Why aren't transactivists gender-critical?

[oxcat1]

Please go easy on me if this is a stupid question.

If gender is simply the socially constructed expectations of how people should behave and dress, why isn't the trans movement gender critical? Surely to break down these societal expectations is in their interests (just as it is in the interest of women, feminists argue)?

Instead, the trans movement seeks to enshrine in law the very structure that makes living their own lives as they wish, free from constraints of societal expectations, so very difficult.

Why is that? Or have I totally misunderstood?

On the other hand, the WHRC submission that was posted as some kind of ‘gotcha’ on the previous page has some interesting information on it.

I had no idea that 1/10 of porn in 2016 was trans porn. And I previously couldn’t be arsed looking up quite what sissy hypno was, I just guessed from the genre name but thought I was probably wrong because seriously, this is something males think a video can do… hypnotize them in this way???

I wonder at the highlighting job done on the submission though. The bits highlighted seem more relevant to male transitioners than female. I wonder if cleddyF realised that when posting it.

going to end this here by saying maya forstater signed for a campaign which argues for the 'elimination of transgenderism'

No, it says that transgenderism falls within the definition of sex stereotypes. The UN calls for the elimination of prejudice based on sex stereotypes and the inferiority of women. You are conflating three different things.

When you unpick these things, they are very rarely as they are presented by trans advocates.

They are often so steeped in propaganda though eresh.

I thought Colin Mills did a good tweet thread on this yesterday in regards to how to have scholarly discussion.

But if I am going to castigate her (he is talking about a theoretical discussion about addressing Dr Stock’s book) I have to give reasons & evidence that relates to what she has actually written. Because, you know, that's how scholarship works. That's what makes our opinions worth serious consideration. Because we aren't acting like the one trick pub bore

Wish more posters would adopt this approach more often.

But it also had a good pub reference .

Oops. Forgot the link

twitter.com/oxsoc/status/1406258767285661702?s=21

@TurquoiseBaubles

I do hope no-one reports that post, it should be kept in all it's glory.

I was very tempted

I really don’t like the phrase ‘truscum’

Does tell me all i need to know though

I don’t like that phrase either, rufus.

I can’t imagine ever thinking it was Ok to call people who disagreed with me “scum”.

But I don’t want that post deleted. If for nothing else other than the preservation of the phrase “elite transphobia of the highest degree”, which feels like it might be a compliment?

But I don’t want that post deleted. If for nothing else other than the preservation of the phrase “elite transphobia of the highest degree”, which feels like it might be a compliment

😀

Slightly off topic, but I do find it very telling that people have to outsource their thinking on JK's essay. I have yet to come across someone who thinks it was transphobic who could actually say why, and didn't just resort to an essay or video by a rambling 'influencer' which could easily be picked apart.
I was looking for transphobia when I read the essay. I thought I would find it because the press and younger Harry Potter actors had been unanimous. I was actually confused when I got to the end and there was no transphobia. And if there's one thing I'm good at it's doing critical analysis. I have a degree in it. So if I can't find it then I'm not surprised people who think it's transphobic can't find it.
It's reader response theory on steroids, twice removed.

I'll just finish with my own personal favourite joke:

A person of indiscriminate gender walks into a bar: ouch.

Hmm. Lacks punch.

A person walked into a bar. The bartender asked for ID. The person cancelled them and walked out again.

@TurquoiseBaubles

I do hope no-one reports that post, it should be kept in all it's glory.

If you mean cleddyF's I've just reported it now. The language used to describe Blaire White and Kalvin Garrah is disgusting and disgraceful.

If MNHQ do delete it there's sufficient information left in other posts to show what was said.

I don't know how relevant this is or whether this has already been spoken about. Maya Forstater who has won in life and in law that sex matters states that Gender critical beliefs are worthy in a democratic society.

@Sophoclesthefox

I don’t like that phrase either, rufus.

I can’t imagine ever thinking it was Ok to call people who disagreed with me “scum”.

But I don’t want that post deleted. If for nothing else other than the preservation of the phrase “elite transphobia of the highest degree”, which feels like it might be a compliment?

This is where I disagree.

If someone says black people are inferior to white, or that gay people are evil and immoral and should be criminalised, then I have no problem calling that person scum.

Trans rights peeps believe TWAW, be nice, end of story, full stop. It is entirely logical that if you believe such nonsense then people on the other side are scum.

I'd argue that the use of the word scum is a long way from the problem - it's use is absolutely inevitable if you lack all critical thinking or empathy for women and take a ludicrous position.

I still don’t have to like it jedi

'If someone says black people are inferior to white, or that gay people are evil and immoral and should be criminalised, then I have no problem calling that person scum.

Trans rights peeps believe TWAW, be nice, end of story, full stop. It is entirely logical that if you believe such nonsense then people on the other side are scum.'

Disagreeing is not the same as the examples you gave though. They're of a different order.

There's also the small point that if believing that sex matters makes you scum then pretty much every person on the planet is scum.

The fact that this is a standard term used for usually transsexual people. Who transitioned often when it was a much less known, not understood thing.

These are members of their own group. This very strong insult is used for those in their own group who don't agree- probably because they are seen as particularly dangerous.

The point that many of the people referred to with this word believe that sex dysphoria ( now gender dysphoria more or less) should be a condition for a gra. Means that this insult is leveled not just at members of their own community, not just those who took this step when it was I'm sure much harder. But also that they are essentially stating that they have had crippling MH issues around it in the past. Where is the consideration of that? The word used shows there isn't any and they don't care, which is completely counter to their own argument which is essentially trans people have a bad enough time, mental health problems are common and can be severe, so everyone needs to be 100% kind, thoughtful, accepting, understanding and supporting at all times.

That's pretty telling isn't it.

The reason the anger at them is so great is that transsexuals who disagree with the current mainstream activists are very concerned that their own rights will be eroded or reverse. They understand that the things demanded go way too far, they expect pushback, and that will affect them as well.

They are trying to keep transgender people out of the things that they have been allowed, that they have carved out etc. They are EXCLUSIONARY. and so there is rage, and they are demonised.

It's the exact same position as women. We're saying no this is ours we fought for it. And so we are demonised.

I imagine in the wider world the demonisation of women who say no vocally- often middle aged feminist women- is easier to get people on board with. Loads of people really don't like women like that already.

The demonisation of the trailblazers of their own group, for disagreeing, is a harder sell I imagine.

The fact that the only criticism on cleddyF's post is the use of the word 'transcum' really is telling that no one here knows what they are talking about

That's hardly the only criticism!

Why do you think criticism of calling a certain group of trans people 'trus*' , indicates a lack of knowledge?

Only criticism 🤣🤣🤣

It’s the only criticism anyone can be bothered with, the rest of it is so trite.

That's not an answer to the question though.

My post was to CatapillarConnoisseur.

This is an open chat board.

The poster you mention is not the only one who responded about that post.

You replied to my last comment!

Have you read the thread or only certain posts?

I think my question is fair and so it would be great if you could share your thoughts on it.

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here Gerbil. I didn’t reply to your post, I quoted a part of CatapillarConnoisseur‘a post that claims the only criticisms anyone has about Cleddyf’s post is the use of the word “truscum”. My reply to that is that there are so many things wrong with Cleddyf’s post, but the “truscum” part was the only thing anyone had the energy to address because it was so overloaded with problems we have all addressed before.

I read CatapillarConnoisseur’s post as a criticism of us for failing to deal with Cleddyf’s post because we aren’t knowledgeable, whereas the reality is because none of us could be arsed.