Looking for a neutral summary on trans issues

[catkind]

I won't pretend I don't hold strong (GC) views myself, but I would find it really useful to have a neutral summary of the positions both sides (and subcamps) are taking. I want to be able to explain to friends who have no idea about trans politics what this is about and what the disagreements are, in terms that friends who are on the transactivist side of the debate won't disagree with. Anyone got any good links for me?

I read this the other day and thought it was very clear and kind.

gendercriticalgreens.wordpress.com

Thanks Dance. I agree that is very clear and empathetic, but definitely only giving the GC view. Unless I missed something? My right on TWAW colleagues aren't going to agree that sets out their arguments iyswim? I'd really like something more along the lines of saying trans campaigners believe xyz, GC feminists believe ABC, the points of disagreement are, the problems this causes are ... So my perspective would be explained but theirs too.

I hope that makes sense as something to look for. It's what I do with religion as an atheist parent. If you can isolate what is "Christians believe" and what is "some Christians believe"" and what is "Muslims believe" from what is generally agreed fact, it makes it easier for kids to decide which view lines up best with their own. Naturally with religion and gender I expect my view to be the one that comes out looking sensible when you line it all up But at least if they don't buy my line it gives them a clearer understanding of where I'm coming from and of what they're signing up to.

One of the trans women who posts on here might be able to come up with something from their perspective?

It's going to be difficult there really isnt a neutral perspective, gender-critical sites, push back against trans rights, trans rights groups, and all the groups not affiliated with either side, support the trans side.

Either you present biased anti-trans info, without any trans peoples perspectives or opinions taken into account........... or you present something informative and backed up by majority opinion of experts and information and stats NOT plucked from wordpress blogs..... but you'll find it difficult to find reliable information or reputable organisations against trans rights.

Actual at that

I'd maybe use something like the GC greens post, but hold up everydayfeminism alongside? So they can read both putting their own thoughts foreword, rather than chance any bias?

*forward

I'd really like something more along the lines of saying trans campaigners believe xyz, GC feminists believe ABC, the points of disagreement are, the problems this causes are ... So my perspective would be explained but theirs too.

It would be useful to you to actually research what trans campaigners are actually saying, rather than some random trans person cherry-picked off twitter and framed as a trans campaigner

www.indy100.com/article/trans-lives-shon-faye-juno-dawson-riley-carter-india-willoughby-travis-alabanza-annie-wallace-8099866

The neutral perspective can be generated by asking the same explicit, objective and unambiguous questions of both sides.
And it starts by asking both sides to define terms.

Like: what is a female? What are the characteristics of women?

(Actually what then usually happens then is one side happily defines terms and the other either refuses or creates a self-referential feedback loop.)

There are umpteen threads here inviting believers of the trans position (I don't know how to refer to this group without falling foul of guidelines) to define terms so that mutual understanding can be reached, and they always decline or obfuscate.

It's rather like asking for a neutral position between those that declare "2+2=4"
and those who declare "2+2=6"
and hoping for an outcome of 2+2=5 because that seems like a nice compromise.

I was hoping someone had done the research and synthesis for me! My go to for the trans position is currently Stonewall, is that reasonable would you say garam? I'm afraid it's the trans side I'm finding it harder to find calm reasoned position statements that explain to novices. Looking for the "Christians believe..." version not the "God is great and those bastards threw us to the lions" version or the "here's how to be a good Christian" version.

gender-critical sites, push back against trans rights

What rights are gender critical people trying to push back on exactly?

Barrack: I don't mean I want a compromise position, I mean I want something that sets out the definitions on either side (or lack thereof) and reasons given for them. How a neutral journalist might try to explain the disagreement if we could locate such a person?

It's rather like asking for a neutral position between those that declare "2+2=4"
and those who declare "2+2=6"
and hoping for an outcome of 2+2=5 because that seems like a nice compromise.

It's this sort of closed-minded shit that gives this place a bad name.

The Stonewall definition of gender is
GENDER
^Often expressed in terms of masculinity and
femininity, gender is largely culturally determined,
based on the sex assigned at birth.^

Culturally specified masculinity and femininity rules, then.

and GENDER IDENTITY
A person’s deeply held, internal sense of their own

See, it doesn't make sense, does it?
How can a culturally determined rule ALSO be deeply held and internal?

Even their own definition pretty much equates to "is very personally attached to one of the two sex stereotypes that a particular society imposes"

It's this sort of closed-minded shit that gives this place a bad name.

But then, if one opens one's mind so far that one's brain falls out how will we know who the ladybrains belong to?

If you want to engage, dancingbear, then engage with the position I take. We can all throw quips about.

I'm suggesting that facts are objective, not subjective. You're not exactly proving me wrong.

I've not read them but the economist is doing a series of articles from different viewpoints.

There's also some journalists who are writing about the topic.

Unfortunately, it does seem that if an organisation/individual doesn't support 100% the current "trans" view point then it is branded "transphobic" and people refuse to engage.

Hence all the "No debate". I think if someone did the type of thing you suggest outlining then it would get labeled as transphobic.

This is my understanding.

Everyone agrees that trans people should not be treated differently from others because they are trans when it comes to basic rights such as access to appropriate healthcare, how they are treated by the police, employment etc.

Trans activists additionally believe that how you feel is more critical than biology and that people should be treated on how they feel not their biology. Thus they believe that trans people should have access to spaces that hitherto have been single sex. They also believe that jobs that have hitherto been single sex (by which I mean whereby someone can request someone of a specific sex) should be made available to someone who feels they are of that gender, even if their body is naturally of the opposite gender. Furthermore they believe they should always be referred to as the gender they have transitioned to.

Gender critical people in contrast believe that biology is the key definer to being a woman/man and that other 'markers' of being male/female are due to socialisation or are far less importance. In particular they believe that female single sex spaces need to be kept as such due to the different nature of men and the desires of women to be able to have some 'safe' spaces, especially when they are vulnerable when asleep or in states of undress or distress. Furthermore they believe that such things as reporting trans crimes as belonging to the acquired gender rather than the born sex leads to misleading information, and in particular makes women out to be more violent than they tend to be.

Transwomen want access to female spaces to validate their feelings that they are women. They don't want a 3rd space as it 'others' them. Gender critical people want transwomen (in particular the high % or pre-op trans) to not have access to these spaces. They would support a 3rd space if transwomen don't feel safe in the mens.

Transactivists do not believe that self-ID will lead to people claiming to be female in order to access female spaces for inappropriate reasons. Feminists are concerned that men will do just that.

Don't think there is anything you are best off going to two sources one for each side - e.g. stonewall and fair play for women.

The recent Economist series is the nearest I've seen to balance. The Today programme did a good job but not much depth and the rest of the BBC coverage has been really biased bar a couple of tries like BBC politics show that would have been good had it not been finished with a solo Pink News Editor

gender-critical sites, push back against trans rights

No, we are holding the line on women's rights. The transactivists are the one's doing the pushing.

If you want to engage, dancingbear, then engage with the position I take. We can all throw quips about.

There's no point if you hold the view that there is only one possible position. You may as well shut the forum down. As a vehicle for debate it's already a worthless echo chamber. And I happen to agree with much of what's posted here.

The OP's come on and said 'I'm trying to get a better understanding of both sides of the argument so that I can discuss it better with others and hopefully persuade them'. You've basically responded 'there is no other side of the argument, only ours'. Do you see the problem?

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I haven't been balanced.

I think I should also say that:

Traditionally women in general have been accepting of the small number of transwomen who have used women's toilets and changing rooms. The push back now appears to be due to the demands of the activists that this should be a right for anyone who feels they are trans, rather than a courtesy for those undergoing medical transition.

There are also issues regarding teenagers, ASD and medicalisation.

TWAW believe that gender identity is real but biological sex is either constructed or an irrelevant difference like eye colour or nose shape. In their world the word woman means someone that feels like a woman "inside". Thus to call a transwoman not a real woman is offensive because it ignores and denies her sense of who she is. To target pregnancy/abortion advice and support on "women" is offensive and exclusive because it ignores the fact that many "men" have uteri

Gender Critical people believe that gender is constructed - there is no such thing as an internal female or men identity. Gender is something that is imposed externally on us by societal norms. People may have values/preferences that are inconguerent with the gender that is imposed on them but this does not mean that they are a different gender. On the other hand they believe that biological sex is important. It is important NOT because it determines attitudes, behaviour, how people want to present themselves but because it determines how society treats us, because the physical differences between men and women determine our place in society. The importance of biology is not a normative statement in this view but a positive one

And unfortunately I think you will struggle to find a GC viewpoint that doesn't contain words that "trans allies" would find acceptable.

We're being quite heavily moderated here under threat of the ban hammer.

Stating that a female has a uterus is considered exclusionary and if you maintain that point of view then you are transphobic.

I'd also add that the transwoman I know doesn't subscribe to the current ideology and guess many others don't either. Unfortunately it seems to be a rather extreme minority who are leading the discussion.

I was hoping someone had done the research and synthesis for me! My go to for the trans position is currently Stonewall, is that reasonable would you say garam?

No. "Trans" is a great big floppy umbrella term for groups which are very different. You need to talk at a grassroots level.

Good post Teen