The magic word

[JellySlice]

The magic word is 'minority'.

It is accepted that minorities need specific, protected rights in order to have true equality with the majority. It is accepted that only minorities can define themselves and define what oppression and prejudice are for them - these cannot be done by the majority.

People with a strong ethical and moral compass will automatically support advancing the rights of a minority, especially one that clearly defines its oppression and presents solutions.

Are the people who think women's sex-based rights should be given to males equating the demand of trans ideology with, say, the removal of quotas of Jews at university, or allowing non-Christians to swear oaths appropriate to their faith on their holy text, or banning signs stating 'no blacks' in the windows of boarding houses? Generally speaking, granting rights to a minority does need harm to the majority - just makes them share. So there is more competition for a place in university/a seat as an MP/a basic room to live in.

Do people think that, by definition, any minority must be given the rights they want? That it's unreasonable to refuse to share with a minority?

Well black people in South Africa were in the majority, hugely so, but that didn't help them so it's obviously a lot more nuanced than that.

Yes, it's not absolute. But you could hardly call the rail-crash that trans ideology is causing 'nuanced'.

Agree. Bulldozed. Forced. Sledgehammered. Are the words that seem appropriate.

Women, of course, are in the majority.

Still doesn't prevent their oppression..

I agree with HorseWithNoLangCleg.

I agree that the word minority is not always helpful, especially when trying to understand and protect the rights of all vulnerable or oppressed people. Last week, on the moderation guidelines thread, I requested that perhaps MNHQ could slightly change the wording of their opening statement on their moderation guidelines.

I wrote: At present it states that Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed minorities. Because women and girls are not actually a minority then this sentence, as it is written, perpetuates the myth that women are a privileged class and not a vulnerable or oppressed group because they are not a minority. Likewise it is clear that children are very vulnerable and that they require safeguarding but they are also not normally considered a minority.

Could the sentence perhaps be amended to Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with the vulnerable or oppressed or Mumsnet will always stand in solidarity with vulnerable or oppressed people. To my mind this makes the rest of the paragraph far more balanced in terms of understanding the conflicts that Mumsnet and all the Posters face during debates around sex, gender identity and the needs and safeguarding of all vulnerable people.

I still think that it the change is important and it would for example, place the importance of recognising the vulnerability of all children and child safeguarding as of at least equal significance as recognising the vulnerability of some people who would be considered to be part of a minority group.

The one thing worse than an oppressed minority is an oppressed majority.

The oppression faced by women has over millennia been actively supported and normalised by the people in power.

Thats an excellent post ChickenonaMug, if this were a democracy I'd vote for that suggestion.

Do people think that, by definition, any minority must be given the rights they want? That it's unreasonable to refuse to share with a minority?

There are different types of rights and I don't think its helpful to lump them together. For one thing, there are competing and non competing rights.
Competing rights apply when there is a finite resource, such as places in a University, or jobs within a company. In this scenario we expect people to be able to use a fair share, possibly this can be overlooked in the case of someone who is particularly brilliant.
Non competing rights apply when it is a 'non finite' resource such as women only spaces and services. You need to provide as many places as there are women who want to use them. People who are not women are not entitled to use the service at all.

100% agree with ChickenonaMug.

People who are not women are not entitled to use the service at all.

But if minorities are entitled to define themselves...

Just noticed a typo in my OP

Generally speaking, granting rights to a minority does need harm to the majority

should of course be:

Generally speaking, granting rights to a minority does no harm to the majority

Nassim Taleb talks about the dictatorship of minorities in 'Skin in the game'.
The idea is that intransigent minorities win out over flexible majorities.
I see what he's saying - I'm vegetarian I didn't use to be able to eat mince pies in cafes. But I am intransigent and I did keep asking. Now in most places they are vegi. This is because I refuse to eat something, the majority don't care one way or the other.
I see TRAs in this way, they are a small intransigent minority who demand they get to dictate the rules. #no debate.
I'm not sure what happens when 2 intransigent minorities meet (not that women are a minority but we sure as hell should be intransigent at keeping our rights)

That is an excellent point Chicken One damaging aspect of the identity politics ideology; which has emerged from the debris of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and now dominates public discourse; is the hierarchy of victimhood. The malign effects of this on freedom of speech, freedom of thought, policy, public debate and media scrutiny becomes more explicit every day. It was a contributory factor in the extensive, organized abuse of some of the most vulnerable girls in the UK. And the grim demonisation of those women brave enough to speak out at the time such as Detective Maggie Oliver and Anne Cryer. Spurious accusations of hate speech are conferring immunity on specific groups of people. In the name of equality,
a new hierarchy of privilege emerges. Its proponents reveal their totalitarian tendencies every day.

Women are not a majority any more..

They are addressing that "problem" in China.

People who are not women are not entitled to use the service at all.

But if minorities are entitled to define themselves...

But all terms have an accepted definition both legally and socially.
A group that wants to change that definition to include themselves is not acting in the interests of the existing group, or within the bounds of the law.
You cant just rock up to a place of worship, announce you've decided to identify as Orthodox, and demand they change the rules to accommodate you; especially not if by doing so you would remove someone else's rights.

You can define yourself as a new group and ask for rights that are needed by your group. Thats how civil and human rights actually work.

... the majority don't care one way or the other.
I see TRAs in this way, they are a small intransigent minority who demand they get to dictate the rules

I guess we got to where we are in part because when 'trans' essentially meant people with diagnosed dysphoria, with or in the process of acquiring a GRC etc, the majority of women didn't care either way - at least, not enough to overcome their kindness. The goalposts have been massively changed without many people realising (by design).

Funny word to use isn't it though, minority, one of those shape shifting words, as those who traditionally hold power have also been the minority in society. Kings, Queens, Bishops, Landowners, Judges, the Cabinet and Government (although they do need a majority to be in Parliament) all still a tiny minority of a countries population, they just like making up rules we're supposed to follow!

There are indeed some powerful minorities; Hitler was just one bloke. And I've already referenced the 13% of whites in SA.

...but I think OP has a point - it has become a magic word.

'Those who suffer from an imbalance of power and are in some way disadvantaged by it' is a more accurate phrase.