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.

Surely one simple way to refute that is
"Well I'm happy for trans people to exist. So A clealy not everyone as I am proof, and B address my points in good faith and stop deflecting with something you've made up in your head which is a straw man."

The point isn't whether it's a mental impairment or not.

It wasn't causing her problems carrying out day-to-day activities, so she isn't included in the protected characteristic of Disability. That's why the PC of Gender Reassignment is needed. Unless you think it should be legal to sack an employee simply because they are trans?

It's like saying that racists shouldn't exist. Doesn't mean you want them all to be exterminated or keel over and die or anything like that. Just means that it would be preferable if people didn't hold racist beliefs.

It’s the Ad hominem fallacy.

People who believe x are bad ergo x is wrong.

You can ask why he thinks that disagreeing with someones claims means that you don’t think they should exist - if he is an atheist then does he think that Christians and Muslims should not exist?

So if it doesn't cause your friend an impairment due to distress, what do you mean by them "being trans"?

Op my usual response is along the lines of:
Trans people do of course exist but they have not changed sex.

I believe it harms us all to compel people to behave as if they believe that trans people have changed sex. But it's particularly harmful to women, many of who rely on single sex spaces and services.

Then I end the conversation but some people have more patience than me.

He means exactly that: his assertion is that people who are GC believe that trans people must not be allowed to exist, anywhere, period. It really didn't matter that I explained that no, I do not think trans people must not be allowed to exist and I'm perfectly happy for them to exist - I am only asking that women's exclusive spaces be preserved for actual women.

To the question of "What bathrooms are they supposed to use?" I answered that this was not women's problem to solve. I separated out geniuine trans women and men who are self-id-ing to try to explain why women have a genuine fear of predatory men accessing their spaces and was told that "There is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of men who would do that". I quoted a number of factual cases which have occurred but he wasn't buying it - weird. He has a 19 year old daughter as well.

Man here. Your male friend is an idiot. And 90%+ of the blokes I know would say the same.

Who do they always use this ridiculous "transphobes don't want trans people to exist" argument? What do they even mean by this?

I would like the concept of trans identity to cease to exist, because it is sexist and reifies harmful gender stereotypes.

Which part of a legal ruling about being 'worthy of respect in a democratic society' does he disagree with.

The creditentials and the authority and experience of the judge?
The 'worthy of respect bit'?
Or the free speech in a democratic society bit?

Just so we have a full picture of what a balloon your mate is.

He doesn’t want to learn anything or have a rational argument though does he. He doesn’t care about your opinions or women, he supports men and just wants to rant on about his irrational beliefs. To him it’s an enjoyable way to vent his anger and assert dominance, a double whammy of being both righteously misogynistic to women and on the right side of history.

If he is rigidly sticking to provably untrue statements as the basis of his arguments despite evidence against it, then a) he’s stupid, b) a bigot and c) it’s pointless arguing with him

Much appreciated 👌I haven't really spoken to a lot of blokes about this so I wonder if his views are more widely held than I assumed.

Nope. He's just a sexist woman hated wally who needs to wind his neck in

HTH

"We are more than happy for trans people to exist, but I don't believe that women should have to look at or be close to penises in female only spaces. Do you?"

He used the word bathrooms to talk about toilets? Is he British or American? Because if he’s American there is a very different context around the state of women’s rights, gay rights and trans rights going on in each of the 50 States as well as nationally. This is a country that still doesn’t have national laws on marriage equality or abortion, or an equivalent of the EA for example. It is possible to find yourself talking past each other even more than we do in the U.K. when talking about “rights” because they are a lot more protections here than they are in many parts of the USA.

@ThreeWordHarpy He's Canadian and 52 years old. Yes I did feel that we were talking past each other as he would not grasp that being GC did not = anti-trans. He just kept telling me over and over that MOST people with my views did not want trans people to exist.

I understand Canada is different again. You are very unlikely to get anywhere with this conversation as he doesn’t sound like he’s curious and open minded on this topic.

I mean you could try using descriptors like sex realist instead of GC, but if he’s insisting he’s able to definitively state the views of GC women, wherever in the world they may be, this is not the recipe for maintaining a friendship. Does he often state that he knows more/better than you about your own experiences and knowledge?

Mind so open his brain fell out or so close minded he's incapable of engaging with any other idea.

Either way 52 year old bloke telling a woman what a woman is, is quite the thing isn't it? It's almost as if men feel they have the right to hold power over women to the point of removing their own ability to define themselves.

Hmm.

This basically

he doesn’t want a discussion because he doesn’t want to listen to anything you have to say

he just wants you to accept his manly man with no skin in the game view

I wouldn’t waste your time with him

How is Canada different? This looks like that old fashioned sexism that's available in other countries to me.

If he’s telling you that most people "with your views" think something, he’s saying he knows more about your views than you do. Which is unreasonable. He’s also saying that some people “with your views” have different views from others "with your views” which is even more unreasonable. Perhaps he could try listening to your views a bit more

Happy to see forst post quoting Gary Francione. Long been a fan of his animal rights essays. He's a great voice for the left wing GC.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I'm trying to point out that my colleague would not be protected from discrimination under the protected characteristic of Disability. Therefore, the protected characteristic of Gender reassignment is needed to protect people like her.

We both know what "being trans" means - someone who thinks they are the opposite sex to the one they are. I would call it a mental issue - it's not due to an airy-fairy concept like their gender identity not matching their sex. I've read some research that shows trans people have some differences in the part of the brain that controls self-perception. I don't know if that research has been replicated by other scientists, but it does sound like a plausible explanation for why some people think they are in the wrong body.

Then there's the whole issue of AGPs, which must have a different cause.

My DH says the same. It’s mentioned briefly at work because they have TW colleagues and there is a lot of eye rolling and avoidance. But because it has zero impact on them, it’s not a topic that invites GC challenge or activism.