Gay/trans false equivalence

[Toblerone345]

Not really sure how to word this but hoping someone slightly more eloquent than me can help me get my thoughts in order. This is something I've seen people bring up time and time again, and it frustrates me that I find it difficult to construct a decent argument against it despite feeling instinctively that it's a load of rubbish.

I often see people compare the treatment of gay people to the treatment of trans people. For example, I've seen people argue that saying trans women aren't women is the same as saying a gay person is just going through a phase. I've also seen people argue that suggesting the best thing for a young 'trans' person might not be to start taking hormone blockers or have surgery is similar to advocating for conversion therapy for gay people.

I don't believe these things are particularly similar but find it difficult to verbalise why. I think at its core it's that the only requirement for being gay is being attracted exclusively to the same sex, and that feeling is completely internal - nobody other than you can say whether you are or are not gay. Being trans, on the other hand, is related to physical reality and claiming to be a woman when you biologically aren't one isn't correct. Can anyone explain simply why the comparison doesn't work?

It’s back to requiring your inner feelings to be supported and validated externally I suppose. You can be all sorts of things in your own head but is it realistic to require the acknowledgment and positive approval of others? I think not.

Someone’s whose sense of self requires external support should question that. We do question the social media posts looking for compliments or approval. It isn’t just about looks, it’s wealth, skills, achievements all sorts of things are put out there seeking validation. People get their arse handed to them on here when they appear looking for it or complaining about situations where they felt insufficiently validated.

what

I think if the number of women in the workplace decreased then there would be nothing to "take down" would there.

If you want protected characteristics removed then surely that shows that trans women at the very least have all the rights they need?

What is it? Women fighting for women's rights is transphobic? But removal of all "rights" which would only ever benefit privileged white males would be trabsphobic right? So how can only middle aged able bodied white men in an employment setting be not transphobic given a trans person advocates for this very set up? I'm really confused...

@Whatisthisfuckery

Well, if there were no rights, special dispensations or treatments available to people because of their identity or biology then that would also apply to transpeople. Milad would be a man who may or may not present as a woman but that would be it. No hormones, surgery, hair removal or voice coaching on the NHS; no legal recourse if every employer in the country decides they don’t want a bloke who dresses in womens’ clothes working for them; no uplift in sentencing if some random beats you up because they don’t like blokes who dress in womens’ clothes. It works both ways.

YY, the concept of 'hate crime' ceases to exist. A man beating up a transwoman just becomes one person beating up another person. Which happens countless times every weekend (boys will be boys, eh?) so is meaningless. People get beaten up all the time. So what?

---

Y'know, as I was reading that back to check it was suitably worded, it sounded really unfair and I considered deleting it all. But then I realised I've pretty much read that sort of thing word for word in relation to women being attacked - which is not a hate crime.

So I'm not deleting it, but I'm not sure it's a future we should be aiming for. It's a shame the idea of women having rights is so distasteful to some.

Sorry, late to the thread.

As far as I'm concerned, sex and gender mean the same thing, and this is essentially a social role. I don't believe that a person's reproductive organs should define their identity or the kind of person they are allowed to be.

Sex and gender are different things. Sex is not a social role, it is a biological fact. My reproductive organs have defined me: I have menstruated, become pregnant, had miscarriages, birthed babies, and that is just the workings of one of those pesky reproductive organs. Why do some people insist that biology does not matter? What is the agenda because I just don't get it. Not saying you can't be who you want to be, as long as being that person does not stomp all over other people.

In some countries female reproductive organs very much DO define the kind of person baby girls are allowed to be, or rather not be since they are aborted or killed. So privileged.

Well one difference would be that being trans requires the cooperation of others whereas being gay is something you are even when alone.

I disagree. Being gay definitely requires the cooperation of others. I am gay and if the entire rest of the world was straight then I wouldn't ever have a partner or be able to legally get married. It is only due to the cooperation of others that I am able to live openly as a gay woman.

A trans person could be the only trans person in the world and still be trans. Being an 'active' gay person requires the cooperation of at least one other.

I also think that the transgender narrative is homophobic. I have a teenage son who may well be gay but doesn't think that is socially acceptable and so reads all the 'I'm not gay but ...' threads he can find.

Aside from the 'I'm not gay because I am trans and therefore really straight' posts, I have also seen evidence that he is now reading 'I'm not gay but I have a penis fetish' threads. It seems that biology is significant after all but because being trans is no longer about 24/7 'identity' as a woman, you don't actually need to transition to enjoy same sex relations without having to identify as gay.

I did an MA with a professor who pioneered research on men who had sex with men but identified as straight back in the day of HIV research when homophobic social norms were a barrier to safe sex practices. Straight men who had sex with men were a significant vector of transmission but all lived in homophobic societies and so didn't respond to social messaging.

Aside from the homophobia, I also have concerns that the deliberate targeting of young people feeds into a paedophilic narrative. It is deeply worrying that the story of these posts is all about young boys with a 'penis fetish' fantasising about being patted on the head and being told they are a good boy whilst giving an older, stronger' man a blowjob.

A trans person could be the only trans person in the world and still be trans.

Can you explain what you mean by 'a trans person' in this context?

Well no Sapphos, even when I’m single I’m still a lesbian. In order to have a lesbian relationship I need to find another woman who wants to have a relationship with me, sure, but even then it only involves the other woman choosing to have a relationship, nobody would be forcing her. Nobody else has to do anything, say anything or otherwise do anything differently to what they would normally do. Nobody elses lives would change in any way. I and she would still do all the same things we would normally do, go where we’d normally go and we would not need special treatment or dispensations for any of it.

Oh I love that, what.

Hmm surely a trans person is still trans when they are alone. Or when they're undressed. Even if they've made no modifications to their body they are still trans if their body does not match the way they perceive themselves.

A trans person expecting to be treated as their acquired gender in all circumstances is a different matter and not what the OP was asking.

Being gay definitely requires the cooperation of others. I am gay and if the entire rest of the world was straight then I wouldn't ever have a partner or be able to legally get married. It is only due to the cooperation of others that I am able to live openly as a gay woman.

That's not exactly how I see it. If you were the only lesbian in the world, you wouldn't be able to get married because no other woman would want to marry you. This part isn't about co-operation, it's about the availability of a willing partner.

The last sentence I agree with, but this co-operation only extends to giving you the same rights as those enjoyed by straight people, which is fair and reasonable. Your right to marry and live as a gay woman doesn't affect me in any way.

If transgenderism was only about the co-operation of others, there would be few problems with it. If it was simply the case that some men wanted to dress in what is conventionally 'women's' clothing, and be known by what are conventionally women's names, there would be very few problems. And if this is what was happening, then I think there would be a good argument for saying that accepting trans people is similar to accepting people who are gay.

But instead we have such men saying that they are actually women, and demanding that everyone else accepts that they are women, and that they should have access to every space which is for women only. This is not about co-operation, it's coercion.

I agree Sappho. The existence of an internal belief should not depend upon recognition or validation by external factors.

I don’t agree about cooperation though. The legal right to live openly as a gay woman and not suffer discrimination and to marry is equal to heterosexual women, as it should be. Whether you meet someone to marry is chance as it is for all of us. If every woman you ever meet is straight that’s not going to create a relationship through co-operation.

@BaseDrops

I agree Sappho. The existence of an internal belief should not depend upon recognition or validation by external factors.

So on that basis, it wouldn't affect the trans person at all if they weren't allowed in opposite sex spaces or seen/addressed by others as the sex they'd prefer to be? They could still be happily trans, & everyone else would just be 'wrong' & that would not impact on the trans person.

People don’t stop being gay, bi or straight if they are celibate. Bisexual people are still bisexual when the sex of their partner means they are perceived to be gay or straight.

External perception and attitudes do not change someones sexuality.

There’s a pretty large leap from having the right to not suffer discrimination because your gender identity doesn’t match your sex to the idea that this is only achievable by the obliteration of the material reality of sex in law and society

No, I didn’t say that, that’s a leap. I said internal belief is not conditional on external support. I never mentioned impact of external attitudes or treatment on someone’s feelings.

This reminds me of this article about how if we all wore unisex clothes that would be a bad thing because trans people wouldn't be able to demonstrate that they are trans.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/will-smiths-son-as-the-new-face-of-louis-vuitton-womenswear-might-seem-progressive-but-its-a6797461.html

OP wrote - "Gay/trans false equivalence"

Post modernism and transgender ideology has led us to the crazy situation where we have to ask:

What do you mean by gay?
What do you mean by trans?
What do you mean by false?
What do you mean by equivalence?