“You don’t get to decide whether you’re transphobic or not and you don’t get to decide you’re an ally”

[AuuYSC]

Then who does?

This was said to me by a transman when I said that buying a video game (hogwarts legacy) doesn’t define a persons morals and personal beliefs (because let’s face it, nothings really ethical unless you live off the grid completely) which of course was met with a stream of abuse and how I don’t care about trans lives.

I pointed out that actually I do, I am gender critical and I don’t think JK Rowling is transphobic but I also appreciate that trans people do face danger and need protection and I also think they have a right to be who they want to be. I’m also part of the lgbtq community and donate to the local youth club (I’ll admit it’s not just the trans people who benefit from my donation but it helps the whole community).

Am I wrong in thinking that the trans community are actually causing more harm to themselves with this game boycott because judging by the pre order sales (and the millions of people that visit HP world and theme parks and buys all the merch) that actually there isn’t a lot of people on their side and by telling people what they can and can’t do, saying they’re transphobic etc for simply buying a game or spending their money isn’t making the point they think it is?

It just really made me think about what the end goal is here, do they really think being treat as the biological sex they identify with, will help them?

Imagine if we all said okay trans men are men and trans women are women and we’ll treat them like such - trans men will be put into male prisons and wards (imagine how that’ll go), medical treatment will be restricted only to biological sex so if you’re a transman you can’t have smears because men don’t have a cervix etc obviously it’s absolutely ridiculous and won’t happen but I just don’t see the benefit of the whole “transwomen are women” stance, I think they sound be treat as trans people and we look at options for them like a third toilet option or a third sports category etc something that will benefit them without causing harm to biological men and women.

Sorry I went onto a bit of a rant, I’ve never considered myself to be transphobic but I guess if it’s not something I can decide for myself then who knows.

What's going to happen as trans people get older and start getting the usual cancers we all get -say prostate cancer which many men get and can be treated successfully for.

Will trans women sue as not treated for it? Invited for tests etc?

There are two different debates here.

One is the trans debate, and one is the what is offensive debate.

Leaving the trans debate aside for one moment we could do well to recall that 50 years ago or so, it was common place to use language that today most people would not even think of using. The words were shown to be racist and the use of the words stopped. It wouldn’t have stopped had people these words were being used about hadn’t said that they found it offensive. When someone says they find a word or action offensive we should listen.

However the trans debate has taken this far too far. Buying books or a game devised by someone who said something you don’t like is your choice to make, not a choice to force onto others.

Trans people are sacred! You don't get to question them, you lowly cis worm! /sarc

I understand what you mean but Tbh I'm not sure racism DOES need malice. My gran was the nicest person you'd meet, would never have described herself as racist and genuinely held no malice towards anyone but the things she'd come out with sometimes were very definitely racist!

When someone says they find a word or action offensive we should listen.

I had absolute sympathy with this and full agreement. Until. I realised that it was not reciprocal, and was about controlling what I was permitted to say to powerful people, who felt entitled to offend me and use any word they felt like.

Likewise 'we should not coercively label others' and 'be kind', they are not truly held, equal values extended to all.

They are the means by which a group holds the power to coerce and abuse others. This is the means by which we now have a situation where a woman can be arrested for pointing out biological reality in the way that the powerful group dislikes, but a man from this same powerful group can stand in public with a sign advocating murder, and be applauded by truly stupid politicians.

If I've understood correctly, Maggie Chapman et al say women can't be sure about their sex because they haven't had their chromosomes tested. Obviously that will be be very expensive, carrying out chromosomal tests on half the population.

But isn't this an easy answer to the situation? All transwomen get their chromosomes tested. For free, of course. Then they and we can all be certain what sex they are.

Some (most?) trans activists see things in a very black and white way. There can be #nodebate and people are either good or bad. You are either a trans ally and on board 100%, or you are a transphobic bigot who should be shunned. And many people, especially those with a public profile are pestered to pick a side.

I have no problem acknowledging when someone I dislike says something correct, or when someone I admire says something I disagree with. For example, I generally admire Greta Thunberg and agree with most of what she says, but I disagree with one of her recent statements. That’s OK. That should be normal.

Given that sex markers can be changed on NHS records and a new NHS number issued, there's a real issue (acknowledged by 'trans health' organisations such as GenderGP) that transpeople will not be invited to the health screening relevant to their sex.

And on the other side of that, they may be invited to screening which is not relevant for their sex. India Willoughby proudly posted their letter inviting them for cervical screening despite the fact that India does not have a cervix (because India is male) and, despite India's insistence, has not grown one.

Has the phrase "I'm not racist, but..." ever been followed by something that isn't racist? Not that I've ever heard anyway. You don't get to declare that you're not racist, you demonstrate it in the way you treat people. Any other prejudice is the same

i can absolutely say ‘i am not racist’ there is no need to follow that statement up

i can absolutely declare that i am not racist BUT as you say how i speak or treat people will offer proof of that to other people and potentially myself

The NHS does not have a crystal ball or the time or capacity for all this running around after people unwilling to face the realities of their body.

Those who choose to change their sex markers are going to have to take some responsibility and make it clear in their care what their biological sex actually is. If they are unable to do this, then this can no longer be termed as 'not a mental health condition', and changing sex markers will have to come with specific information to medical providers, and tags on medical records. The whole wanting cake and eating it too is getting very old now.

It's just bullying.

Sure, but this also works in reverse.
Someone shouldn't be able to declare another person a racist when their words and actions do not demonstrate any such thing.

“You don’t get to decide whether you’re transphobic or not and you don’t get to decide you’re an ally”

This statement is correctly describing what the words 'transphobic' and 'ally' actually mean, as used by the gender movement.

They are not tied to the meanings that anyone would ordinarily expect.

What it's really doing is describing the power hierarchy.

It's declaring that they have the power to judge and decide your fate - whether you are saved or damned.

It's stating that they are the self declared priest who decides your worthiness. So in other words, it's a statement of domination, to which they expect you to submit. It's almost clever, in that it implies a moral structure (nobody wants to be 'phobic') - but morality has nothing to do with it. It's about power.

That's all.

(and anyone being 'trans' or otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with it, btw. It's just about making a judgement of someone being saved or damned.).

m.youtube.com/watch?v=yI6qvQtrTU8

Ricky Gervais sums it up perfectly

Agreed. The case of the transman who almost died of kidney failure because medics were treating their condition using male kidney function ranges because the transman failed to inform medics that they are female is an example of that.

Authoritarianism gets us nowhere.

So if I wore a t-shirt with ‘CIS AND PROUD’ printed on it, would I be displaying my pride that I’m a woman, or, that I’m supposedly a transphobe?

I think they'd see it as transphobic. You're not allowed to be proud you aren't trans, however you express it. It would be jarring, as most women who wanted to express this sentiment would wear an AHF t shirt.

It's a bit like whether you're declared to be a heretic or not, it depends on who has the power.

It’s absolutely heresy.

I’ve found in RL conversations people audibly gasp or wince when I state bald facts. Because we’re NOT ALLOWED to state them. But then as the conversation progresses it becomes clear that they absolutely agree on all points, but thought they were having transphobic thoughts so kept it to themselves.

Honestly, talking about this in public and not just with my family has been eye opening. I’ve spoken to Uni students, friends, colleagues, randoms in the pub and not once have I found a single person who believes what the Twitter zealots claim. Everybody is ‘transphobic’.

Actually, this makes perfect sense to me. This woman is scared of her vulnerability from men. Maybe that's because of trauma. Maybe it's simply our society is actually a pretty scary one to be a teenage girl in. Part of her self-defence is denying she's a woman - refusing to admit that she is vulnerable to male strength. By saying she's a man she's saying, "I'm strong like them - I can't be hurt". It's all part of the same thing.

This is a struggle OP.

Over the past weeks we have been treated to great demonstrations of this.

One male poster, recently flounced, spent posts distracting and distancing themselves from posts were they gatekept who was trans and who wasn’t. They maintained that transmaxxers were not trans and that a barrister was correct in calling out Hayton.

A couple of days ago on an AIBU thread, a poster declared ‘Mumsnet has a transphobia problem’. Then when pressed admitted that they had no examples that were not deleted, and didn’t understand that some people posted just for screenshots to spread that lie. They still doubled down though. they then used the argument that because it was posted in the first place, there was a problem.

I saw this exact logic on another thread. I did not check to see if it was the same poster as I was busy … they could have name changed. Both posters declared they supported single sex spaces, and other rights, but declared the exact same thing. That MN had a lot of transphobia. Oh.. come to think of it didn’t seem to want to define words either.

One of those posters also declared that cross dressers and sex fetishists were not trans people and they repeatedly asserted this. And that they didn’t believe that anyone who said they were transgender were trans people. And would not accept that this was transphobic.

Yet persisted in declaring others transphobic! It was a clear a case of dissonance as you could see.

More people are understanding there are issues. However, there are more of them now policing tone as they are still in ‘be kind’ mode. The change is in the number.

And so we see again new posters who are supporting the extreme demands now desperately attempting to post something that convinces others. Yet it seems that those who can see some of the issues but want to force ‘kindness’ (something that the flounce yesterday made a huge thing of. Kindness and grace) end up stuck in the conversation.

So, yes. OP. There is so much confusion about what transphobia is and what it might look like in actions. When a word is weaponised as this one has, it loses its meaning and its shock value.

Yes. This is a conversation I have had with the mother of a teen trans person. We often discuss the motivations for this transition and it follows the points you raise here motorina.

The thing people really (as in factually, not legal fiction) don't get to decide is simple - it's which sex you are. And you don't get to decide if people of the opposite sex are willing to accept you as an honorary member of theirs.

Sorry, reality is transphobic.

People can decide for themselves if I’m transphobic or not for not wanting children to be sterilised.

And I can decide I couldn’t give a shit and ignore them.

It was such a big mental lift when I stopped caring about whether people were going to apply a meaningless label to me. It’s like being labelled a heretic, or a Suppressive Person by a Scientologist. I just laugh now, roll my eyes and carry on with life.

I should add it’s been made meaningless by those that fling it about. Because it now means anything and everything, accusers have demeaned the word. People see through it now. Look at the response to LOJ’s baby tantrum.