Glittering generalities

[Oscarino]

I recently learnt of the concept of “glittering generalities”.

A glittering generality (also called glowing generality) is an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason. Such highly valued concepts attract general approval and acclaim. (Wikipedia)

An important thing about glittering generalities is that they are never clearly defined- to define them is to open them to question.

This concept is one I think we are currently seeing being expertly used.

I cannot find a clear explanation of what exactly are the “rights” trans people want. I support the right of trans people to not be discriminated against and to live in peace - yet I am still accused of denying trans rights. What rights am I denying? As far as I can see the rights I am denying are the right to control not only the words but the actual thoughts of others; the right to define not only themselves but others - women (esp lesbians); the right to override the rights of others and the right to insist that not getting everything demanded is oppression sufficient to cancel out enormous levels of privilege.

“Rights” in this context is a clear example of a glittering generality. Asking for details of the rights denied is refused I get told to “read a book” but not told which book to read, “talk to trans people” but they don’t want to talk to me about this and if I persist I’m just told to fuck off.

The surprising thing is that glittering generalities are most often used by politicians and yet politicians seem completely unaware of what is happening. Does any politician, or anyone else, who waves the flag for trans rights have any coherent idea of what they are supporting or is it all just “rights - yay!” “Oppression- boo!” ?

Certainly, the jump on the latest bandwagon effect is evident in politicians and their rhetoric, with their desire to keep everybody happy. I honestly think most have a dearth of critical thinking skills.

And certainly, there is a well-funded campaign where change sex rights have been sellotaped on the back of LBG rights. The stats quoted to support their claims are disengenuous in that they have not conducted to professional, clinical research standards.

There's a lot of loud, crying wolf going on but little substance to back it up

Even a lawyer attached to promoting 'trans rights' struggled to come up with any that were missing. He resorted to 'the spirit of the law', implicitly acknowledging that there are no rights missing.

Glittering generality is a great phrase.

Isn’t it cool? I heard the phrase and went to Wikipedia and looked it up. It’s perfect to describe a lot of what’s happening.

I noticed this recently in the brouhaha over that Atlantic article about trans teenagers - very even handed, mostly pro-trans narrative, interviewed trans teenagers and a number of establishment medical experts - result: shrieks of transphobia. It was clear that what some of the activists mean by trans rights is the right to access hormones without seeing a psychologist and without question. And I am not sure their supporters all fully realise this. They think it's about people not getting beaten up or sacked for wearing a dress.

And glittering generality is a great phrase.

I remember when Germaine Greer was asked why she thinks Caitlyn Jenner transitioned, she said "for the attention?"

Glittering generality works well, keep it vague and keep being centred.

I like this phrase and, as with the recent introduction of Chesterton's fence, am going to be using it going forward!

I love it that we are gradually finding really good concepts and language around articulating our position.

I’m pretty convinced this whole agenda is a gift to the tories, nice emotional appeal but also a vehicle for dismantling of discrimination protections for both women and trans people.

If the tories haven’t cottoned on to it already then they will.

I wonder when trans people calling for it will realise it has the potential to erase rights and provision of things they depend on? Declassifying dysphoria for example is very very clearly the first step to not providing treatment of any kind (including drugs)....

This is brilliant. We need this kind of analysis to challenge this rhetoric.

Could you give a few real life examples as I am struggling to comprehend.

Does any politician, or anyone else, who waves the flag for trans rights have any coherent idea of what they are supporting or is it all just “rights - yay!” “Oppression- boo!” ?

Pretty sure for most of them, certainly my own MP, it's the second.

"Declassifying dysphoria for example is very very clearly the first step to not providing treatment of any kind (including drugs)...."

When the definitions of gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria change, a lot of effort goes into ensuring that the changes don't afford an opportunity to restrict treatment.

This is the second phrase I've learned this week. The first was Biological elite.

Snappity

I think your optimism is ill founded. Quite often when people asserting rights overreach it can have unintended consequences.

An analogy in disability discrimination law was the case of Lewisham BC v Malcolm which was argued to the House of Lords (as it then was) on the basis that direct discrimination included discrimination raising from disability. Those who asserted it, including many campaigners, were adamant that the law would recognise the right not to be discriminated against for what was a symptom of a disability (in that case arguing it was during a mental health episode that Mr M unlawfully sublet his flat so it would discrimination to evict him). The House of Lords not only disagreed but made the law worse for people with disabilities, particularly in employment law when other cases followed the precedent, until the enactment of the Equality Act some years later.

The Christian Legal Centre are well known for taking ill-advised cases which have not assisted that protected characteristic.

So, when trying to change law either by statute or case law, remember there is a real risk that the rights gained can be reversed. This is what a lot of women are now seeing in the protected characteristic of sex; and it should be recognised in voting terms, demographics are not on your side. It will only take 1 or 2 tabloid-bad examples of women in this country having their privacy and safety violated and you will see backlash . This view is shared by a number of the gender reassigned people (using the Equality Act term) I know.

Ok, let me explain it in this way. In insurance based systems insurance companies are not going to pay for treatments if something is not a medical condition.

In the U.K. the NHS is not invulnerable re funding decisions. Funding decisions are made based in part on analysis of clinical need, effectiveness and cost. If you remove medical classification for all trans people (who have different needs) it is entirely conceivable that the funding for gender identity clinics and treatments will be removed at some point. Have you not seen the news regarding the NHS recently? Goodwill can only last so long when the money has been cut to the bone.

Re discrimination; if trans people succeed in getting the law to approach trans issues from the view that trans people are the sex that they say they are how can transphobia even exist in law? How will this affect indirect discrimination which looks at shared characteristics of the group in order to determine if practices disadvantage the group? How do we monitor sex based and gender based violence? How do we know if trans people are dying due to poor medical care which fails to account for sex differences?

The fact is once these laws are made they are contextualised and used in society. They remain on the statute book until they are removed. It’s so important IMO to not just consider these things re ‘what we want’ but also re ‘how open to misuse are they?’

Obviously the issues re the potential negatives for trans people (who have different needs and are not one homogenous group) are properly considered by trans rights groups and so this aspect is not much to do with women’s sex based rights per se but many GC feminists care very deeply about what could go wrong for trans people with this stuff, as well as what the obvious difficulties for women re sex are.

It’s depressing to constantly be expected to centre trans rights and also constantly be told that anything less than just accepting what we are told, when we can see real problems ahead and we care about them, makes us transphobic etc