Something else I've been thinking about (and well done if you've got this far; I've been typing so long you've probably all moved on to Nick Cave or jaffa cakes by now anyway!) is why I do still, in the light of all the above, feel so strongly that the redefinition of woman, lesbian etc. is wrong, and, given this, the way forward. A few things came to mind.
-
Social media has accelerated, and maybe distorted, the "natural"
evolution of values and language. Until recently, the exchange of information
at this pace simply wasn't possible, which surely didn't just enable, but
forced, deeper consideration of such evolving issues? On the other hand, not
everyone would have had the same access to the debate...
-
I think, given that I can at last acknowledge that, despite the undeniable
reality of biology, what we have here is a set of conflicting value judgements
about how to order our world. Yes, we feel our argument is stronger because,
well, biology, reality etc.(!), but how to present that convincingly to
"opponents" who may deny both...? I think Maslow may have the answer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs).
He offers a clearly prioritised "objective" (in the sense of preceding all of this furore and being generally respected) hierarchy of human needs, without which the subsequent, "higher-order" needs become impossible, if not redundant.
My thoughts (for what it's worth, and the few lone survivors still crawling through the desert of my waffling...)
Physiological needs are the base of the hierarchy. These needs are the biological component for human survival.
We simply can't deny the centrality of sex to reproduction. It's a thing, people. We need to cater for it. Additionally, trans people people need good health care. For some this may mean transitioning physically, but all our our advanced understanding of medicine should be applied to do so safely.
Once a person's physiological needs are satisfied, their safety needs take precedence and dominate behavior.
This is why no one's going to convince traumatised women wary of male bodies to embrace these in her space. Maslow explains that, whether or not this shows a moral failure on her part (we, of course, would argue Hell, no!; Nancy Kelly etc., not so much). Meanwhile, transpeople need a number of enclosed proportionate third spaces. I don't accept that this isn't realistic: we did it for women and the disabled, we can do it for transpeople. I'd pay higher taxes to facilitate this.
After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third level of human needs is interpersonal and involves feelings of belongingness.
This is where things get tricky, but if physiological and safety needs are addressed as distinct, practical considerations, in their own right, free from the complicating influences of high-level needs such as validation, we'll already have reached a point where both GC feminists and transpeople feel less alienated and more catered for than currently. This is also, surely, where the importance of clear communication comes in. And it's possible, right? We're doing it, after all!
Then, we have:
Esteem needs - esteem is the respect, and admiration of a person, but also "... self-respect and respect from others."
Cognitive needs - people have cognitive needs such as creativity, foresight, curiosity, and meaning.
Aesthetic needs - after reaching one's cognitive needs it would progress to aesthetic needs, to beautify one's life.
Self-actualisation - this level of need refers to the realization of one's full potential. Maslow describes this as the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be.
I find it fascinating that this is all the way up here in the metaphorical pyramid, only possible when the preceding foundations have been laid. Is this part of why we're struggling so much as a society, now? Wealthy liberal democracies have begin to take the lower tiers for granted, our uniquely privileged position in the - well, history of humanity, more or less?! - encouraging an unhealthy introspection detached from concrete reality, as reflected in po-mo subjectivity? I posted upthread about the ways in which gender identity, unlike gender dysphoria, is surely the product of the interplay of an infinite number of factors unique to each individual... Unlike the genuinely dysphoric, who are, in a sense, wrestling with deep-seated physiological needs, unable to climb the hierarchy to live a meaningful life without resolving this, I think I'd suggest,
tentatively, that some people's perceptions of their gender relates to
this, less fundamental, tier.
OTOH, I'm interpreting this through the lens of GC bias, so... [is there a shrug emoji?]
Transcendence needs - Maslow later subdivided the triangle's top to include self-transcendence, also known as spiritual needs... When this need is met, it produces feelings of integrity.
I also find it interesting that something used to shape and define the very fundamentals of human existence - the spiritual, faith, organised religion - seems to be right up here in the pyramidal clouds. I actually worry that my confusion here may be a glaring sign that I'm fundamentally misunderstanding aspects of Maslow (no psychologist or sociologist - just a layperson in this area), so would be interested if someone else could explain it. But with the proviso of my probably-very-superficial-(mis?-)understanding of all this, though, and in anticipation of later embarrassing clarification by someone more knowledgeable, I may tentatively suggest that the placement of transcendence here parallels the popular GC analogy of gender ideology (the bold's important) as taking on the status of an effective religion in society, and its position on the hierarchy of needs explains our concern and frustration at this being used to re-write our laws and social contract - to do this from the shaky heights of the pyramid, at the expense of the important foundations further down, is, we would argue, no foundation for a stable society...
But, again, this is very much a GC interpretation of the hierarchy of needs. And almost certainly an embarrassingly flawed one at that. Would be fascinated to hear alternative, competing (and more informed) views!