Trans Rights - Too much, too soon?

Great Debates
61

Exactly.

As I pointed out on the pit thread, all we need to do is to look at the abortion rights debate in America. So-called abortion “moderates” on the left have tried to be reasonable with anti-abortion radicals. They’ve tried to strike a compromise, with time frame limitations and so forth, and it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what the “reasonable” and “moderate” side wants when the other side has no intention of being reasonable; they simply want to impose their will on the rest of us. There can be no moderation when it comes to protecting individual human rights, and I can’t think of any right more important than having the power to establish your own identity and to make personal health choices to that end.

62

This is a fair question and generally speaking I would agree - if I lived in your typical midwestern city suburb. The city I live in as a whole is pretty progressive. Sure there are some suburbs that are more conservative but as a whole it’s a very LGBT friendly city. In my neighborhood there is an very high percentage of gay and lesbians, this has been the case for 20+ years now. At one point the city had a higher percentage of LGBT per capita than San Francisco and we have the 2nd largest pride event in the midwest (Chicago is #1). Back to my neighborhood specifically, many of our friends and acquittances are gay or lesbian. Sure, there may be a few trans people in the neighborhood but pretty much everyone knows everyone (for good and bad, the gay gossip thing can be brutal) and after living here for 12 years I think -someone- would have mentioned it by now or we’d have run into each other at any number of the large neighborhood events.

So I’m not coming from a perspective of living in a place where there would be low percentage and low visibility of LGBT people. Yet I only know one person who is trans and she now lives in Canada. I’ve not researched all of the available studies out there but a quick search seems to indicate less than 1% of the adult population in the U.S. identifies as trans. So yeah, I don’t think it is an unreasonable statement that even in a more open and progressive city like where I live most people don’t personally know a trans person.

63

I have nothing to add to what has been said above, but I’ll add a loud “no” to the overall question posed by the OP.

64

I can’t find the quote online, but ISTR it was Dick Gregory who said “Take your foot off my grandmother’s neck now! Not one toe at a time!”.

There is no benefit to fighting inch by inch for one’s rights. Better to push for them as hard as you can and see how far you can get and how fast you can get there.

65

I am greatly appreciative of Ronald Raygun and other posters who have been kind enough to share their experiences publicly so that we cisgendered folks can learn a little bit. But, my understanding is that it is not a movement to a third category of ‘trans’ but a transition from assigned at birth gender to actual gender and so there very well could be people in your life who have transitioned in the past but even in Seattle, they are not interested in rehashing their trans experience. You perceive and interact with them as their post-transition gender which is the goal.

66

As am I. I have responded to some but read everyone’s comments and thinking about their experiences and point of view.

And again, a fair point but if in the U.S. only .6% of the adult population identifies as trans -and- if a percentage of them transitioned and no one can tell… this pretty much supports my earlier statement that most people in the U.S. do not personally know a trans person. They may know Susan in the Accounting Department but they don’t know she is trans, transitioned in the past, and her birth gender was male and her birth certificate said “Charles”. As a result, they’re not making that association to KNOWING a trans person. They just know Susan in Accounting and she can help you with all you finance questions. It’s a small enough percentage of the population to be less likely that the average person connects “trans issues/advocacy” they are hearing about on the news or social media with Susan in Accounting is trans. As the gay rights movement started really gaining steam, I knew many gay people so it was hard to separate the political/social debate from my friend Bill who is gay and the status quo hurts him. Not sure I’m making sense or beleaguering a point already understood. :smiley:

67

I agree. I think that xkcd is interesting, but it really hinges on a question with “approval” wording being neatly applicable to legislation.

I don’t think that it is. Like, I could be wrong about the level of racism in our society, but I find it hard to believe that 50+% of the US population was in favor of legally restricting people of different races from marrying each other in 1990. Clearly, whatever people are thinking about when asked if they “approve” of interracial marriage, it’s not the same thing as if you asked them what the law should be.

68

I think in terms of “too much, too soon”, there may be a case to be made in strategic terms. “Can this hill be taken and held?” is a valid concern. However, this hill, and many others, are absolutely the birthright of all the people who deserve equal protection under the law. Whether society at large is “ready” or not is irrelevant to the dignity and liberty of the individual and some non-zero number of societal Luddites will be ever dissatisfied with how “those people” (whoever “they” may be in the speaker’s case) are getting "uppity.

Questioning whether a particular legislative goal is actually achievable is a calculation that unfortunately must be made. It may also be the case that having temporarily achieved a goal, the reversal of said legislation may prove more deleterious, for reasons of procedure or precedence. So, I am a realist about this. However, as far as ethics and “society being able to deal with it” goes, I say when any of us are less free, all of us are less free. And we should nearly always err on the side of pushing aggressively for liberty. People are more adaptable than you may give them credit for and more-so when the adjustments to be made are legitimized by law.

FWIW, I was never racist, but was raised a white, nominally Christian, male in the Deep South and did internalize homophobia and trans-phobia, before coming to reason. I have openly and stridently advocated for LGBT rights and I was greatly relieved that I came to my senses many years before my daughter came out as bisexual. We love each other so much and, if I was still a homophobe, it would have broken my heart to think that there was any lingering doubt that I accepted her orientation only because of our kinship.

We should also recognize what we are asking from people in order to accommodate trans-folks. It really isn’t much. Don’t fire them for being trans. Don’t deny housing or other services. Use their preferred pronouns (if you are even aware that these aren’t “correct” regarding their anatomy/chromosomes). I’ve long thought that some people’s need to know another’s “real” gender was so they could accord them the proper degree of respect. Wouldn’t want all that manly respect going to girl who was just pretending! Or even worse, a man who would degrade himself to live like a woman! Horrors!

I’m polite and friendly to peers and subordinates, male or female. I’m duly respectful to those in authority, male or female. Because no adjustments to how I treat others based on gender is needed, I don’t care what someone’s gender presentation is or if it comports to their anatomy or genome (or even if those agree with each other). The only people who should care about your gender are your lovers and doctors.

The dichotomy of sexual identity, preference, and expression is this: on one hand, it is completely irrelevant. If someone is not a potential lover (unlikely, since I am married and monogamous), these things just don’t matter. But, on the other hand, who you are sexually can be a huge facet of your identity and it can be hurtful to be attacked on this basis (beyond the obvious, manifest, and often devastating harm that can come from overt bigotry). How would (male) detractors of civil rights respond if they were forbidden the right to grow beards, to wear ties or business-style suits, watch sports, use male pronouns, or demonstrate romantic or domestic pairing with women? They’d probably say it made them “feel like less of a man”, not even realizing that their gender-identity and expression was so important to them. Blissfully unaware, largely because it had never been attacked.

Sorry, getting a bit into the weeds on that. Just my two cents. Personally the public education system in the South could do with a lot more Stonewall Riots and a lot less Stonewall Jackson.

69

The bathroom thing is a rather hot topic, and altho I am in favor of most public restrooms being all gender, that isnt a hill to die on, right now.

And, how would you know what the preferred pronouns are?

70

It is partly this but why were the “new” generations ok with it when generations galore going waaay back in time were no ok with it? Why this generation?

I believe it was gay men coming out of the closet in full force when the AIDS epidemic hit. Till then gay men hid their sexuality from society which allowed the bigotry against them to perpetuate itself.

But when AIDS hit it became imperative that something be done. Lots of people were dying miserable deaths. So a greta many gay many came-out and all of a sudden people found they knew gay people. People they liked. People they loved. People they looked up to and realized there was nothing “spooky” about them.

A new generation grew up in this environment and all of a sudden their parents could not pass on their bigotry as easily.

But make no mistake, it was gay men working hard for decades to be accepted and not some magical change in attitude that brought this about.

71

I agree. We are at a time in history when we can ill-afford the luxury of idealism. This is what worries me about the far left. Pragmatism and realpolitik doesn’t necessarily require we sell our souls. Retreats can be strategic. I can completely understand how even the political center is put off by Democrats. Even as a liberal Democrat, it seems to me the Dems spend an awful lot of time campaigning on identity politics. I’d much rather see the Dems spend their time and energy bringing the white middle class into the fold. When people start to support a party, they tend to slowly adopt the rest of the platform as their identity adopts “Democrat.” You don’t ask your parents for a new car the day you bring home a report card full of F’s and you don’t ask the the American people to accept something to the left when it’s in the middle of a far right hissy fit. The legislation we’d all like to see enacted for the LGBTQ community can, paradoxically, be enacted faster if we stay silent until at least 2020.

72

If we extinguish the light, maybe they’ll go away and quit threatening us?

73

Trans rights are not a new car.

74

For all the talk about how it is Democrats who campaign on identity politics, I think you folks have it wrong.

Republicans are every bit as much about Identity Politics. “Christian” “White” “Conservative” “Pro-Life”, etcetera. They wear these identities as badges of honor and then whine about how the other side are the ones doing it. :rolleyes:

Let’s just be perfectly clear about this: You Be You. Stop worrying so much about other people having an ‘identity’ that, while it may challenge your world view or not match up to your chosen IDENTITY*, doesn’t actually affect you.

  • If you’re a Conservative Christian and you believe being gay is wrong, this is due to your ideology, your world view, your IDENTITY. Congratulations, you’re playing the Identity Politics game too.
75

Don’t assume they will have a rational response to the inescapable logic of your argument. Better not to poke the beast lest it stir to vote. If Trump wins in 2020 it may be generations before trans rights (among others) are ever enshrined.

76

I’m going to reply to this again, because I find it rather offensive. My rights are not “the luxury of idealism”. Honestly, I’m more sympathetic to transphobic views when they boil down to “those people are weird and gross and socially disruptive”, because I had to overcome my own internalized transphobia, which presented itself as “I am weird and gross and socially disruptive”. It’s also clear for me how to combat it, by existing in the world as an open and pleasant person. What I don’t understand is saying that certain people deserve rights, and we want them to have rights, but… uh… not now. Being used as a bargaining chip is dehumanizing in a way that is far worse.

77

Nowhere did I imply that trans people should not exist in the world openly, or that they be used as bargaining chips. Nor did I say they shouldn’t have rights now.

I’m also not saying (though I wasn’t explicit) that trans persons should not be vocal about their rights. What I’m saying is that politicians should not be campaigning on it. If I gave you these two options:

  1. Democrats stay silent on trans’ rights while campaigning in order to increase the odds of getting elected in 2020, at which time they pass the Trans’ Rights Act of 2020, and the Democratic president reverses Trump’s executive orders and decrees a few of his/her own.
  2. Democrats campaign on trans’ rights because, well, God damn it, they should be able to because we’re dealing with rights here, lose the election, at which time they pass nothing. But hey, they’ll get it done in 2024 (after the new President reverses the 3 more anti-trans executive orders enacted in the meantime).

Would you really choose option 2?

You can debate whether trans’ issues will put 2020 at risk, but that’s a different argument.

What I meant by the “luxury of idealism,” is an insistence that politicians champion trans causes during the 2020 campaign “because they SHOULD be able to.” I think many on the far left are more interested in indulging their righteous anger than getting the policies they want passed. I believe anyone who chooses option 2 is doing just that.

78

I’m going to do a twitter and read the headline (ahem, thread title) and respond to that.

“Fuck. No. What bare minimum of basic human rights trans people have clawed out is under constant attack by bigoted assholes who either are the religious right or are bankrolled (shall we say “AstroTERF’d”) by the religious right to attack LGBTQ rights around the globe as a whole and sow internicene conflict within liberal feminism, and the idea that they’re getting “too many” rights is insane, because they should have all the rights, right fucking now, just like everyone else, because trans rights are human rights.”

Okay, now that that’s out of my system, let’s actually read the OP.

It seems to be about pragmatism. We see a fair bit of this from people saying we should “drop the T” to make it easier on ourselves. Again, trans rights are human rights, so actually doing this for pragmatism’s sake is monstrous on the face of it. You’re sacrificing the rights of one of the most marginalized groups on the planet for the sake of having an easier time defending your own - that seems pretty shite on a purely moral level.

It’s also really bad strategy. Okay, let’s say you “drop the T”. What happens to all those groups that sprung up against trans rights? Do they just shut up and go away, having achieved their goals? No, because “protecting women from gender trenders” (note: please do not actually speak that way, anyone talking about “gender trenders” is usually a bigoted fuckstick not worth engaging with*) is not the extent of their goals. Remember, these people are bankrolled by far-right US conservatives. That wouldn’t happen if they were anti-trans, and pro-everything-else.

Spend some time on /r/GenderCritical or Mumsnet (two of the most well-known hangouts for TERFs) and you’ll find that they’re not just “gender” critical (speaking of shitty euphemisms…), but that a great many of them are just straight-up anti-LGBT bigots. The constant “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” rhetoric being spewed has led to them spearheading a campaign to bring back article 28, and schools shutting down classes on LGBT issues meant to combat homophobia and transphobia. They went after a “drag queen reading hour” program and tried to get it shut down.

Trans issues are the thin edge of the wedge. Far from the idea that if we accept this pushback on trans issues, this will stop, the exact opposite is true - once we give in on trans issues, the exact same rhetoric will immediately be turned on LGBT people. What, you don’t feel safe sharing the bathroom with a “biological male” (another nasty fucking slur for transwomen*) because “he” has a penis? Why should you feel any more safe around lesbians, who you know want to fuck you? “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria”? Swap out one word and we’re right the fuck back to talking about homosexuality as a “contagion”. That rhetoric they use talking about non-binary people? Bisexuals are already dealing with it.

These arguments are designed to sound almost reasonable when talking about trans people, and to be directly transferable to anyone else on the LGBT spectrum.

So if you care about LGB rights, dropping the T is the absolute last thing you should do. You should fight these homophobic, transphobic fucksticks where they are, because if you don’t, they will be coming for you next. The people bankrolling them don’t want a world where LGB rights are enshrined and protected. The people bankrolling them don’t just want a world where Obergfell is overturned. The people bankrolling them want a world where Lawrence V. Texas is overturned. It will not stop just because we appease them. And in this case, “appease them” means turning our backs on an extremely marginalized and at-risk population and throwing them to the wolves.

*I legitimately have not read any posts in the thread other than the first as of writing this so if it turns out someone is already talking like this in this thread, which I sincerely hope not, I hope they learn their lesson from this and fucking stop it. That shit ain’t cool, and I will gladly explain to any moderator who is curious some of the history and meaning of common anti-trans slurs that may have flown under their radars.

79

This is how we lose.

This is how we give up inch after inch of ground until there is no ground left to give and there is no option for us but to jump into the void.

“Idealism”.

What do you think the right has been doing?! Look, you can see this EXACT PATTERN with abortion. The left won a major legal victory in the 70s, and the religious right spent the next 40 years NEVER LETTING UP. They took every inch we gave (TRAP laws, Casey, NIFLA, etc.) and as soon as they had it they demanded more. And gradually, they continued to win on the issue, even though their actual position was never actually popular. (Even in Alabama, only around 25% of the population wants a full ban on abortion!) And every step of the way, the left just… gave ground. And was surprised, again and again, when that giving of ground led to the republicans wanting more. And now we’re on the verge of seeing Roe overturned, we have states openly pushing bills to ban all abortion with the express purpose of overturning Roe, and we stand back and wonder like the dope in that comic, “Whoa, how did we let that happen?”

Meanwhile, you wanna talk about idealism? There’s a whole bunch of progressive voters who stayed home in 2016. Many of them probably felt they didn’t have someone they could believe in with the safe centrist democrat.

Idealism fuels the left. It gives people something to believe in. And failing that, it shifts the overton window. That’s the other thing the right has consistently been doing, and the left has consistently been letting it do. But that’s the thing - any change can be seen as “radical” or “extreme”. $15 minimum wage probably sounded pretty fucking crazy when it was first proposed. Now, it’s being implemented in more and more places. Hell, gay rights were super extreme the first time around, and have progressively become less and less extreme. In 2004 it was a wedge issue for the bigots; in 2012 it was a wedge issue for the liberals. If you want change, “strategic retreat” is the worst possible thing to do.

But this isn’t. We’re compromising on human rights, and for what? What’s the win state here? They’re not going to stop pushing. We’re going to see that exact same backsliding. “Oh, we can’t care about trans rights, it’s too divisive”. Then, a few years later, when they start coming for Obergfell, “Oh, we can’t care about gay marriage, somehow it became more divisive.”

Remember, all the language they’re using to attack trans people? Half of it was intentionally created to apply just as well to LGB people; the other half was just straight-up adopted from the “gay panic” language. Seriously - look at what these people are saying, and slot in “gay” for “trans” in their arguments - it’s not hard to notice if you look for it. If we accept that trans issues (friendly reminder that, for trans people, these issues are literally a matter of life and death) are “too divisive”, they will immediately move on to their next target. This doesn’t stop just because we give the genocidal mass-murderer the sudetenland. (Sorry, couldn’t find a more apt comparison when talking about people’s lives.)

Well there’s a dead fucking giveaway that you see this as a hypothetical issue that doesn’t really matter.

HEY BUDDY, GAY KIDS ARE DYING.

Fuck this “identity politics” bullshit. You know what that phrase means in this context? “Something that doesn’t affect straight cishet white men”. That’s it! That’s literally what it means! When we talk about LGBT rights, we are talking about the human rights of real goddamn people. “Identity politics” is the only politics they get, because the moment they push for their basic fucking rights, everyone and their dog starts screaming, “IDENTITY POLITICS! IDENTITY POLITICS!” because cishet white dudes are unable to see outside their own skin for five seconds and realize that sometimes, one’s identity has an impact on politics! My fundamental human rights are just “identity politics”? Do they not matter? Am I a bargaining chip to be traded in when you need to appeal to the votes of people who are real nice folks, except that they’d rather see me tied to a cross and burned to death?

Yep. Of course you would. The cishet white male middle class. That majority stakeholder of the nation that everyone and their dog feels we should pander exclusively to. In fact, anything that doesn’t explicitly pander to them and how they feel is “IDENTITY POLITICS” and must be crushed. Or, as TheEstablishment put it: thank god for identity politics:

Thank god for Identity Politics.

You know why? Because you know what we had before Identity Politics? I’ll tell you.

We had White Dudes.

We had white dudes as the pinnacles of power. We had white dudes on all our TV screens, we had white dudes reporting all our news, we had white dudes writing all our books. Sometimes they were accompanied by attractive white ladies (as all the white dudes were straight). But mostly, we had white dudes.

And if you were not a white dude? You didn’t exist. Laws were not written for you, infrastructure was not built for you, history was not written about you. You did not exist in film, television, or novels. You were not a part of the American dream.

And do you know what has been changing all of that? Do you know what has been saving this country from the monotony and tyranny of white, cis, heterosexual dudes? Identity Politics.

80

Yes, if you ever finding yourself using the phrase “identity politics” sincerely, please punch yourself in the face.

Excellent post, BPC.