What Am I Missing?

[Catiette]

I may not be able to check in on responses to this very much - I hope that isn't hypocritical or rude. I read something that left me feeling a bit unsettled and just wanted to formulate my thoughts on it, really. Any responses - whether to agree with me or to highlight where I'm going wrong - would both be helpful and reassuring whenever I can return!

It relates to the article posted on the "Which Stories Could Change Someone's Mind" thread: https://philosophersmag.com/the-transgender-rights-issue/. I didn't want to derail that discussion, and also really don't want to discourage people from using it as one of the best representations of our position I've seen - so thorough, lucid and convincing... up to a very few paragraphs near the end, which I didn't think reflected the nuanced thought of the whole. It left me wondering what I'd missed?

I'll try not to be too wordy (famous last words...)

Really interesting thoughts - thank you, everyone; am following.

if you believe all humans have the right to belief and self expression, some people will choose to identify as trans

but what does ‘identify as trans’ mean?

1. Claim to be a member of the opposite sex?

2. dress and behave in a gender non conforming way?

but if you do number 2 without number 1, you’re not trans surely? It’s that impossible, unreasonable claim that makes you ‘trans’

And if ‘choose to identify as trans’ really means ‘make impossible, unreasonable claims’, then so what if people do identify as trans?

The crunch point I suppose is when men are using women - or women's reactions to them - to get off.

So, Grayson Perry or Debbie Hayton who are self confessed, openly auto gynephliac, or cross dressing fetishists in old money, have admitted that dressing 'as a woman' is part of the fetish for them.

While I appreciate that practically speaking one can't actually prevent a man from getting off on going out dressed 'en femme' I can bloody well loudly object to it and explain my discomfort and unwillingness to participate in the fetish.

Yeah I know. He's starting the debate from a point that its taken as read some people will identify as "trans". This is his framing:

"what exactly do we mean by “transgender rights"? What framework can best help us to explore the many issues and questions that are involved, and to resolve the conflicts that arise?
I maintain that we can better understand the controversy if we distinguish between two sorts of claims: (1) equality claims, or claims to be free from discrimination, based on one’s transgender status, concerning the distribution of basic goods such as employment, education, and housing; and (2) belief claims, or claims that we are discriminating against those who identify as transgender to the extent that we do not accept certain beliefs promoted by trans activists as literally true, or, at the very least, that we do not act as if we accept those claims as literally true and support changes in social institutions and practices so that they accord with those claims"

Then he's talking about the framework. Its up its own arse. Bloody philosophers 😂

His definition is "It must be noted that some who reject transgender ideology and who consider themselves to be stalwart gender-critical types very explicitly reject this. Some members of this group refer to themselves as “Ultras” but some get very angry if you refer to them as “Ultras.” However they characterize themselves, they maintain that, even in the absence of any requirement that the rest of us believe in/act on transgender ideology, when males present with stereotypically feminine dress, wigs, makeup, breast prosthetics, etc., they engage in conduct that must be excoriated because that behavior necessarily represents an expression of contempt for or mockery of women."

I think that means if you aren't "excoriating" the conduct of trans people in the course of your disapproval you aren't ultra

I don’t like it much. Sometimes I tut and roll my eyes

does that help?

I believe those are known as 'microaggressions', m'lud. 😃

I came across twitter thread from Genevieve Gluck that I think is relevant to this thread’s discussion:

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1830780596379095122
‘The entire purpose of the linguistic sleight-of-hand involved in the term "gender dysphoria" is to normalize and depathologize male sexual fetishism.

"Transgender" turns every single major paraphilia in diagnostic literature into a protected identity.’

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1830968358898160010
‘The very first wedge used in diagnostic literature - by sexologists and psychiatrists - was to claim that men who masturbated wearing the stolen clothing of women was not a sexual act, but an identity crisis.

That men who were absorbed in BDSM, in making themselves into torture porn, scenes that reflect what they are aroused by seeing done to women, was not sexual in nature, but an expression of themselves.

This wedge, detailed in the DSM-4, allowed every other paraphilia to fall under the dominant category of gender identity or dysphoria - the category that is now regarded as not a sexual pathology, but an inborn trait, an identity.

All the while, there has been the knowledge that paraphilias rarely ever appear in isolation - they overlap. So now, every major sexual pathology gets to hide under the "skirt" of gender dysphoria.’

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1830972657761931349
’"Transvestic fetishism is not diagnosed when crossdressing occurs exclusively during the course of Gender Identity Disorder".

This diagnostic recommendation, used to excuse an obvious sexual behavior intrinsically linked to sadomasochism, and to further escalation of fetishism - which can result in criminal sexual offending - was the only door that needed to be opened to allow all forms of paraphilias, even pedophilia, to fall under a protective "umbrella" of sexual identity - rather than as a potentially dangerous pathology.

Why did it happen? Precisely because the abuse involved in transvestic fetishism is directed primarily at women, and therefore invisible.

To this day, Ray Blanchard, who coined "autogynephilia", agrees with this assessment from the DSM-4: that an explicit male fetish for misogyny is simply an identity crisis.’

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1830975509205000611
‘The pass given to the diagnosis of Transvestic Fetishism was made because of the perceived issue of homophobia.

So homosexual men in drag (inadvertently?) helped to normalize heterosexual male fetishists who claim to be women, and are aroused by humiliating us.

The caveat in diagnostic literature exists because of this. Blatant misogyny, excused because calling it out fully might be homophobic... On loop forever.’

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1831681541090767186
‘When you realize that 'gender dysphoria' has been part of a larger grooming strategy all along, it becomes apparent that the worst fetishists were granted the status of "woman" first, and not the other way around.

The men so absorbed in their paraphilia that they underwent dangerous, and overtly sexual body modification procedures were the legal starting point.

Which is why trans activists argue that it doesn't make sense to deny womanhood to those who haven't had the surgery.

It's not sex that's a spectrum, it's fetishism that's the spectrum, and the law opened the door for the most dedicated fetishists and worked its way back.

The belief that devout suffering entitles men to womanhood is not so dissimilar from the entitlement of inceldom ‘

I don't think I've ever excoriated anybody - I'm a vegetarian.

My impression of the "ultra" position such as it exists is that it does object to anyone using prefered pronouns at all. At least that was my strong sense when people had the discussion here.

Yes, actually… It’s so complicated.

Is there a difference, though, between this ideology’s push to encode pronoun use in law, and a feminist backlash that’s a direct response to this, and favours a social - not legal! - contract discouraging pronoun use, attempting to kick-start this by publicly condemning it.

This strength of feeling behind this argument against was pretty much generated by the existence of the first, in order to counter it. Would “ultras” have been arguing for it if the first wasn’t a threat? Equal and opposing forces kinda thing.

I really don’t think we can mandate language either way. Slippery slope… But I think a lot of the argument we shouldn’t use them is a fear-response to the argument we should.

But then, I guess the source of authoritarian tendencies is often fear, and the social contract perhaps even more powerful than the law when it really takes hold… 🤷‍♀️

There's mandating other people's language and there's drawing firm boundaries on your own. I will not use pronouns that misrepresent someone's sex. Anymore than I will recite PBUH after saying Allah.

I’ve settled on avoiding use either way most of the time. I don’t feel comfortable using preferred pronouns, for obvious reasons - I really do tend to choke on any attempt as an utter betrayal of my sex and, potentially, the person involved if a child as well. But I won’t misgender either in most cases. Using names alone is surprisingly easy with practice.

Crime & sport, conversely, I feel there’s a strong argument for using sex-based pronouns, and tend to do this. Where there’s a direct, unambiguous appropriation of women’s rights, it can negate any moral obligation I feel in the other direction, to at least show tact or reserve judgement. I won’t be complicit in obscuring truths that are unambiguously, immediately and shamelessly detrimental to women.

I think people must have the right to make a choice - but for that to be meaningful in any way, it needs to be the right to make an informed choice. And thanks to the current dominance of the ideology in our national institutions, media, schools etc., the information necessary to making that informed choice isn’t always easily accessible, or is misrepresented. I think this is anti-democratic, too!

“But I think a lot of the argument we shouldn’t use them is a fear-response to the argument we should.”

Not really. I think you are forgetting that so many of us simply won’t use wrong sex pronouns because we don’t believe someone has changed sex and therefore we apply the correct sex pronoun. While I acknowledge the harm that using preferred pronouns have caused, I am also not interested in effectively twisting my language into a lie.

There is also a degree of narcissism that is evident with the expectation that someone will stop and think especially about that person before using particular words for them.

There are many reasons why I won’t use ‘preferred’ pronouns and other changes in language and none of them are based in hate. And the only reason I have seen for people to use that language is to make the recipient of that effort happy. Hence my question as to ‘why?’ I am sure people will have their own reasons why they will, but they will all be based in emotional response.

And as long as they acknowledge why and they understand they cannot compel others to follow and that they may hold this thought which is incompatible with their other thoughts, or even their work and activism, I don’t worry too much.

I do object however when this preferred language impedes clear communication. And I think that is where some of this pushback is occurring. Those who are striving to ensure communication is clear and accurate might push back with a comment about ‘please use accurate language’ and those who have chosen to comply to the language request feel they need to justify it.

Again, it wouldn’t be an issue if the person using that language was doing so in private. However, if they are writing or speaking about issues relating to female people and the impacts of identity, it becomes an issue. And if that person is fighting on one hand to uphold and support the rights for women and girl’s while inconsistently perpetuating the harms by adding power to those claims by activists that ‘the world refers to me as ‘she’ it is cruel to exclude me’, then people will point this inconsistency out.

This whole ‘ultra’ denigration is punishing those who point out the inconsistent views being expressed by someone.

And frankly, someone declaring a padded bra being worn by a female means it is fine for any male to wear prosthetic breasts is really writing from a position of male entitlement. However, it is good to know the person has this view because it sets the expectation for any future view point that they may express.

Yes to both of the above. I think my use of “fear-response” was to try to explain and extend some empathy towards the so-called hardliners - I didn’t express it well, and think on reflection that it’s way too strong or simplistic. I guess I just think that some of the no-pro(noun)-ers are driven by a strong reaction to the current weighting of society in favour of using pronouns unquestioningly. There is - as you say - a strong emotional component to the argument that’s been catalysed directly by what we’re seeing (as well as the quite rational argument that, if partial concessions have led to where we are now, then no concessions would be safer from now!) I don’t agree with the viewpoint, but I think it’s often (not always!) more complex than Mr-Article-Writer’s (can’t switch screens!) damning accusations of authoritarianism.

And YY re. the bra. Still angry about that this morning. Astonishing argument, and, somehow, weirdly demeaning to think of as I got dressed, actually! Prosthetic! 😮

Well, it's arguing padded bras from the pov of the male gaze, assuming women only dress for men's pleasure. Clearly the author is incapable of even imagining that women may dress for their own comfort.

Yes. Utterly offensive on several levels.

I also understand that some people will use preferred pronouns when they feel they have to when they understand the people they are communicating with will ignore what is important information because they shut down if they feel ‘unsafe’. They do this to get their message across whereas they otherwise would not use that language or those pronouns.

This is a valid point as far as I am concerned. I would prefer people like Dr Hilton to be included in a discussion for instance, rather than her avoided because of the language she uses. It is hard enough for her to get an invite. I know that she will only use that language if she feels it is necessary to be heard by those who become deaf when they don’t like the pronoun being used.

I also understood Helen Joyce’s position when she said people trying to police her language could fuck off. I think she is another who I would trust to only use pronouns if she really needed to get a message heard. And being told to fuck off for language policing is fucking different from creating a derogatory label such as ‘ultras’.

One is stating boundaries, the other is making a new derogatory label to pin on people who might disagree with you.

Agree, Helle.

Was Ultras derogatory? I suppose it was supposed to be. We've got in the habit of reclaiming slurs so fucking fast these days, they just roll off for the most part.

I don't think in this case "ultra" is being used as a "denigration". I think its being used as a label for a certain mindset within the GC movement that he is trying to explore.

And I think his point is less about "is it reasonable to use pronouns" and more about trying to tease out elements of that mindset.

A working assumption of this essay has been that those of us who are gender-critical value a liberal, pluralistic society, and are happy for people to believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in. It must be noted that some who reject transgender ideology and who consider themselves to be stalwart gender-critical types very explicitly reject this. Some members of this group refer to themselves as “Ultras” but some get very angry if you refer to them as “Ultras.”

So he's talking about people who explicitly don't think men should be allowed to present in a stereotypically female way under any circumstances and goes further to say that its about "excoriation" rather than "objection".

I can see exactly what he's getting at, it's a discussion I've had many times on here too.

He then goes on to explore why he personally finds the "ultra"/"illiberal" position inconsistent (and I'll cut him some slack for the terms because it isn't immediately obvious how to refer to that subsection of beliefs in GC)

In a nutshell he's saying he thinks if women can wear chicken fillets/padded bras to work if they like, why can't men? And if one believes in sex based equality, logically there is no reason men can't.

it would be difficult in any case to formulate a limiting principle that would identify in a tidy way that would satisfy everyone what presentations are acceptable and what presentations are not acceptable. That is, the line between an acceptable gender nonconforming presentation and what some regard as an unacceptable instance of “womanface” may be very difficult to draw

Agree with him on this.

The motivations of why people choose to present as the do is not really what he's considering, and I would guess (based on how he's explained it) he would think that bit is less relevant because it's personal to the individual involved and wrapped up in the "believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in".

For me that line is really important because that's where the crossing point is into authoritarianism. If society decided to ban men from presenting as women at work (as an extreme example) that would set a precedent that "believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in" doesn't always apply and could open the door to other authoritarian action passing off as for the greater good, such as imposition of state religious beliefs, or restrictions on the actions and freedoms of women.

If one thinks that "believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in" is a fundamental human right (I do) then one has to tolerate others behaving in ways that one doesn't personally like.

I know there is an argument to be made about "performing fetish" but for me that one doesn't hold much water because I think plenty of men are inappropriately fantasising about women all day and so it's not something we can ban or police. Just an aspect of male behaviour (NAMALT) that women have to navigate in a patriarchal world. Preventing trans identified males from being referred to as women will have little to no impact on the bigger issue.

c'mon. 3 things

1. women have tits. men don't. if a man's got tits you're already in uncanny valley

2. chicken fillets are intended to increase a woman's sexual attractiveness. I cannot think of another reason for wearing them. chicken fillets on a woman are discreet. chicken fillets on a man are not. indiscreet displays of sexuality are offensive

3. what people do is more important than what they think or say. I can't stop men thinking creepy things, but i'd sure like to be able to stop them doing creepy things at work (and for the avoidance of doubt, a man wearing chicken fillets to work is creepy)