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.

Exactly @NecessaryScene

I don't think trans people exist. I think people with dysphoria exist, and confused gay people exist, and people with paraphilias exist. A lot of young, vulnerable people, many with autism, who are taught on TikTok that they're struggling because they're 'trans' also exist. But you can't actually change sex and no one is born in the wrong body.

I don't think trans people exist.

I wonder if maybe the problem here is actually capitalisation, or lack of.

Religions are generally capitalised. They're treated like proper nouns, because they are basically just names - groupings without a formal definition.

A proper noun is a designator we accept without necessarily agreeing on the belief.

I think it would be better to say that Trans people exist. But their reasons for becoming Trans are many and varied.

The capitalisation denotes that this is just a somewhat arbitrary grouping - a social construct without a solid underlying physical reality. Just like nationalities, countries, etc.

(Conversely I really don't like Black being capitalised, because it isn't a belief or religion - doing that seems to miss the point of the normal English rule).

This nails it.

One is sexist and promoting regressive gender stereotypes.
The other is promoting equal treatment.

Also there are situations where health / biology matters which should also be taken into consideration.

A transwomen with prostate cancer shouldn't be treated like a woman. As wild as this might seem. But they should not be given dispensation for 'menopause' or 'periods' etc either. Cos sex matters still.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see anywhere where you answered the question. I assume from what you've just said that you think it should be legal to sack a trans person specifically because they are trans.

If that's your opinion, then OK. I can't agree with it though, because I think they deserve some basic protections from discrimination.

That's such a great sentence, I'd definitely going to use it!

Apart from the fact that it's accurate, I can see it acting as a welcome circuit-breaker in one of those 'conversations' with clever-clever winder-uppers who know they have the verbal dexterity to keep finding ways to misinterpret or circumnavigate what you are trying to say.

Of course no poster on FWR has ever done that, ever🙄

Thank you for this link, Eresh, this is a very useful site, personally and politically - the similarities between TRA tactics and emotional abuse by narcissists is striking:
www.narcissisticabuserehab.com/types-of-flying-monkeys/

But protection from discrimination for what? Why does a fantasy deserve protection more than other un-evidenced beliefs?

Cos sex matters still.

Yes. I can't conceive of any circumstance where "treating someone like a woman" should mean anything other than "doing something female-specific, which then logically can't/shouldn't apply to a male".

People should be treated equally, unless some consideration is needed for their sex. If you're not that sex, you don't need that consideration.

In some other society where there were arbitrary rules for sexes that made no sense, then you could plausibly demand to be treated by the arbitrary rules of the other sex. But we should not be such a society - any such arbitrary rules should be removed rather than granting dispensations.

Favorite Magdalen video on that:

Yes, that just about sums up how I feel about it.

Since it is a self-defined label and I don't believe in the reality of anyone being "really trans", it could even be said that a "trans person" is anyone who says they're a trans person.

In fact, I can't define it at all, because I don't believe in "trans" as something real.

100%

Interesting point about whether there should be protected characteristics at all.

I think the reason they have been included in the Equality Act is that they are all reasons that people have been discriminated against historically. Women have been sacked when they got married, gay people have been sacked for being gay, diabled people have been sacked (or not employed) for being disabled, and so on. So it makes it simpler to explicitly include these PCs.

It's not been very common for an employer to have a bias against ginger-haired people and sack them for that reason. So if that situation arose it could be dealt with under unfair dismissal rules.

I think I'd agree with that.

It's not been very common for an employer to have a bias against ginger-haired people and sack them for that reason. So if that situation arose it could be dealt with under unfair dismissal rules.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I've already said I would protect it under religion/belief or disability, but why couldn't "trans" "be dealt with under unfair dismissal rules"?

I agree. But OP started a thread asking how to change his mind and wondering if she should direct him here.
I think if she directs him here he's just going to find a load of material that confirms his own belief.

She's better sticking to the "agree to disagree" line imo

@Zita60
It's not been very common for an employer to have a bias against ginger-haired people and sack them for that reason. So if that situation arose it could be dealt with under unfair dismissal rules.

Couldn't sacking someone for being trans be dealt with in the same way?

Exactly my point.
Then it gets onto semantics about in what sense a trans person can exist if "trans" isn't something real. Even more so if its being removed from all legislation/medical treatment etc.

Why can't pregnancy be dealt with under "unfair dismissal rules"? Or being gay?

I agree. But OP started a thread asking how to change his mind and wondering if she should direct him here.
I think if she directs him here he's just going to find a load of material that confirms his own belief.

She's better sticking to the "agree to disagree" line imo

The OP knows her friend better than either of us, I'm sure she will do as she sees fit. My reasoning is basically "agree to differ" anyway.

The contention that GC people don't think trans people "exist" is true in one sense, but only in that they don't share their belief in gender identity ideology.

Genderists use this "don't exist" phrase as if there is something sinister under it, that we don't see them as human. It's nonsense, and manipulative. The women (and men) on this thread have been clear what they believe. As I said, sometimes you can't argue with people who are invested in believing stupid things about a particular group.

Why can't pregnancy be dealt with under "unfair dismissal rules"? Or being gay?

Because there is a history of many people being sacked for those two things. Is there a history of many people being sacked for being "trans", or are there other issues at play such as homophobia?

Also, ask the person who brought up the "unfair dismissal rules", as I said, I was playing devils advocate.

A "trans person" only exists as a person who identifies as trans. "Trans" doesn't have to exist as an objective fact in order for people to identify as trans. People identifying as trans doesn't make "trans" real in any way.

As for legislation and medical treatment, why shouldn't something that is not real be removed?

You say "exactly my point". Are you agreeing with me?

I think historically trans people especially TW would find it hard to get/keep a job because its seen as somehow deviant, perverted or linked to homosexuality and makes people uncomfortable so they would prefer not to have those people around. I mean just look at KJKs "landlords" video. Lots of people have those attitudes.

I don't personally have an issue with gender reassignment being a protected characteristic in a work context.

It's good that you have your own view, I've already explained how I would personally protect people who identify as the opposite sex from discrimination and I don't think it requires a separate protected characteristic.

Not necessarily. My point is GC posters like you think trans isn't real aka "doesn't exist". So posters saying "noone GC thinks trans doesn't exist" are incorrect.

It would be much easier to have productive conversations if people could acknowledge where the opposing viewpoints come from as opposed to just shouting them down. In my opinion.