Guardian readers' response to Rustin piece on Phoenix v OU

[theilltemperedclavecinist]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/02/gender-critical-beliefs-under-the-microscope

Highlights:

It is hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected.

and

(The) prescriptive belief that genetic sex should have primacy over gender identity.... denies the validity and very existence of those with transgender identity.

It is hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected.

It’s hard to fathom whether people like this are really that stupid.

I don’t deny that trans people believe that their reality is they are of a different sex, but I don’t believe it myself and I don’t believe I should be forced to comply with their belief.

It’s really not difficult.

blimey. The gruan inviting and actually publishing comments on gender woo which are not entirely Kool aid orientated. What's going on?

For other people, god existing is their reality. I totally deny that reality, as an atheist. You're damned right I want that view legally protected.

It's endlessly fascinating to me how quick the 'progressive left' pivoted from where they were in 2016, where truth was all important and 'alternative facts' were the dragons that needed to be slain.

Now everyone has their own reality/truth/facts that can't be denied or independently verified, and any denial of any of it is hateful.

As someone who has always thought of themselves as being on the left, I constantly feel like I missed a meeting.

"It is hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected."

It is, isn't it?

"(The) prescriptive belief that genetic sex should have primacy over gender identity.... denies the validity and very existence of those with transgender identity."

Schools used to teach logic. Please can we bring it back?

If it is necessary to argue that A is more important than B, that does not deny the existence of B. Quite the opposite - if B did not exist, we wouldn't have to argue the point.

It is hard to fathom why some people’s reality should be legally protected to the extent that it must be imposed upon other people, to the exclusion of their own reality.

Interesting that the views that the second letter writer describes as “not even controversial” are the same views that Maya Forstater lost her job over.

IIRC, Maya’s only addition was to say that sometimes sex matters. And everyone would concede this in some areas (eg in medicine) so it is just a question of exactly where you draw the line.

And yet the writer leaps from “this is obvious” to it’s bigoted to say this can matter.

So near but yet so far…

This, from the letter by F. Green, is so telling:

”Prizing your own freedom of speech over other people’s ability to live safe and good lives leads to a weird form of feminism that aligns with or overlaps appalling rightwing politicians and bigoted pundits whose speech poisons public discourse.”

Women, be quiet. Your interests, your conscience, none of it matters, because there are real human beings here who deserve everything the world has to offer. Those rights and liberties you have heard of, obviously these aren’t meant for the likes of you. And, by the way, you smell.

hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected.

It's weird how the letter writer is able to make such a spectacularly batshittily stupid statement while writing fairly lucidly and eloquently.

The problem with "no debate" is that if you never defend your views, you never think through or understand their implications. You never question your own assumptions. In this collection of letters this really shows.

And another one:

'the self-evident belief that biological sex and gender identity are different should not be used as cover for a prescriptive belief that genetic sex should have primacy over gender identity as a socio-legal category'

Fascinating. These writers seem reasonably intelligent. So how come they have not run these statements back and tested them out?

I guess that's what it is, huh? It takes a split second to realise the problems with suggesting we should not be allowed to 'question someone else's reality', or that we should not have sex as a category.

It is hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected.

'Other people's reality' is a ridiculous concept. Reality is reality.

”Prizing your own freedom of speech over other people’s ability to live safe and good lives..."

Because valuing freedom of speech is obviously so much worse than prizing your own feelings of fantasy identity or your fetish above other people's ability to live safe and good lives? Well of course it is, as long as those people are mere women and children, not men.

Again, why does the writer think it doesn't work the other way around?

the self-evident belief that biological sex and gender identity are different should not be used as cover for a prescriptive belief that gender identity should have primacy over biological sex as a socio-legal category

Thanks for sharing, OP. It is worrying to think how many people are going along with such genuinely dangerous ideas.

'Questioning other people's reality' is the bedrock of a healthy, free and functioning democracy.

It is hard to fathom why expressing views denying other people’s reality should be legally protected.

The view that TW are in every way W denies my reality so should that be banned.

My views as an atheist denies other people's reality that there is a god. Should atheism be banned.

You just know that if the writer of that letter spent 5 minutes posting on a thread here or 5 minutes with any of us in person they’d have such illogicality pointed out to them. One can only assume they drift through life never coming across, listening or engaging with anyone who does, and probably have that world view constantly reinforced to them.

Bet they're all civil servants. That's my lived reality.

For some people it takes a split second, for others a lifetime. But without debate, it can never happen at all.

If I was marking this essay, wow, the questions I'd ask...

What is a self evident belief?
Why do you think this observation is a belief? What's the difference between a belief and an observation?
What is gender identity, and how does it differ from biological sex?
Yes, any "should" based principle is prescriptive. Do you think this is wrong? How would you establish primacy other than prescriptively? What do you mean by primacy? Do you think "Socio-legal category" means the same thing as law? Are you assuming that if one factor has primacy in one context then it must have primacy in all contexts?
Why do you think that your characterisation of the GC position is the right one?

Stripping away all the waffle, the key point is:

'belief that genetic sex should have primacy over gender identity'

And yes, that's omitting the fact that feminists suggest sex should have primacy in some situations.

Hehehe those first two letters made me laugh, thanks!

And thanks for all your comments on this thread, I can't really say it better. The thing that struck me was right at the start of the first letter: biological sex is immutable = denying the reality of trans lives. If someone can explain how that makes any sense I'd appreciate it.

My position is this: reality + compassion + boundaries = society I'd like to live in.

The argument is presented as a false dichotomy plus a strawman that misrepresents gc feminist views.

Here Gc views are suggested as similar to those of religious Conservatives- that sex should dictate gender. 'Women should do the washing up'

The counter view is presented as 'sex shouldn't determine gender'. But this contains the further view that gender has primacy: 'person washing up is a woman'

In fact Gc feminist view is that gender is arbitrary and not inherently connected to sex. 'Anyone can do the washing up'

Where is that handy Venn diagram that shows it all much more clearly?!

This is the dull-but-accurate one:

I was really hoping this might be a thread about how people’s eyes are opening. Reading the nonsense about how expressing GC views endangers people was instead like going back in time five years or so.

It’s unsubstantiated. How is it that people are still getting away with repeating this nonsense as though it were fact?

GC women can write as many finely crafted essays as they like pointing out logical inconsistencies, concerns and examples, all the while - as in JKR’s famous essay - taking pains to be clear that they wish no harm to trans people and distancing themselves from right wing bigots.

And this is the shit that comes back. It’s positively Trumpian.