The trans debate

[Max B Gold]

Yes, the means by which humans move along developmental pathways to become male and female are indeed complex. But there are only two pathways, and no third sex cell, so you’re still at 2, and I’m still waiting for the third sex, or however many you think there are. But it’s good to know that after confidently telling me that there are more than two sexes, you went to Wikipedia to try to back yourself up and couldn’t find anything more than “it’s complicated”

Here’s a challenge - I bet you £300 that I can correctly guess the sexes of your parents.

Hang on, now that I've actually read it there appears to be an academic on the Wicki who identifies no less than 5.

This is more complicated than you and Sausage Curry are making out. Youse sneaky snakes.

I bet 3 is Unicorn ?

My moneys on it being a Hippogriff.

[oxo]

my objection to trans activism is informed by a feminist reading

You seem to be a pretty articulate and thoughtful person (I'm sure you could beat me in a debate about almost anything, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to try), but there are a couple of things here that I'm not sure about.

You say you object to 'trans activism', but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. That really is like objecting to, for example, gay rights activism because some gay rights activists have opinions that you think are nonsensical. To me it doesn't make sense to say you object to trans rights activism as its a practice, unless you think of course that trans people should not advocate for their own rights.

I'm also reading your use of 'feminist' as implying that there is only one feminist perspective on trans issues, though I accept that I might have misunderstood. As I see it, there is no single feminist reading. My perception is that there is a huge amount of support for increasing the rights of trans people among contemporary feminist thinkers, though I'm not disputing that there is a faction of radical feminists that disagree.

[CEB]

What you’re misunderstanding there is that it’s the *substance* of the activism that I object to, not the idea of advocating for one’s rights.
If the mainstream form of gay rights activism was making demands that were nonsensical/regressive/incoherent, then I would indeed take issue with that form of gay rights activism. So obviously I don’t object to trans rights activism as a thing trans people might do - I don’t even object to or disagree that they have the right to make political demands. I just maintain that what the current form of trans activism argues and demands is illogical and unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to disagree with a political movement’s aims than it is to list every person with whom I’m disagreeing with as if there is no mainstream trans rights movement. So for clarity: I disagree with the trans rights activism pushed by Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence and those who put forward the idea that an undefined innate gender identity should overwrite sex in law & public policy.

You’re incorrect to see my use of “feminist” as suggesting there is only one view among those who describe themselves as feminists. I cited feminism in the context of pointing out that a feminist critique of trans activism is very unlikely to spur a violent man to assault a male who is gender non conforming.

[Long slender neck]

Shouldnt we all just be considered by law as people and not genders?

[tuffers#1]

What you’re misunderstanding there is that it’s the *substance* of the activism that I object to, not the idea of advocating for one’s rights.
If the mainstream form of gay rights activism was making demands that were nonsensical/regressive/incoherent, then I would indeed take issue with that form of gay rights activism. So obviously I don’t object to trans rights activism as a thing trans people might do - I don’t even object to or disagree that they have the right to make political demands. I just maintain that what the current form of trans activism argues and demands is illogical and unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to disagree with a political movement’s aims than it is to list every person with whom I’m disagreeing with as if there is no mainstream trans rights movement. So for clarity: I disagree with the trans rights activism pushed by Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence and those who put forward the idea that an undefined innate gender identity should overwrite sex in law & public policy.

You’re incorrect to see my use of “feminist” as suggesting there is only one view among those who describe themselves as feminists. I cited feminism in the context of pointing out that a feminist critique of trans activism is very unlikely to spur a violent man to assault a male who is gender non conforming.

Loosely translated , does that
mean this ?

[oxo]

What you’re misunderstanding there is that it’s the *substance* of the activism that I object to, not the idea of advocating for one’s rights.
If the mainstream form of gay rights activism was making demands that were nonsensical/regressive/incoherent, then I would indeed take issue with that form of gay rights activism. So obviously I don’t object to trans rights activism as a thing trans people might do - I don’t even object to or disagree that they have the right to make political demands. I just maintain that what the current form of trans activism argues and demands is illogical and unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to disagree with a political movement’s aims than it is to list every person with whom I’m disagreeing with as if there is no mainstream trans rights movement. So for clarity: I disagree with the trans rights activism pushed by Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence and those who put forward the idea that an undefined innate gender identity should overwrite sex in law & public policy.

You’re incorrect to see my use of “feminist” as suggesting there is only one view among those who describe themselves as feminists. I cited feminism in the context of pointing out that a feminist critique of trans activism is very unlikely to spur a violent man to assault a male who is gender non conforming.

I appreciate you elaborating on those points, thanks.

From what I've read of your arguments here (and again, I concede that it's totally possible that I'm misreading your argument), it feels to me like you see the whole thing as fairly simple, and that there is only one sensible/rational/logical view, and that that view is self-evident, but I don't agree.

I think there is a lot we don't understand about sex/gender/sexuality, and I'm inclined to believe trans people when they describe their experience -- I really don't think it's as straightforward as being 'gender non conforming'.

Clearly there are people on both 'sides' of this who just want to feel safe and respected for who they are, and I feel we still have a long way to go as a society before this is possible.

[tuffers#1]

What you’re misunderstanding there is that it’s the *substance* of the activism that I object to, not the idea of advocating for one’s rights.
If the mainstream form of gay rights activism was making demands that were nonsensical/regressive/incoherent, then I would indeed take issue with that form of gay rights activism. So obviously I don’t object to trans rights activism as a thing trans people might do - I don’t even object to or disagree that they have the right to make political demands. I just maintain that what the current form of trans activism argues and demands is illogical and unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to disagree with a political movement’s aims than it is to list every person with whom I’m disagreeing with as if there is no mainstream trans rights movement. So for clarity: I disagree with the trans rights activism pushed by Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence and those who put forward the idea that an undefined innate gender identity should overwrite sex in law & public policy.

You’re incorrect to see my use of “feminist” as suggesting there is only one view among those who describe themselves as feminists. I cited feminism in the context of pointing out that a feminist critique of trans activism is very unlikely to spur a violent man to assault a male who is gender non conforming.

I appreciate you elaborating on those points, thanks.

From what I've read of your arguments here (and again, I concede that it's totally possible that I'm misreading your argument), it feels to me like you see the whole thing as fairly simple, and that there is only one sensible/rational/logical view, and that that view is self-evident, but I don't agree.

I think there is a lot we don't understand about sex/gender/sexuality, and I'm inclined to believe trans people when they describe their experience -- I really don't think it's as straightforward as being 'gender non conforming'.

Clearly there are people on both 'sides' of this who just want to feel safe and respected for who they are, and I feel we still have a long way to go as a society before this is possible.

When i worked in Soho in one of the shops there
We sold magazines of all types ,
The trans people would react very differently .
3 specific types were picked out by us .

None would necessarily fall into a " sex category "
that would neccessarily fit what is being described .

Mentality it was easy to describe them .

[CEB]

What you’re misunderstanding there is that it’s the *substance* of the activism that I object to, not the idea of advocating for one’s rights.
If the mainstream form of gay rights activism was making demands that were nonsensical/regressive/incoherent, then I would indeed take issue with that form of gay rights activism. So obviously I don’t object to trans rights activism as a thing trans people might do - I don’t even object to or disagree that they have the right to make political demands. I just maintain that what the current form of trans activism argues and demands is illogical and unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to disagree with a political movement’s aims than it is to list every person with whom I’m disagreeing with as if there is no mainstream trans rights movement. So for clarity: I disagree with the trans rights activism pushed by Stonewall, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence and those who put forward the idea that an undefined innate gender identity should overwrite sex in law & public policy.

You’re incorrect to see my use of “feminist” as suggesting there is only one view among those who describe themselves as feminists. I cited feminism in the context of pointing out that a feminist critique of trans activism is very unlikely to spur a violent man to assault a male who is gender non conforming.

I appreciate you elaborating on those points, thanks.

From what I've read of your arguments here (and again, I concede that it's totally possible that I'm misreading your argument), it feels to me like you see the whole thing as fairly simple, and that there is only one sensible/rational/logical view, and that that view is self-evident, but I don't agree.

I think there is a lot we don't understand about sex/gender/sexuality, and I'm inclined to believe trans people when they describe their experience -- I really don't think it's as straightforward as being 'gender non conforming'.

Clearly there are people on both 'sides' of this who just want to feel safe and respected for who they are, and I feel we still have a long way to go as a society before this is possible.

You’re confusing the idea that trans people genuinely experience dysphoria - which I wouldn’t dispute - with the idea that experiencing dysphoria means that the person has an innate, intangible thing called a “gender identity” which actually defines what it is to be a woman or a man (and so should mean that innate gender identity overwrites the concept of sex in law)
The worth of reported experience stops when it attempts to explain or define something outside of that experience. So a male person can only possibly know what it is to be a male who is uncomfortable with his sex. He can’t know that he’s a woman, because he has nothing against which to compare his experience, aside from his idea of what it is to be a woman.

I am maintaining that my view is the only rational one, and that’s because there is no rational answer to the following question that would enable one to logically conclude that a male person with dysphoria has an intangible female quality that overrides sex, and is based on a robust understanding of what sex is. The question is this: “when a male person says ‘I am a woman’, what is that person saying about themself?”

[CEB]

Here’s a question for you oxo, which I’m asking genuinely in good faith, to illustrate the point that while I believe gender identity is sexist nonsense that is based on regressive stereotypes, it also utterly fails as a meaningful way to understand anything.

You say you’re inclined to believe trans people.

If I said “I am a woman. I know I’m a woman because I have short hair, stubble, I fancy women, and I play football. I intend to live as a woman, by not wearing make up, keeping my stubble, keeping my hair short, and wearing jeans and a T-shirt most days. I have no intention of any surgical or hormonal intervention”

Then 1: on what basis would you dispute my assertion to be a woman (if you did) ? 2: what further commitment would you want to see by me (if any) before you did consider it ok for me to access single sex spaces/sports etc reserved for women? And 3: if you did believe my assertion that I’m a woman, would you respect the rights of female people to object to me in their spaces on the basis that I remain male?

[CEB]

Regarding “belief” - I’m interested in what you mean when you say “I’m inclined to believe trans people when they describe their experience”

If we’re talking about what’s rational, rationality stops at “I understand that some trans people experience intense discomfort relating to their sexed body” - the idea that the male person is actually a woman is something that that person can’t actually possibly have insight into - it’s a metaphysical belief. A person is welcome to have a metaphysical belief, absolutely; but that should not, as far as I can see, impact the right of female people to be able to organise politically and socially on the basis of sex, and their right to maintain that male people’s beliefs about themselves don’t compel female people to believe them.

[Max B Gold]

A person is welcome to have a metaphysical belief, absolutely; but that should not, as far as I can see, impact the right of female people to be able to organise politically and socially on the basis of sex, and their right to maintain that male people’s beliefs about themselves don’t compel female people to believe them.

Only the extreme trans activists are saying this and they are few in number. Not all trans people are saying this yet your battle seems to be with every one of them. Who knows the extremists might even be getting paid to fuel the divisive culture war.

You argue using regressive arguments based on a natural order against progressive values and provide a pseudo intellectual gloss to culture war ideas supported by the likes of Galloway etc. paid for Russian patsies.

You ignore the violence which arises because arguments like yours promote an atmosphere of hate which individuals act on but you don't seem bothered by that.

That was the helicopter view I first asked about but you chose to dive in and smother it in detail, assumptions and assertions.

You need to seriously think about what cause you serve.

[CEB]

A person is welcome to have a metaphysical belief, absolutely; but that should not, as far as I can see, impact the right of female people to be able to organise politically and socially on the basis of sex, and their right to maintain that male people’s beliefs about themselves don’t compel female people to believe them.

Only the extreme trans activists are saying this and they are few in number. Not all trans people are saying this yet your battle seems to be with every one of them. Who knows the extremists might even be getting paid to fuel the divisive culture war.

You argue using regressive arguments based on a natural order against progressive values and provide a pseudo intellectual gloss to culture war ideas supported by the likes of Galloway etc. paid for Russian patsies.

You ignore the violence which arises because arguments like yours promote an atmosphere of hate which individuals act on but you don't seem bothered by that.

That was the helicopter view I first asked about but you chose to dive in and smother it in detail, assumptions and assertions.

You need to seriously think about what cause you serve.

No, the mainstream trans activism organisations such as Stonewall, Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence say this, and currently you can be expelled from the Labour Party for expressing the “belief” that trans women are biologically male. And I’ve made absolutely clear that my argument is with the form of trans activism that does say this, so I’m unclear why you think my issue is with “every trans person” rather than, as I said, the form of activism that advocates for what I’m arguing against.


Feel free to elaborate on what is progressive about making it socially taboo to not recognise that a declaration does not change the sex of a human.

And again, a feminist critique of trans activism is not the cause of male violence against gender non-confirming men. You’ll have to show your working there.

Sorry Max, it’s not my fault that you literally don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about on this subject. Again, I’ll remind you that I oppose the current mainstream form of trans activism because I tried to find a robust way of supporting it, and found it impossible to do so, because it relies wholly on the religious belief that an innate gender identity determines whether we are men or women, with sex being irrelevant.

If I’ve got that wrong, please feel free to show me where Stonewall, for example, clarifies that it doesn’t think that male people with penises are women and should have the same access to female spaces as female people?

[CEB]

If Max thinks that I’ve misrepresented the current form of trans activism, maybe he can say

1: what he thinks Stonewall means when it says “trans women are women”
2: whether he agrees with that meaning
3: what Max thinks “woman” means

[Max B Gold]

If Max thinks that I’ve misrepresented the current form of trans activism, maybe he can say

1: what he thinks Stonewall means when it says “trans women are women”
2: whether he agrees with that meaning
3: what Max thinks “woman” means

1. I don't know what Stonewall mean. To my mind if someone suffers from gender dysphoria and take steps to align their body with the gender they believe they are then I'm quite happy to accept they are women. Not so sure about those who don't go down that route as to not align their bodies to their gender suggests they may not actually have the condition and something else is going on.

3. See 1 above. And yes I'm fully aware what sex means but if people born as men take steps to become women I have no issue accepting them for what they are . Its where your argument lacks basic humanity.

[CEB]

1: what steps? Stonewall doesn’t advocate for “steps” at all, and in fact says that the only criteria for whether a person is a woman or not - in law - is whether they say they are. If you don’t know what Stonewall mean, then I’d respectfully ask you not to attempt to lecture me on which trans people are arguing what, as I know, and you don’t. Especially since your “joke” yesterday, in which you suggested that you’d consider a male to be female if he didn’t have a “tadger” as you put it, would see you called a transphobe by Stonewall.

2: again, if you know what sex is, then what “steps” are there that a man can take to become a woman? Be sure to define your terms when you explain.

3: recognising and respecting trans people *as* trans people does not deny them their humanity. I accept trans people for what they are - trans people - and would support fighting for rights based on their needs *as* trans people while balancing them against the needs of other groups. Your problem here is that you haven’t actually considered the humanity and arguments of women who argue against trans rights activism.

If you’d like to be more informed, I;d be happy to link you to some actual articles and essays that are fully sourced and cited. There’s aready one here that I’ve posted.

It’s still hilarious that you don’t actually know what trans rights organisations demand but you’re confident in telling me that whatever I think it is that they demand, I’m wrong. You must REALLY like your postie,

[Max B Gold]

I didn't say Stonewall advocate steps. You are making things up AGAIN. I'm saying what I think and if you actually read it I'm questioning the validity of the claim by some men, who choose not to transition, to be women. These appear to be the activists you have a beef with.

I've explained what I mean by steps. Transition to align their bodies with their mind.

I have considered the arguments of some radical feminists like Bindle et al and find them to lack basic humanity because in refuting the militant trans activists arguments they neglect the safety and rights of other trans women.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the postie other than you are trying to be patronising and demeaning in some way which in itself shows a lack of respect to me and the postie.

[CEB]

From Stonewall’s website as of today. Sooooo, trans women are women, also - Max himself is in disagreement with the UK’s leading trans activism charity as he maintains that unspecified “steps” need to be taken in order for someone to be recognised as trans. Oops. Sorry Max, guess you’re a transphobe too - no steps neccesary

[CEB]

I didn't say Stonewall advocate steps. You are making things up AGAIN. I'm saying what I think and if you actually read it I'm questioning the validity of the claim by some men, who choose not to transition, to be women. These appear to be the activists you have a beef with.

I've explained what I mean by steps. Transition to align their bodies with their mind.

I have considered the arguments of some radical feminists like Bindle et al and find them to lack basic humanity because in refuting the militant trans activists arguments they neglect the safety and rights of other trans women.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the postie other than you are trying to be patronising and demeaning in some way which in itself shows a lack of respect to me and the postie.

But you haven’t yet actually engaged with a single point I’ve made, and you’ve told me that I’m misunderstanding the trans rights movement. And yet I’ve just demonstrated that you’re at odds with the trans rights movement yourself. So what is the humanity that you think I’m lacking? And that Bindel also lacks? Because it’s looking a lot like you didn’t have any idea as to what trans activism says, and so you thought that anyone criticising trans activists were criticising people who have taken massive steps to alleviate dysphoria.

Remember - I’ve stated all along that my issue is with trans rights activism, and I’ve elaborated on what I take issue with and why. Do feel free to tell me what bit is “inhumane”.


But seriously, thanks so much for your helicopter view, I’ve really appreciated the knowledge and insight you brought to the discussion.

[Max B Gold]

From Stonewall’s website as of today. Sooooo, trans women are women, also - Max himself is in disagreement with the UK’s leading trans activism charity as he maintains that unspecified “steps” need to be taken in order for someone to be recognised as trans. Oops. Sorry Max, guess you’re a transphobe too - no steps neccesary

At no point have I said I am in agreement with the trans activists and their organisations. That's the problem when you "debate" in the way you do by making sneery assumptions and don't actually take on board the points raised.

[CEB]

So what is it that you disagree with me about? You’ve told me that the debate is being “framed wrongly” from the start, and yet you’ve only just now discovered that the mainstream trans rights organisations in the country are advocating for exactly what I claimed they are.

When you make a point, I’ll take it on board. So far, you haven’t actually refuted any point I’ve made or offered a substantial counter. Except that you have a sensible postie. I put it to you that maybe you aren’t quite as up on this as you thought you were when you patronised me yesterday…

[Max B Gold]

I didn't say Stonewall advocate steps. You are making things up AGAIN. I'm saying what I think and if you actually read it I'm questioning the validity of the claim by some men, who choose not to transition, to be women. These appear to be the activists you have a beef with.

I've explained what I mean by steps. Transition to align their bodies with their mind.

I have considered the arguments of some radical feminists like Bindle et al and find them to lack basic humanity because in refuting the militant trans activists arguments they neglect the safety and rights of other trans women.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the postie other than you are trying to be patronising and demeaning in some way which in itself shows a lack of respect to me and the postie.

But you haven’t yet actually engaged with a single point I’ve made, and you’ve told me that I’m misunderstanding the trans rights movement. And yet I’ve just demonstrated that you’re at odds with the trans rights movement yourself. So what is the humanity that you think I’m lacking? And that Bindel also lacks? Because it’s looking a lot like you didn’t have any idea as to what trans activism says, and so you thought that anyone criticising trans activists were criticising people who have taken massive steps to alleviate dysphoria.

Remember - I’ve stated all along that my issue is with trans rights activism, and I’ve elaborated on what I take issue with and why. Do feel free to tell me what bit is “inhumane”.


But seriously, thanks so much for your helicopter view, I’ve really appreciated the knowledge and insight you brought to the discussion.

That's not what I'm saying. I've already said that I don't fully believe that the trans activists have much of a case to be recognised as woman if they don't actually become trans women. What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Max B Gold]

So what is it that you disagree with me about? You’ve told me that the debate is being “framed wrongly” from the start, and yet you’ve only just now discovered that the mainstream trans rights organisations in the country are advocating for exactly what I claimed they are.

When you make a point, I’ll take it on board. So far, you haven’t actually refuted any point I’ve made or offered a substantial counter. Except that you have a sensible postie. I put it to you that maybe you aren’t quite as up on this as you thought you were when you patronised me yesterday…

It's certainly a thorny issue. My point yesterday was more about the use of the ant- trans movement as a weapon in the cultural war which I believed you had overlooked and that remains the case.

And yes I don't know half as much about it as you but I know enough to be concerned about the motives of some people who deploy arguments like yours.

[CEB]

Well for a start, that’s the first time you’ve actually said that. So I’m glad you’ve caught up, and happy to accept that you agree with me that the objections held by feminists to the current form of trans activism are legitimate, as earlier on this page you said that “it’s only extreme trans activists who are saying that”, but the fact is that stonewall is mainstream trans activism, and many, many organisations let stonewall write their policies for them.

So I’m still waiting to hear who it is that you think I’m “inhumane” to, as it’s not clear at all where you are disagreeing with me.

You could just accept that you weren’t as up on it as you thought…

[CEB]

You’re concerned about the motives of people who deploy arguments such as mine, even though you claim to hold the same opinions as me, and have just had it demonstrated to you that mainstream organisations in this country are advocating a point of view you disagree with.

Sounds a lot like you just think women should shut up if they’re liable to hurt the feelings of your postie.

[Max B Gold]

You’re concerned about the motives of people who deploy arguments such as mine, even though you claim to hold the same opinions as me, and have just had it demonstrated to you that mainstream organisations in this country are advocating a point of view you disagree with.

Sounds a lot like you just think women should shut up if they’re liable to hurt the feelings of your postie.

Not really.