Is using TRA rude and dismissive (a bit like how the word T**F) is used?

[dyslek]

I was wondering if using the term TRA to describe people is unhelpful. Does it entrench the idea that there are only two positions, and that we are not nuanced?
Obviously its not the most important point in this debate but it just struck me that maybe its not helpful and plays in to their hands.

I had a post deleted for referring (not rudely) to certain posters as 'TRA posters' and MN said it wasn't conducive to a civil debate. So a less inflammatory term is needed. And I absolutely don't want to suggest I'm against trans rights in general because I'm not, and certainly believe they deserve to live from discrimination in terms of housing, employment etc.

I like genderist. I generally refer to them as non-GC which seems accurate.

I think there are circumstances where the term might be helpful shorthand, but I also think that strawmanning stuff about gendered souls or regarding TRAs as a homogeneous group with a firm set of shared beliefs are no more helpful than when TRAs do it about feminists.

I've used the term "gender ideologists" for years rather than TRA simply because most people don't know what TRA stands for or think it's short for "trans people" which obviously it isn't.

I have often been called a TRA and I found it offensive but perhaps it was because I wasn't one.

I think if a person proudly owns their trans activism I can't see why they would mind.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

Mmmm, I’ve wondered the same thing. I should say ‘transactivists’ rather than ‘trans rights activists’, because those I oppose are not campaigning for their rights — they already have full human rights in this country. They are campaigning for extra privileges that would remove women’s rights.

I’ve slipped into the habit of using TRA, just because it’s recognisable shorthand and TA isn’t. But I’ve seen some better options on this thread., eg ‘genderist’. Or WART for the sort of people who call us TERFs

Yes, it's difficult. Someone like Yardley could accurately be described as a 'trans rights activist' - campaigning for eg third spaces: trans rights which aren't at the expense of women's rights. Whereas at the other extreme there are people who demand (or simply assume and take) all sorts of rights for trans people and to hell with women's rights. And in between, no doubt, many variations.

insinuating that trans activists are basically men's rights activists rebranded

Er...

I like genderist

For me, genderism reminds me of sexism, so I feel it compounds the confusion between sex and gender.

It could also look like the person using the term 'genderist' believes in gender as a concept and is suggesting that other people shouldn't discriminate on the basis of gender.

IMO genderist is far too confusing a term to be useful when discussing these issues.

@HopeClearwater

insinuating that trans activists are basically men's rights activists rebranded

Er...

Haha snap 😂

Proponents of queer theory or gender identity ideologues (or ideologists) for me seems more accurate to what I am usually criticising. I am critical of queer theory and gender identity ideology not necessarily those individuals who believe in them.

@HopeClearwater

insinuating that trans activists are basically men's rights activists rebranded

Er...

I can see why you say that

But I do think it's important to recognise that there are as many divisions in thinking for those who are not GC as there are in the feminist movement.

There is still some value in recognising the TRA / MRA crossover - e.g. Diana Thomas who writes about transitioning for the Telegraph published a book in the 90s which was an MRA book called 'In Defence Of Men" and Thomas's views have regrettably changed far less than their hair style. It would be daft to deny that there is an MRA strand - those who think that women gained all the rights we needed 50 years ago and anything further is just seeking special treatment, and men should have access to the same scholarships / book prizes / sports teams / political shortlists as women. Those are the people I would describe as TRAs but I think they are a minority amongst trans activists.

Then there are the genderists, who believe that we all have an innate gender, contained within the mortal flesh of each human being. For this group, there's a religious adherence to this philosophy. To say TWANW is heresy. The part of a person who is a woman is their innate unseeable (except to Layla Moran) essence and to say it is the flesh casing is - quite literally - to deny their existence. These people are in my view dangerous cultists and I don't engage with them.

Then the largest group are almost gender critical - they would call themselves feminists, they see gender as oppression when enforced on the unwilling, but as capable of being edifying and fun - and vitally important - when the individual chooses their own and expresses it in their own way. They don't truly, at a biological level, believe that TWAW, but at the same time they don't truly, at an instinctive level, believe that women and men can do anything, wear anything, and be anything they like, so woman as a social category which reconciles these two things they half-believe makes sense to them. They don't think that self-ID is likely to cause 'real' problems, glossing over the harm that has already been caused as exaggerated, or as outliers, or even as acceptable in pursuit of a wider good. This is the group who are most likely to understand - or even come to endorse - a gender critical perspective and calling them TRAs will only entrench them. They agree with TRAs that TWAW but disagree with them on pretty much everything else. Similar to how calling us right-wing conservatives because we agree with conservatives that sex exists isn't persuasive to us, it just convinces us that whoever says it is plumb ignorant of our perspective.

I don't really use TRA because, like others have said, it sounds like I am against those campaigning for trans rights. I sometimes use trans activists.

However, comparing the use of TRA with TERF is bullshit because the death/rape/physical violence threats are not there with people who use TRA.

The latest I have seen for GC feminists is 'gender crits' or 'Terven' which is nice....

@DaisiesandButtercups

Proponents of queer theory or gender identity ideologues (or ideologists) for me seems more accurate to what I am usually criticising. I am critical of queer theory and gender identity ideology not necessarily those individuals who believe in them.

Yes, I would prefer to avoid labelling people. I would far rather discuss the ideology/ideologies/ideas, beliefs, etc. But it's hard to do so without having clear descriptors. And the more accurate descriptive phrases are a bit unwieldy.

I tend to use it when I actually mean activists, though usually I spell it out. I do that with a lot of acronyms though, it's sort of a rebellion from my army days.

In other contexts I may not, sometimes I might say "people who believe in gender ideology" for example. Which is cumbersome but I try to be cognisant of not lumping people together without justification so there isn't always a simple descriptor..

@Mugginyouleftrightandcentre

I don't really use TRA because, like others have said, it sounds like I am against those campaigning for trans rights. I sometimes use trans activists.

However, comparing the use of TRA with TERF is bullshit because the death/rape/physical violence threats are not there with people who use TRA.

The latest I have seen for GC feminists is 'gender crits' or 'Terven' which is nice....

Yes I have come across the term "Gender critters" to describe Feminists from people who have obviously noticed that "Terf" is a known slur, so they'll just call Feminists critters instead...

TRA is in no way comparable to "Terf". As a term it simply doesn't come anywhere near the level of vitriol.

To me the take-away is that you can use jargon if you're having an in-group discussion but if the discussion is in front of the public, it is best to use terminology they can grasp. As soon as they hit jargon, you will alienate part of your audience unless they're motivated to self-educate.

It would be good if some people who share these ideas that we are trying to describe would chip in, here! Please do, nobody will bite you. How would you describe your aims, beliefs, and tenets?

Long before the current toxic debate about trans rights kicked off I would have just seen my support of trans rights as part of my being a feminist (having always strongly considered myself a feminist since my teens). I know this is an unusual understanding of feminism (at least to those on this thread) but since I learned about queer theory in my early 20s I always saw feminism as being not only about advancing women’s rights in formal terms (that battle being pretty much won in this country) but about challenging the gender binary and gender norms, and recognising how damaging they are to everyone, not just women. So I always saw respecting and supporting trans people as part of feminism, just like respecting and supporting anyone else who is gender non-confirming, regardless of how they identify.

As a side point, I stopped using the term t*rf a while back, for the same reasons it has been suggested here that TRA is an unhelpful term - it just deepens the divisive nature of the debate and the sense of ‘us and them’

I'm fine with it as a trans person who cares about their pre-existing rights.. I'm also fine with TERF, but I use 'GC' because people get offended by TERF (which is weird, but OK). I just want you to leave us alone.

Wrote a post and deleted it.

It's not about terms. Words. Posts on here saying is GC a problem maybe it should be changed.

It's not about the words it's what underlies them.

A different term would be seen in the same light.

Feminists have been called all sorts of shit for years, let's not forget.

Terf doesn't make sense though.

On any level. It's totally illogical.

So that gets on my wick.

Pre existing rights? Would that be the wide ranging casting aside of the EA? Rapists in women's prisons, communal changing of a massive range of ages on self ID? Do you mean that sort of thing or something else?

And I can only assume the difference in perspective is where male and female experience collides.

Individual trans women say I wouldn't do xyz what the hell? You're saying I'm a sex offender? WTF??!!

Women say no no. Just men. General men. Will see this as an opportunity. They will take it

And the answer is.
Yeah that's not going to happen

But. This is the thing. Metoo. Other stuff. Men in general say. Yeah I've not heard about this. It must be exaggeration. Why hasn't all this been reported to the police etc etc.

And that's the gap.

Women are frantically Telling You that there's a massive amount of creepy men out there who will use this

And we are told, as ever. Nope. You're imagining things, exaggerating etc etc

How do we resolve this?

Anyone who thinks there aren't blokes who will give anything to be in a changing room with girls/ women age 5-50 taking all their clothes off is.. ??? Don't even know tbh.

I think one of the dangers of language like TERF, TRA etc is that it implies two completely opposing groups on every issue relating to gender identity. When in fact there are many different issues at play here. There are conversations to be had about self ID, violence against trans people, trans people & prison, trans people & sport, trans people & toilets etc. Creating a false binary that you are either completely anti-trans people or that you support every trans person in every situation is unhelpful. I think we’re better off discussing these issues separately and the conversation could be a lot less inflammatory. There are clearly many, many instances of trans people experiencing violent or bullying behaviour which is unacceptable, and there are many, many instances of (non trans) women experiencing violent or bullying behaviour which is unacceptable, and most people on both ‘sides’ of the conversation are in agreement that it’s not okay. But somehow our agreement on issues like that can get lost by language which implies there is no common ground whatsoever. (Through various different career moves I’ve ended up with a group of rad fem friends and a group of trans friends and the common ground has always interested me!)

people get offended by TERF (which is weird, but OK).

Well, check out the terfisaslur website, and maybe you'll get a better understanding. Also, didn't a judge recently agree that TERF is a derogatory term as well?

I am trying to think of other ways to express my thoughts rather than default to TRA (which is a nonsensical acronym to newcomers anyway).

Recently on a thread about transitioning teenagers I used the term 'pro-affirmation posters' to try and make my point. I hoped this wording was suitably neutral and suitably clear.

'Lobbyists' might be appropriate in some contexts?

TRA can be useful shorthand, but does also have certain shortcomings.

Recently on a thread about transitioning teenagers I used the term 'pro-affirmation posters' to try and make my point.

That sounds like a fairly clear description. Perhaps 'gender reinforcers' might also be apt for some, particularly re children?