Challenged 'anti-trans' rhetoric - support please vipers!

[Whatiswrongwithmyknee]

I tend to be quietly discontent IRL when people say negative things about GC beliefs but today I took the step of speaking up. A colleague at a work do complained about 'anti-trans' speakers having a platform and for the first time I was vocal in saying that I thought they should have had a voice. Colleague thought I was restricting people's identities but I said no, I think people should identify as they like but trans ideology is about what more than identity and that's what worries me. Hand hold needed! How do you have the nerve to speak up when you are so easily then painted as a bigot because of things like stonewall's manipulation?

It is scary speaking up but I know that pure fury drives me to do it. I know I should present myself as calm and reasonable but it’s gone way beyond that point.

Well done!

Calling you a bigot doesnt mean you are one. Its a nasty, manipulative tactic designed to make you feel bad. And at least you know now that colleague is not 100% trustworthy.
Its not bigotry to support safeguarding, or to believe women should have a say about who they have to share a space with when they are vulnerable, unwell, or partially clothed.

I actually have a lot of time for the colleague so it was a surprising interaction. I was calm an quiet, no fury on show! I do hate 'anti-trans' being conflated with GC though. There are some genuine 'anti-trans' people out there but most GC people are not.

Thank you for the support guys!

Just ask them to explain what you said that was anti-trans and/or bigoted. Then, suitably chastised, report back (after thinking about what you've done). I, for one, am desperate to know.

They didn't accuse me of being anti-trans, just spoke about a conference or something where they had invited an 'anti-trans' aka gender critical speaker. They thought this was inappropriate and akin to homophobia. I said I thought not as the debate is not one about identity really, it is about the physical spaces which people think their identity entitles them to.

I suppose it's good then that both of you spoke up. Sometimes there is no middle ground (schrodinger's women's toilet?) but, respectful discussion can't be a bad thing. Good on you for speaking.

Mayas tribunal judgement is my go to. It is entirely lawful to be gender critical and to express those beliefs.

The TRAs have decided that everything is transphobic. This is the cornerstone of #nodebate. It makes it impossible to express GC beliefs without being labelled a bigot.

I am very much hoping her 2nd tribunal will make it clear how GC beliefs can be expressed in the workplace, so we can be safe saying very obvious things like women don't have penises, and transwomen are not women, they are trannswomen.

It sounds like a very reasonable discussion and I think you handled it well.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

They didn't accuse me of being anti-trans, just spoke about a conference or something where they had invited an 'anti-trans' aka gender critical speaker. They thought this was inappropriate and akin to homophobia. I said I thought not as the debate is not one about identity really, it is about the physical spaces which people think their identity entitles them to.

Well done. Exactly the right angle. Pro women’s rights and support gender identity but not at the cost of women’s safety, dignity and privacy.

I don't know if it's useful but remember this direct quote from the CEO of Stonewall (in her Woman's Hour interview):

So, gender critical beliefs have always been protected under the Equality Act and it’s absolutely possible for people to hold gender critical beliefs without expressing them in a way that’s harmful to trans people.

I'd be asking them why they were against women and children exercising their rights under the Equality act? Is it everyone's rights that they want to dismantle,or just those?
But I'm stroppier than most and don't have to work with idiots.

Thanks guys. She went quiet and clearly changed her view of me. Not sure i did handle it that.well. she's a lesbian. I wonder if I should have asked her whether she feels OK being labelled a sexual rapist if she excluded men from her potential dating pool. Perhaps also, as she spoke about 'why would you control someone's identity', asked whether she then agrees that it's ok for a white person to identify as black and benefit from the rightful protections afforded to people of colour.

I don't think the race equivalent is a great discussion point tbh, it's not focusing on the actual issues.
My advice would be to not be drawn into saying anything too broad, and ask questions / clarifications. And try and find where you do agree!

Well done, OP. You have to notice your discomfort and acknowledge it. It's not easy to speak up and be exposed to criticism.

I want to say to a person trying silencing us with accusations of anti-trans, is that they're an anti-female bully. This from SD was good...

Sharron Davies MBE@sharrond62
It’s not transphobic to want fair sport, it’s anti female to not!

@PrelateChuckles

I don't think the race equivalent is a great discussion point tbh, it's not focusing on the actual issues. My advice would be to not be drawn into saying anything too broad, and ask questions / clarifications. And try and find where you do agree!

I don't know about that - it is a good example of how you can't just consider these issues to be a matter of identity. It does feel wrong to try and control someone's identity and this seems to be an area where people can see that the 'simply identity' analysis is severely lacking.

In conversations like this you have to reframe everything as the rights of females not anti trans.

What were those women talking about?
Was any of the titles of the talks 'anti-trans' or 'pro-women'?
Why are they against women speaking things that they think are important?
Women are 51% of the population so that infers they have a right to an opinion about the law.
Women pay tax so they have a right to have an opinion about where their taxes are spent.
Women were denied the vote and nobody was confused then about who was and wasn't a women.
What are you scared that the women will say exactly?

I agree in a way, but it seems to have been hard-coded in people's minds that 'gEnDeR is DiFfEreNt and SpEcIaL' so those arguments get batted away without thinking.
You might find differently, though!

I wonder if I should have asked her whether she feels OK being labelled a sexual rapist if she excluded men from her potential dating pool. Perhaps also... asked whether she then agrees that it's ok for a white person to identify as black and benefit from the rightful protections afforded to people of colour.
No, what you said was more to the point without being unneccessarily confrontational.

I think the definition of the word bigot can be useful here; someone who is intolerant of another person’s opinion.

See if they can justify cancelling speakers that were invited to a conference without being a bigot.

This is a work colleague not a mate; be extremely careful what you say to and in front of them from now on. Never raise the subject yourself and never bring their sexual orientation into it.
If they raise the subject again - especially at work - just stick to something non committal like 'we should abide by equality legislation which protects all the characteristics equally', end the converstaion and walk away. Dont put your job at risk.

@Thelnebriati

This is a work colleague not a mate; be extremely careful what you say to and in front of them from now on. Never raise the subject yourself and never bring their sexual orientation into it. If they raise the subject again - especially at work - just stick to something non committal like 'we should abide by equality legislation which protects all the characteristics equally', end the converstaion and walk away. Dont put your job at risk.

This is good advice and I'm going to commit that phrase to memory