I have a family member whose “gotcha” response to the trans debate is that treating trans identified men as potential threats is exactly the same as racists who say that all Muslims are terrorists.

[tetherabumfit]

Just this really. Patronising man informing silly woman that she is bigoted in the same way a racist is.

How do I counter this in a rational, reasonable way? I’m sick of being smugly informed that I’m no better than a racist.

No, you don't "got it"

You just slapped your own stupidity over reality so you could denigrate women a bit more

This debate has persuaded me that arguing by analogy is pointless as it is just somebody's opinion expressed in a different manner

If someone agrees with the analogy they accept the argument but if they disagree they do not

Either way it does not prove anything

The claim "it's just like" can be countered by "no, it isn't like that"

Neither are right not wrong, there is no gotcha, just smug self satisfaction

TW is a man so has to follow the rules for men, simple as that.

If the sign says 'no dogs' then even a dog called Tiddles who only eats Whiskas and wears a collar with a bell on it and 'lives as a cat' is still a dog and isn't allowed in. Even if some people actually mistake him for a cat on occasion... still a dog, still not allowed in.

We're not saying all dogs who live like Tiddles are dangerous, just saying they are still dogs and can't go where dogs aren't permitted.

Tell him, women's spaces are not his to give away, it's not the 1950's mate.

Analogies can be very useful in helping people with strong views consider how those principles apply in other circumstances especially if you can find a similar situation which isn’t as emotive.

Choosing an analogy which fits can be the tricky thing.

I particularly like point 2 here, he can't squirm out of that

All this comes down to, in the end, is whether you are prepared to believe that a man who puts on a dress and call himself Stephanie becomes a woman. That's the entirety of what the trans activist argument relies on - that a man who self-identifies a woman magically becomes a woman, and is no different from any other subgroup of women - tall women, Chinese women, fat women etc.

If you don't believe that men can become women, that men are always men, then the trans activist argument has no validity at all.

The real question though is whether it's worth your time arguing with someone that stupid?

Most adults don’t commit crimes against children or against vulnerable adults. We still vet all adults applying for positions that require a police check. Maybe it’s you who needs to “consider” what they are saying.

ETA: In response to the post replying to mine, above!

Yeah, I did note the repeated emphasis on "NO" woman being a threat, which no one here has said (it would be a pretty strange claim to make!)

The strawmanning suggests either a lack of recognition that no one here's dealing in childish absolutes - or the need to strengthen a weak argument.

I will say this regarding women as a threat. I was screamed at by a bag lady once. And I did find it frightening - she was wild, and it's stayed with me. But that really is it. There's nothing else I can think of.

On the other hand, I've been yelled at, beeped at, stared at, sworn at, insulted, threatened and shoulder-barged by random men more times than I can count. And physically restrained twice, which you never forget.

In contrast, had Scary Bag Lady charged (for a second, I thought she may), I'd have had a reasonable chance against her (plus, I had my own bag to wield 😁). So, in that second, my heart didn't stop, the way it has with men exhibiting the exact same behaviour.

I think my wariness of the sexes is pretty much proportionate to my experiences.

In practice, without any boundaries around the meaning of 'trans', no dress is required and the policy is not that trans identifying men should be able to use women's facilities, but that nobody should be able to question whether anyone else has the right to use a particular facility, so all facilities must be mixed sex.

I'd ignore the racism bait and ask a version of the Staniland question: 'So you're happy for middle-aged men to be sharing changing rooms and toilets with teenage girls?'
It outs him as a misogynist and suggests he might be a bit of a perv.

NB you can substitute other wording for middle-aged men as you think appropriate. You can add in penises, for example. If he says 'what about the TIMs without penises?', you have already drawn him into a conversation about male puberty, male socialisation, privacy and dignity, and how few TIMs have their penises inverted.

I suspect that Patronising Man personally cannot reconcile how a man would want to ‘present’ as a woman and therefore believes that a TIM cannot possibly be a man. PM views TIM as lesser and therefore they must be women and embraced as women. I also suspect that his view that TWAW doesn’t involve including TIMs as part of his potential dating pool.

You can't refute it, because you're being transphobic.

Calling trans women slurs, and treating them as an aggressive hive mind, is bigotry.

Trans people are individuals with a protected characteristic, and you refuse to acknowledge that.

Your relative is 100% correct.

Is that gotcha worthy of any response beyond "Don't be so fucking stupid!"?

It is a fact, by the guidance, that men who want to use mixed spaces and women who want to use mixed sex spaces can all have a delightful time in the specially provided mixed sex gender neutral additional facilities, so that no one needs to use a sex based space if they don't identify with it, and no one needs to lose their required and wholly justified single sex space either.

Prizes for everyone.

If that's an issue - the issue is that non consenting women are not being forced to get undressed with and exclusively for the benefit of a particular group of men.

Who merely by requiring this of non consenting women, yes, have raised a whole lot of red flags immediately, and are now paddling on down towards the deeper end of sexual harassment and abuse with their sparkly 'coercive behaviour' armbands.

Why would a man want this of non consenting women?

And why is he so bloody happy about the thought of it?

‘Man’ is not a slur. You’re welcome.

Where are the slurs?

No one is saying that Trans People are the threat, they are saying that males are the threat and Trans Women are male.

Trans Men are female and as such are welcome in women’s spaces and services.

Transphobic policy would be to bar all Trans people from women’s spaces and services on the basis of them being trans. What women are saying is that males are not welcome because they are male.

I say that we treat all males the same. They are ALL excluded from female spaces. That historically treating subsets of men as a sacred caste such as priests, policemen, teachers and celebrities and assuming they can never do any wrong has ended horribly for women and girls. We will not be making that mistake with transwomen.

Having the protected character of gender reassignment does not gives males the protected category of being female. They are excluded from female spaces like all other males. Not because they are trans but because they are male.

You could do people a favour here. You could outline what you believe differentiates an 18 year old transwoman from an 18 year old ‘cis’ man, specifically in relation to their potential risk to (particularly young) women. I mean, you won’t, but you could.

He doesn't understand safeguarding. It is worst scenario thinking and then regulating to prevent those scenarios.

How does he feel about adults sharing tents overnight with children they are not related to? Or what is wrong with 18 year old boys sharing beds with 9 year old girls? After all, most would not do anything, right? If he is against that, isn't that like being a racist, because most of them would pose no threat?

Like a previous poster said, I would point out that the people making life harder for some Muslim and other religious women are not gc feminists but trans activists. A very badly chosen analogy.

Oh come on.

'Transphobic' - does not agree or participate in an illusion that a man with a gender identity is a woman.

It's a legal belief and view, it is not offensive or wrong in any way - discussed and agreed now by multiple judges in multiple cases. You merely don't like it.

Agree with pp. Don't go down the Trans rabbit hole. Say you just want all men out of women's spaces and categories. No need to engage with any notion that men who say they're women are anything other than men

We have developed female only spaces for the purpose of female dignity and privacy - in public situations of undress or engagement with biological function. Men are excluded because most women feel very uncomfortable and compromised if surrounded by stange men in such situations. It further acts as a safeguarding measure against known risks of voyeurism and sexual assault.

Muslims come in two sexes...male and female........and muslim women also certainly appreciate and require the privacy of their sex in such situations ; and furthermore without such privacy they would have very little presence in public life.

Maybe focus more on issues of privacy and dignity of one's sex, rather than safety ( with it the implication that all men are potentially rapists or aggressors).