Allegations of transphobia Mod Advisory post #42

robindch

In June of last year, JK Rowling drew a considerable amount of ferocious, personal criticism for a series of tweets and an article on her website which were widely interpreted to indicate that she believes that transgender identities are, in some sense, fake. And, yesterday, the American Humanists Association withdrew the "Humanist of the Year" award it gave Richard Dawkins in 1996, because the AHA believes that Dawkins is similarly dishonest and that he "[...] implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent [...]".

I've avoided this area entirely for years as it seems to involve one group of individuals imputing beliefs, frequently extreme and frequently by implication only, within another group of individuals, and often doing so in an uncivil fashion, where nobody seems to be making much obvious effort to establish common ground, to move forward with common beliefs or even the reach out to the other side to establish ground rules.

Can somebody who's more familiar with the area explain what the beliefs of the two sides are and why, even allowing for the fact that it concerns claims for and perceptions of identity, the discussion is so venomous?

Mod Advisory of ground rules for this thread post #42

smacl

Not a subject I've any expertise on but, much like religion, I take the line that people can identify however they see fit and it is not for me to question this until it negatively impacts me directly. It does surprise and concern me that so many people get so wound up and hateful about such a tiny minority in our society who have never harmed anyone. The need to make definitive statements about who or what other people are, or how they should behave when they're not impinging on anyone else, is, to my mind, deeply unpleasant.

lazygal

I don't think I have or can have 'common ground' with people who want to deprive an already small and vulnerable minority of their basic rights.


People like Graham Linehan seem to have been radicalised online into believing that toilet use is somehow a battleground worth losing a marriage and career over.



The Gender Recognition Act passed without much controversy several years ago. It has had zero impact on me. I'm sure it has made life a wee bit easier for those who need its provisions.

Hotblack Desiato

Corrected link:

https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/

Would have been helpful if they'd bothered to include any evidence to back up their allegations.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

The need to make definitive statements about who or what other people are, or how they should behave when they're not impinging on anyone else, is, to my mind, deeply unpleasant.

Couldn't agree more, but where have Dawkins and Rowling made definitive statements about who other people are, or what their identity might be, and how they should behave? Or, what have they said that's any more normative than what's been said by the other side?

The AHA, for example, in the link above didn't say what Dawkins' comment was, and more to the point, didn't say how it "implied" something worth stripping him of their award to him. Maybe it was worth stripping him, maybe it wasn't, but they've presented nothing to allow somebody to judge whether they're right or wrong to do so.

The question I have is very specific - what precise comments have been made by Dawkins or Rowling which make unambiguous statements of fact concerning other people - and how are these offensive? A quick skim through Rowling's text doesn't show anything particularly offensive to me, but it undeniably caused a furore.

I'm not including Graham Linehan in this as he seems to be a major-league plonker from the little I know of him. And I hasten to add that I'm not looking to stir the sh*t here, I genuinely don't know why the debate is so heated, though it's obvious enough that one side seems to believe sincerely that the other side is making definitive, offensive statements concerning others.

Bannasidhe

There is one group of people who do not believe transgender people -in particular transgender women, transgender men get a free pass for some reason - can truly be anything other than the gender they were assigned at birth (biological sex). JKR is one such person.

To them a transgender woman is a man.

And quite often a sexual potential predator who is only 'pretending' in order to gain access to vulnerable cis (a term meaning gender identity aligns with biological sex) females, and/or a person who seeks to encroach on ill defined 'sex-based rights', and/or a male person who seeks to render lesbians (especially butch ones) invisible by claiming they are 'really trans'.
The stance of this group is that gender is defined by genitalia and must align to biological sex assigned at birth.

The other group - which in the interests of full disclosure I unashamedly am a member of - says sometimes nature makes a mistake, one such mistake is gender dysphoria. Transgender people are people who's biological sex does not align to the gender they identify as i.e. they are literally in the wrong body.
Therefore, when they take steps to identify as the gender they believe they are they are acting to correct this mistake.
For this group a transgender woman falls under the broad term woman and a transgender man equally is a man.
Stance here is: Genitalia does not define gender identity. Gender identity is separate to biologically assigned sex, although they do usually align in a very small minority of people they do not.

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

I don't think I have or can have 'common ground' with people who want to deprive an already small and vulnerable minority of their basic rights.

I agree with you. What have Dawkins or Rowling said which indicates that want to deprive trans people of their rights? Rowling seems to believe she's doing the opposite - "Trans people need and deserve protection" etc.

ELM327

A transgender male to female person is biologically male. XX vs XY etc.
However if that person chooses to identify as the opposite gender, which is a social construct that has been decoupled from biological sex, then that is no business of mine, it doesnt affect me, and more power to them.

I guess I'm a little shielded here as I work at a MNC where you can identify as a purple monkey dishwasher and no one cares. Everyone is equal and not discriminated against.

For me, the only reason that it would even become my business what gender someone identifies as, is either a) so I can address them with their preferred pronoun, and b) if they are somehow interacting with my life. Friends, colleague, partner etc.


FWIW I don't see why Rowling has been vilified. Harry Potter was set in the late 90's and written in the noughties where trans rights were not as to the forefront as they are now.

Quantum Erasure

>There is one group of people who do not believe transgender people ... can truly be anything other than the gender they were assigned at birth (biological sex). JKR is one such person.

I don't think that's exactly true. I think it's that gender can differ from biological sex, but biological sex is an immutable characteristic (including intersex etc.)

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I agree with you. What have Dawkins or Rowling said which indicates that want to deprive trans people of their rights? Rowling seems to believe she's doing the opposite - "Trans people need and deserve protection" etc.

A common comment made by those who dispute that transgender women are women. There's always a great big silent BUT...

Rawlings buts many buts - but (:P) her core argument is that gender = biological sex therefore a transgender woman can never really be female as they lack the 'female experience'.

Rawling speaks of her being shaped by being female and that transwomen have never experienced this.
Two points on that: Yes, they have experienced being female. Albeit a female in a biologically male body. Perhaps what JK meant to say was pre-transition transwomen haven't experienced how other people interact with those they perceive as females and the affect this experience has on shaping a person. Which would be a valid(ish) point.
Of course it also ignores that the female experience differed from country to country and culture to culture. It is not a set experience shared across the globe.

Point 2 is where I feel Rawlings falls down as she is extrapolating her lived experience as being valid for all those born biologically female. I can guarantee that my lived experience as a cis female tomboy who grew up to be an out butch dyke was in no way shape or form similar to JK's. Other people did not react to me as they did to the feminine, heterosexual JK but my experience of being 'female' is just as valid as her's and probably a lot closer to that experienced by a transgender person.

Rawlings argument is the "ALL females experience this xxxx" and this is what makes them women - no they don't, there is no universal "ALL females " experience.

If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” she tweeted. “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.”

She continued, “I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so

https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy

Bannasidhe

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

>There is one group of people who do not believe transgender people ... can truly be anything other than the gender they were assigned at birth (biological sex). JKR is one such person.

I don't think that's exactly true. I think it's that gender can differ from biological sex, but biological sex is an immutable characteristic (including intersex etc.)

Which is why the term is transgender not transbiology.

The human body is basically a meat machine carrying around a consciousness. Much of what occurs in this meat machine is controlled by hormones - which quite often f up.

No-one that I have heard is saying biology is being 'changed' - what it is being is corrected. The mistake is acknowledged and attempts are made to rectify it so that it aligns to what the consciousness believes is the correct situation gender wise.

Sex does not equal gender although they do usually align.

seamus

Bannasidhe has kind of summed it up perfectly there.

There are a lot of parallels in the oppression of homosexuality;

- A refusal to believe that it's a "thing", an insistence that it's a perversion that must be squashed or "fixed".
- A strong focus on the "issue" in biological males, to the point where biological females are often not even considered in the debate
- An obsession with sex and sexuality, especially in the context of a "normal" being forced or fooled into to engaging in it. Again, mostly focussed on men being forced into unwanted sex, very little if any concern for women.
- Frequent expression of the right of an individual to assault or murder the other party for the above crime of "forced" sex.
- A belief that children are being targeted and brainwashed with the intention of "turning" them.
- Frequent appeals to morality; "slippery slope", "fabric of society", etc.

lazygal

Its a moral panic for this year, basically. In the past we had the Satanic panic, the harm of salty language in rock music, hysteria over sex ed in schools-all dressed up as 'concern' about children when the reality is children who are trans will always exist and the real danger is being forced to hear their feelings aren't valid and not being supported in their needs and decisions.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

I agree with you. What have Dawkins or Rowling said which indicates that want to deprive trans people of their rights? Rowling seems to believe she's doing the opposite - "Trans people need and deserve protection" etc.

Trans people from my reading have fought for and legally achieved the right to be considered their chosen gender. Those who state they don't believe this to be the case, openly state it, and advocate for trans people to be treated differently as a result are infringing that hard fought for right. Well intentioned discrimination is still discrimination.

magicbastarder

According to the guardian, the dawkins tweet in question was one where he compared trans people to Rachel dolzeal (sp?)

seamus

Yeah, Rowling and Dawkins bumped into it from different aspects.

Dawkins in effect said, "I will call people whatever they want to be called, but I reserve the right to only recognise biology".

Rowlings' various statements made it clear that she wishes no particular ill-will towards trans people, but wants them included in some form of third category; they should not be considered "full" women (or men) and afforded the same rights as them.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, Rowling and Dawkins bumped into it from different aspects.

Dawkins in effect said, "I will call people whatever they want to be called, but I reserve the right to only recognise biology".

And I think this is at the root of the American Humanists’ concern.

Humanism is often thought of in negative terms - humanists reject theism/deism; they reject the idea of “creation”; they reject religion; etc. But if you ask what the positive content of humanism is, what humanists affirm as opposed to what they reject, the answer will be [some variation on] that humanists affirm the transcendent value of the human person. Humans matter, in and of themselves, and the growth, flourishing and realisation of the human person is inherently good.

Right. “Person” is a philosophical, metaphysical concept. Dawkins tends to privilege a scientific view of reality. He has, for example, tweeted:

“Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her "she" out of courtesy.”

And more recently - I think this is what triggered the current kerfuffle - he has tweeted referring to transgender women as “men [who] choose to identify as women” (and vice versa for transgender men).

Not just transgender people and their allies, but humanists generally, would be disturbed at the claim that gender, a central aspect of human personality, is ever a “purely semantic” question. And they’d be even more disturbed at the implication that chromosomes are real, chromosomes matter, chromosomes determine the issue objectively, while “self-identification” is something that is only acknowledged “out of courtesy”, and that someone who “chooses” to self-identify as a woman is in reality a man making that choice. Dawkins is privileging a reductive materialist scientific view of what it is to be human over the much more holistic humanist view of what it is to be a person.

Which is the kind of thing that might make the American Humanist Association think twice about whether they want to continue holding Dawkins out as an exemplar of humanism.

Hotblack Desiato

Think Dawkins' biggest mistake was getting into discussions on matters like this on Twitter in the first place - not the first time its brevity, tendency towards misinterpretation and complete lack of nuance have got him into trouble.

You can take a strictly biological / chromosomal definition of sex and be accurate in what you say while others interpret this as a discussion of gender which cannot be defined in purely XX or XY terms. It's clearly unwise to enter into a discussion in a manner which is so likely to be interpreted in a way which will upset a lot of people.

It's also pretty shocking how far Linehan has willingly crawled down the rabbit hole - I knew he was blocked on Twitter etc. but not that it's basically wrecked his career and marriage. You'd think he'd have had the cop-on to STFU long before reaching that point. I don't feel the need to broadcast my every thought and opinion on boards, especially if I knew it was going to bring down a lot of opprobrium on me (even though we are all pseudonymous here) and to do that under my real name would be out of the question.

Cowardice? Not really, not deliberately upsetting people without very very good reason is a widely accepted societal value but one which a lot of social media users feel no compunction to exercise (or indeed take pleasure in doing the opposite.) Presumably the possibility of a smack in the face if they annoy the wrong person makes them moderate their behaviour in real life.

magicbastarder

it's not twitter's lack of nuance which has gotten dawkins into trouble repeatedly. it's dawkins' lack of nuance which has gotten dawkins into trouble repeatedly.

lazygal

Linehan was home after surgery AFAIK, with nothing else to do but go online. It's a sad way to end up, and shows the danger of real time radicalisation.



I am seeing a creeping transphobia in some forums and online groups, people 'just asking questions' and it very, very turns extreme with people posting that men will be forced to date 'women with penises' and toilets will become a free for all. There's a study to be done on this for sure.

It’s pretty hard to know where to post here, you would think that an atheist forum would be more or less pro biology. Apparently not. And I imagine that the moderation here is severe.

So much for scientific beliefs.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s pretty hard to know where to post here, you would think that an atheist forum would be more or less pro biology. Apparently not. And I imagine that the moderation here is severe.

So much for scientific beliefs.

Mod: You seem to have quite the imagination. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods, it says nothing about being 'pro biology', whatever that is supposed to mean, or any links to the sciences. Please restrict any comments about moderation to the feedback thread. Thanks for your attention.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s pretty hard to know where to post here, you would think that an atheist forum would be more or less pro biology. Apparently not. And I imagine that the moderation here is severe.

So much for scientific beliefs.

The word 'atheist' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting in that post.
Atheist means does not believe in the existence of a god/gods.
That is the sum total of it's meaning.


You will have to explain for yourself what the rest of your comment means although I have my suspicions.

As for moderation
*mod hat on* - we expect people to abide by the charter, be civil, and maintain a high level of discourse in this forum.
Naturally we also apply site wide rules.

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not twitter's lack of nuance which has gotten dawkins into trouble repeatedly. it's dawkins' lack of nuance which has gotten dawkins into trouble repeatedly.

Fair enough. But if he wants to go off expressing opinions on controversial issues, Twitter is probably the worst place he could choose to do it.

Quantum Erasure

smacl wrote: »

Mod: You seem to have quite the imagination. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods, it says nothing about being 'pro biology', whatever that is supposed to mean, or any links to the sciences. Please restrict any comments about moderation to the feedback thread. Thanks for your attention.

This isn't a comment on moderation but I would have thought that there would be a strong link between atheism and believing in verifiable scientific fact, I cant imagine there are many atheists who believe in astrology or tarot cards, etc.

Pherekydes

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

This isn't a comment on moderation but I would have thought that there would be a strong link between atheism and believing in verifiable scientific fact, I cant imagine there are many atheists who believe in astrology or tarot cards, etc.

I would say there is a strong link between atheism and humanism. As alluded to above by several posters, we are not simple biological machines. We have feelings, loves, hates, likes, dislikes and identities that are complex.

Gender is about identity, self identity. It's not the same as biological sex. Your gender is not on your birth certificate.

smacl

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

This isn't a comment on moderation but I would have thought that there would be a strong link between atheism and believing in verifiable scientific fact, I cant imagine there are many atheists who believe in astrology or tarot cards, etc.

You possibly have a rather narrow view of atheism so. E.g. one of the world's largest atheist populations is in China and they're more into superstition than many. Very simply, atheist means no more than not believing in a god or gods. Nothing else.

smacl

Pherekydes wrote: »

I would say there is a strong link between atheism and humanism. As alluded to above by several posters, we are not simple biological machines. We have feelings, loves, hates, likes, dislikes and identities that are complex.

Gender is about identity, self identity. It's not the same as biological sex. Your gender is not on your birth certificate.

I'd say there's a link between humanism and atheism but the reverse does not hold.

magicbastarder

i'm usually very wary about appeals to science when talking about a field where science itself is still learning. we're talking about the human brain, and there are still very fundamental things we don't understand about it which are a hell of a lot more obvious historically than the topic at hand.

i'm also fond of assuming that because there are many more ways of being wrong than being right, society will get this wrong several times over before we get this right.

robindch

Quotes:

Peregrinus wrote: »

“Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her "she" out of courtesy.”

That's here:

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/658622852405534721

Peregrinus wrote: »

he has tweeted referring to transgender women as “men [who] choose to identify as women” (and vice versa for transgender men).

That's here, together with a follow-up, around two days later:

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1381665011127451652

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Dawkins is privileging a reductive materialist scientific view of what it is to be human over the much more holistic humanist view of what it is to be a person.

Ok, that makes sense. In the following, rather than trying to include both "men" and "women", as doing so complicates the text to the point of incomprehensibility, the summary of Dawkins' position refers to "women" and the summary of the AHA position refers to "men" - I presume the converse applies equally for both AHA and Dawkins, and that Rowling's position is similar to Dawkins, or the same as his. Contentious terms are in quote-marks.

Dawkins: implies that the term "woman" can refer to more than one kind of individual - either a) somebody who carries an XX chromosome, or b) somebody who "self-identifies" as a woman. Also implies that whether one chooses (a) or (b) amounts to a "semantic" choice - with many believing that using "semantic" implies that he believes this choice is trivial. He also implies, but does not state, that one can freely choose (a) or (b) as you wish. Dawkins does not preclude other definitions for the term "woman". He does not say what he means by "self-identification", but I'd imagine he believes that this varies by person and amounts to a point on a spectrum from something as simple as "a wish to be referred to as a woman" or "a wish to be treated as a woman" to a fuller "in every possible sense, is a woman", which would include the simpler implications.

AHA: not much hard data to go on, but so far as I understand, the AHA believes that the term "man" refers in all circumstances, and exclusively, to somebody who "self-identifies" as a "man". Using the scale above, that means that the AHA believes, but doesn't state (that I can find anyway), that somebody who "self-identifies" as a man "in every possible sense, is a man", including all views on the spectrum above - "a wish to be referred to as a man", "a wish to be treated as a man" etc. The AHA also implies, but does not state, that anybody who does not agree with their implied definition for "man" is, de facto, impugning the honesty of, and denying the identity of anybody who "self-identifies" as a "man".

Anyway, are these descriptions of the respective positions accurate, as far as they go?

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which is why the term is transgender not transbiology.

The human body is basically a meat machine carrying around a consciousness..

..the consciousness being as much a part of the machine as any of the meat, you will agree?

. Much of what occurs in this meat machine is controlled by hormones - which quite often f up.

You seem to be implying that the gender identity is spot on but the f up meat hormones haven't played ball.

But can be that gender identity is not the problem bit? How does one decide? Is the decision that it is a meat problem one of utility: I can modify the meat but not the gender identity.

No-one that I have heard is saying biology is being 'changed' - what it is being is corrected. The mistake is acknowledged and attempts are made to rectify it so that it aligns to what the consciousness believes is the correct situation gender wise

Whilst questioning this rationale, let me point out that my theology supposes we are all out of shape in some way shape or form. And so, no judgement implied in my querying the logic.

While not agreeing with Dawkins, I have always somewhat respected his intellectual honesty in following though to the logical conclusion and being firm with his convictions. For instance, he has no problem with acknowledging and living out the implications of his philosophy, such as by freely admitting that free will is an illusion, and does not exist. Many, if not most, who say they subscribe to a similar Godless materialist philosophy as he does, stop short of denying the existence of free will, finding such an idea irreconcilable with their experience of life (and perhaps also some fear at the conclusions which much flow, and the changes that must occur, if free will does not exist). Some try and dodge it with some vague allusion to "complexity" or seemingly suggest that a complex enough illusion is the same as the real thing. Others still, and perhaps the majority, just deny the existence of God, sort of accept some of the materialist position (even though materialism really is all or nothing), and do not go any further. This is sad I think, but Dawkins cannot be accused of this, he follows it through.

Regarding the trans issue, I find it confusing that on the one hand we are told that gender is a social construct (which, hence, can be deconstructed and is not "real") and that "gender norms" or "gender roles" or stereotypes are a nonsense and everyone should be treated the same (effectively as gender-less - the net result of totally disregarding gender from the consideration of how one should be treated) yet when it comes to trans people, the demand/expectation is that these people should be applauded in their embracing of a social construct, and the 'trappings' that come with it. Now, if it were entirely different groups that were saying these things that would be one thing, but very often they are coming from the very same people, almost in the one breath. In my opinion it is because of the intellectual confusion of half thought out "whatever you're having yourself as long as it doesn't make anyone feel bad" philosophy that is popular on certain corners of the left, and dominant online in less sophisticated recesses of the internet than here, indeed the intellectual foundation for many, is the reason why "dissent" from the main narrative by the likes of Dawkins, or JKR is met with such venom and anger. It seems the ability to say "you're wrong there, I don't agree" is completely lost, even when the people in question probably agree on 9/10 occasions. This is because they feel on shaky ground to begin with, insecure in their thought and dissent must be stamped out. It helps that the most effective way of gaining plaudits is the intellectual craw thumping of cancelling someone - even better if they are a friend. It's a bit scary, I would not like to be part of a community where there is almost zero chance of forgiveness if you deviate from the accepted line. Personally I have always made a point of being friends with people who fundamentally disagree with me, this way you challenge each other and might learn something. I've been friends with these people for years, but we have discussed how if we were the age we met now, we probably wouldn't get past a few sentences, which was a sad observation, and acknowledgement of the retreat into rather ill defined ideological silos.

On a more general point and observation, the internet just dooesn't really help with these things, it is so extreme and while on it most people seem to only display one, insincere and crafted, aspect of their personality.

Most people, be they trans or gay or whatever, are fairly well adjusted and want to get on with things as normal as possible without their sexual orientation or the fact that they are trans being their dominant personality trait or the defining thing in their life. People have the free will (sorry Dawkins) to make their own decisions on issues of morality and the like. It is possible to think someone wrong, confused or whatever and still treat them with respect and indeed to be friends. It is when we start to demand that everyone think the same that we go wrong, because then no one, or only a very vocal few, actually say what they think, they keep their heads down as ideologues run wild - until another of their ideologue pals cancels them for a slip-up that is. This is manna from heaven for the (actual, Nazi I mean) far right.

So Dawkins has ran foul, not irredeemably so, yet, it seems, for acting as he always has, when he adopts a position he follows it all the way through. Some just don't like where it has led him.

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm also fond of assuming that because there are many more ways of being wrong than being right, society will get this wrong several times over before we get this right.

Agreed entirely. I'd also have deep reservations about publicly placing a tiny and vulnerably minority under the microscope and dissecting what they are for the purposes of pigeon-holing them in terms of a narrow, conservative and probably obsolete world view. The primary purpose, in my opinion, seems to me to be to enable an often hateful discrimination which, so far as I can see, serves no real or useful purpose. There seems to be a growing cohort in society who are on the lookout for something to hate and the trans community is a soft target. Why?

Hotblack Desiato

Because homophobia is no longer generally socially acceptable...

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

I'd also have deep reservations about publicly placing a tiny and vulnerably minority under the microscope and dissecting what they are

i do have a course of rhetoric planned for the next time someone brings the topic up in conversation (probably my father in law), where i'll find myself on the other side of the fence; i deliberately am not going to outline it here, for fear of starting that debate. but it's based on the notion that if you disagree with someone over a topic, asking them to explain how they reached their conclusions is a better way of getting them to question them, than it is to challenge their conclusions directly.

smacl wrote: »

There seems to be a growing cohort in society who are on the lookout for something to hate and the trans community is a soft target. Why?

i'm just about old enough to have voted in the divorce referendum (the one the rain won), and i remember similar arguments being made (and which were remade with the same sex marriage one); that allowing divorce or same sex marriage, it was cheapening the institution of marriage as it supposedly currently was. and i'd draw a parallel with that and peoples notion of gender; that with the old notions of 'man' and 'woman' you knew where you stood, and people are uncomfortable with old certainties dissolving into shades of grey.

seamus

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

Regarding the trans issue, I find it confusing that on the one hand we are told that gender is a social construct (which, hence, can be deconstructed and is not "real") and that "gender norms" or "gender roles" or stereotypes are a nonsense and everyone should be treated the same (effectively as gender-less - the net result of totally disregarding gender from the consideration of how one should be treated) yet when it comes to trans people, the demand/expectation is that these people should be applauded in their embracing of a social construct, and the 'trappings' that come with it.

The primary argument here is to not consider gender as an absolute. That is, gender is not, "men are X, women are Y". Acknowledge instead that it's incredibly complex and with multiple facets, some of which are nurture, some of which are nature.

In the past, the nature argument was the overall winner - men and women were defined by their biology, and therefore the things they did and the people that they are and their roles in the home and society were likewise predetermined by biology. Individuals who tried to break out of this were aberrations; unnatural; perversions.

The whole feminist movement to a certain extent swung the argument in the opposite direction; gender is absolutely a social construct; people are not defined by their biology and it is therefore entirely down to society that girls want to be princesses and boys want to be firemen. And you had this toxic feminism that (for example) degraded women who were stay at home mothers, that looked down on people for "conforming".

This created an impression that the equal rights movement saw a child as a blank slate onto which we imprinted behaviours, expectations and limits. This was never the intention of equal rights, but nevertheless it happened anyway, because there were those within the movement who believed it to be the case.

We've come to a realisation now that a lot of stuff is nature; men tend toward certain characteristics and jobs, women tend towards others. But there is also a lot of nurture in it too, where society pushes men and women towards certain behaviours and roles.

Nevertheless, the key takeaway is that even though there are tendencies built in by nature (hence how someone can identify as male or female), that doesn't oblige someone to fit a particular profile. So just because someone identifies as male, doesn't oblige them to be attracted to females, or to be the "provider".
And even though some stereotypical things are pure constructs of society, that doesn't oblige someone to conform to them, nor should anyone be ashamed of conforming to them.

I do appreciate that it's confusing. And I do think some of the loudest people circling this discussion don't really give a lot of thought to exactly what they're doing;
On the one hand a woman who says that she's a "girly girl" and loves staying home with her kids may be scoffed at as a poor role model. On the other a trans woman who says she's a girly girl and wants to settle down and raise kids will be applauded. There's a good reason for the applause, and that's because the transition is difficult.

As a "movement", the entire ideology is to let everyone be whoever the hell they want to be. So this includes fighting for trans rights, while also fighting to break down gender barriers. The issue is not that a woman chooses to stay at home, the issue is that women have traditionally not been given a choice.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The primary argument here is to not consider gender as an absolute. That is, gender is not, "men are X, women are Y". Acknowledge instead that it's incredibly complex and with multiple facets, some of which are nurture, some of which are nature.

In the past, the nature argument was the overall winner - men and women were defined by their biology, and therefore the things they did and the people that they are and their roles in the home and society were likewise predetermined by biology. Individuals who tried to break out of this were aberrations; unnatural; perversions.

The whole feminist movement to a certain extent swung the argument in the opposite direction; gender is absolutely a social construct; people are not defined by their biology and it is therefore entirely down to society that girls want to be princesses and boys want to be firemen. And you had this toxic feminism that (for example) degraded women who were stay at home mothers, that looked down on people for "conforming".

This created an impression that the equal rights movement saw a child as a blank slate onto which we imprinted behaviours, expectations and limits. This was never the intention of equal rights, but nevertheless it happened anyway, because there were those within the movement who believed it to be the case.

We've come to a realisation now that a lot of stuff is nature; men tend toward certain characteristics and jobs, women tend towards others. But there is also a lot of nurture in it too, where society pushes men and women towards certain behaviours and roles.

Nevertheless, the key takeaway is that even though there are tendencies built in by nature (hence how someone can identify as male or female), that doesn't oblige someone to fit a particular profile. So just because someone identifies as male, doesn't oblige them to be attracted to females, or to be the "provider".
And even though some stereotypical things are pure constructs of society, that doesn't oblige someone to conform to them, nor should anyone be ashamed of conforming to them.

I do appreciate that it's confusing. And I do think some of the loudest people circling this discussion don't really give a lot of thought to exactly what they're doing;
On the one hand a woman who says that she's a "girly girl" and loves staying home with her kids may be scoffed at as a poor role model. On the other a trans woman who says she's a girly girl and wants to settle down and raise kids will be applauded. There's a good reason for the applause, and that's because the transition is difficult.

As a "movement", the entire ideology is to let everyone be whoever the hell they want to be. So this includes fighting for trans rights, while also fighting to break down gender barriers. The issue is not that a woman chooses to stay at home, the issue is that women have traditionally not been given a choice.

But it's not that is it? It is only applauded or defended when what someone "wants to be" is deemed good in the eyes of the ideology. If what they "want to be" is deemed bad, they are bludgeoned pretty quickly. And when the ideology has no reference point for objective truth (how do you decide what is good or bad, or what is a social construct and what is "natural"?) this inevitably becomes a muddled mess, it is impossible to decide what is "good" in an abstract sense and the ideology retreats into a reactive assault on what it deems to be oppressive, it starts to define itself as what it is against, rather than standing for objective good - because there is not, and cannot, be such a thing. Everything instead is subjective and relative, with objective good reduced to what are fairly unworkable and simplistic slogans "be what you want, whatever makes you happy", that type of thing. These slogans are not lived out (rather they are boxed into a rather ill defined playing field within the ideology).

For instance, even the idea behind allowing people to be what they "want to be" rather than allowing people to be what they are, suggests active decision making over identity - i.e. hence it must be a social construction. If I can "decide" to be the opposite sex (rather than having supposedly been it all along but my body is mistaken) then it is clear that it must be a social construction. If it is a social construction, then I do not understand how a desire to have ones body operated upon for my physical characteristics to correspond with something that does not actually exist, can viewed as anything other than yet another delusion or episode of suffering inflicted by whatever is vilified for constructing such social constructions like gender in the first place. And if I believe it to be a social construction, and I encourage and applaud people going through with these procedures, what does that say about me?

Now, if it is believed that gender is "real" and it is believed that the physical body made a mistake or whatever in terms of biological sex, I can understand completely the logic (even though I would not agree with its basis) of undergoing "corrective" surgery. But it is clear that this is fundamentally incompatible with the social constructionist theory. Yet, we have plenty of people who basically believe and support these entirely contradictory positions, and also demonise those who say that "gender" is real.

Most people do not tend to actually think these things through in detail. This is why we see so many people who were "on the same track" 'cancelling' each other, not because they have veered wildly off track, but rather they followed it to their logical conclusion. We have seen this here with Dawkins as he has followed his ideology and philosophy through to its conclusion. I would argue that when these ideologies are scrutinisied and followed to their logical conclusions, as Dawkins tends to do, people become very uncomfortable and aware (I would suggest) of the fundamental problems, incoherence and ultimate untruth of this philosophy (or embrace the nihilistic conclusions as Dawkins does). What some do is then retreat to the comfortable, nice sounding, fringes of the philosophy and never leave. But there's not much truth there, and it is far from a firm foundation for civilization to be based on. And if the trend towards a "post christian" society continues, and the cultural and moral influence wanes and is replaced by something so ill defined on shifting sands, it will not be pretty - it won't endure, one would fear about what "order" would subsequently arise.

(Just to be clear this is not a criticism of your particular opinion or statements, rather my general observations on the subject).

seamus

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

If what they "want to be" is deemed bad, they are bludgeoned pretty quickly.

Have you got an example?

There are a lot of caveats that I didn't go into, naturally. The obvious one being, "Be what you want to be so long as it doesn't require hurting anyone else".

For instance, even the idea behind allowing people to be what they "want to be" rather than allowing people to be what they are, suggests active decision making over identity - i.e. hence it must be a social construction.

You're assuming a hard definition based on my turn of phrase. A trans man doesn't choose to be a man any more than I do. A gay man doesn't choose to be gay just like I don't choose to be straight.

"Want to be" is a turn of phrase, as how a person outwardly projects themselves is indeed a choice, regardless of how they actually feel internally.

A trans man putting on a female facade and answering to a woman's name is akin to you turning down a cup of tea when you're actually gasping; or more accurately it's like the figurative Pagliacci smiling and clowning around on stage, when he's actually dying inside.

This is the "choice". Nobody chooses to be a man or a woman. But they can choose whether they pretend to be in order to please those who think biological sex and gender are immutably connected.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Have you got an example?

There are a lot of caveats that I didn't go into, naturally. The obvious one being, "Be what you want to be so long as it doesn't require hurting anyone else".

Yes, caveats are necessary, and I would suggest so many will inevitably end up being applied to render the original statement actually very narrow, rather than broad, as it would first appear. This is what I am talking about, the detailed exploration of the underlying philosophy/ideology - what initially appears very permissive and broad, ends up being quite defined. Most people (less tuned in than people on boards like this I would suggest) do not seem to actually delve deeply into what statements like those actually mean in a positive sense, rather than a rail against what is deemed to be oppressive behavior.

For instance, how would you define "hurt"? If you include offended or made to feel bad, then how is it decided, or is it decided, if someone is objectively "correct" to feel hurt? This has to be decided on some basis surely, as people can be "hurt" in a subjective manner by a whole load of things, so obviously a weighing or decision process is necessary to decide who is right and should be protected, and who is wrong. It would appear to be that this process has no objective reference point, but is rather very subjective, and I would suggest, reactivity defined by, and in opposition to, what is viewed as currently being "oppressive". For example, certain groups of feminists (is the t word allowed here?) would appear to be almost mortally hurt and offended by a lot of this topic, the trans issue, but presumably the type of people we are talking about would not accept this hurt as "valid".

If we were starting with an absolute blank slate, I think a lot who hold this type of philosophy would flounder around somewhat blindly without existing social structures to rail against.

You're assuming a hard definition based on my turn of phrase. A trans man doesn't choose to be a man any more than I do. A gay man doesn't choose to be gay just like I don't choose to be straight.

"Want to be" is a turn of phrase, as how a person outwardly projects themselves is indeed a choice, regardless of how they actually feel internally.

I wasn't criticizing your own position (as I said in my final sentence) - it would seem that you are also critical of social constructionists, and believe that some things are "natural", implying that there is some objective truth in the world, and that some are social constructions. How do you decide what is what, is it subjective opinion? Why, in your opinion, is gender not a social construct?

A trans man putting on a female facade and answering to a woman's name is akin to you turning down a cup of tea when you're actually gasping; or more accurately it's like the figurative Pagliacci smiling and clowning around on stage, when he's actually dying inside.

This is the "choice". Nobody chooses to be a man or a woman. But they can choose whether they pretend to be in order to please those who think biological sex and gender are immutably connected.

It would seem that you subscribe to the reality of gender existing, and basically somehow through some biological mishap end up in the "wrong body". Fair enough, I understand this point of view.

But answer me this, on what objective basis can you say that a man is a man, or a woman is a woman? If the answer is "none" and it depends on what the individual identifies themselves as, then on what basis can you say that someone cannot actively choose to be a different gender?

Robert McGrath

Seamus asked for examples of when we negatively judge those who believe they were born in the “wrong” body.

What about those who suffer from anorexia nervosa or those who seek elective amputations because a limb feels “wrong”. I think these forms of body dysmorphia are generally considered pathologies and therefore something to be treated. But gender dysmorphia is treated by many as something to be accommodated. It’s not clear to me what the difference is between gender dysmorphia and other types of body dysmorphia

I am genuinely approaching this debate in good faith and in the interests of learning more, by the way. It’s difficult to find a forum online where this issue can be discussed civilly and this thread has so far been very refreshing and respectful

Bannasidhe

MOD ADVISORY.

Not a warning just an FYI to all posters in the interests that this thread continues in the respectful and thoughtful way it has been up to now.

Threads on the topic of Transgender people have tended to become train wrecks in various forums and no one wants that to happen here so some ground rules going forward.

Firstly in line with stated Boards.ie policy the following will not be tolerated:

Referring to gender dysphoria as a mental illness; deliberate misgendering of anyone (refer to a person as their preferred gender not the gender you prefer to call them - if this is too hard they/them will suffice); accusations that transgender people are seeking to sexually abuse others; classification of gender dysphoria as a sexual fetish.

Sanctions will be applied.


Additionally: Should anyone wish to raise 'arguments' about the danger of transgender women in female prisons they better be armed with evidence that demonstrates that inmates in female prisons are especially at risk from transgender women and not from male/female prison guards or fellow cis inmates.
On changing rooms/toilets again a strict level of evidence will be required if anyone decides to go down that particular route.



As this is a confusing topic for many people terms may be inadvertently used that could be offensive - rather than attack I would ask that it be explained why that term is offensive in an informative and civil way.

Be polite, respectful, and remember that these discussions are about real, living people trying to come to terms with a difficult situation who are often subject to physical attack, vilification, and are murdered.

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

Have you got an example?

There are a lot of caveats that I didn't go into, naturally. The obvious one being, "Be what you want to be so long as it doesn't require infringing on the rights of anyone else".

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids..

What occurs is that that right wasn't ever a right...

Since rights lie in the eye of the beholder, your "caveats" are, surely, your own, only.

Annasopra

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids..
.

Not sure what you are on about. Lots of trans people have kids naturally.

lazygal

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids..

What occurs is that that right wasn't ever a right...

Since rights lie in the eye of the beholder, your "caveats" are, surely, your own, only.

Nature didn't equip many people to have kids but that didn't stop them adopting them and buying them from the nuns.

Odhinn

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids..

What occurs is that that right wasn't ever a right...

Since rights lie in the eye of the beholder, your "caveats" are, surely, your own, only.

The trans gendered aren't, in the main, infertile afaik.



Are you saying that the infertile should be barred from having children?

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids..

What occurs is that that right wasn't ever a right...

Since rights lie in the eye of the beholder, your "caveats" are, surely, your own, only.

I am struggling to see the relevance of this tbh.
But it's fantastically similar to 'arguments' raised during the Marriage Equality referendum debate and just as spurious now as it was then.

Indeed, that 'what about the children ' trope provides an interesting example of how the commentary on gender dysphoria echoes the commentary on homosexuality.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids.

There has never been any such right. If there was, giving a baby up for adoption would not be allowed, yet I'm not aware of anyone having an issue with adoption per se. If people only have an issue in the case of adoption by certain classes of adoptive parents, e.g. trans couples, the problem is not with adoption, it is with prejudice against those people raising children.

smacl

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Seamus asked for examples of when we negatively judge those who believe they were born in the “wrong” body.

What about those who suffer from anorexia nervosa or those who seek elective amputations because a limb feels “wrong”. I think these forms of body dysmorphia are generally considered pathologies and therefore something to be treated. But gender dysmorphia is treated by many as something to be accommodated. It’s not clear to me what the difference is between gender dysmorphia and other types of body dysmorphia

I am genuinely approaching this debate in good faith and in the interests of learning more, by the way. It’s difficult to find a forum online where this issue can be discussed civilly and this thread has so far been very refreshing and respectful

I think you need to be very careful in seeking to draw comparisons between conditions such as BIID (seeking elective amputation) and anorexia nervosa and transsexuality as the former are accepted to be damaging pathologies whereas the latter is not. By making this comparison, you are essentially asking the question "should we consider trans people sick, if not, why not?". As you may or may not be aware, the trans community has suffered serious discrimination and social stigmatism in recent years and fought long and hard not to be discriminated against in this manner. This is a very serious cause for concern. For example, if you look at the scientific studies into self harm among trans community, the main cause listed is social stigmatism (source). While you claim to entering into this argument in good faith, most of those asking us to consider such arguments tend to do so with the agenda of increasing this stigmatism which is quite frankly hateful. I can only assume this wasn't your intention here but my advice is to tread softly.

Bannasidhe

Some thoughts on this, and they are just musings informed by a life lived categorised by society as not 'normal' until I was an adult- and still some people would feel I am not - but now (to my amazement at the fast about face sometimes) for most of society I am perfectly normal. Nonetheless, I have lived the majority of my life outside 'normal' society.

I am referring to being gay, knowing I didn't fancy boys from a very young age, and old enough to have campaigned against Clause 28th in the UK. To add to the joy of it all I am unapologetically a butch ol dyke and always have been. I own no make up, I do own nearly every power tool on the market.

I have been that alleged 'threat' in changing rooms, I have been questioned as to why I am in the 'Ladies' - sometimes abusively. I have been asked if I am a man or a woman. I have been told that gay people deserved to die in the Holocaust by a Rabbi whose family were wiped out in the camps. I still have the scar on my head from a 'queer bashing'.

I am butch. I am a cis woman. I am not a man.

How do I know I am not a man?

For me to 'drag up' in femme clothes I would need to be offered a serious amount of money, drunk, guaranteed there would be no photos/videos, and still unlikely to agree because I know I would be hideously uncomfortable, at ill ease, hate every second of it. It would not be me.
A cis, heterosexual man is more likely to femme drag that I am (this I know from my rugby playing days) as for me that whole feminine thing has connotations - it represents a life I had to fight not to be forced to live.
Clothes have meaning.

All those ads etc that gush "every woman...want/is/needs" - nope. Not me. Zero interest. I do not identify with this "ALL women' trope.

Doing lady things... like getting hair cut at the barber? Popping to the Builder's Merchants for a nose around? Into Penneys - purchase jeans- leave shop immediately?

I do not conform to the stereotypes of the gender I identify as, I would go so far as to say I do not present as the gender I identify as - and never have. But my gender aligns with my biological sex.

How do I know I am not a man?

Because when I am waking up, in that half sleep state, I do not expect to be in a male body.
Because I do not expect to see a man when I look in the mirror half asleep first thing in the morning.
I also don't expect to see a woman in late middle age but that is what I do see and I accept that yes. That's me. I'm not 30 any more.
Puberty did not completely freak me out (not impressed about menstruation starting aged 9 though - which nowadays would have me on puberty blockers) as my child body was turning into an adult version of the body I knew was my gender. I was a girl becoming a woman and that was a-ok with me.

I know I am female. I am comfortable with that.

How do any of you know you are male or female? Is it all down to which genitals you were born with or is it something more elusive?

It is something the vast majority never think about. They are comfortable with the gender of their body because well... it's ...you know.. umm.. penis/vagina...

However, most of us understand what it feels like to be unhappy with something about our body - something that just,... we want to 'fix' so that we are comfortable in our body.
Extend that feeling - imagine waking up every day and that thing is 'fixed', and then discover it isn't. And the whole world interacts with you on the basis of this thing.

This is how I approach gender dysphoria.
The 'thing' is a big thing where during gestation a hormonal mistake was made that impacted on chromosomes (probably bad science but I'm not a scientist and I believe we are more than the sum of our chromosomes anyway so sue me.)

Everyday you have to live in the wrong body and to compound that people for whom your gender identification has zero impact feel free to not only comment on you - but to bully you on social media, in real life, accuse you of being a sexual predictor, a fetishist, a danger to children, a stealer of safe spaces. To murder you.

I am in awe of the courage of transgender people and what they have to go through just to be in the body that they should have been born in.

Anyhoo - just my 2 cents on it.

btw - I know a lot of transgender people. Some of whom I have known since they were children, and some of them identified (minority granted) as trans (as in "I am not a boy, I am a girl" way) from a very young age - others had a real struggle.
I have no hesitation in saying that although they all have the usual blugh issues we all have every single one of them is happier in themselves now than they were then.

Interesting post.

Is there any objective reason why you do not think you are a man? Or is it something that is entirely subjective? Do you think it is something which is fixed, or could you wake up tomorrow and no longer be 'comfortable', and expect to see something different in the mirror?