Caitlyn Jenner's new campaign against "gender extremists"

[BonfireLady]

Apologies if this is a duplicate thread but I don't think I've seen it elsewhere.

Caitlyn Jenner has launched a new political action committee to protect children from the (pull towards a pathway of medicalisation for life and sterilisation) impact of gender identity belief and to protect the integrity of women's sports. It's targeted at exposing and stopping the influence of gender belief extremists, not the every day lives of transgender people.

She's receiving both support and criticism.

"I don't want to be a trans activist," Jenner responded "I gave millions and millions of dollars away in philanthropy to LGBT organizations. I want to be a trans example not an activist. Live your life however, you want that's the beautiful thing about this country."

It's great to see her stepping up as a role model for safety, fairness and boundaries.

Article in Newsweek

The problem is that it has been destruction tested.

If any male at all with any degree of transition is able to have their wants and choices met over female equality and needs, then they all can.

There is no way to say 'yes this man but not that one'. In practice, even with GRCs, it's hopeless. If it is any man at all then it's all men, and how the men feel inside their heads or what cosmetic choices they make are wholly irrelevant.

The core issue has always been female equality and the regarding of females as a therapeutic resource that males are entitled to, and in which females are not seen as even sufficiently human to be seen as stake holders. Men squabbling amongst themselves over who gets to have that resource and who doesn't is just continuing to push the core issue. The extremists have ripped the lid right off the ugly misogyny beneath: it was a case that a very small number of men were just about getting away with it, but the time when that was possible to go back to is over. Ship sailed. Dead parrot.

Hence many women, me included, now at the point of saying degree of transition/ duration/ commitment/ whatever is irrelevant, no men in women's spaces. At all. Other solutions that do not involve women will have to be found, and that will pull the fig leaf of another major ugly secret: it isn't the spaces, it is the women themselves who are the required resource. And we will then have to face another core issue the extremists have dragged out into the sun: to what extent is it ok for one human to use a non consenting other to meet their needs?

What is the human who wants to do the using comes from a politically powerful group, so some humans can use and some can't?

What if the human saying no, my body, I don't consent, is dehumanised so that some people's consent matters and others don't?

And what if the human wanting to do the using is doing it for sexual enjoyment? Should non consenting others be required to act as props in another person's sex life?

And then we can also unpick:

where a political group are sufficiently powerful to use another group without that group's consent being seen as relevant?

where they are sufficiently powerful to require forced labour from that other group with very little response or interest from police and government about the ethics of it

where the used group are framed as in need of punishment for resisting this?

The political group doing the using are not vulnerable or 'most oppressed', they are in fact oppressors. The fact that this is an enormous umbrella over many groups who do not have all the same needs has meant that there has been a lot of benefit by the powerful in constantly referencing the young and vulnerable under their umbrella and using the shield of those people for their own furthered aims.

I think he can see the ship sinking and wants to be the only 'real' woman in the lifeboat.

Hmm.

At the same time, I don't think you can really argue that Lia Thomas should be competing in men's sports as Lia Thomas, and also that Caitlyn Jenner shouldn't have competed in men's sports as Bruce Jenner.

If any male at all with any degree of transition is able to have their wants and choices met over female equality and needs, then they all can.

No laws should be based on it being ok because only a few people would want to exercise their right under it. If a right exists we must consider what would happen if everyone who can meet the criteria exercises that right. So under the Scottish GRR bill, what would happen if everyone over 16 got a GRC? Or even half of over 16 year olds? The criteria did not prevent anyone from getting a GRC is they wanted one. ‘That is unlikely’ is not good enough.

IIRC didn’t Jenner talk about trying on their daughter’s (or was it sister’s) underwear?

Hence many women, me included, now at the point of saying degree of transition/ duration/ commitment/ whatever is irrelevant, no men in women's spaces. At all. Other solutions that do not involve women will have to be found.

This.

Anything else is just men discussing where to place the boot on women’s necks.

Yes, Jenner saying this is better than being in favour of it but he’s already proven he’s a hypocrite by keeping his male privilege with his male only golf club.

I’m not interested anymore in what men think is a reasonable position for women to take about who is in their space.

I'm not saying I agree with him AT ALL. I don't, no men, even if they've chopped off their penis, in women's spaces. Even if they're lovely, even if they have a certificate. At that point all spaces are mixed sex and if we're going that way I'd rather everything was just overtly and honestly mixed sex because at least then there'd be decent blokes in there too.

But him talking about this - putting this point of view (which I disagree with) - opening up the discussion -ending no debate. With his influence and money. THAT is good. Because it helps end the stranglehold of 'be kind' and the silence and cowardly acceptance of institutional capture and starts society actually discussing what 'be kind' means in practice for women (real ones).

It's sunlight, and the more the 'be kind - men are whatever they say they are' group fight with the tru-trans group the more likely the rest of the populace who are by and large just trying to get by will see the insanity and women hatred.

I'm not. I'm saying Jenner is picking and choosing which bits of the ideology benefit Jenner.

But I see what you mean. He disregards the ideology when it comes to his own sport, and now women's sport. So there is a similarity to that. Not least of which is the benefit to Jenner for both those stances.

I don't really see it that way. It seems Jenner's stance is that people should compete in sport according to their biological sex. That is what Jenner did and it is what other trans people should do. Jenner won those medals fair and square.

Suggesting that trans people shouldn't compete at all is playing into the hands of the pronoun people who accuse us of wanting to exclude trans people from sport.

I'm going to borrow a few quotes from above to highlight why I think this is a positive step. I absolutely get it that this won't be a universal view.

TRA are forcing society to negotiate established boundaries and safeguarding policies, not accepting them. @ZuttZeVootEeeVo Indeed. This is an opportunity to put back in two boundaries, where the public backing to do so is likely to be very high. It's a start point.

Jenner wants to come across as reasonable, because they have political ambition and can see the writing on the wall with regards to children and sport
@Datun Agreed. If she is motivated by political ambition and or attention seeking, so be it. If someone is driven by a strong conviction, that makes them determined and increases the chances of achieving an outcome, such as firmer laws.

Great, we've got a new "ally" to praise have we? A man who tried on his daughter's clothes behind their backs
@TinselAngel only an "ally" in so far as, Buck Angel and Matt Walsh are "allies". In Caitlyn Jenner's case, there is alignment on two single issues: a) children's mental and physical safety b) fairness and safety in women's sports. So allyship on an issue basis, not holistically.

My personal view is that I'm never going to find myself in complete agreement with anyone on this, where someone has a completely different core and underpinning belief to me: I do not have a gender identity. I respect that others such as Caitlyn Jenner do, but I do not. It's the same as religion for me. I'm an atheist but I respect that others have a belief in a single or multiple gods. However, my respect for Jenner (or any religious communities) doesn't extend in to supporting laws, policies, health care etc where someone's beliefs directly impact those who don't hold the belief e.g. I could never support Afghan women and girls being refused education or jobs in a belief-led interpretation of Shari'a law.

I will stand up against against any belief-led trouncing of other people's rights, and also for therapeutic health care (with medicalisation as a very last resort) for anyone suffering with gender dysphoria. But I don't think we can do it all at once and this campaign has picked up two of the clearest of all the issues as far as the public is concerned.

If standing up against this means I need to stand with someone on a particular issue (or two particular issues in this case), I will do that. But I will make it very clear that my support is ringfenced and does not go beyond those boundaries.

I found Scott Newgent particularly inspiring on this front when she stood up and challenged people who call Matt Walsh bigoted, while also making her strong and hard-hitting points about the impact that gender identity belief has had on her, and her concerns for others. I'm sure she's well aware that Matt Walsh would not stand with her on her rights to live as a lesbian without discrimination.
Here's the clip I'm referring to of Scott Newgent

Which personally leads me to conclude:

Jenner has influence and money and I think this is a good thing overall dimorphism

only an "ally" in so far as, Buck Angel and Matt Walsh are "allies". In Caitlyn Jenner's case, there is alignment on two single issues: a) children's mental and physical safety b) fairness and safety in women's sports. So allyship on an issue basis, not holistically.

Aside from the fact that a man exactly like her ex can never be an ally to a trans widow, this is not a case by case issue. Either men can become women or they can't. Piecemeal compromises can only undermine that.

Jenner is no different to any of the other AGP "allies", who are just put for themselves.

Out for themselves.

I think Jenner's position is helpful because a trans woman and former athlete saying that trans women should not compete against women in sport cannot simply be dismissed as a transphobe.

This is someone with direct personal experience of both being trans and being an elite athlete, so is rightly seen as a legitimate voice of authority on both subjects.

We don't have to agree with Jenner about everything (or indeed anything) else to find this helpful.

Yes, Jenner is disregarding the ideology in terms of sport, which benefits Jenner. And embracing the ideology in terms of inhabiting stereotypes and using women's spaces, which also benefits Jenner.

Jenner took their own daughter's clothes to dress up in, which benefits Jenner. But now wants to protect children, which also benefits Jenner.

But isn't Jenner just saying that the ideology isn't relevant to sport? That the reasons why men and women compete separately are based on biology, not identity?

But it's completely inconsistent. We segregate in all manner of ways based on biology that Jenner won't embrace.

Most people who aren't raging TRAs agree that sport should be segregated by sex. Likewise the transitioning of children is being seen as experimental at best, and abusive at worst.

Jenner is not saying anything very controversial.

Do I disagree over sport and children? No, of course not. Do I think that Jenner's opinion is anything other than self serving?

No.

Jenner embraces an ideology that's detrimental to women and children. They can't be an ally to women on that basis alone.

Throwing a few crumbs, because they can read the writing on the wall doesn't change that.

In my opinion, of course.

I guess to flip this round another way, would it have been more impactful if Scott Newgent had spent most of the 9 minute clip pointing out how bigoted Matt Walsh is about lesbians and the role of women in society, with a footnote about how important the question "what is a woman?" is when it comes to understanding the impact of gender identity belief....

Or...

To spend 9 minutes calling out a) why his bigotry is irrelevant to the pertinent point: that until we have sex-based laws, there are real issues that impact vulnerable children and adults and b) exactly what some of those impacts are from her own experience?

Not only is it one of the most heartfelt speeches I have come across, I think the power that Scott holds by setting aside her differences with Matt adds even more weight to her message.

But what IS the Q?
I never have understood that one.

As I understand it, from my conversations with people from the LGBT+ community, who I spoke to when I was building up my understanding of everything (to support my gender-questioning daughter), it is an umbrella term that covers everything related sexual orientation and gender identity when they are conflated.

For example, in the case of a non-binary biological female in a relationship with a biological man. Personally, as a non-believer in gender identity (atheist equivalent), I would describe this as a heterosexual relationship. But someone who does hold a belief in gender identity may say it's a queer relationship. I guess it's an acknowledgement of the conflation of sex and gender and it doesn't impact anyone else's boundaries.

Sadly though, it seems to get messy when straight men who identify as trans women prefer to call themselves lesbians, for example. Logically speaking, it would be a lot easier if they also called themselves queer.

So as far as I can tell, the T is the "who I am" (who I identify as) and the Q is the "who I am in relation to my sexual orientation".. except of course when someone prefers not to identify as queer...such as a trans woman who says they are a lesbian.

TBH I don't worry too much about understanding it (and am happy to be told I've completely misunderstood it) because I don't hold a gender identity belief. I just accept that it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, in the same way that I don't really know how God can be the father, the son and the holy spirit. But I'm fine with not understanding that.

Ultimately, laws and policies should be based on biological facts, not gender identity belief e.g. if I ran a lesbian dating site, I would not welcome trans gender women. Their belief should not impact the "admissions" policy.

And bringing it back to sports and children, this also highlights the simple path: let's create laws and policies based on biological sex. It's simpler and it's safer and fairer.

Some like to define queer as not hetrosexual and not 'cis'.

So it can include lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, those who are not sexually attracted at all, and those who see themselves as trans and non binary.

Given that the lgb and the t are already in the acronym, and non binary is under the trans umbrella, it should just represent those who aren't sexually attracted to anyone. Its odd to call those people queer rather than not sexual or something?

Unless theres other sexualities Im missing?

Queer seems to mean people like Laurie Penny.

I mean, she's obviously a woman in an utterly conventional heterosexual marriage with a man, but that's too desperately uncool, so she has to be queer and non binary.

Everything that isn’t covered by LBG just means heterosexuals.

It is Queer theory - the destruction of societal norms and boundaries. This ultimately include paedophilia - the destruction of societal boundaries between sex and children. Many people who claim to be queer will deny this but that is where it leads and where the main queer theorists, like Foucault, took it.

Jenner is huge hypocrit but I'll take any hands on deck. Once the crazy is gone we can have some adult conversations and talk about different issues. Until then I guess it's good he's talking about this.

That ^^

Although as pp, it also is an identity avatar signifying 'not boring'

Thanks to those explaining the Q bit. It really is just made up sinister nonsense, hiding behind a «reclaimed» slur.

Jenner brings a lot of publicity, which is a good thing. Jenner probably wants exceptions, but it is allowed to want things. Does not mean that you’ll get.