A good start would be to figure out why transphobia is becoming an acceptable form of bigotry in Great Britain and then counter that, calling it out when various transphobic pundits toss out their latest bilious outbursts. Here is the US, we also have plenty of transphobia, but it typically comes from the normal expected sources, such as right-wing media and closeted far right politicians.
Exactly. Isn’t this article just an archetypal regurgitation of tone policing? Whether transphobia comes from conservative Christians or in the TERF incarnation, call it what it is. No progress in social tolerance has ever been made by conceding that bigotry is part of the normal acceptable spectrum of civilized discourse, justified by appeals to “traditional values” or “legitimate concerns”. To the contrary, progress has been made by calling bigotry exactly what it is in order to de-normalize it. There is no contradiction between supporting the principle of freedom of expression while working to marginalize despicable views. The writer appears to think that bigots should be made to feel comfortable airing their views in civilized discourse. I disagree.
I think this is probably the key point, but suspect it is also largely (not entirely) moot. In the example above, we are dealing with an individual where we have sufficient information and probably respect to make a reasoned argument, with the expectation that they can change their minds. Not forcing walls up by using nasty names, or loaded terms is an effective tactic when it comes to a reasoned discourse.
When we’re dealing with groups/corporations/mass media, we are never going to have that degree of foreknowledge, and while labels are reductive, they can be used more selectively. I suspect that the best option is to apply such labels selectively. For example, maybe it’s helpful to avoid saying ‘Company X’ is bigoted (whatever flavor of bigotry you flavor, but for this thread, bigoted about trans value ‘Z’), but how a specific statement/policy/etc IS bigoted/based on bigoted assumptions.
In this scenario, the first option “Company X is bigoted” may be considered counter-productive, because people will look at all the other pieces/parts of Company X and use them as counter examples, or to say that the accusation is thusly unfair, and will dismiss all instances of bigotry as a result. The second scenario feels more effective to me, in that they have to discuss the merits of the specific bigotry in question.
However again, when you have companies/corporations/etc that have a large number, or repeated acts of bigotry, whatever the reason, and refuse to acknowledge or correct such acts, then I feel that trying to target individual acts instead tends to overlook the culture of bigotry which allows such things to repeat. At which point, calling them out as a whole is the better option than trying to get them to correct a single point, and is in no-way counterproductive.
That is not at all what the writer is saying. She’s saying Stonewall is declaring perfectly reasonable views bigoted - as well as misrepresenting UK law - in an effort to achieve their aims, and that besides being wrong in itself, this is likely to backfire because it is mobilising opposition that otherwise would not exist.
(@puzzlegal, I hope I am okay to say this, because if I can’t restate the author’s argument there is really no point discussing it.)
I think there’s an underlying, incorrect assumption here, namely, that the opponents of Stonewall’s new vigor on the issue of trans rights want to help trans people. That dude I was talking about earlier, Matthew Parris, was referenced obliquely by the article (he was the co-founder of Stonewall who criticized the new leadership). He isn’t trying to help trans people at all: he’s trying to help the LGB without the T. “Stonewall should stay out of trans rights war,” he says, in a staggeringly ahistorical statement akin to saying a charity called the Black Panthers should stay out of the movement against police brutality.
When folks who don’t want to help trans folks offer their opinions on what trans folk should do, it’s a little questionable, and I’m not sure this article provides a strong jumping-off point for that discussion. At best, it can be used to discuss whether advocating for trans rights hurts the movement for gay rights, given the rampant transphobia among some folks who support gay rights.
Then I don’t know what to say. From what I’ve read and heard of Stonewall’s postition what I said was accurate. They seem to be suggesting that even referring to the distinction between biological sex and gender identity is in some way transphobic or hateful.
In the context of the thread it seems absolutely on-point to state that such a tactic is unlikely to benefit Stonewall in the long term. Such discussions are exactly what the thread is about.
Can you provide the quote that you’re interpreting that way?
Obviously the question of whether the views that are labeled as bigoted are “perfectly reasonable” is a moot point that we are not debating here, so I’ll say nothing other than noting that I disagree.
Thank you for reminding me of the other classic (and ridiculous) justification for this kind of tone policing. Be pragmatic! Why can’t you be happy with the little bit of progress and the limited rights you’ve been given, stop bing so in-your-face about being treated equally! Don’t call out bigotry too stridently, otherwise we’ll discover that vast numbers of otherwise reasonable people will turn out to be so uncomfortable with respecting the dignity of their fellow human beings that they too will mobilize on the side of the bigotry!
Yeah, we’ve heard all this before with racism, with other LGBT rights, and I don’t buy that argument either.
Yeah, this is the key point: this isn’t about helping trans people, it’s about claiming that denying them certain rights is “perfectly reasonable.” The discussion is, does it hurt the movement for trans rights to call people out when they’re trying to deny trans rights?
Nope, I don’t have a quote, it is my general impression from what their representatives have said in interviews. I could be wrong and if a clear statement from Stonewall can be found that is much more moderate then I’d change my opinion.
Wow. Okay, I’m not going to try to dig up a quote showing that your paraphrase of their position is wrong, just say that there’s no evidence whatsoever that you’re accurately paraphrasing their position, and leave it at that. I will point out that if they ever use the words “cisgender” and “transgender,” that flies in the face of your claim about their position, as these are terms that reference both biological sex and gender identity.
[Slight hjack]. I had never heard of this particular Stonewall before. I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant number of Americans, when they hear about Stonewall, think of the Confederate general first and an actual stone wall last. [Hijack over].
Unrelated hijack
IMHO, the debate regarding trans rights should be separated into two areas. The first is gender identity, in which IMHO everyone should have equal rights regardless of how they identify. The second is biological sex, in which we should recognize that there are some fundamental biological realities that can’t be altered based on gender identity. The current wedge issue of trans women participating in women’s sports is the major one, and IMHO this issue should be debated in the second category of biological sex rather than gender identity.
Again, that is not the argument. The argument is don’t misrepresent people who disagree with your ideas, and don’t misrepresent the law, because this will cause a backlash when it comes to light. Since this is exactly what is happening in the UK right now, it’s a pretty reasonable argument to make.
sure, never asked you to.
As I said, that was my general impression from Stonewall representatives and interviews over the recent period. It may well be wrong. But if my impression is in error, in the same way that other critics of its position is wrong then even the most charitable interpretation is that their communication is not as sound as it could be and that will not be helpful to them.
What would matter is the exact statement that contains those words and the context in which they are used.
Same sex marriage was legalised in the UK with little fuss, by the Conservative party, and so far as I know without vilifying anyone. So it is not unreasonable to think adopting US style culture war tactics may be counter-productive.
Incidentally, many people believe that Stonewall are overcompensating for their earlier neglect of trans rights by taking a hard line now.
Whether or not those views are “reasonable” or “bigoted” is the crux of the debate - but, unfortunately, it is specifically not the debate that’s happening in this thread. As we are not debating the prejudice inherent in any specific viewpoint, what’s left to debate is, “Is it good tactics to call people you perceive as bigoted ‘bigots,’ or should you use softer terms so as not to offend them?”
In which case, Riemann’s post is spot-on.
Then let’s try a thought experiment. You claim that statements like the one below are counter-productive:
Hey transphobes, stop being transphobic.
Tell us what someone should instead say to a transphobe that would actually get them to agree to grant transsexuals full rights, because if those magic words exist, I’ll use them instead.
Obviously, as I’ve said, my opinion is that what’s being labeled as bigotry is bigotry, and not misrepresentation. (And as I understand the mod instructions, here we must just agree to disagree on this point, so there’s no point coming back to it except to recognize that it obviously gives us a completely different perspective on what’s happening here.)
If what’s happening in the U.K. now is that a large number of people sympathetic to transphobic ideas are coming out of the woodwork, that’s not good - but I grew up there, and it’s hardly a great shock to me that transphobia, along with racism and general anti-LGBT bigotry are still widespread and “normal”. This is indicitave of the scale of the problem, but in no way does it imply that the strategic path to social progress and tolerance is to be conciliatory toward bigotry. History tells us that this just doesn’t work.
I’m curious, though. Since your opinion is that these ideas are not transphobic but “perfectly reasonable”, presumably you would see this “backlash” as a positive development rather than any kind of problem. So why should any advocate of trans rights see your tone policing as good faith strategic advice?
Yes, I do see it as mostly a positive development, since it is correcting an overreach that reduces rights for other people, most particularly women. But I also don’t want to see the backlash go too far, and trans people to suffer because of it. I want a compromise, not a power struggle where everyone loses.
And remember, I am not the author of the article; you’ll have to judge her motivation, and that of the Guardian in publishing it, for yourself.
I made a wild guess that you agree with the article. If the distinction is important to you, perhaps you’d like to explain which parts of the article you disagree with?