Trans rights: a perspective

[Rhiannon]

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).

Yeah, keep everyone quiet. Perhaps Paul Stewart and the other footballers shouldn't have spoken out about their abuse on daytime telly. Not very British of them, was it? .

[Rhiannon]

Fuck this. Should have walked when I said I would. Screw this place.

[Nearly Sane]

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).

Yeah, tell a woman who has been raped to shut up. That's such a non misogynist viewpoint.

[Roses]

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).

What a horrible thing to say.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yeah, tell a woman who has been raped to shut up. That's such a non misogynist viewpoint.

Not to shut up - there are lots of ways to get a message across - and if a message isn't being heard the way the messenger intends then one option is to figure out a different way to present the message. If Rhiannon's current approach is working for her then by all means carry on - maybe she is reaching more people than she is turning off. Presumably it's up to Rhiannon how she uses this forum so long as she doesn't break any rules.

I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to be open to the same approach. And just because Rhiannon happens to be a woman talking about her perception that women are there to be used, I don't think it's misogynistic to disagree with her particular approach to the debate on trans issues.

I know I haven't been here for a while but this is a debating forum - a place where people with different styles of debating find things to agree and disagree about in relation to different topics. If this forum was styled as a support group or counselling group I would have a different opinion. Just a thought - maybe there should be a support group thread where people can air their experiences in a safe space.

[Nearly Sane]

Not to shut up - there are lots of ways to get a message across - and if a message isn't being heard the way the messenger intends then one option is to figure out a different way to present the message. If Rhiannon's current approach is working for her then by all means carry on - maybe she is reaching more people than she is turning off. Presumably it's up to Rhiannon how she uses this forum so long as she doesn't break any rules.

I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to be open to the same approach. And just because Rhiannon happens to be a woman talking about her perception that women are there to be used, I don't think it's misogynistic to disagree with her particular approach to the debate on trans issues.

I know I haven't been here for a while but this is a debating forum - a place where people with different styles of debating find things to agree and disagree about in relation to different topics. If this forum was styled as a support group or counselling group I would have a different opinion. Just a thought - maybe there should be a support group thread where people can air their experiences in a safe space.

If you are saying, don't say things, then it is precisely to shut up. That the thing you are telling people not to talk about is rape, then reads as misogynistic to me. People can disagree with each other, and still not feel the need to state lines about what should be talked about. To state that because it is personalised and shouldn't be part of the debate, just seems both a cover for someone's own issues, and in addition ludicrous as no one is debating objectively here

[Rhiannon]

The irony is that I didn’t make the comment that ‘women are there to be used’ with reference to my rape at all. At the forefront of my mind when I said that were the lesbians who are expected to have a dick they don’t want inside them.

That Steve decided he had to make that about me and my rape speaks fucking volumes.

As I posted on my thread on General, I speak up because there are assumptions made about rape that need challenging. I’m angry but not distressed; what happened to me happened a long time ago. I don’t approach this as a need to get things off my chest, I approach it as a way of getting some fucking ignorant attitudes challenged.

[wigginhall]

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

I thought it was a long Gish Gallop.  This makes it very difficult to fact-check all the stories, although some have been already, for example, the Littman article has been heavily criticized for its methodology..  I must admit, the paedophilia comparison is new to me, no doubt the Daily Mail will pick that up.  Actually, Mumsnet are already all over it.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought it was a long Gish Gallop.  This makes it very difficult to fact-check all the stories, although some have been already, for example, the Littman article has been heavily criticized for its methodology..  I must admit, the paedophilia comparison is new to me, no doubt the Daily Mail will pick that up.  Actually, Mumsnet are already all over it.

Do we ever properly fact check stories? That it brings together different examples is surely an entirely reasonable approach as part of this is about a bigger picture than individual examples?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This is very good


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

From your link, it seems very strange after all the work done to break gender stereotypes that we are going back to activism like this:

Bish, a British website aimed at teenagers, encourages them to work out their “gender identities” by placing themselves on several “gender spectrums” with words like rational, tough, active and independent under “looks masculine,” and emotional, soft, passive and sharer under “looks feminine.”

People who want to express their opinions opposing this kind of thinking and political ideology will just have to learn to ignore the labels of "bigotry" and "transphobia".

Is there a link to evidence that trans women aren't advantaged in some way over natal women if they have gone through male puberty? Would be good to read the scientific evidence-based opinions on how testosterone has advantaged trans women.  For example from the link it says:

In 2016, the International Olympics Committee stopped requiring athletes to have undergone gender-reassignment surgery and cross-sex hormone treatment before competing as a member of the opposite sex. Now it simply requires male athletes who wish to compete as women to lower their testosterone levels. That overlooks the permanent effects of having gone through male puberty, which include more muscle and a bigger frame, heart and lungs. But many other sporting authorities do not even require that much.

If I had to choose, I would prioritise safeguarding issues against potential threats of harm from criminal trans people towards others, above the risk of trans people feeling unaccepted or excluded. Obviously it would be nice if there was some way of screening for criminality so both could be accommodated.

[Nearly Sane]

From your link, it seems very strange after all the work done to break gender stereotypes that we are going back to activism like this:

People who want to express their opinions opposing this kind of thinking and political ideology will just have to learn to ignore the labels of "bigotry" and "transphobia".

Is there a link to evidence that trans women aren't advantaged in some way over natal women if they have gone through male puberty? Would be good to read the scientific evidence-based opinions on how testosterone has advantaged trans women.  For example from the link it says:

If I had to choose, I would prioritise safeguarding issues against potential threats of harm from criminal trans people towards others, above the risk of trans people feeling unaccepted or excluded. Obviously it would be nice if there was some way of screening for criminality so both could be accommodated.

The problem with just ignoring labels is that if they are used to shut down discussion, then it doesn't really matter if you ignore them, it's the people labelling that you need to have the discussion with. There is a solution here which isn't about the extreme cases, and to an extent I'll accept wigginhall's point that this is in the main a summary of extreme cases but the better cases from the transgender community seem to me to be mainly on the sides of lesbians, and other women who fear being erased.

[wigginhall]

I try to fact check stories, for example, I think she is wrong about Teacher's Guidance, I think the rule is not to tell parents, if the child requests that, for fear of being punished.  But with such an amount of recycled stuff,  it would take a week.

[Nearly Sane]

I try to fact check stories, for example, I think she is wrong about Teacher's Guidance, I think the rule is not to tell parents, if the child requests that, for fear of being punished.  But with such an amount of recycled stuff,  it would take a week.

You are using 'recycled' here as term of dismissing. All history writing tends to be recycled but you wouldn't use the term there.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you are saying, don't say things, then it is precisely to shut up. That the thing you are telling people not to talk about is rape, then reads as misogynistic to me. People can disagree with each other, and still not feel the need to state lines about what should be talked about. To state that because it is personalised and shouldn't be part of the debate, just seems both a cover for someone's own issues, and in addition ludicrous as no one is debating objectively here

Where is Rhiannon being told to not talk about rape? I looked back to see if I could find a post and couldn't see it.

All I saw was Rhiannon responding in #189 to a link by saying "Just feels like more evidence that women exist to be used and hated but there we are." and a response by Steve in #194 saying self-pity gets a bit tiresome and in #196 asserting that Rhiannon makes things personal and does the "martyr shtick", which I assumes refers to the line about "women exist to be used and hated". What have I missed?

[wigginhall]

You are using 'recycled' here as term of dismissing. All history writing tends to be recycled but you wouldn't use the term there.

Well, a lot of her stuff is found again and again in the right-wing media, for example, the contagion idea.  FFS, this was used about gays, and as far as I can see, has no standing in psychiatry.  But the Mail and the Spectator and the Federalist recycle it, plus all the bigoted Catholic web-sites.  It's bad science. 

[Nearly Sane]

Well, a lot of her stuff is found again and again in the right-wing media, for example, the contagion idea.  FFS, this was used about gays, and as far as I can see, has no standing in psychiatry.  But the Mail and the Spectator and the Federalist recycle it, plus all the bigoted Catholic web-sites.  It's bad science.

As is the idea that we have a gender identity that is somehow clear. And again, tat the right wing use this doesn't mean i's wrong. All you are doing is a guilt by association thing, and trying to portray it as completely analogous with gay rights where it quit clearly isn't in that affects the rights of women that have been fought for over the last century

[Nearly Sane]

Where is Rhiannon being told to not talk about rape? I looked back to see if I could find a post and couldn't see it.

All I saw was Rhiannon responding in #189 to a link by saying "Just feels like more evidence that women exist to be used and hated but there we are." and a response by Steve in #194 saying self-pity gets a bit tiresome and in #196 asserting that Rhiannon makes things personal and does the "martyr shtick", which I assumes refers to the line about "women exist to be used and hated". What have I missed?

#198 where Steve doesn't want it aired because it's not good old fashioned Briish reserve

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The problem with just ignoring labels is that if they are used to shut down discussion, then it doesn't really matter if you ignore them, it's the people labelling that you need to have the discussion with.

True, but as with Brexit, if you meet the obstacle of labels shutting down discussion and people refusing to listen, you might have to find a way to go around or over them - maybe it comes down to changing strategy to tap into social, media or political power to influence public policy.

There is a solution here which isn't about the extreme cases, and to an extent I'll accept wigginhall's point that this is in the main a summary of extreme cases but the better cases from the transgender community seem to me to be mainly on the sides of lesbians, and other women who fear being erased.

Yes - sometimes choices have to be made if logistically you can't champion both causes due to a conflict of interests. Being called names such as "bigot" and "phobic" by some activists rather than engaging in discussion unfortunately goes with the territory in politics, and you have no control over the tactics employed by some activists. Feminists could just loudly and publicly label those activists "misogynists" if negatively labeling critics is an effective strategy?  More organised anti-misogynist marches against those particular policies?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

#198 where Steve doesn't want it aired because it's not good old fashioned Briish reserve

Oh right. Yeah that is horrible if Steve thinks people should not talk about personal experiences of rape or sexual assault. I thought the "martyr shtick" Steve referred to was something to with the perception that women are hated and being erased.

I think talking about it is brave and necessary. Not sure why being reserved about stuff like that is a good thing - the more it's talked about, the more aware people are of how often it happens. Safeguarding measures would not have been widely introduced if people weren't aware of the issues by talking about their frequency. Also better measures to investigate allegations and where evidence exists, to hold criminals accountable, would also not have been introduced if people did not talk about their experiences.

[SteveH]

I didn't tell anyone to shut up. Some posters, though (more than one) do tend to bring up their horrible past experiences regularly, as though they are arguments for or against anything.

[Aruntraveller]

I didn't tell anyone to shut up. Some posters, though (more than one) do tend to bring up their horrible past experiences regularly, as though they are arguments for or against anything.

Well, they are aren't they?

If we don't listen to people's horror stories how are we going to learn anything.

Damn those Jews for inconveniently reminding us of the holocaust.

[SteveH]

Well, they are aren't they?

If we don't listen to people's horror stories how are we going to learn anything.

Damn those Jews for inconveniently reminding us of the holocaust.

You can't (or at any rate shouldn't) generalise from particular instances.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't tell anyone to shut up. Some posters, though (more than one) do tend to bring up their horrible past experiences regularly, as though they are arguments for or against anything.

We can all at times write things that when challenged about we react and end up in an entrenched position. I would ask you though to consider what it would sound like if trentvoyager had been talking about his experiences of bullying and physical abuse because of him being gay, and someone had responded that he was doing 'homosexual rights by numbers', and that if he mentioned ait again that it was just because of his 'martyr complex' and that if he were to show proper British reserve he wouldn't talk about them?

[Aruntraveller]

You can't (or at any rate shouldn't) generalise from particular instances.

I think that depends on how often those particular instances happen. Say there were a situation where maybe black people were being stopped and searched on a regular basis(purely hypothetical you understand ), is not the testimony of the people involved worth considering or are you just saying nah we'll ignore that because common sense/politician/officialdom tells me that's not true.

On occasions nearly all we have in some areas is particular instances from personal experience.

[Rhiannon]

My last post on this forum:

Rape victims apparently have 'martyr complexes'.

Bye, all, it's been interesting.