Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

I don't get it

29 replies

Doyoumind · 26/08/2021 10:53

In the BBC's story yesterday about Ofcom/Stonewall, there was a reference to whether single-sex toilets should be accessible to 'people of the opposite sex who identify as trans' and the TRAs on Twitter lost their shit about it and claimed it was misgendering. How? In what way is it not factual?

The story has now been changed to read 'accessible to transgender people'. That doesn't even make sense because the debate is about their sex. No problem with a transgender person who is male going into the men's is there? Or a trans man in the women's loos.

I know why they do it - because sex must be replaced by gender etc etc but I don't think even a year ago such a response to the mention of trans people being the opposite sex to the gender they identify with would have been so widespread. Isn't that the bloody definition? So tired of it all.

OP posts:
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 26/08/2021 11:10

I was wondering why that sentence in the article made no sense Hmm

I guess it is misgendering if you believe that transpeople literally change sex, but apparently, as we are often told here, no-one believed that Confused

LazyViper · 26/08/2021 11:07

Because the TRAs scream that correct scientific terminology causes literal harm and makes the world unsafe for trans people, and organisations have to choose between standing up for reality and taking the social media attacks, or tiptoeing on eggshells around it to keep the volatile screaming people quiet. They choose option 2.

NecessaryScene · 26/08/2021 11:04

That USA Today one was close to libel, I thought.

Effectively presenting her as transphobic by inserting words into her mouth to say that the objection to them was that they were transgender.

NecessaryScene · 26/08/2021 11:01

The story has now been changed to read 'accessible to transgender people'. That doesn't even make sense because the debate is about their sex.

Sigh.

There was another heinous example of this in where USA Today edited an article by Chelsea Mitchell - one of the Connecticut student runners to replace all the uses of "male" with "transgender".

Saying “This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY’s standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used.” Angry

adflegal.org/blog/i-was-fastest-girl-connecticut-transgender-athletes-made-it-unfair-fight

Whole thing made no sense after that.

There's an increasing tendency to edit other people's words and stop them saying what they mean. I've seen other news articles that have edited direct quotes changing "he" to "she" without any indication that they've done so.