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

Every time I see Morgane Oger I think, wow, Fred Armisen is looking really rough these days, is he OK?

Thanks for the Jenn link. Followed.

Adding Manifest Destiny to the general idea of colonialism - American expansionism and exceptionalism as if it's some divinely ordained rightful fulfilment of progress.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

Transubstantiation and Mary I reintroduction of catholic articles.

I just don't get the logic behind cultural appropriation being some terrible thing and womanface being lauded all round.

I think trans is like the PIE thing, in terms of how we will look back on it. And I'm fairly sure once trans issues become visible to the man in the street, rather than being the preserve of the crazy liberals, it will be all over for the TRAs

I think it's more like dystopia than anything in history. A situation in which language gets changed to mean the opposite of what it means, where the thing that oppresses you turns out to be your privilege, where if you do not accept the rules and the language you're cast out....

There's an interesting blogpost by Nina Paley here:

blog.ninapaley.com/2018/02/07/gender_colonialism/

She makes an analogy with Israel: in short, American liberals are divided between those who saw the settlers in Palestine as refugees and those who saw them as colonists. She argues that trans-identified men divide people in the same way: some see them as refugees from maleness, and some see them as colonisers of femaleness.

That's a fantastic comparison hackmum

Interesting question, OP.

I'm trying to think of something with unintended consequences: a step forward in theory which in practice and inadvertently allows ne'er do wells to cause harm.

Perhaps guns in the US? Undoubtedly they were needed for protection in earlier lawless times, but enshrining the right to bear arms in law has allowed criminals and nut cases to cause havoc.

I would avoid comparisons with anti-semism, I think that will just confuse people.

RE the refugee thing though, that would be like fleeing the UK, turning up in Syria, and expecting that the much poorer country with far more challenges than the one you're fleeing offer you shelter and assistance. The power analogy is going in the wrong direction.

As said up thread the plantations in Ireland would be a good analogy.

I think it's more like dystopia than anything in history. A situation in which language gets changed to mean the opposite of what it means, where the thing that oppresses you turns out to be your privilege, where if you do not accept the rules and the language you're cast out...
Yes. This is scary.

Wonderful replies and I am finding this thread fascinating - if that's an ok thing to say about a post you've started. Colonialism & cowboys are good ideas to progress. Yes yes yes to lobotomies & sex operations... never heard of the glass illusion. I also think of the devil worship in the 80s - wasn't that exposed as being a mirage except for a few real cases (analogous to gender dysmorphia)

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

The problem, as I see it, is that we have a faction claiming to be something it is not. The analogy is Emperor's New Clothes.

Can anyone help me with a way to explain to ds how opposition to the the transwomen are women narrative isn’t using all the same arguments that were previously used against homosexuals?

Can anyone help me with a way to explain to ds how opposition to the the transwomen are women narrative isn’t using all the same arguments that were previously used against homosexuals?

Throw the argument back to him and start with the basics. Ask DS to define 'woman'.
I do lots of things that used to be men-only (I have a degree, I vote, my profession). I sometimes wear trousers. But I don't claim to be a man. What exactly is it that a trans claims to be?

Reminds me a lot of factions against the gay community up to the 90s and Section 28. We hear very different views looking back.

Aftershock - the answer to that (although this is highly simplified) is that the gay and lesbian movement wanted to have equal rights to other people - ie the ability to marry the person they love.

There was no attempt to take rights from another group or to have the rights of another protected group changed to accommodate them.

They, rightly, wanted their own set of laws and legal rights that made them equal to all others.

The trans community also have the right to be equal - but not at the expense of another protected group.

Can anyone help me with a way to explain to ds how opposition to the the transwomen are women narrative isn’t using all the same arguments that were previously used against homosexuals?

They're not identical, obviously, but it's hard for a rational, compassionate person not to see the parallels.

It would be like gay men forcing straight men to see male homosexuality as the only acceptable sexual orientation and demanding to sleep with them. It's a boundary transgression that only one party is ok with.

It's similar with gender... TIMs are seeking to force women to self define by gender rather than sex. This then means that spaces (public toilets, leisure centre showers, prisons, refuges etc) are allocated on a gender basis, which I repudiate.

They are saying "I am the same class as you, I am coming in" (gender).

I do not have the same right to say back "I am not the same class as you, get out of my space" (sex)

It's assymetric boundary transgression.

The power differential reflects existing structural imbalances between the respective classes.

Women have never been allowed to say no to men.

Boundaries are considered bigoted in this brave new world of identity politics, neoliberalism in disguise, but actually they are essential in civil rights to protect the oppressed groups from their oppressors.

"Can anyone help me with a way to explain to ds how opposition to the the transwomen are women narrative isn’t using all the same arguments that were previously used against homosexuals?"

As a lesbian myself, when I was younger, it was common to hear people (mostly males) thinking it was unnatural for women to not want to have sex with someone with a penis.
Nowadays, TRAs are saying exactly the same thing...........

Old days (from lesbians to all and sundry) 'I'm attracted to who I'm attracted, and that is fine'.
Nowadays (to lesbians, from TRAs) 'You're attracted to who you are attracted to and it is wrong' (you nasty vagina fetishists you!).

Gay people weren't saying they were the same as straight people, they were saying they were different, but of equal worth (and might want to hang out amongst others of their own kind). Whereas TRAs are trying to stomp into someone elses spaces and demanding to be let in. It's the difference, in effect, between demanding to get into someone elses straight wedding, and asking to be allowed to have your own specifically gay and far more fabulous one! My lesbian marriage doesn't effect your straight wedding in the least, it takes away nothing from you (apart from meaning a bit more competition for bookings of wedding venues!). Whereas TRAs, again, don't want to organise their own specific trans spaces set up for their own particular needs, but instead want to invade existing women-only spaces.

(as regards 'invasion' BTW, it was always straight folks and particularly hen nights trying to invade gay spaces, or straight men trying to invade lesbian nights. Now TRAs are trying to do the same thing.).

Best argument though is perhaps the many lesbians and gay men who are against the current TRA narrative. How did they supposedly go from oppressed minority, to being the bad guys? Why would drag queens, fags, and dykes have an issue with TRAs (and many of them do).
Plus, TRAs are being naughty co-opting someone elses struggle to try and support their own. As they also do trying to co-opt the issues that intersex people have (who have repeatedly asked to be left out of that argument please, since intersex organisations campaign to refuse surgery on infants and children unless absolutely necessary, whereas TRAs seem to be arguing for the opposite, with surgical/medical intervention as soon as possible.).

Sometimes I feel like this is a bit like the rise of Nazi Germany. Watching your rights being taken away bit by bit and laws being passed and then it’s too late to do anything about them. And most pp not seeing what’s going on in front of their very eyes!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

We are all Cassandras.

Instead of 'I, Spartacus' we should use 'I, Cassandra'.

Or the rise of fascism in Italy.

Cassandra is a good one.

I often think of stories in Terry Pratchet books where no one can see the obvious, because it is not what they want to see.