Owl Fisher in the Guardian

[EverylittleAlps]

When feminism supports trans rights, everybody wins – just like in Iceland

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/09/feminism-trans-rights-iceland-uk-movements?

From the article: "Transphobia [...] is deeply rooted in outdated gender norms and misogyny. "

I don't get how transphobia can be rooted in misogyny. Could someone explain this to me?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/09/feminism-trans-rights-iceland-uk-movements

The claim is that people who dislike transwomen do it because they think males who identify as women are identifying into the 'inferior' sex class and are debasing themselves.

Real transphobia may well be rooted in many men's contempt of anybody who isn't a 'real man'. It goes alongside misogyny and homophobia and if you're thinking fuzzily could get confused with either of them.

Owl Fisher couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.

"The idea of a “correct gender role” in the old law was highly controversial within both trans’ and women’s rights organisations. Legally encoding gender roles in a modern society seemed wildly out of touch with the direction of travel in society."

This makes sense to me, but what doesn't is how this then means that people should be able to change their legal sex. Surely changing your legal sex further legally encodes gender roles!

Its one of those logical fallacies .... make a valid assertion but then draw invalid conclusions from it.

Yes, we're all agreed the notion 'correct gender roles' is a Very Bad Idea. So you're critical of gender ... duh, then be gender critical. Just don't think it's got anything to do with sex, or the sex-based causes of women's oppression. If men who look down on non men are a problem, in particular if it's associated with male violence, then address that. The solution is not to accede to this mindset, a la the Green Party.

I can imagine some of the horrible attacks on transpeople are entwined with misogyny, and policing of 'gender roles', but you have lost the ability to actually name transphobia accurately because you've diluted it to an absurd degree by labelling any suggestion of debate, questioning or critical thinking as 'transphobia'.

By 'you', I mean Fisher.

not just for women, but for the LGBT community too

Careful, Owl, your exclusion of women from the 'LGBT community' is showing.

Owl helpfully links to this document by 'Scottish Trans' about Transgender People’s Experiences of Domestic Abuse to illustrate that transwomen are at 'heightened risk' of domestic abuse. The report is based on self-reporting by 60 transgender people of both sexes (28 are transwomen, 19 transmen and 13 'other gender variant people'), but Owl assumes it is only about transwomen and doesn't mention the tiny number of people included in the survey.

The section on emotional abuse looks like a classic example of DARVO if you have any idea about what trans widows go through.

The section on emotional abuse looks like a classic example of DARVO if you have any idea about what trans widows go through.

I'm guessing owl has no idea whatsoever. Which tbf isn't entirely owls fault, given that transwidows are generally invisible and ignored.

Maybe Owl would like to ponder an alternative proposition.

'When transgender people support women's rights, everyone wins - just like in ... well, nowhere currently'.

What would transgender people lose that they actually need by supporting women's rights and campaigning for their own complementary rights?

What would transgender people lose that they actually need by supporting women's rights and campaigning for their own complementary rights?

Control and power over people.

It's a much needed thing.

Trans people can now change their name and gender via a statutory declaration, and they also have increased access to necessary trans-related healthcare. As Sandra Rós – a trans woman – recalls, the system used to be far too complicated: “Before the new law, you had to be in the transition process and live under the ‘correct gender role’ for a year in order to begin taking hormones. Then you had to be in the transition process for a year and a half to be allowed to apply for a name and gender change.”

Iceland keeps excellent health records which are used as the basis for much research. By necessary trans-related healthcare it seems they mean getting hormones will now be a lot easier.

When the class-action lawsuits from detransitioners start it will be a hell of a row.

Governments will suffer eventually for making it easy for genderists to push non-girly girls towards "treatment" for their affliction with testosterone and mastectomies.

I'm nitpicking but...

Bandaranaike became Prime Minister on 21 July 1960. She was the first female prime minister in the world, and the first woman to be elected head of government.

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir was the first female president but that was 20 years later.

So accurate as she was the first elected President but also misleading in not mentioning a previous female political leader.

...and no Owl, I don't think Trans people are struggling to be heard, the silencing of women is pretty effective in elevating the voice of trans people and it continues so I disagree with that opinion that is stated as fact.

Iceland always does well when it comes to measures of women's rights, happiness, low crime etc. And undoubtedly it's a lovely place to live if you can deal with the long winters. But it has a population of only 300k. Everyone knows everyone else, so levels of trust are high. There are just over 100 prisoners in the entire country. I'm not convinced you can "scale up" Iceland's experiment to larger societies with looser social ties.

I'm increasingly replacing the word 'transphobia' with 'heresy' (a la Tudor England, Cardinal Wolsey, Off with their heads, the One True Faith) and seeing how that reads.

At least in the 21st century they try to persuade you that heresy makes you a bad person and is rooted in your clinging to silly out dated things like reality at least in the public newspapers as opposed to going straight to the death and rape threats. Owl hasn't yet tried the 'you'll burn in hell' warning but I'm sure they'll get there.

The author of the article does not explain why there is a 'bitter culture war over trans rights in the UK' nor do they address any of the concerns feminists have with the self id proposals.
They are dismissed as false narratives for political gain .

It's more of women be nice and everyone will be happy...

This article reeks of desperation and hopefully indicates a stalling in the movement

This article reeks of desperation and hopefully indicates a stalling in the movement

Every article by Owl is like this, it's not new.

This article reeks of desperation

They are all like this. It's the ongoing bewilderment from a narcissistic mindset that women keep on not doing what they're told and just existing only in relation to/as props for men with no independent needs or lives or anything like that.

There's a complete inability to comprehend life from women's perspectives, to value women as people, or to listen or engage with life from any perspective other than their own. Hence the flailing around trying to find some deep underlying evil like right wing extremism driving them. Women are Mum. They should just do what makes you happy. What's the matter with them that they won't??

Hence too the whole "if you'd just let men in with you and do as you're told hey look, you might queue less!"

Point whizzes miles over their heads. It's a very weak gesture supposed to make letting men into single sex spaces look win win. On logic and on understanding women's needs and concerns it's unfortunately still profoundly fail fail.

I wonder if Iceland will also change it's whole naming convention of dóttir/sson" for trans people there?

Hold on. I thought the Guardian was transphobic and also literal violence?

Oh yeah, blimey, Iceland, that fine upstanding feminist led society that crashed their economy spectacularly....yup, they had equality at the forefreont at the time, sure did.
www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/06/iceland-pm-sold-bank-assets-hours-before-financial-crash-leaks-show
Campaigners have long railed against what they describe as endemic cronyism in Icelandic politics and the apparent impunity of the country’s wealthy few.

In early October 2008, the Glitnir, Kaupthing, and Landsbanki banks collapsed with liabilities of more than 11 times Iceland’s GDP, plunging the country into economic meltdown and a deep crisis from which it took years to recover: the Reykjavík stock market fell 97%, and the value of the króna halved.

The leaked documents show Benediktsson withdrew an initial ISK30m (just under £200,000 at the time) from Glitnir’s Sjoður 9 fund on 2 October, four days before the Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) took control of the bank, and employees of the bank gave instructions for a further ISK21m (£140,000) to be sold on 6 October.