"Aggrieved feelings are less important than actual harm."

[CyclingSam]

That's what an acquaintance told me when I suggested women shouldn't have to budge up in, for example, sports, giving him the link to I heart bikes.

I told him we were in agreement about that, and we could compare lists of actual harm and aggrieved feelings if he liked, but I'm still in shock about the blatant reverse. I guess this is what comes from three years of FWR, Ovarit, and links beyond counting.

If I understand correctly, has a previously 'beee kiiind' friend become somewhat terfy? Are congratulations in order?

As long as he didn't mean the aggrieved feelings of women weren't as important as actual harm to transwomen.

This is something I have heard stated before, with some variations, usually based on the idea that if trans women are banned from the female categories in sports their suffering, somehow, is objectively more important than the suffering of all the girls and women who are deprived of a chance for the podium (or the stipends etc. which might follow from that).

Though the evaluation there is actully completely subjective, and must be based on the assumption that the suffering of even a handful of one type of people is more important than the suffering of lots and lots of the other type.

He's very much in the 'be kind' camp. I wasn't trying to get him out of it so much as make him more aware of what this 'kindness' is costing.

The context is that I initiated a conversation after he complained that I was throwing people with contrary views out of my social circle. He got this impression from my blog, where I am pretty forthright about this stuff. (Here's a good example). While it's true that I take people who believe TWAW about as seriously as Sall Grover does [see attached], there are no such entry requirement to my circle, such as it is. Admittedly I favour those with the Oz trifecta: that would be a heart, a brain, and courage.

My lack of social currency aside, I was keen to chat with him to see if we could indeed engage amicably. His starter for 10:

Generally I try to look at things from a harm minimisation approach. Mostly trans folk seem to generally cause fewer societal problems (crime, etc.) than the general population, have an almost zero regret rate from transitioning and have a sky-high suicide and self-harm rate when prevented from transitioning.

I dove straight into suicide first, with help from Sex Matters and others. I then attempted to move beyond stats and asked him to consider the limitations of empathy, suggesting that affirmation is not a solution when it can be harmful in itself (e.g. Keira Bell et al) and affects other people, particularly women and girls.

I closed by saying that if we're about harm minimisation, we need to be on a solid foundation of truth, i.e., TWAM.

In reply he said we were at an impasse, then the bit about aggrieved feelings, and finally an analogy which I'm still trying to wrap my head around:

There are plenty of things in the world that I do not think are good ideas (e.g. wearing hijabs, getting drunk) but my feelings about that don't override somebody else's choice to wear a hijab or knock over 10 pints. Just don't make me wear a hijab or knock me off my bicycle.

This would be easy enough to walk away from, but it's difficult when you feel communication is the answer.

There are plenty of things in the world that I do not think are good ideas (e.g. wearing hijabs, getting drunk) but my feelings about that don't override somebody else's choice to wear a hijab or knock over 10 pints. Just don't make me wear a hijab or knock me off my bicycle.

Actually, the analogy is pretty good - just not in the way he thinks it.

...my feelings about that don't override somebody else's choice to believe they are the opposite sex or take drugs so that they can compete against opponents of the opposite sex. Just don't make me join in their beliefs or compete against opponents of the opposite sex to mine.

Oh, I've misunderstood because from my standpoint he's got it backwards. Women are the ones experiencing 'actual harm'. At least he's talking, that may give reason for hope.

With any luck you've prompted him to think. Generally most people will realise the problems if they can be encouraged to spend five minutes thinking about it.

Yeah. Some people's trauma, faith, culture, disability, feelings, needs, inclusion, death threats, screaming twits in balaclavas kettling them, rapes and access are just 'aggrieved feelings'

And some people's dislike of anyone ever saying 'no' is genocide.

In clown world.

His analogies of hijab wearing or drunkenness are consistent if they are compared to men wearing skirts, lipstick or whatever they want, but they fall short because they don’t require anyone else to believe and affirm a lie.
Getting drunk but then insisting everyone believes you are actually sober and in a fit state to drive a car might be more realistic. Not every drunk driver causes harm to others, but you can’t tell which will and which won’t, so all drunk driving is prohibited.

I'm really curious to understand how this person has come to believe all the things he asserts in that "harm minimisation" paragraph. I'm guessing he's a smart, well informed person so how has he developed erroneous beliefs?
(I realise this question has been asked many times on FWR, and interesting threads ensued, but this is such a succinct snapshot of disinformation in action).

I wonder if one of the key issues here is that OP’s acquaintance is a man. Thus, other men choosing to invade women’s sports and spaces is something he can genuinely choose not to engage with

If you can't get clear reasoning out of someone, and they want to quickly run away from the discussion, then nothing much you can do.

Mostly trans folk seem to generally cause fewer societal problems (crime, etc.) than the general population

What's he basing that on?

@ARockIsASlowSlowCooledOffFlameAndACradle
I'm really curious to understand how this person has come to believe all the things he asserts in that "harm minimisation" paragraph.

Me too.

@HagoftheNorth
I wonder if one of the key issues here is that OP’s acquaintance is a man. Thus, other men choosing to invade women’s sports and spaces is something he can genuinely choose not to engage with

That's what I figure. (I'm also male btw.)

One thought that occurred to me is his wife is also a cyclist, and can apparently ride further than him, so he may regard the sexes as being pretty equal on two wheels. I know women can excel in endurance events. I see this argument a lot: isolated examples of "She beat me up a hill!", etc., so why can't we mix.

@Ereshkigalangcleg
"Mostly trans folk seem to generally cause fewer societal problems (crime, etc.) than the general population"
^^
What's he basing that on?

Your guess is as good as mine. I didn't want to hit him with too much straight away, and let that slide, but I'll ask.

Yes, this does raise questions about not just "harm minimisation", but what "harms" you think are more or less important.

Imagine that we could calculate with confidence, that the best way to minimise harm overall for everyone is to be "trans inclusive".

Can't you just say that it's still an injustice and unfair so that "harm minimisation" shouldn't be the priority?

This is a very good question, given that the data we have from prisons in the UK, Canada, and the US all suggest that at least having a history of committing sexual crimes seems to be more common among self-identifying incarcerated trans women than among incarcerated men, in general.

What makes this so much harder to evaluate by most people are two things. One is that there is so little data about victims of crime which would be based on not just surveys where people are asked about their own interpretations of possible crimes they have experienced but on some type of verification by witnesses or institutions. Reports to the police are a little better, but we know that even there different demographic groups might report at different rates.

The second is how common numerical or statistical illiteracy seems to be. Small groups (which transgender people are) might have high rates of committing crimes without them committing anywhere near the majority of crimes in any category, simply, because we are looking at a small group.

Large groups (such as all natal women) are going to have higher absolute counts as perpetrators of certain types of crimes, even when the actual percentages of women committing those kinds of crimes are very low, just because there are lots of us!

So for most purposes we need to find the relative rates of being victimised by crimes and committing crimes. This requires the absolute counts to be turned into relative counts by being divided by relevant population numbers. And if you do that, you will find the most obvious group which is more likely to be a victim of many types of crimes than the perpetrator of those to consist of natal women.

Looking at homicide rates is one way of getting more information here, and what data there is suggests that the transgender population, overall, faces quite low risks of being killed, compared to the general population. I haven't seen much research on the opposite question (the rate at which transgender people commit crimes) outside that prison data.

The argument that blows my mind is "they've gone through so much to transition that they deserve the chance". The chance to do what? To take places and opportunities from women who have gone through so much to achieve them? To thrash women? (You can interpret that any way you want, sports or otherwise.)

Quite.

As if women and their lives are something that can be sacrificed to men if those poor men just go through enough.

Women are not a consolation prize resource for distressed men. Even really special distressed men. If you think there are circumstances when they are, then go deal with your own sexism problems.