Imbalance in language used online (and in life?)

[HereForTheCakes]

Idly browsing Instagram earlier I happened upon a story by a woman I also watch on you tube. We share a hobby and she has a small business in that subject area. She shared someone else's post today with the comment "100% this". The shared post described JK Rowling as a "bigoted transphobe" and basically suggested any customers feeling the same way as JKR could GTFO.

I've run through a few emotions, disappointed about that strength of feeling from someone who's work I had liked a lot, angry at the misrepresentation of JKR's position and at being tarred with that brush.

But where I've landed is that I'm angry at the imbalance between language used by gender ideologists and gender critics. I feel the GC side of the debate generally tries to keep its cool, debate rationally, allow room for variation of thought. The GI side is so stark, so uncompromising, often aggressive. That's before we get into the actual threats of violence of course.

I'm not going anywhere particular with this, just needing to vent.

It's very likely I won't be a customer of hers and it's very likely she wouldn't care but I'm disappointed all the same.

It struck me when I was reading the current thread in Site Stuff that even on Mumsnet, the supposedly even handed rules allow one side to constantly state that “transwomen are women”, whereas the equivalent women’s rights assertion “transwomen are men” is considered unacceptable and is likely to be deleted.

The inequality within this debate has been created through the rhetoric that “trans people” are so sensitive that to say the latter is to put them at risk. In the meantime, women are expected to put up with the unpleasantness of constantly facing an argument stopping comment that we are not allowed to rebut.

My guess would be that the language and approach from one side has been created by male people. The aggression, the asserting what is wanted no debate, the threats etc. It's a much more male approach. Namalt obv.

The tone of the discourse then is picked up and repeated.

The other side is mainly women. Nature or nurture or whatever. The style is to suggest, persuade, lots of saying sorry (sorry but I don't agree) etc. And of course whatever anyone might claim, women are not anywhere near as heavily into threatening physical/ sexual violence. And after a lifetime of being told xyz, make extra sure to sound reasonable.

That's my take.

'women are expected to put up with the unpleasantness'

And this is our place isn't it? Sexual harassment, aggressive men, crass behaviour in the workplace etc. There's still the idea we should somehow deal with it by ourselves and in a quiet way and definitely not get angry.

The shared post described JK Rowling as a "bigoted transphobe" and basically suggested any customers feeling the same way as JKR could GTFO.

I'm not a lawyer, but given the case law establishing gender critical views as coming under the protected characteristic of religion or belief under the Equality Act, might it be unwise for someone to suggest they wouldn't serve customers holding such beliefs?

I feel you. That people can accuse other people of hate, bigotry, transphobia , serious, serious allegations and other equally severe words with so little provocation, is the opposite of kind.

They seem to be the people who have' strong unreasonable beliefs and who do not like other people who have different beliefs or way of life '...which is the dictionary definition of bigot.

I don't understand how they can make the leap from not thinking that trans women are literally women and wanting to retain single sex spaces to wishing trans people harm or 'erasure' or disliking them.

Of course I don't actually think most of them are hateful bigots, what they are is socially suggestable, captured by and fed an ideology and rhetoric which they fall for and repeat.

Recently GC beliefs have been accused of being an ideology and a 'belief' but it is conveniently forgotten that they hold the novel belief with no new discoveries or basis on which to change our understanding, other that queer theory, activist techniques and the philosophising of a few second rate obscure academics. It is entirely political. A secular ideology. They are useful idiots.

I have experienced something broadly similar to the OP recently. I was part of a hobby FB group added to by a woman I know losely from PTA. I logged into FB a few weeks ago to a post that it was an LGBTQ+ friendly group open to "All WOMEN" followed by a "quick biology lesson" that sex is just the chromosomes given to you on conception "decided by male sperm". It went on to say that gender is more that predetermined genetics and your identity. There was a brief comment about how sexuality didn't matter (no disagreement here) and then "I will not tolerate any kind of discrimination, racism or sectarianism/bigotry. If you disagree then please remove yourself from this group. It will save the admin some hassle. 😚".

As far as I am aware there had been no debate in the group along these lines and the group has not been active off FB as it would involve overnight stays.

I was quite surprised and felt I was getting a bit of a lecture on how I should think. I left the group.

Where I am from abortion is still heavily debated and this woman and others with GI views tend to be active in the pro choice movement but I have never seen a hobby group or small business saying that they were pro choice and those with pro life views could effectively 'f off'.

It does most often seem ‘all or nothing’. You see it in the points argued on MN. I used to think there was some nuance to be had, now I am much less sure trans activists with extreme agenda are capable of discussing nuance. And the emotive hyperbole seems to be always high too.

It is a good thing to know that there are plenty of actual trans people that are willing to discuss things.

However, this concept that discussion is hate needs to go.

Nothing useful to add, but I agree OP. The language from the TRA side is more aggressive in my experience.

Funnily enough, I’m yet to encounter an aggressive trans man though I’m not saying they don’t exist.

@MissSeventies

I have experienced something broadly similar to the OP recently. I was part of a hobby FB group added to by a woman I know losely from PTA. I logged into FB a few weeks ago to a post that it was an LGBTQ+ friendly group open to "All WOMEN" followed by a "quick biology lesson" that sex is just the chromosomes given to you on conception "decided by male sperm". It went on to say that gender is more that predetermined genetics and your identity. There was a brief comment about how sexuality didn't matter (no disagreement here) and then "I will not tolerate any kind of discrimination, racism or sectarianism/bigotry. If you disagree then please remove yourself from this group. It will save the admin some hassle. 😚".

As far as I am aware there had been no debate in the group along these lines and the group has not been active off FB as it would involve overnight stays.

I was quite surprised and felt I was getting a bit of a lecture on how I should think. I left the group.

Where I am from abortion is still heavily debated and this woman and others with GI views tend to be active in the pro choice movement but I have never seen a hobby group or small business saying that they were pro choice and those with pro life views could effectively 'f off'.

I've seen this with other topics, especially racism. I've been asked to complete these sentences: "....... Lives Matter" and ".... Rights are Human Rights" etc just to join a Facebook group sharing funny pictures of cats. Bollocks to that. I'll be polite, but don't tell me how to think!

@InspiralCoalescenceRingdown

The shared post described JK Rowling as a "bigoted transphobe" and basically suggested any customers feeling the same way as JKR could GTFO.

I'm not a lawyer, but given the case law establishing gender critical views as coming under the protected characteristic of religion or belief under the Equality Act, might it be unwise for someone to suggest they wouldn't serve customers holding such beliefs?

Well this

@Helleofabore

It does most often seem ‘all or nothing’. You see it in the points argued on MN. I used to think there was some nuance to be had, now I am much less sure trans activists with extreme agenda are capable of discussing nuance. And the emotive hyperbole seems to be always high too.

It is a good thing to know that there are plenty of actual trans people that are willing to discuss things.

However, this concept that discussion is hate needs to go.

Agree totally.

However the extreme ones have got into all sorts of things and got what they want, quietly. Things that are massive.

Prisons, police, refuges, sport clubs, entertainment venues, workplaces, schools, everywhere.

They have also co-opted and taken over a massive amount of other rights groups. Feminism, LGB+, anti racism orgs, child protection charities, charities operating globally, the UN, WHO and amnesty. They have co-opted arguments made by intersex groups, women's rights groups, anti racism groups, groups working for homosexual and bisexual people. Probably more.

And deployed them against the groups that came up with them

It's gloves off isn't it.

Who knows how many trans people even agree with it all. Certainly plenty of transsexual people don't. It's fucking things up for them.

So while that's going on. What else can anyone do? Nodebate. Bigots. Threats. The people driving this are not reasonable and in the end are a mishmash of men who don't like women/ see us as people, what whether they realise it or not.

The buy in from so many women and girls has me baffled tbh though.

I am also massively concerned about the precedent that widely accepted scientific facts can be seen as beliefs and nothing more.

That feels really dangerous.

Not just widely accepted facts, Gerbil. Incontrovertible facts obvious to every human on the planet who knows how babies happen.

We're in Fry and Laurie territory here. Except that it's the headmaster who's "wrong" and may not speak.

It's baked into the underlying thinking. Ther's no sense that people can just differ in how they assess life, or their experience are really different, that it's possible to take two views depending on what remises you start with, and often several starting places might be reasonable.

From their perspective, people who think even a little differently about men's and women's roles, homosexuality, gender, what race is about and how racism works, are clearly bigots.

And there is no point using nice language with bigots or even having a discussion with them. Unless it is to expose their bigotry to others.

I’ve seen this too, and not just in the GC/Trans debate.

It happens in many situations but most noticeable in politics. I’d like to point out that it isn’t as simple as left versus right in policy. It varies from country to country as to which one is more aggressive/less reasonable.

I assume it's because the GC have the actual facts and reason on their side. The TRA side has to rely on shouting SS and slogans because their arguments have nothing behind them but belief in this new cult.

Not sure what the SS has to do with it. Thanks iPad.

Perhaps you should send her a polite message, OP, helpfully pointing out that she could be sued for libel, as JKR has never said anything transphobic? Also warning that she can’t refuse to serve customers for holding a protected belief?
Otherwise you are, by your silence, implying your acceptance of her vile slurs on JKR.