly not claiming there are no problems, but there are lots of other groups suffering who don’t get anything near the same amount of attention.
Here in the UK we already have most of those. Toilets and changing rooms are still an issue due to social attitudes, but there are no laws saying trans people can’t use them. You can’t judge JKR based on what is happening in America; here all the mainstream political parties were in support of more trans rights until very recently.
None of these rights gives males a claim to female spaces. So why are women and girls being forced to give up female-only sports? Female-only prisons? Female-only locker rooms? Female-only shelters? The ability to organize as a group around female-specific issues without reducing themselves to random body parts and bodily functions?
These are the questions that progressives will need to answer to keep women from defecting in November. I don’t think you can. “Because men will assault them in the bathroom!!!” doesn’t work. The logical rejoinder to that is “Men will assault women in the bathroom too!” and there is tons of data to support this.
If any of this makes you consider voting for Trump and the Republicans, then we live in such different moral and factual universes that no exchange of ideas is possible.
There’s plenty of reasonable space to discuss these issues some cis women are concerned about, and the vast majority of progressive trans people and cis women I know of would be fine with discussing them, as long as trans people aren’t being denigrated or rhetorically erased by those concerned about them.
You’re joking, right? Have you noticed the reaction to JKR? The response of most people in this thread? The reaction when women tried to hold meetings to talk about this stuff? The pledge that 3 of the 4 Labour leadership candidates signed - including the line “Accept that there is no material conflict between trans rights and women’s rights, and that all trans women are subject to misogyny and patriarchal oppression.”? (You may want to note, the candidate who didn’t sign won.)
You can’t have a reasonable discussion when one side does nothing but call you a transphobe and try to silence you.
Luckily this isn’t the case, and there are a very wide variety of responses from critics of JKR. Twitter and social media are a tiny slice of the real world and real world discussion, and even the takes on those platforms vary extremely widely.
Did you even read the rest of my comment? Where I listed the very real world problems with trying to hold this discussion? Including the trans lobby trying to get the leaders of the biggest left-wing party to declare there is no discussion and anyone who disagrees should be thrown out of the party. They are literally trying to ban all discussion about this!
The statement you quoted seemed very innocuous to me.
If you’re not a citizen – which is the point monstro is making, that citizenship automatically makes you “a real American” whether you blend in or not – yes, you have to blend in in order to be considered a “real American.” If you’re an Australian citizen, not a US citizen, and (although living in the US) you spend all your time talking about how Australia is awesome and go out of your way to act in Australian-like ways rather than the customs/culture of the US, then no, I don’t think anyone would consider you a “real American.” And vice versa – I don’t think any Australian would consider a US citizen who lived in Australia a “real Australian” if they were always talking about how great the US was and only hanging out with US tourists and going out of their way to, IDK, wave the American flag and celebrate American Thanksgiving and whatever.
…you don’t understand how the Labour party declaring there is no conflict between trans rights and women’s rights and anyone who disagrees should be expelled from the party, might put a teeny tiny damper on members trying to hold that discussion?
Guess I’m wasting my time here.
I will not be voting for Trump.
I’m talking about the many thousands of others who could be readily be persuaded to vote for him (or stay at home) should they get the impression the Dems is the party for curtailing women’s rights so that males can call themselves women and be treated as such.
This is the political argument that will handily sink progressives if it comes up in debates. I’m just calling it out now so there will be no surprises.
I’ve been on your side for most of this discussion, so maybe this isn’t going to be a shocker, but I agree with you that there’s nothing innocuous about that stance.
I also don’t see a conflict between trans rights and women’s rights, but that I don’t see a conflict doesn’t mean I want to eject anyone who might disagree from my party. I don’t know much about UK politics, and maybe the Labour party sucks (though it sounds like the candidate who agrees with you won, so maybe things are going your way in the UK?), but that one statement sounds pretty innocuous to me.
If there’s actual evidence this is happening, then maybe I’d be concerned about it, but I’m not going to be politically worried about a hypothetical possible result of taking what, IMO, is the morally correct position (i.e. to treat trans people with respect and decency). Especially when, AFAICT, the Democratic party is far to the right of me on trans rights.
Every political party in the history of the United States has survived lies of this nature (“the Democrats hate America” was recently employed by Tucker Carlson against Ilhan Omar and Tammy Duckworth but has a longer pedigree than that, “Bush and the Republicans planned 9/11”, etc. etc. going all the way back to “John Adams and the Federalists want to install a new king”). “The Democrats want men to hang out in women’s restrooms and assault women and girls” is just another absurd lie that some extremists believe, reasonable people won’t, and it isn’t going to sink the party.
iiandyiiii
If there’s actual evidence this is happening, then maybe I’d be concerned about it…
How much more evidence do you need to see? Just on the topic of female sports alone, it’s not even debatable this is happening.
No one on the left who is in political office has been willing to come out against this. No one. I’m telling you now, all Trump would need to do is say he wants to restore female-only sports and he will score the votes of a ton of people. These will largely be parents—men and women—who don’t want to see their daughters busting their ass to train only to be forced to play against males. As much as single-issue voters annoy me on principle, the issue of women’s rights is broad enough that I wouldn’t negatively judge anyone for basing their vote on this.
That’s not the argument that will be made.
“Democrats don’t care if male predators use trans-supportive loopholes to go after women. In fact, the Dems are in favor of increasing these loopholes to make it easier for abuse to occur. They are in favor of laws that eliminate gatekeeping.”
What is the counter argument to this? If it’s “trans women are women!” I don’t think that is sufficient. JKR has prompted people to start thinking about this subject in a more critical way. The implications of allowing males to claim space in female-restricted facilities are coming into focus now. There is going to be backlash if the Dems chose to label anyone concerned about this as bigots and extremists.
You talked about political consequences – that’s a hypothesis. I’m not ready to accept it any more than the hypothesis that gay marriage would bring a backlash against the Democrats.
The counter argument is that predatory men can already do this, and there’s no evidence of an increase in danger or risk, because of the following: if JKR gets her way, predatory men pretend to be trans men or masculine cis women. If her opponents do, predatory men pretend to be trans women or masculine cis women. Predatory men can already do this and always will be able to try to do this. The problem is predatory men, not trans people, or treating trans people with respect and decency and allowing them to use facilities.