I don't get it

[Doyoumind]

In the BBC's story yesterday about Ofcom/Stonewall, there was a reference to whether single-sex toilets should be accessible to 'people of the opposite sex who identify as trans' and the TRAs on Twitter lost their shit about it and claimed it was misgendering. How? In what way is it not factual?

The story has now been changed to read 'accessible to transgender people'. That doesn't even make sense because the debate is about their sex. No problem with a transgender person who is male going into the men's is there? Or a trans man in the women's loos.

I know why they do it - because sex must be replaced by gender etc etc but I don't think even a year ago such a response to the mention of trans people being the opposite sex to the gender they identify with would have been so widespread. Isn't that the bloody definition? So tired of it all.

The story has now been changed to read 'accessible to transgender people'. That doesn't even make sense because the debate is about their sex.

Sigh.

There was another heinous example of this in where USA Today edited an article by Chelsea Mitchell - one of the Connecticut student runners to replace all the uses of "male" with "transgender".

Saying “This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY’s standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used.”

adflegal.org/blog/i-was-fastest-girl-connecticut-transgender-athletes-made-it-unfair-fight

Whole thing made no sense after that.

There's an increasing tendency to edit other people's words and stop them saying what they mean. I've seen other news articles that have edited direct quotes changing "he" to "she" without any indication that they've done so.

That USA Today one was close to libel, I thought.

Effectively presenting her as transphobic by inserting words into her mouth to say that the objection to them was that they were transgender.

Because the TRAs scream that correct scientific terminology causes literal harm and makes the world unsafe for trans people, and organisations have to choose between standing up for reality and taking the social media attacks, or tiptoeing on eggshells around it to keep the volatile screaming people quiet. They choose option 2.

I was wondering why that sentence in the article made no sense

I guess it is misgendering if you believe that transpeople literally change sex, but apparently, as we are often told here, no-one believed that

Just mentioned this on the Ofcom thread - the phrase 'losing their shit' was never more apt. Impartial reporting on an organisation trying to remain impartial on something is seen as some sort of personal attack. They go mad.

I saw one prominent account call it a 'transphobic bin fire' of an article with all the effs and jeffs they could shoehorn in. But these are facts. This can all be rationally discussed. Why this hysterical display?

But if sex doesn't exist then trans doesn't exist. What are you transing FROM and what are you transing TO?

The whole word salad is contradictory and makes zero sense.

In the BBC's story yesterday about Ofcom/Stonewall, there was a reference to whether single-sex toilets should be accessible to 'people of the opposite sex who identify as trans' and the TRAs on Twitter lost their shit about it and claimed it was misgendering. How? In what way is it not factual?

It's the fact that it was factual that is the problem.

They rely on vague, fluffy language to hide the truth.

Just like the polls where support for throwing the doors of our female spaces open drops when the public realise that 'transwoman' doesn't mean a FtM (biological female) or a post-op transsexual, but in fact means males that haven't had any surgery.

So clear language is a big no no for them.

I just don't know how much further the concept can be pushed. They rely on the concept of sex. Without it and with 100 genders, if that's how society is structured there can only be one toilet for all or 100 different toilets, and no one is more oppressed/special than anyone else.

@Cazzovuoi

But if sex doesn't exist then trans doesn't exist. What are you transing FROM and what are you transing TO?

The whole word salad is contradictory and makes zero sense.

Indeed. Succinctly put.

If you chop the genitals off a bull and put false udders on it, give it cow hormones and put it in the pen with the cows, is it a surgically-altered bull or is it now actually a cow? Or is there really just one type of cow-shaped bovine?
This is all just man made bullshit (figuratively speaking of course).

I know why they do it - because sex must be replaced by gender etc etc but I don't think even a year ago such a response to the mention of trans people being the opposite sex to the gender they identify with would have been so widespread.

I wonder whether a year ago, the BBC would have mentioned sex at all, or whether the obscure version would have been the first line? The BBC have been very much on board with the aims of transactivism. I hope that perhaps the battle over language is starting to shift a little in women’s favour as more and more people speak out.

With regard to the response, was it more widespread than before, or more vehemently expressed? I suspect that as the shift is occurring and it becomes more obvious that public opinion is not really on the side of transactivism, that those arguing their case will become louder and possibly more and more angry.

To convince people that men who claim they are women present (as a minimum requirement) no additional risk to women in single-sex spaces, and that they should have access to all women’s spaces without exception is a huge ask, but that is what is being demanded. For their campaign to succeed, without taking the years and hard work required to change public opinion before changing the law, they desperately need to win the battle over language, as language allows the reality of what is happening to be obscured. As the language becomes clearer, they will fight harder and harder to retain the concept that using clear language is harmful to them, because was always pretty much their only chance of rapid success.

The whole word salad is contradictory and makes zero sense.

I've come to the conclusion it's not supposed to make sense, it's just another way of keeping those who don't fawn over them, whoever they are, in line. Giving them the opportunity to shout "You're obstructing us" because they want to be victims.

Non-fawners who grey rock them are bigots. The enablers walk on eggshells and do what they can to enable them but it doesn't matter if innocent people get hurt in the process.

It's narcissistic abuse on a grand scale.

I saw one prominent account call it a 'transphobic bin fire' of an article with all the effs and jeffs they could shoehorn in. But these are facts. This can all be rationally discussed. Why this hysterical display?

Because they've been told by people they trust that certain words and phrases indicate hate. They are (mostly) not pretending to think this to shut down debate, they've been taught that to mention a trans persons sex is as offensive as calling someone a racial or homophobic slur. This has literally made female people talking about the reality of being of the female set not the male sex impossible for them to engage with because it can only be seen as an act of hate for them.

@NecessaryScene

That USA Today one was close to libel, I thought.

Effectively presenting her as transphobic by inserting words into her mouth to say that the objection to them was that they were transgender.

Necessary, yes Good point. No newspaper or journalist has the right to make up words and attribute them to someone who never said it, especially knowing the backlash and pile-ons it will cause

all things are a 'transphobic bin fire' these days.

How has journalism fallen so far?

I know the answer is probably because it has haemorrhaged funding over the past few decades, but what happened to wanting to get to the truth at all costs? Is that not the motivation for journalists still?

Now they are just part of a propaganda machine pedalling bullshit. So ridiculous.

I wish the BBC would stop confusing the 'usual twitter suspects' and their 'followers' with the voice of Britain.

Has anyone complained about the change? It would be interesting to hear their justification.

I'm a member of a few professional online support networks - this includes a large FB support group for women in my field of work and another that was set up to lobby against austerity measures that affect our client group. I used to enjoy engaging with these groups and about 3-5 years ago, I regularly attended face to face meetings with members of the latter, where we focused on socio economic issues that affected our clients. However I have seen a marked change, particularly over the last few months where regularly posts (these are very active groups) seem to be Trans rights related and are always very emotional or aggressive e.g. asking for support in asking a publication to redact what seems to be a very uncontroversial statement about caution in unilateral, unconditional affirming in trans children, even when that might not be professionally appropriate. For an issues affecting a small minority , this is a lot of attention from people in groups that state they have other remits and focuses. These groups seem to be slowly moving away from their original focus to trans issues in a way that seems disproportionate in its response. I know a bit about the background to this e.g. JKR stuff but I don't really 'get' the reach of all this and why important issues like poverty and housing are being sidelined in favour of gender identity. Google searches sent me here - can anyone give me some insight please? I'm on the verge of looking for other professional communities that focus on issues more important to me.

I posted on the other thread. We should complain to the BBC about the article as it is inaccurate and misleading.

Suggesting that there is a concern about transgender people using single-sex toilets is profoundly misleading as it suggests that they would be banned from both men’s and women’s toilets.

The issue is whether trans people are allowed to use the toilets of their gender identity, rather than birth sex.

It is not transphobic to be accurate.

I have now reached maximum saturation with people policing other people's language and / or being offended by language. I've just see this in another thread and thought "that's it. I am over this nonsense. Have at it, the rest of you."

There was another heinous example of this in where USA Today edited an article by Chelsea Mitchell - one of the Connecticut student runners to replace all the uses of "male" with "transgender".

That was a particularly bad example. I actually think that's the whole point of a lot of this sort of thing.

Force people to use words in such a way that they can't say what they mean - or like the Mitchell case - force people to say something they don't mean.

Sabotage the debate, if you can't have no debate.

@Carryonmarion

I'm a member of a few professional online support networks - this includes a large FB support group for women in my field of work and another that was set up to lobby against austerity measures that affect our client group. I used to enjoy engaging with these groups and about 3-5 years ago, I regularly attended face to face meetings with members of the latter, where we focused on socio economic issues that affected our clients. However I have seen a marked change, particularly over the last few months where regularly posts (these are very active groups) seem to be Trans rights related and are always very emotional or aggressive e.g. asking for support in asking a publication to redact what seems to be a very uncontroversial statement about caution in unilateral, unconditional affirming in trans children, even when that might not be professionally appropriate. For an issues affecting a small minority , this is a lot of attention from people in groups that state they have other remits and focuses. These groups seem to be slowly moving away from their original focus to trans issues in a way that seems disproportionate in its response. I know a bit about the background to this e.g. JKR stuff but I don't really 'get' the reach of all this and why important issues like poverty and housing are being sidelined in favour of gender identity. Google searches sent me here - can anyone give me some insight please? I'm on the verge of looking for other professional communities that focus on issues more important to me.

You are unlikely to find any communities not facing similar issues.

If you're interested in learning more about what has been happening and why, this is a good place to start:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me?pg=1

I do not understand how, with the huge number of young people who want to be journalists, why some of the most successful are so bad at it.

@LazyViper

Because the TRAs scream that correct scientific terminology causes literal harm and makes the world unsafe for trans people, and organisations have to choose between standing up for reality and taking the social media attacks, or tiptoeing on eggshells around it to keep the volatile screaming people quiet. They choose option 2.