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) 😎

Thanks for the clarification @Brainworm

No one is saying, though, that being Trans ought to be illegal either.
The "transphobia" complained of is that we don't believe it means a person can actually change sex.

So a true comparison here would be - homophobia = I dont believe a person can be same sex attracted.

Which also, no one is saying.

"It’s rational to fear that a trans identified 14 year old girl might try (and succeed) to get you sacked from your job, or influence your kid to take up the nonsense and alienate you from them, or encourage your child to start taking cross sex hormones, etc. Things are currently weighted in their favour if they wish to do so"

In today's post modern world where critical theory is viewed by many as fact, I think this is the case for different protected characteristics.

Retribution for 'wrong think' or disagreeing with what does and doesn't constitute oppression crosses different characteristics. I guard against fearing a group because of the behaviours of their worst kind of activists

👏👏

Thank you!

When I walk past people I have realised that I do a subconcious check of if they are a man or a woman without once thinking about genitals! It's not important in a busy town centre on a saturday afternoon, but if I'm walking alone somewhere, or sitting alone on a train or am by myself in a public toilet or gym changing room, then it does become more important. But I still don't think about their genitals.

@oolovelycuppa

I think you are right in that I don't have a good feel for what goes on on this board. I have been a poster since 2015, but a light user.

I have definitely been at the sharp end in my working life!

I really don't care what people are wearing or what they look like.

Neither do I. I'm a gender abolitionist. The clothing and hair styles associated with each sex vary wildly by epoch and location, which proves there's nothing innately sex-related about them.

I have opinions and feelings, sure. An elderly neighbour of mine is very cosmetically altered, wears garish makeup, has her hair in ringlets and dresses like an old-fashioned doll (yes, she's female). The effect is Uncanny Valley / Baby Jane. I get the impression she wants to make friends, but people are nervous around her.

People often choose a self-presentation that's designed to provoke reactions - if it's high fashion or street fashion, they know what they're doing and good luck to them. Other times, people's appearance or behaviour sets off internal alarms; we have these social warning systems for a reason. So I don't care what they look like but I do absorb messages from it.

You're a little out of date with your "obsession with people's genitals". Professional genderists stopped that line of attack once they realised nobody was buying it. For evolutionary reasons, we're hard-wired to distinguish males from females. Even pets and babies can do it, regardless of presentation. Sometimes we get it wrong but not very often.

I see PPs have rightly commented on pre-pubertal 'transition'. Give kids the drugs young enough, they'll grow the right boobs or facial hair, be sterile and anorgasmic, develop bone disease and have psychological problems. Just as long as they look like the opposite sex, it's all good?

the Forstater ruling established that gender critical views can be protected in law as a philosophical belief.

No law compels anyone to pretend to believe that a person is a woman.

ie you can't make me believe that this man, is a woman.

I appreciate your grace Brainworm.

I don't think anyone is compelled to believe what others believe.

The Forstater judgement was that GC beliefs are WORIADS. People don't have to share this belief.

I expect the belief in gender identity would probably also been deemed WORIADS. Even if this happens, no one would be compelled to have that belief.

You're correct, @Brainworm. I wish someone would get the message to those who harass, threaten, attack, denounce and de-platform non-believers.

I expect the belief in gender identity would probably also been deemed WORIADS. Even if this happens, no one would be compelled to have that belief.

It's never been tested but some legal minds think it wouldn't be as it needs to pass more than just one test, I believe the Grainger test was mentioned. It would be interesting for it to be tested.

Oh, Grainger was the complaint by the ecology guy! What I really enjoyed about that case was the examination of his commitment to the belief - he was fully committed: could prove that he chose his home and his holidays according to sustainability; recycled absolutely everything; never wasted fuel; he lived and breathed it. (I'd hate living with him, but admire his conviction.)

It would indeed be interesting to follow a judicial test of transgenderism. The commitment criterion would likely be very similar to the "living as" requirement for a GRC, which they want abolished. Further criteria are that the belief must not conflict with the fundamental rights of others or indignify other people.

So I don't think the male nurse in the NHS changing room tribunal will be claiming protection of religion or belief ...

I don't think women should feel any pressure to be lone wolf activists - join your profession's SEEN (you lucky, lucky Britishers), but don't sweat on using preferred pronous on the job if you don't want to stick out in meetings or get lectured (or sacked or smacked in the face or knifed in the stomach). So, like you I often feel uncomfortable with the way using preferred pronouns is spoken about here.
I'm prodding you a bit further because it feels like you want to pretend that just keeping the peace is not what you're doing.
You say want to get on with the job, so you speak carefully and use the language that will prevent your workplace activity being derailed.
Why would using the language that comes most naturally to you cause your workplace activity to be derailed?
It feels to me like you're treating yourself as the only agent in the scenario - you can choose to use natural or stilted language. Your interlocutor can only react: they either get on with the job if you speak in a way they are comfortable with, or they kick off if your language is uncomfortable to them.
(I also think this is veering into a soft bigotry of low expectations. If you can't even acknowledge that the person you’re talking to has a choice in how they respond to you they will only and ever respond with agression when they hear discomfiting language. Or, we all of us end up assuming that every man who comes to work in a bit of make-up and a maxi dress is itching to get away with being aggressive with us, so we never discover the blokes who have a wonderful sense of humour and a very loose relationship with gender norms. But those are rarer situations and not the primary focus of my response to you.)
To clarify: I think it's perfectly fine for women to bite their tongues and keep the peace. But it’s dangerous, it's crazy-making, to pretend to ourselves that's not what we're doing. Which is why it's good to be able to come to these boards to name the real and find which way is down and know ourselves again.

I'm so okay with gender non-conformity that I'm perfectly happy for gender non-conforming little girls to grow up into GNC women, and for GNC little boys to grow up into GNC men.
I'd say it's the people who want to dose up GNC kids with experimental drugs, and chop off healthy organs, and do it as young as possible so they look as much like a simulacrum of the opposite sex as is medically possible who have a problem with gender non-conformity.

I'd say it's the people who want to dose up GNC kids with experimental drugs, and chop off healthy organs, and do it as young as possible so they look as much like a simulacrum of the opposite sex as is medically possible who have a problem with gender non-conformity.

Exactly, @LilyBartsHatShop !

Great post. I think it's perfectly sane and reasonable to reject trans ideology (which is based on a nonsense belief that we have an inner gender, whatever the f*ck that is) without being transphobic towards those duped by this cult. As for the perverts and predators exploiting the erosion of women's sex-based rights and protections, of course we should be phobic about them. As a previous poster said, it's self preservation.