Stable and unstable movements

[lionheart]

This is a really interesting read from Lara Adams-Miller:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1185196529495269376.html

'The gender movement is demanding that we convert to their ideology and practice their beliefs. You can employ a gay person without voicing moral agreement with them. But current non-discrimination practices for trans employees demand you live as though you share their beliefs.'

Thanks for sharing. I found that really interesting.

Yes, it is good to think how those comparisons with other movements break down.

'Freedom from emotional insecurity isn’t a human right.'

Excellent, succinct article. Agree with every word.

It's interesting, and I think the idea that there is a difference in demanding the belief of others is somewhat new and different.

I do know some people though who wouldn't entirely agree that, for example, the gay rights movement hasn't asked them to come out and agree with its ideas. Similarly to things people have complained about here with things like rainbow lanyards, a lot of workplaces now seem to require that their employees participate in all kinds of social justice events. A friend of mine who works in a large law firm has said anyone not participating in these kinds of events will have negative outcomes at work. And my sister's job, in a government department, expects people to go on their float in the Pride parade every year.

Anyway, not to say that these are quite the same, but I would say that for a while now there has been a sense that it is ok to compel or expect people to convert, as it were.

There's an interesting thread connected in the replies which discusses the difference between "claim rights" and "liberty rights."

twitter.com/rorybowman/status/1185199885714259968

From Wikipedia:
A claim right is a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties regarding the right-holder. In contrast, a liberty right is a right which does not entail obligations on other parties, but rather only freedom or permission for the right-holder[1].

I do think some groups should have "claim rights" upheld, for example I believe that society as a whole has an obligation to provide accessibility for people with disabilities, and that we are falling short of fulfilling that obligation.

Women and girls' right to single sex spaces and services could be construed as a "claim right," since making everything mixed sex would be cheaper.

The genderists have been very adept at conflating "liberty rights" and "claims rights." As we know, most gender critical people are fully supportive of "liberty rights" for transgender men and women- the right to be free of discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare and so on. But because we don't accept their demand to certain "claim rights" because that would oblige us to change single sex spaces, services, and sports into mixed sex and then bear the associated losses of opportunities as well as the resulting risks and emotional damage. It would make us responsible for changing our language in ways that counter our beliefs, and for consenting to our children being indoctrinated into an ideology we don't accept. It would oblige us to accept the adulteration of information and statistics to the detriment of women as a class.

When we refuse the "claim rights" we are accused (by ignoring the distinction) of refusing the "liberty rights" as well.

Bullshit.

Cookieflavoredbiscuit

Excellent post.

Very well explained.

Thank you.

I'm not on Twitter (long story. Thought their Terms of Service were nuts when they started and that we'd have a real microblogging service in a jiffy. hahahaha. Anyway. Where was I?)

I wrote a piece along these lines not long ago: One of these things is not like the others. Which is the point she's making, except she kind of only slightly touches on the nub of the problem.

That's the lack of a clear definition of the difference between rights and privileges. Rights are those rules that can be applied to everyone equally. Practising your own religion or dress code doesn't stop anyone else from practicing theirs.

But privileges cannot be applied equally. If they are, things get absurd in a hurry.

And making demands because otherwise you'll kill yourself is so far into demanding privileges it would be funny if it wasn't such blackmail.

Demanding entry into sports where you can wipe out the competition is the same. If I "identify" as an eight year-old and win at Little League baseball, that wouldn't last if everybody and Babe Ruth did the same.

Those aren't demands for rights. They're demands for privileges. And you can only get privileges by stepping all over somebody else. Women, in the case of trans-identified males.

I think the value in stressing the difference between rights and privileges is that it becomes much simpler to see which demands are justifiable and which are not.

Thanks Cookie and quixote9.

The other aspect to this is that it is ideologically driven or constructed as if it were a dramatic attempt to dismantle oppressive and binary structures etc etc. (cf. entire history of feminism).

Of course the new binary that has emerged is

Trans. (plus allies, should they pass the entrance test)
v. Terfs.

The former are more enlightened and perhaps even more evolved than the others who resist such thinking ... And so a whole new hierarchy emerges.

Of course it's framed as an attempt to dismantle oppression because what else are they going to do? Plainly say, "You're worried about rape? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"?

There was also the mindblowing attitude of somebody in the twitterverse that it was a grievous injury, likely to cause suicides!, that males couldn't get top surgery sooner because the surgeons were busy treating women with breast cancer. (twitter.com/Lachlan_Edi/status/1041939751639638017)

It's obvious that women aren't even furniture to these people, let alone human. You wouldn't destroy a footstool so casually. It might be useful at some point. I'm not sure you can call it a new binary when it's more of a monopole: Me and Nobody Else.

Interesting point about claim rights. Like liberty rights, though, that's a similar issue in terms of equal treatment, isn't it? Wheelchair access for instance, improves life for those users (as well as for everyone who pushes a pram, has rolling luggage, needs to wheel in a bicycle, etc etc) without depriving stair-climbers of access. The two kinds of access are not mutually exclusive. Yes, there's the expense, but that's no different from, say, the state funding the military because it has some critical benefit to some people some of the time. Or from the NHS funding eyeglasses that not everyone needs.

The TRA attitude about access doesn't meet that test. It deprives women of a safer environment while not providing trans-identified males with anything they can't find by other means.