I thought I was transphobic

[Garlicked]

I mean, experts both self-appointed and authoritative have been telling me for years that I am.
I misgender as a matter of course - the transgression could be called right-sexing, but it's the same thing.
I don't believe humans can change sex, either literally or 'in effect'.
I've been a gender abolitionist since someone first told me girls couldn't do something that boys were allowed. Gender's a system of social oppression.
I don't believe anyone has an innate sense of their gender, because gender isn't a natural quality.
I never use gender as a synonym for sex.
I don't believe anyone can be transgender, because anyone can pick whichever bits of either gender they want to adopt at any time.
I find it ridiculous that some people think their thoughts about their own gender can determine their sex.
I find beliefs in 'brain sex' absurd in many ways. The brain certainly does not determine a person's sex.
Sex means reproductive category, in humans and most other life forms.
There are fundamental physical differences between the two sexes, which is a function of sexual dimorphism. These cannot be changed.
No woman has a penis and, if you think they do, I've got a diamond mine to sell you.
... etcetera.

I've accepted many labels imposed on me by others over the years, including but not limited to Humourless Feminist, Slag, Bimbo, One Of Those Career Women, Bitch, Old Bag. While the intention of the slurs was not lost on me, I wouldn't dispute the underlying truth of the epithets. So it was with Transphobe.

Anyway, I've just decided to look up a reliable definition of transphobia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I figured the European Institute For Gender Equality might be trustworthy. It defines transphobia as:
Irrational fear of gender non-conformity or gender transgression, such as a fear of, or aversion to, masculine women, feminine men, cross-dressers, transgenderists, transsexuals, and others who do not fit into existing gender stereotypes about their birth gender.

Surprised to find I am NOT transphobic, I noted that the definition stems from 2016. Well, words change their meanings very fast these days, depending on who's defining them. I double-checked with United Nations Human Rights. Their definition:
Any form of prejudice or hostile attitude towards transgender people, including denying their gender identity or refusing to acknowledge it. Transphobia may be targeted at people who are or who are perceived to be trans, and may manifest as exclusion, stigma, harassment, criminalization, pathologization, discrimination and/or violence.

I meet the first part of their definition. However, the UN's Declaration of Human Rights says:
Article 18 - Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom ... to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So I have the right to manifest my thoughts & conscience, freely expressing my ideas. Anyone trying to suppress my beliefs would be violating my inalienable rights. Confusingly, this seems to negate the preceding definition.

The second part of the UN's definition is a bit woolly. I was particularly interested in "Transphobia ... may manifest as exclusion." I'm committed to the exclusion of male people from female spaces & activities as needed. This might be covered by Article 27-1: Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community. Women are sometimes unable to participate in mixed-sex activities of various kinds; don't know if this would technically apply here? Disabled people can, for instance, exclude the fully-able from their activities to ensure their own participation. And let's not forget associations like Old Etonians, which are automatically exclusive by virtue of their purpose.

I'm not especially looking for replies (and have to bugger off the internet for a while) but would be quite interested in further thoughts!
Yours,
Garlic The Transphobe (Arguably) 😎

If transgender means changing gender but notsex [which seems to be a current version?] then trans women are, by their own admission, men.

If my son would talk to me, I suspect I would find that he doesn't believe that it's possible to change sex. The main difficulty between us is the redefinition of pronouns, so he thinks it's reasonable to demand that I call him "she" etc. I have no evidence that he is encroaching on women's spaces, but fear that the influence of the genderists could be affecting his behaviour as well as his thought processes. This muddling of language and therefore thought is the pernicious basis of trans activism's societal and political success.

You're assuming hatred or fear there, @Brainworm, neither of which I'm experiencing about people who say they're transgender.

Sure, some trans people are sad, vulnerable, scared or fucked-up. So are a lot of other people. I won't help any of them by agreeing that women and men are defined as vague (and insulting) collections of character attributes.

While I may not feel generalised negativity towards individual trans people, I'm extremely negative about transgenderism or whatever you want to call their belief system. It's like an aggressive religion in many ways, using shame and denouncement to force compliance. I reserve my right to argue against it.

I'm really sorry you're going through this, @RapidOnsetGenderCritic. I wonder what DS thinks 'she' represents, exactly? I do hope this will pass for your family, as it often does.

@Garlicked. I didn't intend to communicate anything about hatred or fear in my post - I'm not sure where I went wrong in giving this impression.

I think some people/posters are fearful that positive or neutral portrayal of people with transgender identities will undermine the movement to reinstate single sex provision.

I think making blanket judgments or attributions about a heterogeneous group is dodgy at best and transphobic at worst.

Yes. I’ve been more guilt of suppressing ‘rational fear’ in an attempt to be nice and accommodating.

More fool me.

Why does 'being nice' and 'being accommodating' get pilloried on FWR?

People can be nice, kind and accommodating whilst upholding boundaries and saying 'no'.

It's a bit of a straw man argument.

I don't think saying that males can't access female spaces, despite whatever identity they hold, reflects being 'not nice' or 'unaccommodating'.

I think you can uphold the boundary and be 'nice' and 'accommodating'. To me, being nice might include having some empathy for the upset this might cause. Being accommodating might be thinking about when and how I might inform a male that they can't have access.

Being 'unkind' might include giving no thought about simple ways you could reduce humiliation when upholding this boundary. And before anyone suggests this would reflect female socialisation, my brothers and son would have the same approach as me. I think this reflects our family values

Being accommodating might be thinking about when and how I might inform a male that they can't have acces

They'd call the cops on you if you politely told a male that they can't have access.

I've done it lots of times. Ive had the full range of responses!

Being 'unkind' might include giving no thought about simple ways you could reduce humiliation

Ah okay then, it is humiliating to be told No, one must couch it in flowery, apologetic terms that then give the person you are saying it to the opportunity to use it as a negotiation exercise. Right ho.

Put me in the unkind camp, I should not have to and will not use flowery phrases to refuse my consent, if people find the word No humiliating that is their problem not mine. Clear rules and language make life for everyone a lot better and easier, much like good fences make good neighbours.

That kind of self-confidence is learned. It requires deprogramming from feminine subservience and prioritisation of male feelings. It’s the luck of the draw how well a girl/woman has been raised as to how confidently and competently she asserts her boundaries, as you say - you were lucky and probably unusual in your family.

"Ah okay then, it is humiliating to be told No, one must couch it in flowery, apologetic terms that then give the person you are saying it to the opportunity to use it as a negotiation exercise. Right ho."

Straw manning.

It is fine to uphold your boundaries and there is no need (or benefit) to couch this in flowery, apologetic terms. In having an empathic stance, you also don't need to be open to negotiation.

So what is wrong with just saying NO and giving it no more thought than that?

"That kind of self-confidence is learned. It requires deprogramming from feminine subservience and prioritisation of male feelings. It’s the luck of the draw how well a girl/woman has been raised as to how confidently and competently she asserts her boundaries, as you say - you were lucky and probably unusual in your family."

I think I have been lucky in my socialisation and in the knowledge and skills acquired in my role. Perhaps, from this, I know that an adversarial approach is not the antidote and is unlikely to help achieve the end goals that are wanted.

"So what is wrong with just saying NO and giving it no more thought than that?"

I guess it's about your values and the kind of society you want to live in.

I see no harm, and everything to gain, from communicating with people when tensions arise to try and minimise misunderstanding and upset. I appreciate this when others do this with me. I therefore extend this to others.

Not everyone shares this value - I appreciate that and wouldn't want you to impose this as a 'must do'. What I don't understand is the objection to others doing it.

People don’t object to others being nice and accommodating, they object to the pressure to be nice and accommodating, at the expense of oneself, for the sake of male feelings, and for this only to be expected of women, not men.

This is key to feminism, unpicking ‘male entitlement’, ‘female oppression’ etc.

People don’t object to others being nice and accommodating, they object to the pressure to be nice and accommodating, at the expense of oneself, for the sake of male feelings, and for this only to be expected of women, not men.

This is key to feminism, unpicking ‘male entitlement’, ‘female oppression’ etc.

Perfectly articulated @oolovelycuppa

"People don’t object to others being nice and accommodating, they object to the pressure to be nice and accommodating, at the expense of oneself, for the sake of male feelings, and for this only to be expected of women, not men."

I can completely get behind objecting to this.

What I often interpret on threads is that a case is being made that it is wrong to be 'nice' and this reflects oppressed behaviour.

In my original post that drew your remark:

“I’ve been more guilty of suppressing ‘rational fear’ in an attempt to be nice and accommodating.

More fool me.”

It is fairly clear I was talking about suppressing rational fear in order to be accommodating - at my own expense.

Maybe you aren’t seeing the intention/meaning in this way when you read it elsewhere on threads?

My difficulty at the moment is that my speech and actions are interpreted as “transphobic”, “bigoted” and “hateful” because I am unable to do as I am expected to do (it is too painful to refer to my son as “she”, and this means that I don’t love him or respect him, apparently). So there is no communication, because I am not permitted to speak honestly. I am a man who has been brought up to be gentle and kind, though I do have my limits and have been known to be rude or unkind occasionally, which tends to lead to feeling depressed. I feel as if that upbringing is being weaponised against me. I must be gentle and kind, but other people are allowed to shout “bigot” at me, particularly if they say they have been abused in childhood. I am at a loss as to how to set my boundaries while still being kind and gentle; in reality I am hurt, frustrated and angry with the authoritarian ideology that tries to dictate my behaviour and thoughts. And I have it easy compared with many women.

I'm thinking about many threads and many posters. An example would be pronouns (I really don't want to derail this thread by starting a debate on this - I am just using it as an example!)

Some posters insist that anyone who chooses to use preferred pronouns is suffering from something akin to internalised misogyny or female socialisation whether they are conscious of this or not.

I think it is possible to have different motivations, some which are unrelated to being female.

I am somewhat agog at this reply, society will fall apart if we use clear, unequivocal language.

In my view saying No is clear, there is no misunderstanding to be taken from that if they are upset by hearing it so what? Whichever way you couch it it is still No, why do we have to explain or justify it? I am actually sick of the lengths women are expected to go to to justify why they don't want any men in their toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, prisons, refuges, etc., etc. Why do we have to do this? Why is just No not enough? It is always, always enough when men say it, they never have to explain, justify or consider any upset caused by the word, they say No it is accepted and not questioned.

Reading back my last comment, it’s far more about me than I would wish. I am concerned about the path my son is treading, and where that may take him. But how to question that path, while still being kind, when any disagreement is equated with hate?

I know you don’t want to derail (I still think pronouns are relevant to the thread), and I know men using ‘preferred pronouns’ can often have a different rationale to women (eg- bullying/dominating women with what are essentially taunts of “men make better women than women”, “look how we can take anything we like out of your hands and wave it in front of you and there’s not a thing you can do about it”, and “You have no right to be anything, anywhere or do anything without men”), but what other different motivations do people have for using a person’s preferred opposite sex pronouns in your opinion?

Rapidonset, that must be very distressing.

It is unacceptable that people are making inaccurate attributions about your thoughts and feelings about your child. It is clear from your post that you love them dearly and want the best for them. I can understand you feeling upset and angry about the situation.

Feeling misunderstood is very destructive, to the individuals who feel misunderstood and to the relationships with those who they feel misunderstood by.

I think the TRA element at play with gender questioning children is very pernicious. Where children and young people are not being told that 'everyone who isn't trans is against them', misunderstanding can be addressed and disagreement can be tolerated. Where bad actors are trying to sustain division, this is much harder.

My motivation is to remove and reduce divisions, where ever possible. I think this fosters a more hopeful climate for reconciling tensions and conflict.

It’s not hate is it? It is manipulation. Trying to make you feel like a terrible person for not doing as you are told and pretending that down is up and up is down.