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...)

Thanks for replying. I also agree with Flirts that (in a sexist and misogynistic society) a man dressing up as a woman is an act of misogyny. See my earlier posts.

But on the subject of whether womanface (my shorthand for a man dressing in an oversexualised way) is or is not equivalent to blackface, what do you see as the points of difference?

I think any man dressed (however modestly) as a woman, and claiming to be a woman, including demanding access to women’s spaces etc is exactly the same as Rachel Dolezal. Who got pretty thoroughly cancelled. I'm just not arguing about it irl with people who believe in gender dysphoria, because it's a waste of time.

Sorry, I didn't answer your question! For me, 'sexy womanface' is as offensive as the Black & White Minstrels.

I just don't think that saying it is useful tactically, compared to easier targets like sports or prisons. It's a little bit esoteric and it looks to the naive eye like picking on a minority.

Interesting. I'd say the opposite...it's hard to justify sports and prisons without looking like you are picking on a minority if you (appear to) accept that some men "are" women.

I think that this is ultimately where we will end up. That eventually, once the emotional manipulation has been cleared away, it is inevitable that the majority of people will understand that they have been promoting these people's beliefs as facts. And that these beliefs are only ever a manifestation of their own concept of both what is stereotypically 'male' (which they are rejecting) and stereotypically 'female'. It is sexist. It always was.

However, there are stages, if you like to reaching this point.

For a start, for a while we were convinced that there was therapeutic benefit to treating these male people gently and allowing them to live how they wished, this experiment has been shown to be harmful collectively to female people. All female people. And to only be benefitting very few of that male group as well, it seems.

This stage involved all the things we have discussed on this board, the forced teaming, the long term strategies as described in the Denton's report.

So now, that therapeutic benefit has been rejected by the larger transgender community themselves saying 'this is not a mental health issue'.

This is key. It allows society to now move along to where we will end up where more and more people will have the understanding of what is underlying this issue.

So now, society should be completely free to stop feeling manipulated into treating any male person as if they are female. It will take some time to undo the programming in businesses and politics that Stonewall and such were successful in pushing through. But we already are seeing this happen.

As more people understand what has happened, how we got here and just what they are now supporting, I suspect that those YouGov polls will swing rather more quickly to opposing male inclusion in single sex spaces / sports / supporting public funding of treatment etc.

I completely agree Flirts. This is sexist behaviour. Any male that claims they are female and 'living as a woman' is exhibiting misogynistic behaviour. Whether they intended to or not, whether they have been told this is progressive or not, that is the outcome.

I made some progress during the boxing debacle by pointing out that someone who is legally and socially female should still be excluded from female competition on safety grounds, if she has gone through male puberty.

You probably think that was sophistry on my part. But another friend, to whom I made the mistake of saying 'he's obviously male', just hung up the phone on me without further ado! So I know which argument actually worked.

Yes.

If a person is saying TWAW - ahh... but not for prisons. Oh! and not for sports! They are showing that they are very inconsistent.

Either you believe that TWAW or you don't. This is exactly what McKinnon was saying in those interviews and what McKinnon told the IOC in 2018/9. And it is true. McKinnon was right about this.

There is no halfway belief that is consistent. You either believe or you don't. Any halfway point is requiring you to arbitrate 'who' and 'when'. And that is morally repugnant too. If you have a halfway belief of 'some' then you have appointed yourself as the arbitrator of who is transgender and isn't and when they are 'women and girls' and when they are not.

It takes some time to understand that this the outcome.

Late to this debate, but the main thing (in my eyes) is zero tolerance to the idea that men can 'actually' be women on some level. Thus presenting as a woman is some kind of rightful state for them.

Just no. Some men want to 'present' as women in public and they should be free to do so (so long as there is no question at all that they are men for all official purposes).

But I will draw my own conclusions about what motivates these men and act accordingly. Ultimately most motivations will be slightly suspect - my instinct is to give these men a wide berth.

I think this was implicitly understood until the recent madness tried to force people to overcome their natural response.

Thanks, that was what I wanted to know.

If a person is saying TWAW - ahh... but not for prisons. Oh! and not for sports! They are showing that they are very inconsistent.

Does any such person exist? Everyone I know falls completely on one or other side of the line, including me. But I think sports are a useful wedge issue, because it forces people to think hard about what sex means. And of course it is a specific problem that needs solving, in contrast to the much bigger, baggier, ideological problem of 'TWAW - fact, or a load of bollocks?'.

Of course they exist.

How many people do we have post things like ‘they are women if they are post-op’? I would also suggest Lisa Nandy is a great example of people who do this.

Now, whether they believe what they say, that is another matter. But I also think that anyone using preferred pronouns is also doing this, even just that small concession.

I've come across lots of this.

It may well be indicative of not having thought about the issue for more than 5 minutes. But it's definitely out there.

Another thing that's very prevalent and blows my mind is deciding whether to use preferred pronouns depending on the individuals character. So yes for a friend but not for the rapist.

This I find very strange because it's making it a courtesy, Why? Either we're overriding sex based pronouns or we aren't. Very odd to me to do it as a favour that can be withdrawn.

Oh dear. I guess the half-way housers don't really believe, but can't be bothered to think it through/step out of line. After all, it's not as though anyone important is affected.

Does any such person exist?

Ironically, quite a few trans people say it. They are seeing their access, day-to-day, to things like toilets and changing rooms, and pronouns, possibly floating down the Swanee, and want to claw some of it back.

Bruce Jenner I believe disagrees with transwomen in women's sports. But you can bet your life Jenner still wants access to the pronouns, changing rooms and loos.

Debbie Hayton is another one.

Quite a few trans people can see that claiming men are women for all purposes is not going to fly. So they're quite happy to let things go that don't matter to them.

It's utterly self-serving, of course.

I certainly equate womanface to blackface (that was seen as commercially acceptable until surprisingly recently - B&W Minstrels still a thing in 1989). In both cases the mask wearer is appropriating the appearance of a person at a cultural disadvantage compared to them.

But

What does that say about young women in manface? To me it seems clear that transmen are as motivated by misogyny as transwomen, and do as much harm to women as transwomen do, albeit being themselves, in their own bodies, their first and worst victims.

As with all of this, the more I learn of the effects of genderism, the less tolerant of any demonstration of it I become.

That's a fair point.

I think that's an interesting point, but I don't think it's the same. Because of the context. Men are not culturally or physically at a disadvantage to women. Women claiming to be men are victims of misogyny too. They may perpetrate it as well to try to "fit in", but that goes for women generally, even so-called feminists.
Manface is not an act of misandry because the power remains with the men.
Very good point, though.

I don't think it is the same, for the reason I gave - but am uneasy when any discussion about 'trans people' is all about transwomen aka men. The genderist racket is exploitative, misogynist, and asymmetrical.

I think the two groups are very different? I'm hugely concerned about the many thousands of young women who've been gaslit online, in schools & universities, by the NHS, politicians etc that they've been born in the wrong body. I see them as victims - deliberately targeted by a misogynistic movement. But I know that many of them have been backed into a corner and will fiercely reject any efforts to reach out to them - exacerbated by the poor mental health of the majority.

I feel we've abandoned these young women - while not having a clue as to how to help when so many of the trusted adults who surround them - family and professionals - have abandoned their responsibility to safeguard them in favour of signing up to transactivist beliefs. Down the line some will get financial compensation for what happened while they were so young, but the majority will have to live with their fragile minds and damaged bodies for ever.

Sorry - that's not specifically addressing the discussion ....

yup

but they should know we see them and care about them, even if they loathe us for it.