The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

[Ingenieur]

Starting a new thread in case the first fills up.

For what it's worth, Bonfire Lady, I think it's irrational to say that ghosts don't exist although I've never seen anything that seemed like a ghost..

The real issues imp is that so much the idea of gender identity as the fact that somehow it erases or overshadows physical sex - something that is very clearly real.

It's about the conflict between the belief system and our real physicality, and so it is resulting in all kinds of problems.

Off the top of my head I can't really think of another example, even where we might talk about making laws or policies about something that is more of a belief. A law that says we have to close shops on Sunday for example as was common in the past - well maybe it would be inconvenient, and certainly some might think it is silly. But it's difficult to see that it would cause anything like the same kinds of basic problems.

Aha.... I hooked you in with sympathy and now you're feeling obligated to Be Kind.

It was all part of my evil wonderful plan to change the law and make sure everyone accepts that ghosts are real. Ghostphobia won't be tolerated. Children will be taught how glorious it is to become a ghost. To be remembered for ever more. What could possibly go wrong?

I'm going to appropriate build on Mexico's Day of the Dead. It will be celebrated every year in workplaces. I might even move it to November 20th as that's tomorrow and I really think a Day of Remembrance with lots of fear being stoked up respectful reverence is exactly what we need after this Trump win. Trump wants to change laws to ban people like me. He wants to deny my existence and that of my ancestry.

Now where did I put that Denton's document? I'm sure there are lots of different ways I can make sure that everybody has to accept that ghosts are real and make them a part of their everyday lives. They're a marginalised minority. It harms nobody to show them respect.

<Add more sleights of hand as needed to ramp up the pressure to Be Kind>

Or something like that.

🙃

On a more serious note, I think this year's Trans Day of Remembrance (tomorrow, I believe?) is going to be particularly full-on with fear being stoked up following the Trump win.

Edited for typos

It's about the conflict between the belief system and our real physicality, and so it is resulting in all kinds of problems.

Exactly.

Yep.

I appreciate that the religious analogy is far-fetched. And also (as TempestTost says) that closing shops on Sundays wouldn't be that bad. But imagine it starts with that and we're then told that church is mandatory, then it's also mandatory to end all work meetings with the lord's prayer (similar to starting meetings with pronoun sharing) because it's hateful not to.... because worshiping god is important... and so on.

It's ridiculous. Obviously. Nobody would do this.

But so is law and policy which forces people to deny the reality of sex. And people are doing this. Even TRAs know that sex is a biological reality, they just say that gender identity is more important. The fact that many of us don't believe it even exists is irrelevant to them.

For @mcduffyand others, here's Megyn Kelly talking about a recent ruling from the US courts about Title IX:

If it's been discussed here elsewhere then I've missed it. It looks like material reality might be coming back into fashion.

In case Kelly's presentation is too lively for people's tastes, here's an article discussing it:

www.ctinsider.com/news/article/ct-transgender-high-school-athletes-lawsuit-19896739.php

It's ridiculous. Obviously. Nobody would do this.

But of course, historically, we know this is not actually that ridiculous. We had the Puritan rule after the English Civil War. If history has taught us anything, it’s that as absurd as something is, as unfathomable it is that it happened even once, as unjust as it was that people may have died in the pursuit of that thing and its implementation, it can (and often will) happen again.

If it's been discussed here elsewhere then I've missed it. It looks like material reality might be coming back into fashion.

Very encouraging indeed.

The fact that many of us don't believe it even exists is irrelevant to them.

Reality is challenging for them, yes. The answer is not to legitimise misogynistic, and yes, make-believe worldviews as equally valid.

When it comes to people identifying as animals, which they do, how far should we pretend that's a perfectly reasonable belief to hold? How about able bodied people who identify as disabled? Men who identify as 6 year old girls?

Interesting observation/question and responses from Australia

https://x.com/TaniaAMarshall/status/1857244588337168486

We won't know for a couple of months whether the Trump win ushers in a world of horrors, maybe it will, but just at the moment the election result seems to be letting some people feel able to say the previously unsayable.

I'm not pretending anything is a perfectly reasonable belief that's valid to hold.

I'm just recognising that some people believe that everyone has a gender identity. They're as welcome to that as the people who believe that Jesus is the son of god. Both beliefs are as valid as each other. Both beliefs are as nonsensical as each other.

I'm also recognising that some people find it offensive when others deny their belief.

You don't see any difference in a belief system established two thousand years ago, rooted in a religious tradition that had already been established for a millennium or so, and a belief spun out of academic theorising in the last 20 years?

At a basic level (is it true or not?), nope.

The length of time the belief has been established is irrelevant. It doesn't make it any more or less factually true.

Edited for clarity.

It doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.

Actually that's a better way to phrase what I was trying to say ⬆️

Yes, fact is different from truth in this context. For me the timescale does make a big difference. To go back to Astrology, the different systems - Chinese, Indian, Western - have all been worked over for many centuries, have developed multiple subtleties, have definitions and descriptions that have been argued out, challenged, theorised over - that all seem to give them some heft.

Gender as a thing a person can have wasn't born or thought of until about 20 years ago, and still has no agreement on what it is.

The concept of an inner gendered essence/soul has been around for a very long time too and is in many different cultures.

It's only recently that people have been changing their bodies to match their perceived essence/soul and demanding that others validate it as true.

Apologies OP, I realise I've accidentally done a derail.

My point remains the same though about waiting to see how that statement about "playing make-believe" lands.

The Megyn Kelly video was great. Some people might be offended by the language, others won't.

The key point being that the message needs to resonate with enough people. If more people find it offensive in and of itself than don't, then it's not spreading the message.

Perhaps lots of people will like the phrase "playing make-believe" and will stand by the Bill because of it. Or, perhaps it'll get upheld as "too much" and transphobic, so not enough people will listen to her Bill.

I have never seen any evidence of belief in a gendered soul in any culture. I'd be interested in references, preferably from before 1980.

Obviously, in Christianity the possibility of any such concept has been categorically rejected for nearly two thousand years.

I'm just recognising that some people believe that everyone has a gender identity. They're as welcome to that as the people who believe that Jesus is the son of god. Both beliefs are as valid as each other. Both beliefs are as nonsensical as each other.

I'm also recognising that some people find it offensive when others deny their belief.

Yes, that doesn't mean it's wrong to do so, when the belief is fundamentally illogical and threatens the rights of other groups. You spend an awful lot of time saying how everyone's approach is needed, but also criticising people's bluntness, which rather suggests you think the mild approach is the correct one. On that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think when people stop talking about gender identity in hushed tones, and feel free to criticise it, and especially see the absurdity in it, the house of cards starts to tumble.

I will always be discomfitted by the friendship between white supremacists in the U.S. and this new group of women's rights activists.

I am under no illusion what the far right has in store for women, a much bigger threat to me than someone playing "make believe" in a dressing room or at the korean baths.

I'm living in America until mid next year in a deeply "red state" and the main driver of this election is the economy and a lack of financial literacy in the population, not gender identity politics.

Someone posted one of the responses to Nancy Mace on the FWR thread about the toilet proposal.

x.com/repnancymace/status/1858917861797904700

As they said, this is Let Them Speak, US version. And although shocking, not remotely untypical.

I am under no illusion what the far right has in store for women, a much bigger threat to me than someone playing "make believe" in a dressing room or at the korean baths.

The point here is that the Democrats have indulged this stuff, and people don't like it. Very few people here would have voted for Trump, and for those who did it was because they saw him as the lesser of two evils personally, for a range of reasons. That's quite a shocking state of affairs.

The threats are very real. This is why we don't want these men in our and our daughters spaces.

You only have to dip a toe into social media to find selfies of this type of man in women's spaces. Shame on those whose dismiss this assault on the rights of half the population as trivial.

The supremacists are those who think it's ok for men to use unconsenting women via lies and deception, excluding them from public life and colonizing their spaces. Why no third spaces? We know why.

The threats are very real. This is why we don't want these men in our and our daughters spaces.

Not even the most blasé righteous hashtag bekind Democrat women would want to be in the same toilet/hostel dorm room/changing room or anywhere they felt vulnerable with a "woman" like that.