GC views not valid because the majority are "bad actors"

[BigTubOfLard]

First time posting on this board.
Male friend and me were chatting last night and when he asked who I voted for in the UK elections I said I couldn't vote green because they don't know what a woman is. He said, "Oh you are one of those".

This lead to a loooong discussion of why I held my GC views. We had to agree to disagree, but his main argument for why I was wrong was that "the vast majority" of people who hold my view believe that trans people should not even exist. I could not sway him on this point - didn't matter that I argued that no, the vast majority of GC people are probably women, we don't believe that trans people should not exist, but we have very valid reasons for opposing transwomen in our exclusive space.

So basically my view is wrong because "bad actors" believe trans people should not exist. Any idea how to counter this? I did think of pointing him directly at this forum, but doubt he'll take time to look.

I think this article by Gary Francione is very helpful in clarifying some of the issues. He distinguishes between two claims by trans people:

1. An equality claim, that they should not be subject to discrimination or persecution because they are trans. Most of us would agree with this, and it's enshrined in UK law in the Equality Act 2010.
2. A belief claim, that the rest of us must agree with their belief that they have actually changed sex. This is what GC feminists don't accept.

So it's possible to agree that trans people exist and should be allowed to live free of discrimination and persecution, while disagreeing that they can actually change sex. This is a perfectly logical position to take.

He uses as an analogy a Catholic's belief in transubstantiation - we mostly agree that Catholics shouldn't be subject to discrimination or persecution, but we don't have to agree with the Catholic person's belief in transubstantiation.

www.philosophersmag.com/essays/321-the-transgender-rights-issue

The other counter to his argument is commonly given as the fact that Hitler is thought to have been a vegetarian, at least for a while. He was also a fascist.

So if a bad actor (like Hitler) believes in vegetarianism, then the rest of us should not, because of all the other things that the bad actor believes in (like fascism).

What does your friend mean when when he says GC people "shouldn't exist"?

We don't have to accept their claims about reality, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

With regard to @Zita60 's post above, I don't believe the adherents of gender identity should benefit from EA10 protections any more than other sincerely held beliefs, but about balancing conflicting rights.

Again, that's not denying anyone's existence.

^ Actually this is pretty much a perfect response. Thank you.

@Ingenieur I think you have misunderstood. He doesn't say that GC people "shouldn't exist"? He believes that we ALL think that trans prople should not exist.

So does he think that we believe all men do not exist because we don't want them in our single sex spaces?

Ask him which side of the debate has shown violent behaviour or shouts death and rape threats?

Then ask if that's the side he wants to be on.

It’s difficult to counter because of the growing number of GC women who do say things like “trans people don’t exist” and that they should be discriminated against, and that they are all perverts etc. When more reasonable women try to counter this they are accused of being mean girls / Head Girls / just out to smear other women activists out of pure vindictiveness and so on.

I have come to the realisation that the emotional “you don’t want me to exist!!” statement is the only response they have when encountering a sex realist who does not go along with the idea that someone can literally change biological sex. They do not have a response to that statement of fact other than an emotional one. Even then they can’t manage to say for example that they feel sad, they feel invalidated, they feel distressed - they go straight for maximum manipulative impact. But I think is also an inevitable outworking of the affirmation only approach - and not having been made to face reality in a therapeutic setting to help them adjust to the fact that many people will not perceive their sex in the same way they do.

I'm a terrible actor. It's a miracle I passed my drama A-Level.

Men who create a female persona out of clothes and make up really believe they are the creation.

Saying it's only clothes and make up is saying that the opposite sex persona doesn't exist. It does to an extent but it only really exists in the man's mind and imagination. Other people can agree to pretend or not.

You friend believes in their imaginary personas. Lots of people don't. Most people actually.

I don't think it's been tested in court yet whether a belief in gender ideology is worthy of respect in a democratic society, and hence falls under the protected characteristic of Religion or Belief.

Someone who has actually "transitioned" is covered by the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment. But that's only about protection from discrimination - it doesn't mean we have to believe that they have actually changed sex.

www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

Ask him which side of the debate has shown violent behaviour or shouts death and rape threats?

Then ask if that's the side he wants to be on.

I suspect he'll say they are also "bad actors" and hand wave it away. These men always do.

Sorry meant to quote @gummigwer

Sorry I mis-typed, I meant to say: What does your friend mean when when he says GC people think that trans people "shouldn't exist"?

Thanks, yes I understand that gender reassignment is currently protected.

I don't think it should be.

Another argument of this type which I’ve found useful in that it applies directly to many "trans allies": since a lot of racist misogynists support the Palestinians in the current Gaza conflict, does that mean any other Palestinian supporters must also be racist misogynists?

I think that's a bit harsh, to be honest. Without that protection, a man who had struggled with gender dysphoria for years (like a colleague of mine) and who had transitioned and just wanted to live quietly as a woman (as much as possible), could legally be sacked because of the transition.

Whether or not my colleague should have been allowed to use the women's toilets at the office would be a different issue (she worked at a different office so I rarely saw her and don't know which toilets she used). As long as there was toilet provision for her, that would have satisfied the Equality Act.

(I don't always use preferred pronouns, but I respect my colleague and the difficult journey she had, so I use her preferred pronouns.)

There's no real point in answering this because it's an entirely irrational argument. Even if it were true that most gc women think trans people shouldn't exist (which it isn't, of course), that wouldn't make any difference to the rightness or wrongness of your argument about not wanting men in women's spaces.

I have a favourite quote from Sense and Sensibility after Elinor has had to listen to an idiot male ranting on about something: "Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition."

Your friend doesn't deserve the compliment of rational opposition.

Indeed. The same story again and again.

TRAs shouting death and rape threats: just a few bad actors among saints

Women saying everyone should be treated with dignity and respect while protecting the most vulnerable: the most evil bigots

If your friend has diagnosed gender dysphoria your friend would he covered under the PC for disability with no need for specific recognition.

What that stock response tends to mean is that you don't believe that TWAW; that you think they are still men/male. By you not accepting someone's own definition of themselves it means you don't believe 'they exist'.

When your sense of self is so dependent on others validating it, then you may well feel that you no longer exist if they don't do that, but that is an incredibly fragile ( and ultimately unhealthy and unstable) construct that cannot survive long when it comes into contact with observable and material reality.

Sex exists, it is real and measurable. 'Gender Identity' is constructed out of feelings, ideas and theory.

Really you need to have a philosophical discussion with him......if he can handle one.

I don't think that's necessarily true. This is from a UK solicitors' website:

https://landaulaw.co.uk/disability-discrimination/

"You have a disability if there is a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and adverse long- term effect on your day-to-day activities.

• The ‘impairment’ may be physical or mental, or both.
• The meaning of ‘substantial’ is more than minor or trivial, but it may fluctuate or change, and may not be present all of the time.
• ‘Long term’ means the effect of the impairment has last or is likely to last for at least 12 months.
• ‘Day-to-day activities’ include common things for most people like using a computer, writing, following a timetable, sitting down, standing up, driving and lifting."

Gender reassignment wouldn't always meet these conditions. My colleague's gender reassingment had no effect on her ability to carry out day-to-day activities.

If being correctly-sexed is causing distress to your friend then it is a mental impairment.

Your name and expertise have re-woken the deep shame of 6-year old me who was not cast as an angel in the Nativity Play (far less Mary—the only roles for girls).