Self identication

[User7777]

Long time lurker on fwr, I just had a really clear and simple thought re self identification. Basically, it's based on the premise that nobody ever lies. And the consequences of people lying are potentially very harmful to women.

I have Asperger's, and so always assume people are honest. I live in a bubble of honesty and am surprised when I find out people have lied for whatever reason. It just doesn't make sense to me. But (and I know this is obvious to everyone else) not everyone is like that. In fact a lot of people are distinctly dishonest.

So, wouldn't that be the simplest 'non-transphobic' take down of self id?
"I'm against self id because it assumes nobody ever lies. "

Can't be accused of bigotry, transphobia or anything with that statement. And it's true and to the point, and can't really be challenged seriously. (Though I'm sure TRAs would have a go anyway). It's not even challenging the trans ideology, so it's completely non confrontational. So that would be such a simple way to publicly challenge it without putting your head over the parapet.

I dunno, there's no real point to this post, its just a thought I wanted to be able to discuss it with someone.

Well look up Karen White as an example of someone who self id'd as female and was taken at their word. The people who paid the price for their lying (aided by complicit authorities) were the women they sexually assaulted in prison.

It is a very simple and elegant suggestion OP. However simple, elegant and, dare I say, accurate statements are shot down by TRAs as being transphobic. Just take for example arguments based on basic human biology. But certainly use it - if you are not faced with a TRA hopefully you will not have any issues (generally in RL I have yet to meet anyone (apart from my teenage) dd who has had an issue with my stance on self-id (or they didn't dare to tell me to my face anyway ).

User7777

It isn't that you are wrong, but trans privilege activists will none the less label you 'transphobic' because they consider anything other than complete capitulation to their ideology, which shifts on the daily, 'transphobic'.

You can never appease them so there's no point trying.

Decent people will agree with you even if they are too scared to speak out.

You are right.

But also the come back I have seen to arguments along those lines is that being trans is so awful and scary and "most oppressed ever" that no one would lie about it....

I think you're right. TRAs would never concede that people would lie about it. But ordinary people would. I think TRAs are seeking (among other things) to redefine biology, which is why biological facts offend them.

What made me think of this is that trolling woman on YouTube who identified as a gay dragqueen. She appears to be lying, and is being criticised by the TRAs. But, I know their hypocrisy, circular arguments etc and there's no point arguing with them is there.

I guess I was also thinking of a 'non political' way I can counter self id arguments without it threatening my professional life!

It's a good perspective to add to the many.

At the same time it's a lie to say you are a woman when you are a man.

I think it's a good starting point for people to understand one big problem with self ID without them having to do too much challenging thinking about the nature of sex and gender.

It is certainly part of the problem that people would lie, though I would add that some people who genuinely feel they trans are still dangerous to women.

The sad fact is though that this approach would be rebutted in the same manner as everything else, along the lines of:

You want to exclude all the poor innocent TWs, just because a few bad people will misuse this.

And of course:

”HOW DARE YOU SAY ALL TRANS PEOPLE ARE LIARS. OUTRAGEOUS BIGOT.”

OP it is apparent from your argument that you don't believe that TWAactuallyW so you would be outed as a bigot regardless.

Couldn’t you say that about anything though?

I’m against marriage because not everybody tells the truth.
I’m against male doctors because it assumes none of them ever abuse women.
I’m against white police because some of them have been racist.

I’m absolutely not in favour if self ID btw.

It's a good statement @User7777 and not transphobic - you aren't saying that trans-identifying people are likely to be lying generally, just that there are enough dishonest people in the general population that no one can be taken at their word in situations where it might be possible to gain an advantage (be that access to vulnerable people, or opportunities like all women shortlists or awards). I'm AS/asperger too and I share your attitude to dishonesty.

It's not just that though. The concept of self-ID also requires everyone to believe that any individual can have sufficient self-understanding and in-depth knowledge of human nature to just know (a) what it feels like to be in a particular category and (b) that one's own self-perception matches that. It therefore assumes the nonexistence of arrogance, sexism, stereotypes, misinformation, confusion and delusion. Whereas in fact, no one can ever know what it feels like to be anyone other than themselves, and therefore can never know what aspects of their internal sense of self are shared with which categories of other people.

But there’s nothing bigoted about not believing to be women, it’s just a fact that they aren’t, Memento.

I would have so much more sympathy if the whole premise didn’t depend on pretending to believe it. As it is, however sympathetic, kind etc etc I am, you are going to say ‘Arghh! Bigot!’

@fieldsofgrey but we don't have a situation where anyone can self id as a doctor or police officer. There are dbs checks, which have their flaws, but self id is saying there's no need to check at all.

@memento I didn't say tw arent w. I said not everyone is honest, so some will lie about self identifying as a tw. There's a clear difference.

@memento
Do you think no body at all, ever, will lie about being trans? If not, why are they different to the rest of the population in their honesty. And if so, is that ok?

If your entire identity requires constant external validation and the need for every to agree with your beliefs over their own reality, and the only way to achieve this is by force, then the only person you are lying to is yourself.

No man has ever become a woman.

But there’s nothing bigoted about not believing to be women, it’s just a fact that they aren’t, Memento

I agree with you but my point is that the whole of trans ideology is based on the idea that TWAW and any argument that suggests that you don't believe that TWAW is likely to lead to you being labelled a bigot or a TERF. The OP's argument suggests she does not believe therefore I don't think she would escape criticism.

Tne distinction that you're making would make sense, were it not for the fact that TRAs are interestested only in talking about themselves.

There might seem to eb a simple distinction between 'genuine trans-people' who are, by definition, not lying (and are very oppressed) and other people who might pretend to be trans-people (and who might be a particular danger to women).

TRAs will never acknowledge the latter category. They simply won't acknowledge the distinction you're making. They will always turn the discussion back to themselves, make it personal and claim that any talk of 'trans-people' lying is a direct accusation against them and how very dare you!

Politically, of course they won't acknowledge it, because admitting the problem of deceit would get in the way of their getting what they want - access to women's spaces.

I heard exactly this discussion unfold on Women's Hour once, a year or so ago. The presenter asked about male crimes against women, carried out in the guise of being TW. The TW interviewee got very het up and declared that she was not a criminal, her TW friends were not criminals, they were well-intetioned and oppressed and what a disgusting thing even to think! The presenter (JG) cally pointed out that being a woman did not prevent her from acknowledging that some women commit crimes. Which point sailed unacknowledged over the TW's head.

It's a 'party line', they're a political lobby group. Why would the acknowledge something it is against their own interests to engage with?

I didn't say tw arent w. I said not everyone is honest

Yes and then you said this:

I think TRAs are seeking (among other things) to redefine biology

Which suggests that you don't believe that TWAW.

Do you think no body at all, ever, will lie about being trans? If not, why are they different to the rest of the population in their honesty. And if so, is that ok?

Yes I do think people will lie and no I don't think this is OK.
I am just saying I think you will not get away with making your argument without it being called out as transphobic. By all means you can try but I think anyoldprion is right and people will just twist what you say.

Your question can also be viewed in 'oppression olympics' terms, whereby, why would someone from the top of the pile; a cis, hetero man, demean himself by dressing up as someone from the bottom of the pile; a TW, in order to abuse someone in the middle; a cis hetero woman - when his position in the pecking order allows him to perform this abuse without recourse to artifice?

Men can oppress women anywhere, anyhow. There's no need for costume.

Thus, anyone presenting as a TW, the most oppressed, must be taken at their word.

Yes, there is an obvious flaw in this argument, the answer is 'to gain access to single sex spaces full of vulnerable women' but we'll brush that under the rug, ok?

@memento. Not all trans are TRAs.

Also, focussing on the argument rather than my beliefs, stating that people aren't always honest has nothing to do with whether twaw or not. They are separate.

But going back to the 'because it's all about meee' point, the super-oppressed TW is completely justified in thinking only of herself and ways to get what she wants, because, as the most super-oppressed person there is, no-one else is going to do this for her.

The TRA just isn't interested in any collateral damage their policy wishes may have, because worrying about the rights of a 'more priveleged' group, cis women, is not their responsibility, as a more oppressed group.

They want what they want. The rest of the world can re-adjust itself around them afterwards.

So the question for you is, why would a TRA, with a specific interest and policy focus, pay any attention to interactions between cis-hetero-men and cis-hetero-women?

That's just none of their business and not their battle to fight.

And the other question is, when was politics ever about truth?