Reflections on Trans Arguments

[LimeFinch]

I've noticed a lot of general discourse about trans people that is based on misinformation, some of it dangerous, most of it born out of ignorance, so here's a handy reference to counter some of the claims I've seen.

Trans People are extremist! That's wot I done heard!
Transgender extremism doesn't exist - it's just a right-wing talking point used to discredit legitimate healthcare and equality efforts.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-un-view-trans-rights-much-needed-common-sense
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/11/hilary-cass-trans-children-review
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/02/gender-critical-beliefs-under-the-microscope

Puberty Blockers are Dangerous! My total lack of medical knowledge says so!
Puberty blockers are often lifesaving interventions. They're prescribed only after long assessments involving NHS gender clinics, parents, and specialists. They are fully reversible and shown to reduce the risk of suicide in young people with persistent gender dysphoria.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/tonic-psh-consultation-analysis-report.pdf
https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q1638.short
https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/interim-service-specification-specialist-gender-dysphoria-services-consultation-response
https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/news/rcpch-responds-publication-final-report-cass-review

I Heard They're Changing Kids' Genitalia!
No people under 18 are getting genital surgery in the UK. NHS policy and private clinics alike restrict this to adults.
Indeed, more cisgender teens receive breast reduction surgery on the NHS than trans teens receive chest masculinisation surgery. The procedures follow similar approval processes, yet only one group is routinely scrutinised.
https://pure.johnshopkins.edu/en/publications/breast-surgery-in-adolescents-cisgender-breast-reduction-versus-t
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/10/revealed-thousands-of-trans-surgeries-carried-out-by-nhs/

They're in Women's Sports! I read it on teh internets!
There are only a small number of openly trans athletes competing at a professional level in the world, and none are dominating their fields.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/61346517
https://feeds.bbci.co.uk/sport/athletics/65051900

But, but, but, Women's Sports! No men!
Sex-segregated sports were historically introduced to exclude women, not because men were being beaten. The idea that it was about fairness is a myth.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jun/13/how-the-fa-banned-womens-football-in-1921-and-tried-to-justify-it
https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/health-gender-and-inequality-in-sport-a-historical-perspective

Ok, but Trans-women are Stronger. That ain't Fair!
There is no consistent biological advantage for trans women in elite sport. Oestrogen therapy significantly reduces muscle mass, strength and performance over time. Regulations often require minimum hormone levels and transition periods before competing.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/59312313

Trans-Women are Men!!!!!! Any fule knowe that!
Identity is personal. “Man”, “woman”, “boy”, and “girl” are social roles - that’s gender. Not to be confused with biological sex - male and female. No trans woman claims to be biologically female, and no trans man claims to be biologically male. That’s another right-wing straw man argument.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/lgbtq-hubs/trans-hub/the-truth-about-trans

Trans History is Different to Women's History
The idea that trans women have a “separate history” to cis women echoes the same tactics once used to exclude Black women and disabled women from womanhood.
https://blog.bham.ac.uk/socialsciencesbirmingham/2024/03/08/international-womens-day-trans-women-cannot-be-left-behind/
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/trans-and-disability-justice-how-are-our-struggles-linked
Tall women, Black women, trans women - these are all adjectives describing different types of women. Every woman’s experience of womanhood is unique. If you exclude trans women from being women, what condition are you using to define womanhood? There isn’t one necessary condition. So trans women cannot be excluded from womanhood on this basis.

Trans-Women are Men in Dresses! I read it in the Daily Mail!
Crossdressing is not the same as being trans. Many cis men crossdress and are not trans.
https://fiorry.co/glossary/crossdresser/

But Anybody can be Trans in an Instant! I'm scared!
The risk of coming out as trans due to internalised homophobia and sexism is a real thing but is not as common as many would have you believe. That’s why the NHS has a structured care pathway with long waiting times and assessments. No one can simply walk in and access hormones or surgery. Many people are left in limbo for years unless they are in crisis or suicidal.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/referral-pathway-for-children-and-young-peoples-gender-services-community-and-hospital-paediatric-services/
https://transactual.org.uk/trans-lives-21/

Organisations are Convincing Kids They're Trans! Think of the Children!
No one is trying to “convince” people they’re trans. If you feel deep discomfort with the sex you were assigned at birth, you might be trans - but that’s for you to explore, not for anyone else to decide. The queer community is generally very good at spotting people who are dealing with internalised issues - no one wants anyone to transition unless it’s truly needed. This whole “kids being convinced” thing is another empty scare story.
https://transactual.org.uk/healthcare-professionals/inclusive-healthcare/
https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/referral-pathway-for-children-and-young-peoples-gender-services-community-and-hospital-paediatric-services/

Now, I'm very aware of the MN reputation for shutting down the threads - and removing the accounts - of anyone who doesn't go along with the anti-trans-hate-cult, but for the short time this thread remains up it's worth taking some time to actually look at the links, to think about the status of trans-women in the current society, and consider how this judgement - and the subsequent interpretation of the same by those who are a little hard of thinking - might reflect on us as self-assumed rational, reasonable human beings.

Thanks to the time I've spent recently engaging in this debate on this thread and others, I can see the depths of anger within GC feminism. I don't see where that can lead politically though.

Genuinely, @StandFirm, good to see that you understand the anger now.

As to where it leads - for Labour, it leads to an approach which aims to appeal to the voters it wants, by showing it's actually listening and addressing their concerns rather than educating the nasty proles.

Or it leads to defeat, and quite possibly a Reform government.

It's up to them. Entirely up to them. They can make the change, as soon as they clock that their decades-long entitlement to female and working class votes no longer exists.

Fuck me.

This feels like just another 'be kind' lectrure.

As a PP outlined, all parties recognise gender and only Reform seems to not give a fuck - except that they do, very much, and in the very restrictive and reactionary manner of women like pink and babies.

It seems all the parties believe those stereotypes - that is what gender is after all. Just some of them think if a man likes pink and babies that makes him a woman and conversely if a woman doesn’t like them she must be a man.

It’s regressive nonsense being espoused by craven idiots and I won’t lend them my vote

Go and lecture them on how important it is to win the female vote back or else they’re letting the bad guys get in!

I've never understood why populism is used as a dirty word.
"So let me get this right.... A lot of people support this thing which somehow makes it bad....? How does that work?"
"Yeah it's truly awful, and a threat to democracy that so many people support this thing."
In my opinion the word populism is a way to look down on something a lot of people support. It's a way to denigrate whatever the popular thing is, and somehow strangely, use the large number of poeople supporting the thing as proof it's a bad thing. Goes back to the working class get looked down on as idiots point I guess.
It's very strange that support for something is seen as proof the thing is bad without any real argument.

Goes back to the working class get looked down on as idiots point I guess.

Ex Tory voters know better than you left wing rabble, don't you know.

If you have an issue with left wing parties being unelectable, you put pressure on them. Don’t blame us when they don’t win.

Exactly.

I think that wasn't a good definition of populism.

Populism is giving "the people" what they want regardless of whether it will work or not or even make things worse. Often by blaming and punishing a scapegoat instead of tackling hard problems or telling "the people" what they want is not in fact possible.

It's bad because fails to fix the original issues and very often makes things worse.

Yes it does, but things do get dismissed as “populist” quite freely. It’s a thought terminating cliche sometimes.

Populism - interesting

I guess it needs to mean something different to democratic which is what you might think it would mean - because the “common man” which is the target of popularism is by far and away the dominant group so by default any democratic vote is broadly the same as the populist vote

fhe fact that it doesn’t mean that is interesting

to me it has an aspect of “us” against “them”
where anyone can find themselves in the “them” group quite arbitrarily .

The most worrying aspect is the attitude of populists to education- got an education? That’s elitist. That’s a reason to ignore you. Seems bloody stupid to ignore and dismiss people because they have learnt things - means you are building your vote on the back of the uneducated and the “self made man” - and suddenly we have a distrust of all experts - who trusts the medics when it comes to vaccination? Not the populist. Who trusts the climate scientist? It becomes an easy way to dismiss anyone you don’t agree with - oh you have studied that have you? Well I know better because I am set taught and don’t listen to the elite expert. By “bigging up” people who are less well educated yih appeal to their personal sense of pride - nasty manipulation to me

Why do you think people should listen to “experts” when they are told things which are patently not true on a regular basis? That trust in the media and in authorities is never going to be won back IMO.

Unfortunately many experts and authority figures have have taken their eye off the ball in terms of the high standards they need to uphold to maintain people's trust.

Experts aren't owed trust/confidence. They have to earn and maintain it.

'Populism is giving "the people" what they want regardless of whether it will work or not or even make things worse. Often by blaming and punishing a scapegoat instead of tackling hard problems or telling "the people" what they want is not in fact possible.'

Well, that seems to just about cover all the political parties all over the UK over the last 10-20 years. The only differences between them being which "the people" they choose to focus on and which they pretend don't exist.

Because most of the people lying are not experts? Media ? As an example of expert?

because it shows a lack of critical thinking if you think an expert will be right every time rather than reflecting the best understanding at this point of time?

because an expert who is paid by a vested interest is the vested interest first and an expert second and people need to learn the difference

because if you refuse to learn from evidence - which is my working definition of expert - you either become the expert ( and no one can become expert in lots of things) or you accept that things will go down the pan very quickly

refuse to let an expert service your car and sooner or later it won’t work. Although I think that manual things often get classed as “common man” not expert for some reason / simpler for a none expert to see and understand the direct impact ?

If an expert is telling me that humans can change sex, what I take from that is that we shouldn't put our faith in experts.

Because apparently, being an expert and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly. I think this issue has damaged public trust considerably without people necessarily even being aware that they no longer trust what they are told.

....because the experts lose their funding and will never get tenure if they say the 'wrong thing'.

"No debate" and opinion polarisation in Universities (well - ousting of 'the other opinions') has led to mistrust of experts because previously there was a way for people to argue their points and findings openly and for people to listen and decide which was the one that seemed to work the best. But now academics are only allowed to believe and research the things that aren't "wrongthink", we can't trust the science.

I am an environmentalist with a master's degree in an environmental science - but I totally understand why people are climate change sceptics because dissenting voices are stamped out rather than debated robustly.

It’s “if you will lie about something so obvious, I will assume you lie about everything” Sal Grover

@FlirtsWithRhinos
I think your definition sort of supports what I said about the word populism. I was deliberately vague and didn't link any topic to the word or even hint. I just discussed how it's used as a dirty word. It seems to me you defended using it as a dirty word by trying to link it to a subject - "scapegoat". You justified why it should be used as a dirty word.
Populism is giving "the people" what they want regardless of whether it will work or not or even make things worse. Often by blaming and punishing a scapegoat instead of tackling hard problems or telling "the people" what they want is not in fact possible.
So although you thought that wasn't a good definition of populism you defended it and justified it. I also want to point out that an idea working out or not and possibly making a situation worse is an opinion. It might turn out as you say, it might actually turn out to be a solution that works. People can have opinions on how something might turn out, but they are just opinions.
I googled the definition of populism and got this back as the first result "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups". A lot of people do seem to feel their concerns are being ignored by those in power these days.
Choosing a topic that's relevant to this board. Are women's sex based rights populism? A big majority of people seem to not want males in female sports and changing rooms. Is that populism? Does that make women's sex based rights and sex segregated areas bad because it could be described as populism?

Populism is promising "the people" what they want whether or not there is any prospect of being able to actually give "the people" what they want e.g. promising to end inward migration & deport illegal migrants.

On experts. Whenever I hear the word experts used I always see in my head that scene from Yes Minister where the minister is talking to an expert and Sir Humphrey is furious that the minister is talking to the wrong expert who is going to tell the minister stuff that undermines Sir Humphrey's position instead of talking to Sir Humphrey's expert.

Trust in authority and authoritative sources is down across the board. I 've read several stories over the last few years about how much fraud is rising in academic papers. e.g. falsifying data to make the data show what you want. Being an expert doesn't make you honest.

Often I think fibs get told with the best of intentions, but if you get caught in a lie, even a well meaning lie, it undermines all of your credibility even when you're telling the truth.

Maintaining trust in experts was a lot easier to achieve when ...

A) The pool from which these 'experts' were recruited from was much smaller and barriers to entry were much high.

The vast majority of people didn't think they had anything to bring to the table on most topics. Now with so many more people going to university, this perception of exclusivity and authority has been shattered

B) Before social media gave everyone a voice, making it much harder to maintain clear 'top down' narratives. It also makes it more challenging to cover up mistakes/vested interests and quench dissenting views.

We aren't going back on any of these btw.

And the common people are so thick they can't have what they want, they must have what we think is best for them.

Words are just labels for things.

You seemed to be asking why Populism is a dirty word based on one definition you found. I explained that the reason it's treated with suspicion is because in that context it's used with a different, also very common, meaning.

The people who are suspicious of Populism are suspicious of politicians who offer easy, crowd pleasing answers to complex subjects, dismiss people saying it won't work not by engaging with that argument and proving them wrong but with ad hominem attacks on the individual or their motives based on a group they can be claimed to belong to, and often blame complex problems or popular dissatisfaction on scapegoats rather than admitting the problem is hard to solve or the population's expectations are unachieveable with the resources available.

The bit in bold is the difference between "trying an idea that didn't work" and the Populism I'm describing. It's the willful refusual to listen to criticism or warnings about The Big Idea, The Easy Fix, instead degitimising them by delegitimising the source. "Enemy of the People", "the Elite", "the Jews", "the Bourgoise". Genuine people trying to solve complex problems take as many different views and concerns as they can and make sure they understand them and understand the risks or tradeoffs of their approach. If you really want to solve something you don't look for reasons why you must be right, you look for reasons why you might be wrong.

If you don't think that Populism is what I described then of course those people's suspicions don't apply to "Populism", but it does not stop these being valid and important criticisms about the type of politics and politician I did describe. (And probably worth keeping an eye on the Populist politicians that you think are ok, just in case they start to slip over).

So to your question about sex based rights. Recognising it is important to a large majority that sex based rights and women's language are not compromised by the inclusion of trans identifying men is not (bad meaning of) Populist per se. However the way someone like Trump is approaching it, which is all playing to the crowd and demonising or ridiculing "the other side" rather than understanding why Genderists think what they do (and as I've said before, I think behind the loud arseholes there is a huge rump of #BeKind who are basically gender critical in that they don't want people to be constrined by sexism and gender roles, but have got a bit turned round by the flags and glitter to thinking saying sex is fixed is sexist) is a Populist approach, and while it's giving some benefits to Feminists for now in protecting women's sports, spaces etc, it's based on a simplistic understanding of sex and gender and therefore is going to exacerbate rather than heal divisions and cause unnecessary damage to trans identifying people and also probably to women in the long term.

Feminism is also not generally a popular crowd pleaser.