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.

And it is true. If your chosen persona can only exist if others reflect it back to you and create it round you then you can't 'exist' without that enabling.

That does not mean it is right, healthy or appropriate to require that of others, or try to press those who are not willing. There can't be some people being more important than others, or society separating into the givers and the takers, and the reality is slowly dawning that this cannot be compelled.

Some may willingly choose to enable. There are conversations to be had around how 'kind' or healthy this really is. But it cannot be required or compelled.

We all have an identity - a sense of who we are and what makes us similar and different to others. Everyone has views on the self perceptions / identities of others (eg she thinks she is a bad mum but I think she's a great mum, he thinks and acts like he's an Adonis but no one I know thinks he's remotely attractive etc).

Identity is multifaceted and made up of many components. GCs tend to have identities where gender norms don't feature, or where they do, these are about being gender non conforming. Many people aren't aware whether or how gender norms play in to their identities. Men who think of themselves as 'alpha' and women who think of themselves as 'girly' arguably have gendered ideas forming a significant component of their identities.

Transgender people, by definition, place ideas about gender as a central component of their identity. Thinking of oneself as being masculine, feminine, or neither shouldn't be a problem for anyone other than those who want to uphold/ sustain gender norms.

I am not sure why TRAs expect us to revere gendered components of people's identities and not have views on them as we do with all other components of identity.

I think that how we address issues linked to differences in a person's identity and how we perceive them is often complex territory (e.g the company an employee works for and the employee disagreeing over whether they are 'great with people', and meeting someone at a busy party who thinks they are 'really interesting' and you don't). We can often avoid needing to confront people about aspects of their identity we don't agree with, but this often isn't the case with those with transgender identities. Despite what TRAs say, I don't think this is any more or less upsetting than being challenged on other primary components of one's identity.

Many GC people have identities where ideas about justice, fairness and equality are central to their self perception. Being called / seen as bigoted is deeply upsetting/ infuriating. This is layered with additional emotion that comes from knowing that bigots are ostracised within wider society, which threatens objective aspects of quality of life. This isn't dissimilar to trans people's experiences of being called/ seen as being different to their self perception.

I think we are getting closer to sanity around questioning the primacy of gender when it comes to issues relating to identity, I think we are also reaching more widespread recognition that not everything be considered a component of identity (e.g sex and age). I do think we are a long way off addressing issues linked to ideas about hierarchies of oppression. My prediction is that as long as people seek to pit oppressed group against each other, this will rumble on.

The hyperbole and emotional manipulation deployed by genderists properly grinds my gears. Someone having a different view point does not deny anyone anything. It is just part of life. Insisting that your very existence is dependent on everyone validating your view of yourself is an incredibly precarious place to put yourself. It is this narrative that then leads to the 'most persecuted' claims. It is so fucking irresponsible. As we know many gender confused kids are already anxious/depressed /ND, amd then they are shoved onto a precipice and told the world hates them for not believing it is possible to change sex.

It does differ from an internal sense of identity though. Someone who believes they are an adonis just reflects that belief in themselves as they go through life and if they were bothered how others reacted and whether or not they co operated they wouldn't go on believing it for long. They are not trying to engage or coerce others into 'yes you see x but I want you to present me with the illusion that you believe y'.

It fundamentally requires a shared contract, that you engage in pretense, that you set aside your own perceptions and any equality in the interaction and your job is enabler. Therapist. Mum. You are there to meet the other person's needs, and the contract is that there will be no equality, no reciprocation, no acknowledgement of you in this: you will be the giver. The grown up. The one who has no needs or beliefs but just performs what the other person feels that they need.

This relies on the other person being unconditionally willing and able, and assuming that they have no beliefs, issues, faiths, barriers or needs of their own that prevent them from doing this unconditionally, in all situations, up to and including letting the other person use their body, whether by getting undressed next to them or having sex with them to perform a belief that they are so female that they are lesbian.

It's morally and ethically fubar.

This is why we've run the gamut of flailing, trying to find ways to make this justifiable.

It's included:

It's illegal not to
It might not actually be illegal but will end really badly at your arrest/court case and hopefully wreck your life in the process
homosexuality doesn't mean homosexuality
woman means people of either sex
religious faiths, beliefs and cultures (that present barriers to enablement) are wrong and shouldn't have equality or access (but beliefs about gender identity should absolutely be respected unquestioningly in the way that the others can't be because that's really inconvenient to the agenda)
disabilities that present such barriers are wrong and shouldn't have equality or access because really inconvenient
homosexuality is wrong because it presents barriers
most vulnerable
most oppressed
social justice
intersectionality (but not THAT kind of intersectionality because that explains rationally why people say no!)
mental health (but not mental health)

It's all been tried. It's all been proven not to hold water. There isn't much left.

It is not a healthy thing to require to coercively control non consenting others to make them play your game so you can feel ok.

Having thought some more, maybe they are not talking about the existence of actual humans, or even sex/gender, but about the existence of a category of humans that has practical significance.

TRAs and GCs can all agree that the category -and all the humans in it- exists. For example, the category "woman(gender)" consists of men who claim a gender identity and women who don't (the latter being placed in the category in the same way as people who don't believe in astrology all have a star sign).

But the only possible difference between woman(gender) and man(gender) people is in which arbitrary gender norms they are more likely to adhere to. Since lots of TRAs and GCs agree that gender norms should not be mandatory, this difference requires no special adaptation beyond being more tolerant of gnc people.

The category woman(sex) has practical significance and does require special adaptation. Rudely mentioning this reminds TRAs that they have created a category (and identified into it) to which this does not apply and which therefore does not exist as a meaningful category.

TLDR:* *we keep saying 'but you're a man' and it hurts their feelings.

I've been thinking about this, and I think the reason trans is so different from, say, a religious belief or sexual orientation is because, as others have eloquently pointed out, it requires others to play along. It's not enough that a male turns up to work wearing a dress and earrings: I have to actually pretend that he is a woman, regard him as one, treat him as one, use female pronouns etc even if I (and everyone else) know he's a man. This is a fundamentally different kind of demand from other protected characteristics.

It's like if someone followed a religion where as part of their religious belief they are a 'chosen one', a divine agent of their god. So part of their religion is that you have to call them the chosen one, treat them specially, and go along with their belief that they are a divine being. There's absolutely no way this could ever be tolerated in the workplace. What if it goes against my religion that the only divine being is Jesus? What if I'm an atheist and I don't believe in divine beings?

It's exactly the same with the trans issue. I would honestly have no issue with males dressing in a feminine way, and holding private beliefs that they are women, just like I have no issue if someone privately believes they are a divine being. I would be able to work alongside such a person. People can privately believe whatever they want. I don't control their minds. But what I balk at is this requirement that I have to participate in their belief.

I think that fundamentally trans activists do not grasp what a massive imposition it is to require everyone around them to play along and validate their identity. But the problem is I don't see a way out of this. Trans people are not going to be content with their own personal belief that they are the opposite sex, because they NEED others to believe it to (or at least say they believe).

Yes, there are some articles of faith which cannot, and must not, be probed at all.

People are welcome to their own personal 'reality' but they also have to recognise that their personal perceptions are not necessarily universal, and that some things are simply factual realities that cannot be dismissed.

Personal delusions, now matter how keenly felt, are not usually given so much credence.

But in the world of progressive identity politics, you are who you say you are, and others should just shut up and listen to your experience. Your experience and your feelings have primacy over everyone else's. But only if you belong to an identified oppressed group.

I've long considered gender ideology to be the apotheosis of identity politics - its highest calling/ the inevitable outcome. And identity politics itself is the end point of american style individualistic culture; merged with modern social media technology, consumer culture, and big pharma ( all of which have been spawned in the U.S). It is a symbol of a culture now in decline: degenerating and eating itself.

I am not sure it is a pivot as such.

Look at the attitude to what this group decided were "alternative facts" around covid. Through to at least 2022 they were arguing quite vehemently about controlling the distribution of what they considered untrue health facts. Or in some cases even questions about what were the facts.

It's more that you can't question certain things, but they decide what those things are.

Some great points made on this thread. It would be interesting to know the true proportions of opinion on this in the Guardian's letters. I wonder how many Guardian readers accept the paper's now somewhat faltering line? They can't all be captured academics.