Who is "not talking" about the something else?
Everyone.
We're all happy to talk about men who identify with feminine stereotypes.
If we'd been doing that for a while, we might not be in this situation.
"Talking" about it is not an accurate description of what is happening though - what is happening is we're being told that we have to believe their mental disorders and label a man a woman on pain of losing our jobs or our livelihoods or being visited by the police, not to mention having men pretending to be women threatening to rape us with their lady dicks or assault us if we disagree with them.
We are talking about it. Collectively we're talking about it. Some people are being militant about it, some people are trying - and succeeding - in using the law to get their way. People on both sides feel aggrieved, sometimes rightly so, sometimes not. I can't speak to the prevalence of the fear of rape and assault, though I can sympathise; I can empathise with being automatically considered a predator because I was born with a penis, and while I can understand why that's the case, it doesn't take away the disappointment when I get strange looks taking my kids to the park. And it does happen, not a lot. It's not on the same level as what I understand women go through, but it's part and parcel of the same underlying problem.
We also face losing out on scholarships and medals and opportunities in sport and work as men pretending to be women use their biological advantages to take our spots and try to silence dissent using the aggression that comes with the biology of being a man.
On the sporting front, as I've said, I agree with you, which doesn't stop it happening, and presumably doesn't stop the sense of resentment building, in this case for a justified reason. On the idea of (non-sporting related) scholarships and places, I'm a little less convinced. If someone is living as a woman, regardless of the sex they were born with, they face the same discrimination in the workplace.
Does that seem like talking to you?
Yes. We talk to convince, we talk to express, we talk to effect change. We're all talking, we're all communicating - some well, some less so - and so we're all influencing the ongoing conversation that's establish the social norms.
Or does that seem like unevidenced dogma that you should be standing up against rather than pandering to?
It seems as much unevidenced dogma to me as the idea that gender doesn't exist, there is only biological sex and people.
Who is trying to pretend trans people don't have concerns. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder that requires treatment and as with any mental health issues their distress does need addressing, but how did you decide that perpetuating the stereotypes of femininity to the detriment of real women is a price you are willing to pay to soothe the unevidenced beliefs of men pretending to be women?
Where am I perpetuating the stereotypes of femininity? I acknowledge that they are part of our cultural background, should I deny that fact? Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, and the best available evidence we have for how to treat that varies on the individual circumstances, but it includes transitioning to various extents - if we can't find a way to accommodate that, if we continue to alienate and exclude and 'other' people in these situations, that's effectively treating them as though their concerns don't matter, or at least don't matter enough.
What does that even mean - treating them as potential rapists?
From the 'outside', making appeals to worry about 'lady dicks' and 'threats of rape' in discussions about trans-men is akin to the longstanding equivocation between gay men and paedophiles. Yes, if you get enough trans-women into consideration some of them will have a history of sexual violence. To make laws, rules and judgements on that small minority is treating them all as potential rapists.
Why don't you tell me your take on why society segregate men from women by law and prioritise single-sex sports and certain other facilities, while also allowing mixed sports and facilities in other areas? Is there some evidential basis for that or did society just pluck that division out of thin air?
Bits of both, I suspect. Women's sports, in the main, are maintained as a result of the realities of biology that they can't directly compete physically, but in at least some instances they emerged in the first instance because men wouldn't play against women as it was not socially acceptable, not because women weren't competitive. The idea of women being not just non-competitive but physically incapable or at risk from competing then followed, as men tried to preserve their space as the 'physical' sex/gender. My take on why, now, a mixture of reasons, some rational (women's biological lack of physical weight, power and size on average), and some cultural (male cheerleaders, female racing drivers).
Does that mean you can also accept the reality that society has expectations of people because of the cultural phenomenon of religion and gods that aren't really dependent on actual science or biology?
Of course, that's sort of the point. We're a lot further along the argument against religion, though, than we are against the notion of gender. In part because gods aren't real, but biological sex is.
You know - things like where religion says it's a sin to be gay? People are free to transgress those expectations but if people in a society really, really believe it's a sin to be gay, we should as a society pander to those cultural expectations right, because that is the reality of the society they live in?
When society was ready to turn the corner on criminalising homosexuality in the West, it did. Across broad swathes of the rest of the world that's not the case yet, in some places it's regressing. That debate started in earnest in the mainstream in the late 1950s, and we still haven't 'solved' it. And it happened in small steps, as society updated and reevaluated, and sexuality went from being 'right and wrong' to 'normal and variant' and is approaching a place where individual preferences from asexuality through to pansexuality are seen as just that; individual preferences. I don't know how long it's going to take to get to the place regarding gender, but we're only at the start of the social transition - if you'll excuse the phrasing.
So what you're arguing is that for example a person's sexuality - a sexual preference based on biology - could be weaponised so while it could be handy to have a different word for same sex attraction, maybe it's better not to in case some extremists use it as a slur?
We already do. Gay has been a pejorative for so long that it's used by some to reclaim their identity, for others as a general epithet without necessary an explicit reference to sexuality at all, and large sections of the lesbian community don't identify with it at all any more.
Ah ok so to change the culture of gender stereotypes, including the trans women who are buying into those stereotypes, you want to show them a better way i.e. not pandering to gender stereotypes? So you will try to persuade them within their framework to not try to reinforce cultural gender stereotypes by wearing dresses, wigs, having breast implants etc?
On an individual level, as a person, I would probably be inclined to try to dissuade them, yes. I don't see why having a penis stops you doing any of the things you want to do, any more than having breasts and a vagina stops you. However, if they, in conversation with someone with a lot more expertise in the field than me decides that the best way for them to feel good about themselves and their life is to transition I don't have the data or the expertise to speak against that. If someone's already transitioned, and they're happier for it, and it's working for them, I'm not going to tell them it was all in their head, I'm going to wish them well and hope they continue to feel good about their life.
Or did you mean no authoritarian rules to try to change the minds of gender-critical women such as cancelling their livelihood, labelling them bigots, firing them, have the police visit them - you think society should show them it understands and try to show them a better way from as far inside their framework as they can get - is that what you're arguing?
I think weaponising the legal system on people for having an opinion on an area like this, where we're collectively still trying to decide what we think is right, is not only unhelpful, but unjust.
And what is the stereotype you are working with for "devout" Muslims?
It varies - I work in schools, but I'm not an educator, I don't interact with the students a great deal, but there are female Muslim students who significantly underperform with male teachers, for instance, for as I understand it a variety of reasons from fear of being seen by their peers to be too interested to being too concerned of the social restrictions around them to speak up when they don't understand. Equally there are a male Muslim students who play up to female teachers, again in part because of a sense of peer-pressure at allowing women to direct them in some way. This is less prevalent in the schools with a lower proportion of Muslim students. The 'devout' phrasing isn't mine, I should not, it's the shorthand reference that's used in the Trust I work for; I don't doubt their are equally devout Muslims who don't have this sense, if there's a better phrasing you can think of I'm happy to use it.
Yes I'd say being outside the feeling of constantly being on your guard in case a predatory man tries to take advantage of your smaller stature and strength everywhere you go - each time you get into your car, when you make plans to travel, when you are alone in a confined space with a man - that would certainly erode some of the arrogance. You don't have an element of "dispassionate balance" - it's called not giving a toss because it's not part of your experience from childhood.
If I didn't give a toss I wouldn't be trying to have the discussion, I'd just dismiss your concerns and tell you 'not to worry your pretty little head about'.
Well it's certainly not going to happen while you're pandering to it instead of arguing against it.
Accepting a reality isn't pandering, any more than fighting against the current status quo is tilting at windmills.
Hence the problem with a lot of the political parties in the election who are also pandering to it.
Politicians aren't the wind of change, they're driven before the wind. If they're moving that way it's because their voters - culture, society - is moving that way.
O.
