Can we find a good historical analogy to the trans debate

[StillTryingHard]

The problem as I see it is that here we have two opposing factions that each see each other as the victim.

We (me) see biological women as the victim - that we have been the victim of male privilege & supremacy politically financially and physically for millennia and still are in many (most) countries

Trans identifiers see themselves as a sexual minority who are being devised access to spaces.

All the analogies I come up with side with the people who want to gain access to denied spaces. Rosa Parks, suffragettes etc

Is there a sufficient historical analogy that can show even though we want self identifying trans folk to keep out of women's geographical political economic ring fenced spaces - that this does not make us the oppressors.

I fall into the terf camp btw. But I have these arguments in my head

Colonialism.

Looking at it from a side of "you must believe the thing that we believe - despite no evidence - and you will be punished if not", there's plenty of historical religion examples of heresy.

If you look at it from "oppressed minority wants to take up what is offered to others", you're going to struggle - as generally the oppressed minority is the one in the right. However, that isn't what's happening here, self ID males are not an oppressed minority, they just view themselves as one. Like a persecution complex.

I don't think the civil rights movement does align with the trans movement, although they like to appropriate it a lot.

Black people - oppressed group
White people - oppressors

The equivalent analogy would be if some of those white people decided that they had an inner black self and that black people as a class were oppressing them with their cis-black privilege. They would be insisting that those black people priotise the trans black people above themselves because 'more oppressed'.

That's a really good question OP and I'm sitting here wracking my brains to find a good analogy, but none of them really fit. It's difficult when you've got a movement that's based on 'feelings' which are totally subjective!

The Paedophile Information Exchange debacle?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10659100/Harriet-Harman-Jack-Dromey-Patricia-Hewitt-and-the-Paedophile-Information-Exchange.html

The glass delusion.

The Glass Delusion is a useful analogy:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32625632

www.history.com/news/the-delusion-that-made-nobles-think-their-bodies-were-made-of-glass

Except, of course, no-one rushed to legislate for glass rights!

BahHumbygge

Great minds etc!

I think colonialism is close. What it makes me think of are all those cowboy films from the 40s and 50s of the brave settlers opening up the west and creating a nation - a nation (America) in which the natives exist solely in the same way the landscape does - as a backdrop against which the white heroics can be played out. But that backdrop also functions as a "thing" which can be appropriated to differentiate the white settlers who see themselves as "American" from the European powers they are cutting themselves off from (and have fought a war of independence against) in building their new nation.

So in this analogy (an imperfect one) trans activists would be the brave settlers pushing ever westwards against the odds and creating a new nation (Americans), setting themselves apart from men and toxic masculinity (Europeans) and appropriating womanhood (the indigenous people, who aren't really seen as people at all but just part of the background scenery to be put on as a costume).

So they are colonialists, but they don't see themselves as colonialists because they've attached that label not to themselves (rampaging and pillaging across an already occupied territory) but to the "cis" people who they think oppressed them. And because no-one wants to pick a fight with the people with real power (the "cis" males) they project their beliefs about oppression onto the "cis" women.

Gay rights. People who stood against same sex marriage BELIEVED same sex marriage was wrong and wanted OTHER PEOPLE to live their lives according to beliefs those people didn't share. They thought gay people should not get married because of this.

People proposing Self-ID BELIEVE if a man says he feels like a woman he is a woman and can walk into all the rights and protections built up due to disadvantages in their biology. They want OTHER people, women, to give up those rights and protections because of a belief they don't share.

We are heading towards government-enforced acceptance of the quasi religious belief that reproductive sex is not a material reality. Persecution of those who refuse to believe.

There are so many historical parallels here. I'm struggling to think of a historical parallel for the situation in your OP, though.

Good point Everyonematters

I've seen so many comparisons to gay marriage but it really is pretty much the reverse of what those people are arguing.

To indirectly build on everyone's post -

The people who BELIEVED same sex attraction was wrong wanted to impose conversion therapy on gay people
The people who BELIEVE self ID is all that matters want to impose conversion therapy on gay people

That cowboy analogy is brilliant.

Also works with (historic) disability/(present) ASD and sterilisation

I like the colonisation idea!

The medication and surgery on children is like the lobotomy scandal.

Thought to be cutting edge medicine and a lifesaver for those with mental health issues and then looked back on with horror.

I really like Hairy's colonial analogy!

And I also think it's close to a religious schism - as others have said about transubstantiation.

coffeecork you are spot on with this:
We are heading towards government-enforced acceptance of the quasi religious belief that reproductive sex is not a material reality. Persecution of those who refuse to believe.

That is what really worries me about the proposals for self ID. That any man can say he is a woman purely because he feels it is a belief. It is by no means one everyone shares. People are already feeling fear to speak out due to their jobs, their personal safety, etc. If you codify that in law and make it a hate crime to question it, how is that ok?

Never thought of colonialism but yes, it's spot on. I think that the modern equivalent is cultural appropriation.

People used to be able to wear a silky kimono or wear their hair in lots of braids because they like them but these days we have to fear people thinking that it's an attempt to be culturally insensitive.

I see a lot of people agreeing with trans movement because they don't want to be seen as intolerant /transphobic.

Have a look at what has been happening in Canada. Remember Morgane Oger? The person who wanted to track down the woman holding a gender critical sign? He has set up a foundation to tackle similar 'hate crime'

This Transwoman is very concerned and trying to stand up for women like us:
mobile.twitter.com/Jenn_pansexual/status/961203922575622145

For the transing of GNC children and women suffering from trauma I'd say lobotomy would be the best analogy.

Rachel Dolezal?

I agree colonialisation is a very good example. Especially the idea that the colonials were superior to the people they were colonising.

Not sure if it's relevant but I remember the 'plantations' of Protestants in Ireland by Elizabeth 1st (hazy gcse memory) in order to start infiltrating and religiously dominating the catholics - feels similar.