The Conflict of Rights: Why can't people just admit to this?

[CatsGetCOVIDToo]

I am very gender critical.

However, I can see that the crux of this debate is based on a conflict of rights.

Whilst I don't believe that it's possible to change sex, I respect that some people do believe that. They can believe what they like, and I can believe what I like. Sadly, our beliefs are in conflict.

This is also the case on many other heated issues, such as abortion, anti-vaxxers, and surrogacy. I have strong views on these topics too, but I accept that there are two sides to each debate.

My discussion question is this: Why are so many people so reluctant to accept that there is a conflict of rights in the gender debate?

Whilst I don't believe that it's possible to change sex, I respect that some people do believe that.

Why would you respect that some people believe this? It’s not possible. We all know it. Even those who pretend they don’t know it.

Why are so many people so reluctant to accept that there is a conflict of rights in the gender debate?

Because admitting you are actively trying to remove sex based rights of half the population isn’t a good look.

The minute they accept that they know full well there is a conflict of rights and that their aim is the removal of rights from the holders of one of the protected characteristics the whole nasty, illogical house of cards will come tumbling down.

Gaslighting?

I'd say there actually is no "conflict," as that word would suggest two opposing sides with equally valid claims.
What this is, is a unilateral attempt at conquest.

It's conversion. Religious conversion.

We're being told we must believe.

The people who believe that you can change sex live in a world of instant gratification, that is to say they want what they want exactly how they want it straight away served up on a plate with no opposition whatsoever. For them to admit that there's a conflict of rights would mean that they are willing to meet others in the middle. They are not willing to do that, they are so narcissistic that they think disagreement and someone saying 'no' is violence and oppression to them and this gives them justification to be abusive to those people.

I do not believe that people can change sex or in the validity of the 'spectrum of genders' the same way I do no believe in religion. People are entitled to believe whatever they wish as long its not forced on others, a concept gender ideologists seem to not understand. Your self perception of yourself should not be a burden forced on the shoulders of society to take on without their consent.

When discussing these issues with friends, a “difference in beliefs” is often the only way I can frame it to have a civilised discussion.

However, I would frame it in the sense that my experience and beliefs as a woman are grounded in my sex-based identity. I don’t believe that I have chosen to be a woman and don’t feel that I have chosen any “gender identity”. On the contrary, gender is something that I have experienced as oppressive and based on societal stereotypes about men and women.

I can accept, however, that other people prioritise their gender identity over biological sex. I can also accept that other people find the concept of “gender” liberating because they see it as overriding their sex. I don’t agree with this belief (just as I don’t agree with many people’s religious beliefs) but I will respect somebody’s chosen gender pronouns etc.

Having said that, I will continue to defend my belief that biological sex is important in some circumstances, that it is vital to be able to talk about women as a sex class, and that prioritising gender identity over biological sex is not always appropriate or grounded in the reality of why we need sex-based protections. I will also defend my right to hold these beliefs, but am increasingly concerned that expressing them could destroy my career.

When it comes to practical solutions, both sides need to listen to the concerns of the other. However, at least in the absence of significantly increased funding for prisons, hospitals and shelters to ensure everyone’s safety and privacy, I simply don’t see how we can move away from a general rule that there should be segregation by biological sex. To me, it’s not good enough for a belief in the priority of gender identity to trump the protection of vulnerable women who have absolutely no choice about who they are sleeping, showering and living with. On the other hand, personally I can’t get worked up about transwomen using women’s toilets (and think this is normally raised by TRAs to distract from more difficult issues).

Framing it as a difference in belief that can be mutually respected would possibly permit a way forward.

But that incoherence came through yesterday in Truss's statement. You cannot preserve single sex spaces in the way required by significant numbers of female people for many reasons, and support people using the facilities of their choice regardless of their sex. It has to be one or the other. Both cannot exist simultaneously.

Once you unpick that, you have to acknowledge:

There must be maintained limits to how far someone's personal choices can be carried when they impact upon other people's rights and needs. There must be maintained boundaries on this freedom. We've always said it here: your right to swing your arms around ends at someone else's nose.

You cannot compel people into enacting or speaking a belief they do not hold, and still be a liberal, civilised society.

There are a lot of very serious implications in permitting and enabling a selective or preferred reality against hard, actual fact. Particularly when starting to frame people speaking fact and maintaining reality instead of repeating what they are told to believe is 'hate' and getting criminal penalties involved.

Kicking this can down the road is not helping.

And as I say, over and over here (sorry)

This agenda accepts some female people being excluded from any facilities so that male people can take their preferred choice from all the facilities.

That has to be justified in terms of basic morality.

This is also the case on many other heated issues, such as abortion, anti-vaxxers, and surrogacy. I have strong views on these topics too, but I accept that there are two sides to each debate.

There may be two sides, but they're not equal sides. In terms of abortion, there is a huge difference between 'I don't think anyone should be allowed have an abortion' vs 'I think it should be up to the individual to decide'. In terms of vaccination, the consequences of not believing in vaccinating your child and therefore not doing so puts others at risk.

Some sides of a debate are simply not rational and finding a middle ground is impossible. 'Live and let live' versus 'everyone should do what I say' are two sides. And that's what's happening with the gender ideology 'debate' (or lack thereof). Not agreeing that the subjective reality of one group should be paramount, and prioritised over material reality, and the lived experiences of another group, is presented as bigoted, hateful, 'harmful'.

It's when people start seeing this that they give up on trying to 'be nice', because no matter how many concessions you might make, more will always be demanded of you.

On the other hand, personally I can’t get worked up about transwomen using women’s toilets

But with respect, some women can.

For some women, that's the end of being able to use public toilets.

Framing women's concerns as just some women being silly is inequality and oppression in its finest form. I noticed the consultation yesterday managed to never once engage with or frame any single issue that women have as one worthy of listening to or caring about; it's framed as being a bit prissy, silly and prejudiced.

So think about: why should those women with their issues (which we won't even let them talk about since they're that unimportant and irrelevant to anyone normal, sod their lived experience/voice/equality) just get over it, suck it up, learn to deal...…? But it's absolutely appalling and will unleash frothing rage at the insensitivity and oppression of suggesting that someone could equally just use the toilet of their sex and suck up their feelings and issues in the same way that it's so ok to expect women to?

Why are so many people so reluctant to accept that there is a conflict of rights in the gender debate?

Down, at least in part, to the narcissistic claim that men-who-claim-they-are-women are women. To admit there’s a conflict of rights would be to admit that they are outside the category “women” as obviously no women are naturally excluded from that group.

And as validation is the whole point for most men who claim to be women, admitting they’re non-women is a non-starter.

I'm not clear how conflict of rights relates to the issue of changing sex. I'm very gender critical too, but I certainly think any adult of sound mind has the right to undertake SRS if they want to. It's their body.

Absolutely I agree. Any adult should of course be free to make whatever changes to their body and live in any way that they choose. I'll march in the streets for that.

The issue is that they do not actually change sex. You cannot let people choose the service and space they want to use regardless of the reality of their sex and keep single sex services for people who need them.

Because there isn't a conflict of rights.

It's some prostate-havers wanting to dismantle women's sex based legal rights for reasons best known to themselves.

If you look at arguments over abortion the "pro-life" position is that life begins at the moment of conception, that the foetus/baby's right to life is equal to and independent of the mother's and that taking that life is therefore murder. You can disagree strongly with that position (I imagine most people on this board would!) but it is comprehensible and you could debate with it.

When those arguing for trans rights were arguing on the basis of gender dysphoria, again, that was also something comprehensible, we might not "understand" how it feels to be gender dysphoric but we can recognize its existence - you don't need to have experienced OCD to see that it exists. But now instead activists have based their position on a gender identity theory that is clearly nonsense and cannot be defended rationally. If there is are multiple indefinable genders that only exist in people's heads it is absurd to suggest that this is more "real" than biological sex and that would apply even if Intersex people did constitute a third sex. You therefore need very powerful combination of emotional blackmail and shaming to make people "believe" it.

It’s a really interesting question @CatsGetCOVIDToo and one that has frustrated me too, because the debate could do with some bloody logic and rational unpicking.
Sometimes I think it’s because there’s a vague notion that all us “minorities” with protected characteristics should just play nicely together while the grown ups get on with running things (of course women aren’t a populatIon minority at all, but our interests are certainly treated as such). There’s a requirement in the EA2010 for public bodies to promote good relations between the protected characteristics (I’m paraphrasing wildly) but that seems largely ignored, otherwise it’s another way the “balancing” interests/needs/rights issue would come in (I think this is a point made by Ann Sinnott in her challenge, but I might be misremembering).

But as much as I’d like a systematic measuring up of conflicting “rights” (quotes because I’m not sure what rights transwomen are being denied) I think the other posters are right there would be a danger of that process awarding some sort of moral or intellectual equivalence to the two sides. We kind of see that already with the “be kind” response. The risks and hardships and proportionality/materiality on either side are just made equivalent. So yes a woman might suffer permanent life limiting injury from being rugby tackled by a biological man - but a trans woman’s feelings will be hurt if you don’t let them play women’s rugby, and that is somehow put on par, and “balanced” with the grave physical danger women face. It all ends up with women having to compromise ridiculous levels of personal safety because their right to safety is somehow seen as equivalent to someone’s right to have their internal sense of “gender” affirmed.

Sometimes I wonder why the whole trans rights thing has become the dominant discussion, when we could be talking about the continued violence perpetrated against women and girls, or how the world continues to be organised around the needs and interests of men. But i think it’s such an issue because It resonates so much with a theme that underlies the violence and subordination: when push comes to shove, or when “competing” interests and rights clash, it’s women who get silenced and compromised.

I remain interested in having that discussion about the conflict of rights, but I’m deeply sceptical liberal democracies will be discerning about the differing weights and materialities that really ought to be applied to each side

Well put @HPFA!

Why are so many people so reluctant to accept that there is a conflict of rights in the gender debate?

It's not just the gender debate. Many people don't really understand the concept of conflict of rights in a lot of different areas - you can see it even on this short thread. Despite the fact that it's well understood by people who work in law or deal with legislation or philosophy around human rights.

The reason, I believe, is that these people imagine "human rights" as a sort of perfect system, where everyone, in reality, has a certain set of rights that they can, should, and need to express. If they can't, then they are no longer living authentically and are being oppressed.

From this perspective, if someone has a right, then it simply cannot conflict with another right, if it seems to than you have misunderstood the nature of one of the rights. My right to a party cannot conflict with your right to a peaceful sleep, the cows right to a life cannot conflict with the farmers right to make a living or eat a burger, the unborn humans right to live cannot conflict with the mothers right to not be pregnant, the right of the person in the high rise to use air conditioning cannot conflict with the right of others to breath unpolluted air.

There is no need to balance these claims, or assess where one begins to outweigh the other, or anything else, in each case one is absolute and the other must be falsely attributed. There is never a possibility of a conflict of authentic rights.

This misapprehension is behind a lot of current discourse and I think also goes some way to explaining why people who think this way often become so upset when someone disagrees with them..

Nodding along to all of this, @carefulvulvadriver!

As I think some of you are aware, at the moment in Ireland there's a petition asking for the word 'women' to be put back into public health information about cervical cancer screening. Trans rights activists mocked and harassed women for being invested in their own health, while insisting that the language included 'trans men', 'people with a cervix', etc (some of them are still at it, even though the official spokesgroup-approved stance is that it's OK to include women - gee, thanks). What's at stake here is women not getting screened for cancer because the language is unclear, versus trans and non-binary people feeling uncomfortable or not feeling affirmed.

These are not equivalent risks, the same as in sports. The Times ran a piece recently re: Caster Semenya - and I am aware that she's not trans but has a DSD, I don't mean to conflate the two - and agreed it was unfair that she doesn't get to compete as a woman without medical intervention. But her rights to compete as such were weighed up against the rights of female athletes to have fairness in competition, in a category that is specifically segregated by sex.

Trans rights activists - and like most others on this board, I would distinguish between activists and trans people - are not interested in weighing up competing interests or vulnerabilities. If they were, there would not be a problem. Women are not the problem in this.

@Goosefoot

Why are so many people so reluctant to accept that there is a conflict of rights in the gender debate?

It's not just the gender debate. Many people don't really understand the concept of conflict of rights in a lot of different areas - you can see it even on this short thread. Despite the fact that it's well understood by people who work in law or deal with legislation or philosophy around human rights.

The reason, I believe, is that these people imagine "human rights" as a sort of perfect system, where everyone, in reality, has a certain set of rights that they can, should, and need to express. If they can't, then they are no longer living authentically and are being oppressed.

From this perspective, if someone has a right, then it simply cannot conflict with another right, if it seems to than you have misunderstood the nature of one of the rights. My right to a party cannot conflict with your right to a peaceful sleep, the cows right to a life cannot conflict with the farmers right to make a living or eat a burger, the unborn humans right to live cannot conflict with the mothers right to not be pregnant, the right of the person in the high rise to use air conditioning cannot conflict with the right of others to breath unpolluted air.

There is no need to balance these claims, or assess where one begins to outweigh the other, or anything else, in each case one is absolute and the other must be falsely attributed. There is never a possibility of a conflict of authentic rights.

This misapprehension is behind a lot of current discourse and I think also goes some way to explaining why people who think this way often become so upset when someone disagrees with them..

Exactly. That Twitter mantra stating that "rights are not a pie and that if someone gets a slice yours won't get smaller " is based on this thinking.

Because this conflict requires the whole world to not just accept that persons belief but to change their way of life/compromise their safety to truly validate it.

That can never, ever be acceptable.

Because it's Men's Rights v Women's Rights.

A story as old as time...

Being honest that the wholesale removal of womens rights is the goal, would likely bring the misogyny in both the arguments, and the people who argue, front and centre tbh, and it all falls apart.

We don't even have to frame the argument around the human-made intellectual concept of rights.

We also frame the debate in terms of best interests/safety/harms. Harms and benefits existed long before rights were invented.

And we frame the debate in terms of truth versus fiction. The Emperor's new clothes approach. 2+2=4. Even if a lie harmed nobody and breached no rights, it is still a lie.