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 think TRA is an accurate description for trans rights activists. An activist is someone who is actively pushing for something in a determined and committed way.

I'll continue to use it as a short hand when appropriate to do so.

I wouldn't mind being 'super sensitive' if the sentiments were mutual, but they are not. My new favourite George Orwell quote is this ( from 1984:

The Revolution will be complete when the Language is perfect

TRA helpfully distinguishes between those trans people who are anti women's rights and those trans people who are allies or neutral. The comparison between TRAs and MRAs is entirely valid, and I would add the TRA movement has allowed MRA entryism into feminism. It's pretty much provided MRAs with the perfect endgame: get rid of feminism by taking it over.

Anyway, the #bekind stuff becomes tedious when the other side are holding nail-studded baseball bats.

@Wandawomble

Why? We aren’t calling them WARTS

Women Averse Radical Transactivists...

We also aren’t saying to them to die or threatening them with rape. We aren’t going after them in their workplace, harassing their partners. The whole point of Trans Activists is that they are a particular group who are aggressively harassing others to see their view - they are not nuanced. Trans people like Debbie Hayton or Rose of Dawn are not TRA’s - the nuance is only there with people who don’t use violence as a threatening tool.

I personally think WART needs catch on. It's not far that T..F does and up til now there has been no alternative that captures the real truth.

@AnotherLass

I think that the central position of the movement is this:

Everyone had an innate gendered soul. This soul may show up in gendered behaviour and the desire to transition medically, or it may have no symptoms at all apart from the desire to be called a certain pronoun. But the recognition of these souls and treating people in line with them is the number one priority for society, and not believing in their existence makes someone an evil person.

I think that's becoming a bit dated. The latest thing seems to be that gender is a social construct.

I've tried pointing out that this is actually the gender critical position and that it makes absolutely no sense in the context of what "trans activists" usually claim but I get nowhere!

If I was talking to someone new to this issue I would say that I don't agree with anyone who claims that men can become women and thereby become entitled to women's sex-based rights. That accurately describes why I oppose what is called 'trans rights activism'.

I’m glad that Gender Reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. I want Sex to remain a protected characteristic too and I’m very concerned about how it is being undermined e.g. in Scottish law and by the Green Party and Stonewall.

I’m also concerned about the recent attempts to change the legal definitions of “mother” and “father”. This wouldn’t merely validate the identity of trans parents, it would have implications for assumed parental responsibility in law.

We now know that babies start to bond with their mothers while in utero, and that they have a strong instinct to stay close to their mothers
after birth. Assumed parental responsibility for birth mothers is child-centred legislation. I disagree that this should be changed unilaterally by a single-interest group.

Part of the negative rhetoric creating divides in society today is by reducing those with opposing views in some way or another. Using terms like Terf and TRA is dehumanizing, reductive and often inaccurate.

Consider that people with a negative view towards trans people are not automatically feminists, and in many cases care little for traditional feminist issues outside of a discussion around trans rights.

Also, many trans people and allies support trans rights as human rights so branding anyone who agrees with this stance as a TRA (trans rights activist) is also reductive. Supporting a basic base line of dignity and respect does not make a person an activist.

Personally, I believe in saying what you mean, even if it takes a little longer. We're basically talking about people who support trans rights and those who oppose them.

I'm sure someone will tell me that it's trans rights vs women's rights but I disagree with this framing, especially as most people support trans rights AND women's rights and that when we're talking about trans women we're talking about both a person's rights as a women and as a trans person in an intersectional way.

I find I lack respect for anyone who claims that 'TERF is a slur' while at the same time dehumanizing trans woman is TIMs (trans identified males) or anyone who supports trans rights as TRAs. I disagree with the trans exclusionary position but at least feel there is a position in some cases. When people throw around TRA and other terms, I just think that person has given up on rational thought and is regressing to a fight/flight or 'us vs them' mentality.

I don’t know what I should call the people who campaign to replace sex-based rights with gender-based rights. I can’t think of a short, clear name.

I don't like the term TRA because it's not actually rights that are the issue. There should be no right to identify into classes and spaces to which you don't belong. No other group is can do it. This is privilege, not rights.

Fly, I do think it's about rights. Men are claiming to be women and thereby entitled to women's sex-based rights.

ISWYM @Lettera, what I mean is it's not about THEIR rights. They want rights that belong to others, that would be a privilege

I'm sure someone will tell me that it's trans rights vs women's rights but I disagree with this framing, especially as most people support trans rights AND women's rights and that when we're talking about trans women we're talking about both a person's rights as a women and as a trans person in an intersectional way.

Depends on what you mean with transrights. The right to be free from discrimination or the right to overrule someone else's sex based rights? If you mean the latter, then transrights are contradictory to womens sex based rights. It is really that simple.

Sad thing is most women support a discrimination free life and will treat transwomen as women in the majority of spaces. But when it comes to sex based services and sports, it seems to have to be a 'them versus us' if we want to retain the right to setup male free services and sports.

I'm sure someone will tell me that it's trans rights vs women's rights but I disagree with this framing, especially as most people support trans rights AND women's rights and that when we're talking about trans women we're talking about both a person's rights as a women and as a trans person in an intersectional way.

Only if you really believe that trans women are in any objective way women... I'd say, only if that was actually true but it's not.

We can however, talk about transmen and their rights both as a female and a trans person in an intersectional way.

Hi, Hypatia415, good to hear views from a different angle.

"many trans people and allies support trans rights as human rights"

Has anyone, ever, said that trans rights weren't human rights? I've never understood this line. Could you explain?

"dehumanizing trans woman is TIMs (trans identified males) or anyone who supports trans rights as TRAs"

I appreciate that some males don't want to be called such, but it is factually accurate and 'dehumanising' seems hyperbolic. FWIW I don't use the TIM acronym because I think that one is confusing - the vast majority of people have no idea what a 'transwoman' or a ''trans identified male' is. If we're discussing these terms with general public, we need to start at the very, very basic and clear terms. How would you describe a transwoman? In terms that the average person in the street would understand?

Personally, I believe in saying what you mean, even if it takes a little longer. We're basically talking about people who support trans rights and those who oppose them

Few disagree with human rights. And trans people already have those.

'Trans Rights', however, implies additional rights; such as the right to access spaces, services and sports set aside for the opposite sex.
Trans rights also posits privilege for trans people. That the needs and feelings of trans individuals trump everyone's else's.

There is a compulsion on everyone else when it comes to trans rights; an imposition on everyone else's speech and on the very language we use. The whole concept of pronouns.

Trans rights also implies transitioning children through the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones; it implies that 'trans children' need to be 'rescued' early.........

Basically trans rights is not just about human rights, or about the requirement for discrete, reserved spaces that other groups have campaigned for; or about equal treatment in law.

The very concept of transgenderism is itself an ideological construct that not everyone accepts or aligns with. So it really is not as simple as being for or against trans rights at all.

TRA is a shorthand for people who campaign in a very active way for all of the above.

TERF on the other hand assumes that everyone who is critical of gender constructs is a feminist, or identifies as one. Which is not the case. I don't use the term Feminist to describe myself, for example. So, TERF is not even accurate a description for all gender critical people.

Part of the negative rhetoric creating divides in society today is by reducing those with opposing views in some way or another. Using terms like Terf and TRA is dehumanizing, reductive and often inaccurate

I agree. And if trans rights activists are too quick to throw out the word "Terf" there are posters on here who are just as quick to throw out TRA or MRA with no justification.

I find I lack respect for anyone who claims that 'TERF is a slur' while at the same time dehumanizing trans woman is TIMs (trans identified males) or anyone who supports trans rights as TRAs

They are simply acronyms. It is far too long winded to write everything full hand all of the time. The most important thing is to use the acronyms correctly and when applicable. As suggested above, not everyone who is critical of gender constructs identifies as a feminist. so GC would be more accurate generally (gender critical).

TERF puts the emphasis on exclusion, rather than on rejection of an ideology or of a set of social constructs which is what GC feminism is actually doing. Gender criticism questions the whole ideology upon which transgender is founded.

I disagree with the trans exclusionary position but at least feel there is a position in some cases. When people throw around TRA and other terms, I just think that person has given up on rational thought and is regressing to a fight/flight or 'us vs them' mentality

The reason you disagree with the 'trans exclusionary' position, as you put it, is because you accept and embrace the concept of transgenderism and all it implies. You accept its first base proposals.

I see your point op. I think I might try using 'opponents of sex based rights' instead. It's a bit cumbersome and doesn't lend itself to an acronym but maybe that's no bad thing.

Maybe critics of transgender ideology may be the most accurate term. It is inclusive of everyone, no matter how they identify themselves ( if they are are critical of transgender ideology).

The thing tough, is that many people are committed to protecting women's spaces, services and sports, and maintaining single sex provisions where appropriate and required.

For those that embrace transgenderism and 'trans rights' this, in itself, is seen as exclusionary.

The irreconcilable nature of this disagreement is due to the quite profound differences in perception and outlook, so I'm not sure how terms can be created which embrace both?

Gender Critical & Gender Embracing/Conforming, maybe?

Good luck with trying to get many trans rights activists and trans allies from accepting that, though.

getting them to accept that, though

I prefer "trans rights activists" to "trans activist". The latter could describe a trans person who is an activist for any cause. "Trans rights activist" makes it clearer that its the cause that's the issue, not the person.

Trans rights activist" makes it clearer that its the cause that's the issue, not the person

Good point!

The issue is that' trans rights' itself is a shorthand term for everything that accompanies, and follows on from, Transgender ideology. Trans rights are not the exact same thing as Universal Human Rights, or even ideas around 'Equality'.