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?

So, can we clarify here, because I'm confused - is Milad objecting to AWS when they say they think women's rights are privileges? Because as I said, I'm fairly sure AWS weren't part of the discussion before that particular statement.

The bottom line is that while I wholly respect your belief that TWAW, I do not believe this.

I believe absolutely in trans people expressing themselves however they choose, in being fully protected from discrimination or harassment, in having additional services and facilities that meet their specific needs and remove their barriers in the same way that all groups with additional specific needs should have.

But this must be done without the pretence that female people have ceased to exist or have any separate need from those born male, being allowed nothing that male born people cannot be fully centred in and cannot control, female people's words to describe and express themselves and the specific experience of living in female biology being redefined to centre and prioritise the needs of those born male, and the colonisation of all female only spaces with the pretence that this does not exclude some females from any services or provisions so that male people can have their full choice of all the provisions.

TWATW. And that is great. That is fine. Female people are not TW. They are not the same thing. And TW trying to erase the reality of female people existing as anything separate for their own benefit is an act of profound misogynistic oppression, no different to any other male oppression throughout history.

Please explain your reasoning which results in the conclusion that one of the 9 protected characteristics of the equalities act does not need positive action to address documented persistent inequity?

Sappho, I agree that churches do shitty things to people who don't conform to their worldview. I would very much like to see a whole raft of things that are pure quackery under the Christian banner, including the sort of gendered nonsense counselling you describe. Only today I'd been having a conversation with a conservative Christian woman who seems to think that the answer to all this is to just push innate stereotypical gender roles even harder, and I've been making the case about how damaging that is. I remember when I was on twitter there was a 'gc' poster who thought I was a TRA because I let my son wear some of my clothes and play with teasets and toy babies.

I really don't think that is primarily what is in view when TRAs talk about 'gender conversion therapy', because when I first started posting here about the watchful waiting approach we took with my daughter, who was at the time dealing with identity issues, I got called a child abuser by a TRA. And whenever feminists outline the approach we take with gender questioning kids, the squeals of protest make it very clear that helping a distressed child express themselves without judgement and come to terms with their body issues is exactly what is meant by 'gender conversion therapy'.

I agree that anyone who doesn't conform to the norms in our society will face difficulty. But that is the case with many differences from the norm. I don't see why being gay and being trans are any closer than any of those other differences, though.

That should read 'a whole raft of things ended'

@BaseDrops

Please explain your reasoning which results in the conclusion that one of the 9 protected characteristics of the equalities act does not need positive action to address documented persistent inequity?

Seems Mil wants to dispense with the equality act altogether.

Along with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Oops.

Along with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Oops

Except guess who walks away unscathed. Who is gonna be just fine if the equality act was done away with . And be just fine no matter how they present

And they know it

No, but I'd replace it with an Equality of Opportunity Act, which would outlaw all forms of discrimination, including so called "positive action."

then women will be fucked then won't they.

But you know that

This would be funny if I didn’t think Mil didn’t seriously believe women are not disadvantaged in the world just by the pure fact that they’ve women

As it is it’s not funny, it’s enraging

No affinity, no empathy at all

An equality of opportunity act would most benefit those who already have structural power: the white, male, educated, able-bodied

Bingo

You would have to be confident of being OK if you were to advocate fir this.

Theres only one demographic that would be OK.

Go on Milad. Tell us more, we’re all listening.

Remind me what the difference is between MRAs and TRAs?

How would this Equality of Oppportunity Act work? And what would make it better for women than the current Equality Act?

If you think equality of opportunity favours men, you must have a really low opinion of women.

No just a grip on reality

I’ve got it.

‘Oi, stop discriminating! Who ever you were going to discriminate against, just don’t.

Right then, that should be sorted now. Let’s all go and pour a drink and enjoy our new non-discriminatory world.

@EmpressJKRowlingSpartacus

Go on Milad. Tell us more, we’re all listening.

I know, it's brilliant isn't it. As I've said countless times, we almost don't have to do a damn thing.

I read somewhere that many trans women identify as women but not with women. I am beginning to think that there is a grain of truth in that.

The special shortlists for women (and, depending on the country we are looking at, for several different previously or still currently oppressed demographic group) are introduced as a device to rectify some aspects of past and often also present sex-based discrimination in the culture. To view those as special privileges means that the existence of sexism, sex-based discrimination and so on is denied. So we have always lived in a fair world, I gues.

Well I wouldn't necessarily classify myself as a radical feminist.

But then again many other women wouldn't either.

That's ok Milad, I wouldn't class you as a radical feminist either.

You're still very welcome to keep talking.

Wouldn’t outlawing ‘positive action‘ have an impact on forming LGBT shortlists or committees or diversity champion roles?
Or disabled
Or minority