Is trans the new homosexual?

[PerverseConverse]

Someone has just said on Facebook that psychiatrists treated homosexuality many years ago as something that was a response to societal pressures and that transgenderism is the new version of this with the implication that in years to come it will be dismissed as such and will be accepted as much as homosexuality is now accepted (I'm not suggesting it is completely accepted as there is still a lot of hate out there but accepted in a loose sense. Sorry not explaining very well). I think this isn't the case at all. Is this a widely held belief that in time all the fuss will die down, surgery will be the norm and all will be accepted and rosy?

It was a very good epistle, silentcrow. I thank you.

Good stuff, silentcrow.

Have just shared it with a couple of friends who are currently doing the consultation and writing to their MPs.

I have been accused on social media of hate crime for stating that:

There are some adults who believe that you can change biological sex.

This was on a post that derided and mocked adults for believing in Noah's Ark. As far as I'm aware, religious beliefs are protected.

I was also accused of a hate crime for pointing out that Momentum's video was not only posted by a homophobe but was homophobic.

It's disgusting. I grew up in Northern Ireland were hate crimes were a normal part of every day life. I understand hate crimes and bigotry when I see it.

I remember the slogan 'Sectarianism kills workers'

Have just shared it with a couple of friends who are currently doing the consultation and writing to their MPs.

Oh my, I wasn't expecting that! thanks, both, that means a lot coming from you - my head must be on straight, then. I wish I'd understood that much when I filled in the consultation weeks ago. Guess I need to get some letters written.

Nice silent crow. Sums it up totally

A neat summary silentcrow that relates to much of my own thinking. One group not included is the narcissists who adopt a "low impact" trans identity, for example "enby", and don't change clothes, appearance, take hormones, or have surgery, and then spend their time policing the people around them who are, by necessity, already walking on eggshells. People like the odious Gregor Murray.

Oh I should also have said, the people I'm talking about in my post are not so easy to identify and explain to people being introduced to the trans issue. You need to see them in action to get an idea of what's going on.

nauticant yes, I agree - I tried to cover it with You have kids (and grown-ass adults who should know better) trying to be non-binary or queer who've just drunk the pomo kool-aid and are trying to be special or play the oppression Olympics out of narcissism (they make me want to sing Common People very loudly), but it probably needed a bit more clarification to explain that some of these adults hold positions that allow them to behave badly.

I must have skipped the end of that paragraph in my reading of your post! Perhaps the (adult babies, furries), the paedophiles, the rapists caused my eyes to slip on to the next paragraph.

My fault. As you were.

I believe that trans activists have spent considerable time carefully studying other social struggles (not just homosexuality) and - at the highest level - made efforts to seed the language of consultation and legislation in numerous ways such that readers questions their own judgement and err on the side of aquiescence.

That is certainly my impression. When I first heard about this, I noticed that a lot of the same language was being used about the needs in schools, as that used when describing the needs of children with autism in schools. I was familiar with this as there is autism in my family so I have read all the stuff. I couldn't, for the life of me, work out why a six year old wanting to come to school in the uniform of the opposite sex required the massive turn around in the way of thinking that you need to take on board to integrate a child with a significant problem with communication skills in order to enable learning in a school environment. They were even using phrases like 'the brain being wired differently'.

Once you see it in an area you understand, it becomes apparent elsewhere.

My fault. As you were.

Not at all, it's a good point to make. The "coat tailers" come in all sorts of forms, from teens trying on identify to full-on paraphiliacs - their sub-umbrella is particularly big, iyswim. That's what makes it so worrying and difficult to explain, really. You can make a case for the three main groups falling under "trans" as a category - indeed, we already had transexual and transvestite to cover the adult groups, and ROGD may well cover the teens. But covering everything else and trying to make them some kind of category between sexuality and disability makes no logical sense.

If I was 20 now I'm sure I'd be calling myself an enby (NB, non-binary) as who wants to be lumped in with all those cissy girls in their pink frills? But when I was 20, we just said we were rejecting sex-role stereotypes, and didn't ask for special privileges or bond into a particular segment of a cult. Being a girl now is undoubtedly shittier than it was in 1969, so I try to appreciate what the horrendous pressure on girls is now and that finding ways to survive that has got to be creative.
.

Great article by Jane Clare Jones exploring the difference between gay rights and trans rights.

janeclarejones.com/2018/09/09/gay-rights-and-trans-rights-a-compare-and-contrast/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

A quote

What I want to do here is think through why the concept of ‘discrimination-as-phobia’ worked for the gay rights movement, and why, despite superficial similarities, it doesn’t accurately capture what is at stake in the trans rights debate, and actually serves as a tool of political propaganda and obfuscation to push that agenda through. That is, I’m going to argue that accusations of ‘homophobia’ were a politically powerful and basically on-the-money part of gay rights discourse, while the use of ‘transphobia’ is an inaccurate parallel which grossly distorts public perceptions of the issues involved in the trans rights debate, and is doing so in the service of actually preventing that debate taking place.*

You know what I have a theory that one of the reason all these people uncritically accept the trans narrative, is because deep down, they either are homophobes now or were in the past.

They didn't like homosexuality, they didn't understand it, they found it all a bit icky but they gradually learned that they were on "the wrong side of history" for feeling like that. They felt a bit queasy about gay marriage., but now they feel guilty for feeling that.

They're determined not to feel bad about themselves again. They feel about trans, the way they felt about homosexuality - they don't like it, they don't understand it, they feel a bit queasy about it. But they think that they must be wrong about it, because they were wrong about homosexuality. So they have the zeal of the convert, embracing the whole kit and caboodle and stubbornly resisting any real thought about it, in case they find they're the horrible bigoted people they suspect they're in danger of turning back into.

If you don't have that guilt trip going on, maybe it's easier to stand back and ask questions.

Argh, sorry, I just realised I never came back after reading the initial few replies I've been busy with all sorts irl and forgot. I'll check out the links in the morning but thanks for all the contributions.

No.

Just like flat-earthism isn't the new astronomy, and creationism isn't the new evolutionary science, so transgenderism isn't the new homosexuality.

Because when science, logic, facts, reason, medicine, philosophy, evidence, linguistics and moral judgement all convincingly demonstrate an idea to be complete guff of the highest order, it's just time to gently let it drift off into the ectoplasm of time.

On the contrary - it's impossible to be trans without having been deeply influenced by a sexism in our culture that fundamentally links personality to sex.

They may not be consciously sexist but a subconscious sexism must be there, because a non-sexist mindset - that men and women are fundamentally the same with the same capacity for variation of talents, taste and personality between individuals - and really the only discernible differences between men and women are the shape of their genitalia and that's it - differences in tastes and personality which have significant differences in trends between the sexes are more likely to be explained by socialisation and nurture than by biology - well that kind of non-sexism is simply transphobic, ergo non-transphobia must by definition be sexist.

So perhaps this (and probably next) decade's flood of trans-identification is the last death-throes of sexism. Perhaps the next post-millenial generation will be raised with so little sexism that it doesn't occur to anyone to be trans.

I was actually thinking about this today, and in my simplistic way I decided that trans absolutely isn't the same as gay.

Gay rights were all about removing the stigma of being gay and people being able to be out as gay without fear of prejudice or hate. So basically being themselves, and being accepted as themselves.

If trans rights were the same thing I'd be right behind them. If they were fighting for acceptance as trans, for any stigma in being trans being removed, for being able to be out as trans and owning trans, I'd stand alongside them 100%. But they're not. They want to be accepted as something they can't ever be, and are willing to trample all over anyone who tries to deny them this. Transsexuals quite possibly can't own being trans, because their dysphoria won't let them, but the rest of them absolutely could. So why don't they? Because they're not the same.

I probably haven't put that very well, I'm not as articulate as some of you. But that's how I see it, hope it makes sense.

As a parent of a transgender young adult, some of the people I know think my distress is because I am unable to accept the fact of her being transgender, in the same way that some people find it hard to accept that their child is gay. That is absolutely not the case. Being gay does not lead to surgery, artificial hormones whose long term effects are unknown; and likely infertility. Being gay does not mean that your other mental health and developmental difficulties are effectively ignored. Being gay does not mean relying for your sense of self on the whole world pretending that you are something you are not. Believe me when I say the two have very little common.

One of the differences is transgender people wanting to be accepted as something they are not, in contrast to gay rights where people want to be accepted as they are.

The trans lobby wants us to be inclusive and accept transgender people, but they don't want us to know that they are transgender. How can we be inclusive of a minority if we are not supposed to know that someone is a member of that minority? And if we do know, we are not allowed to mention it.

There is an assumption that people won't be accepted in society if we know they are trans, but on the other hand we are expected to be accepting of diversity. Society being accepting of diversity would be people proclaiming loudly about being trans and all of us accepting that transwoman are distinct from women, but have equal rights.

Trying to force people to believe that transwomen are women is not being accepting of diversity, it is about appropriation.

Is anyone on the Exposing Bigotry and Fascism facebook group? Used to be called Exposing Briatain First)

If so, please could you help me out with a trans discussion on there.

I'm both transexual and homosexual/gay the two aren't linked, With me I'm attracted to men and for eventually admitting to trans is my body dysphoria,
This is where I may get fried as a bigot or transphobe, I do struggle to understand transgenders(not transexuals) who seem mostly straight men who transition and then claim to be a lesbian, I would have put them more in the TV side of things but maybe my views are stuck in the past or wrong.

I do think this attempt to compare the trans rights activism of today with the gay rights activists of yesterday is one of the most offensive things about their campaign.

The comparison seems to be made by younger people, like Owen Jones, who were either toddlers in nappies at the time, or weren't even born. They actually remember nothing.

They don't remember that Lesbians fought for gay rights, many of whom are now targeted by the TRAs as bigots, transphobes, hate-speechers etc. etc.
They certainly don't remember that the famous storming of BBC news in protest of Section 28 was coordinated and carried out by Lesbians.

How dare they dismiss those women as bigots while benefitting from their struggle!

This is a news story running today

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kezia-dugdale-crushed-after-labour-13320279.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true
Kezia Dugdale 'crushed' after Labour chiefs dropped financial support in Wings over Scotland legal case
The ex-Scottish Labour leader told the Record's political podcast it was one of her 'lowest personal moments'.

Dugdale is being sued in a £25,000 defamation case by Stuart Campbell, who runs the pro-independence Wings Over Scotland website.

He took action over an article Dugdale wrote in her Record column in March last year where she alleged he’d sent “homophobic tweets”.

And

Speaking on the Record’s regular politics podcast today, Dugdale revealed she only learned financial support had been withdrawn in an email from her solicitors.

She also said Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has failed to respond to texts she sent him asking for support.

Dugdale said former Labour general secretary Iain McNicol had initially promised the funds to take on the case.

“There was no question mark over it, they were going to support this case,” Dugdale said.

“Fast forward 18 months - and it’s pretty shocking it’s taken that long to get to the preliminary hearing, we’re not even at the full proof yet - and I had to find out by email from my solicitor that the Labour party weren’t prepared to pay any more legal bills.

If she loses she could lose not only her house but her job as MSPs can't go bankrupt.

What is this about?

She commented on a tweet by Campbell about Tory MSP Oliver Mundell, whose father, the Scottish Secretary David Mundell, came out as gay in 2016.

It said: “Oliver Mundell is the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner.”

Kezia wrote that she was “shocked and appalled to see a pro-independence blogger’s homophobic tweets”.

Source of above quote:
www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/kezia-dugdale-face-25k-court-13098548.amp

Now I raise this case in response to whether trans is the new homosexual and ask the question, if this had been an accusation of transphobia whether this would be being treated in a different way.

Not whether Kezia was right or wrong. Just whether it being a female (and Scottish) MSP saying this would be treated in the same fashion as a young trendy Labour politician saying the same but about transphobia.

We could yet find out too, with the way things are going.

I would argue strongly that politically the trans agenda is different to the homosexual one, precisely because I can not see a homosexuality case playing out in modern politics in the same fashion as a similar trans one. The lobbying and political agenda which appeals to this sense of Liberal identity is fundamentally different because its a central pillar of a current 'culture war' which seeks to place and establish a hierarchy of oppression as a means to control free speech.

And this case, doesn't seem to help the perception that the Labour Party are happy to throw their own under the bus and not defend certain principles if that helps the bus run someone over. Nor does it help refute the anti woman sentiment nor the anti Scottish one nor the homophobic one.

Fwiw I not sure that Kezia is fully justified in saying its a homophobic tweet. I think it's incredibly subjective and potentially a bit of a stretch. It's throughly nasty and in poor taste, but I'm not sure I'd go as far as homophobic (and I know others here will disagree with me on that). My point is more a reflection on what is labelled as transphobic by senior Labour types or isn't challenged by senior Labour types is frequently a lot more contentious and questionable that this example.

It'll be interesting to see how the court rules. It might have implications...