Allegations of transphobia Mod Advisory post #42

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.