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 am also a terrible actor, I can only do me but tbf that hasn't stopped a lot of big names in Hollywood being very successful.

People who identify as transgender saying "you don't think I exist" are incorrect though, Cassie. And that's how it mostly gets used. I'm happy to discuss why I think gender identity ideology doesn't make sense.

I strongly disagree that this man would find "a load of material" on MN confirming that we are "bad actors". He would find women pointing out that mammals cannot change sex, and that sex is important in certain situations. Lots of discussion about safeguarding and child mental health.

I do not think that the OP, or anyone, should just shrug and "agree to disagree". Declaring that we want trans people not to exist is deliberately inflammatory language. I have been to the museum in Warsaw and seen the telegram in which Hitler, when retreating from the Soviet advance, orders the capital of Poland to be literally wiped off the map. That is wanting people not to exist.

We need to challenge the ludicrous assertion that knowing the guy down the chipshop that swears he's Elvis isn't actually Elvis, is in some way threatening.

In short, calling out bollocks, is not wrong.

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

This is the OP.

In short, GC people know there is an identity people have called "trans" where people believe they are more like the opposite sex to a greater or lesser extent. People have differing views about the validity of said belief. But it doesn't mean that we want to hurt people or unnecessarily make their lives difficult. We're just speaking up for our own rights.

You should take your own advice.

I don't think trans is real.

I haven't said that no one thinks trans doesn't exist because that would contradict my own opinion that "trans" as something real doesn't exist.

I don't think "trans people" (ie people who are "really trans") exist, but I acknowledge that some people identify as trans. These people obviously exist.

Can you deal with the actual arguments?

Oh FFS! Disingenuous, much? 🙄

No, not disingenuous at all. The PP made a number of claims and I am trying to determine which bit of the friend's identity warrants specific protection above the protections everybody already has.

old there are a lot of assumptions being made that I 1) don't "agree with the actual arguments" and 2) can't deal with them.

I've been GC for a very long time. I'm very comfortable with my personal position; through years of debating I also now am able to see the logic of many other positions even though I disagree with them.

The entrenched "only one correct answer" stance that's developed on here is off-putting to me as a GC feminist and if you were a trans ally (like OPs friend) it would seem even worse.

That's all I'm saying. We don't have to agree, it's not an argument with only one "right" answer.

I'm not saying everyone, or even many on the board are "bad actors". I'm saying that because of cognitive bias he will find posts to support his existing view that we are bad actors.

Opinions are for debate and conversation. At somepoint that ends.

As was stated yesterday, opinions ultimately have no place in law making. You actually have to make a decision to clarify issues to prevent injustice.

By all means have an opinion, but realise that some of your opinions are ultimately missing the point about how the law works. You can not have plurality in law because otherwise the law falls down and doesn't work in practice as you have unresolved areas which real life humans get stuck in the middle of because politicians couldn't get their head out their arses and do their job properly in the first place.

We need to emphasise how we make law and how decisions and definitions are necessary and fudges led to problems - usually for the most vulnerable out there.

I'm not saying everyone, or even many on the board are "bad actors". I'm saying that because of cognitive bias he will find posts to support his existing view that we are bad actors.

We're not responsible or accountable for his own cognitive bias. Perhaps he should take some critical thinking classes.

Opinions are for debate and conversation. At somepoint that ends
That's pretty authoritarian and also untrue. Democracy is permanently debating things, updating laws to keep up with society. #nodebate is never a good tactic.

As was stated yesterday... by you 😂

This is a discussion about OPs friend, not "the law". So this is a derail. And you are wrong about the law, as well. There are subjective clauses all over the place. That's why we have lawyers to interpret it.

The most obvious one I can think of is the "reasonable belief of consent" clause in the legal definition of rape.

I'm not very interested in getting into another round of intellectual snobbery so I won't respond again.

You can not have plurality in law because otherwise the law falls down and doesn't work in practice as you have unresolved areas which real life humans get stuck in the middle of because politicians couldn't get their head out their arses and do their job properly in the first place.

And because you can't have pluraity in law, the only feasible position is a fundamentally secular one. The only possible "right answer" for the law is has to come down and definitely say that everyone can agree to disagree - that there's no "right answer".

If the law is currently saying that there is a "right answer" - people have to believe X - then that law is wrong.

Or maybe she should just respect his opinions and move on?

It's up to her what she does, she has every right to defend herself against his misguided ideas.

Ultimately, as I said before it comes down to the following point:

"Is the law fit for purpose and who does it actually protect, where may it fail and who may it leave vulnerable."

Those questions stem from: What is the purpose of the Equality Act? What is the aim of the act, to protect women from? Is it to protect women or not?

The definition of sex and the word woman are essential to establishing who is protected and from what. We need to establish this, so we understand the law as citizens, we know what our rights are and we know how the law should work.

From here we then go "hang on a second, but that isn't going to actually going to achieve the aim of the law to protect us, and therefore its not fit for purpose" and/or say "well hang on a second that undermines and destroys the aim and purpose of this other law, so what are you going to do about that"

We have a situation where 'legal fictions' are effectively destroying the purpose and intent of laws which relate to voyuerism for example. Thats kind of problematic. We have a situation where intended changes remove protections from women and homosexuals and those from certain religious backgrounds. So how the fuck is that going to be resolved. Then we have a problem with issues relating to harms to children due to failures to protect them from malpractice.

But yes, its all about how we should recognise opinions, rather than bother to acknowledge problems. 😜😳😴

Actually thats not what I said.

Your ability to understand anything anyone else says, gives me 'opinions'.

His opinions ascribe malicious motives to people, with connotations of potential organised violence against trans identifying people. They are not worthy of respect and should be challenged.

You said what I meant to say much better @Beowulfa

'Respecting his opinions and moving on', means she isn't challenging how his opinion may end up with her in a legally vulnerable position which could destroy her life, because she should defer to the hierachical superiority of 'trans needs' which might not actually reflect reality nor practical implimentation. Thats not really in her interests now is it?

She's not going to change this blokes views. She can't force it (that would be being authoritarian). But she shouldn't just roll over either. She'd better to recognise that this person, doesn't have the interests of women at heart and isn't going to listen to her, so isn't particularly worth spending time on because he disrespects her and doesn't see her worthy of respect.

She'd be better off moving on and understanding this and where her energy is better spent.

No where in this does she have to respect his opinion, btw.

I would have read ''He said, "Oh you are one of those'' as a red flag; a bad faith attempt to shame you into being silent.
He isn't interested in OP's views, only her compliance.

Ultimately it comes down to, you can only respect people and their opinions, if its a two way thing.

In these scenarios its very much not and and its very much hierachical with women expected to not speak and to defer even if it has significant negative impact on their safety and dignity.

In these scenarios its very much not and and its very much hierachical with women expected to not speak and to defer even if it has significant negative impact on their safety and dignity.

This. Any old bloke can Have His Say, but women are expected to defer to the "trans community".

I would have to challenge the sexism, if nothing else.

His cognitive bias shows him posts he 'interprets' as being bad actors. Can we define bad actors then?

I use the term to describe predators who use the 'trans' identity as a trojan horse to access women or children, we've seen evidence of this.

It seems the equivalent of a bad actor to him, is someone who is fighting against that and points out that human beings can't change sex, that trans is a subjective belief not an objective reality. That the belief is causing a lot of harm to mentally vulnerable or immature people.

I cannot change my sex or my age, my racial inheritance, my short stature and currently my child's disability. These are biological realities.

I would rather focus on why someone self destructs by harming their physical health with surgery and drugs, and why on earth they would wish that on someone else.