Trans rights: a perspective

[Nearly Sane]

No I dont think most/any women are attacking trans women either, I was however reading an article in the gay press about the number of attacks and murders of trans people in the USA and think that the dialogue thus far is enabling the, as far as I can see, men to feel freer to do these horrible crimes. I'm not saying either side is more or less responsible just that the terms of the debate need to be rejigged to try to minimise the possibility of giving licence to bigots.

Is there any evidence that asking for the rights of women to be respected is doing that though. Further it isn't women vs trans.

[Rhiannon]

In the States though we have Trump’s anti trans rhetoric and the religious right trying to erase trans completely. There’s no surprise there about the rise in attacks on trans people. Here we have the opposite - the acceptance of self identification. I seriously doubt whether your average bigot bothers engaging with feminist thought. But we are seeing the rise of the right and where religion is increasing it isn’t of a tolerant kind.

[jeremyp]

No, it was a deliberate action which resulted in lots of complaints from women

Was it a deliberate action? You have yet to provide any evidence that it was.

[Nearly Sane]

Was it a deliberate action? You have yet to provide any evidence that it was.

So they accidentally changed women to menstruators?

[jeremyp]

So they accidentally changed women to menstruators?

Sorry, I thought you meant it was a deliberate attempt to erase women or coddle trans women.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, I thought you meant it was a deliberate attempt to erase women or coddle trans women.

I put it was a deliberate action. You asked how I would show that. Glad to see you dropped the silly challenge.

The other point is all the women who saw it as an erasure and complained to the Guardian. Are they all just making it up?

[jeremyp]

I put it was a deliberate action. You asked how I would show that. Glad to see you dropped the silly challenge.

So you are walking back your original claim that you can't support. You said:

It's a sop to transgender, and erases women as a term.

You have no evidence that they did it as a sop to transgender. Of course somebody deliberately made the change but they could have done it for innocent reasons even though it was horribly misguided.

The other point is all the women who saw it as an erasure and complained to the Guardian. Are they all just making it up?

Nobody has denied that it was a terrible idea.

[Nearly Sane]

So you are walking back your original claim that you can't support. You said:

You have no evidence that they did it as a sop to transgender. Of course somebody deliberately made the change but they could have done it for innocent reasons even though it was horribly misguided.
Nobody has denied that it was a terrible idea.

So, we can agree your point challenging my statement that it was a deliberate act but was just incorrect.

As to evidnce about it being a sop, I've already covered that this is contextual. It's been a set of stuff from the Guardian which went down the route that TERFs were a thing to be condemned, and accepting the idea that trans women are women. I note that you dismiss why the women who complained who saw it as motivated by this.

[wigginhall]

In the States though we have Trump’s anti trans rhetoric and the religious right trying to erase trans completely. There’s no surprise there about the rise in attacks on trans people. Here we have the opposite - the acceptance of self identification. I seriously doubt whether your average bigot bothers engaging with feminist thought. But we are seeing the rise of the right and where religion is increasing it isn’t of a tolerant kind.

It's pretty confusing.  I suppose that the right wing preserve a conservative view of sex/gender, and don't want gender to "spread",  I mean become a spectrum rather than a single thing.   It's also Othering, that is, it says that I get to describe your gender, not you.   Well, you are the authority on your own gender, surely.   After that, masses of confusion.  It's amazing to think of the way gender has changed, from biology, to social construction, to self-identity.   But I think that Judith Butler argued that it's a performance, which you regulate.  This sounds very postmodern, and unclassifiable and chaotic.   As an anarchist, I like that.

I was trying on some jeans the other day, and I realized there were two women in the next cubicle, well, I chuckled.

[jeremyp]

So, we can agree your point challenging my statement that it was a deliberate act but was just incorrect.

No. Because your statement was that it was a deliberate act as a sop to trans women, not just that it was a deliberate act. You have yet to provide any evidence at all that your point is true.

[wigginhall]

I thought that "menstruators" was catering for people who menstruate, but don't identify as women.   However, it probably confused and irritated a lot of people, who didn't have a clue what it meant.   Having said that, I may have got it wrong as well, as it could be for the benefit of trans women.

[jeremyp]

I thought that "menstruators" was catering for people who menstruate, but don't identify as women.   However, it probably confused and irritated a lot of people, who didn't have a clue what it meant.   Having said that, I may have got it wrong as well, as it could be for the benefit of trans women.

Well the study it was reporting on was of "women who have experienced period pain at work". The Guardian really should have stuck to the same language. "Menstruators" doesn't mean the same thing (as well as being a made up word). I take your point that the Guardian may have been looking for a term that does not exclude trans men, but they were wrong to do so, if that was their motivation. The survey was of women who experienced period pain at work. That means women who do not currently menstruate would be in the survey and it probably excludes trans men because YouGov would have selected the sample based on the profiles of the candidate respondents where trans men might have put "gender = male".

[wigginhall]

I realized that the idea of gender as performance, something that you do rather than are, is disliked by some trans people, as they argue for a kind of inner identity.  This also overthrows the idea of gender as social construction, very much a feminist theme 30 years ago, well, still is.

This raises the question of possible biological foundations for trans, an area which seems to be in an early phase, research on twin studies, and so on.   Julia Serano is pushing this, as she is a biologist, and trans, her book is interesting, "Whipping Girl".

Well, you could say there is confusion in gender studies, I guess it will calm down, but it has been confused for 40 years!

[Nearly Sane]

This is very good


https://quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/

[Rhiannon]

This is very good


https://quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/

It is.

Just feels like more evidence that women exist to be used and hated but there we are.

[wigginhall]

It's  certainly a good compendium of anti-trans stuff, it's all there, ROGD, contagion, the Littman article, Girl Guides, paedophilia, gender stereotypes, and "the feisty British tabloid press", as a bonus.

[Nearly Sane]

It's  certainly a good compendium of anti-trans stuff, it's all there, ROGD, contagion, the Littman article, Girl Guides, paedophilia, gender stereotypes, and "the feisty British tabloid press", as a bonus.

The use of 'anti trans stuff' is simply an attempt to shut down discussion. It also seems to simplify the discussion in a way that is as the article makes clear and for those involved.

[wigginhall]

I don't mind discussing stuff, but it's remarkable that every anti-trans story of the past few months is given an airing.  You have to admire her diligence.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't mind discussing stuff, but it's remarkable that every anti-trans story of the past few months is given an airing.  You have to admire her diligence.

If you think you are being erased then why wouldn't you be diligent? Surely diligent is a good thing?

[SteveH]

It is.

Just feels like more evidence that women exist to be used and hated but there we are.

Self-pity soon starts to get tiresome,and turns people off.

[Nearly Sane]

Self-pity soon starts to get tiresome,and turns people off.

Are you honestly saying that any resistance Rhiannon makes to self ID is self pity?

[SteveH]

Are you honestly saying that any resistance Rhiannon makes to self ID is self pity?

No, I'm saying that she tends to make everything personal, and comes on with the martyr schtick.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I'm saying that she tends to make everything personal, and comes on with the martyr schtick.

Everything is personal if it affects you. Your dismissal of the experience of sexual harassment and rape from someone makes you seem the personification of misogyny.

[SteveH]

Everything is personal if it affects you. Your dismissal of the experience of sexual harassment and rape from someone makes you seem the personification of misogyny.

Let's just say that I think there's a lot to be said for traditional British reserve, in this hyper-confessional age in which we live (go on, then - find some old post of mine which could be called confessional, as if that proves asnything).

[Rhiannon]

It is.

Just feels like more evidence that women exist to be used and hated but there we are.

Yeah, fuck my self entitled self interest making it all about me here.

Except 'women' isn't me.

What nerve is it that I touch with you? Is that you just find rape and sexual assault so tediously boring to discuss while you puff your pipe?