The trans debate

[CEB]

The question is; if we go with that assumption - the idea that deprivation can lead to identity struggles and a greater reliance on seeking out a community - that would suggest that a trans identity is a coping mechanism or an adaptation, rather than an inherent part of somebody’s make up; that it is cultural rather than fundamental. (As opposed to homosexuality which is inherent)

If that’s the case, then do you see why these aspects:

1: should young people experiencing this be treated as if their asserted identity is a constant and their body can legitimately be altered hormonally and surgically to support that identity , or should they be treated as if their asserted identity is a symptom of underlying issues that can be resolved?

2: to what extent should female people have to accommodate male people who state that they are women, if we recognise that those male people are not women, they have a struggle with their identity which can be viewable through a lens of “susceptibility to identity issues through deprivation”?

Are live issues that absolutely need to be discussed openly, and that your own instincts on this would place you outside of the left’s norm which says “trans women are women”?

[Proposition Joe]

Meh. Been typing away a bit and struggling to navigate my answers to that but I guess the fact that I do think *some* people gravitate towards labelling themselves, or living as, non-binary or trans due to identity or mental health reasons rather than having an overarching physical condition would indeed set me apart from people who say it's a black and white issue and you're a terrible person if you say otherwise.

[CEB]

If you let yourself be less guarded though, and just think about it clearly: do you believe some male people who say they are women are correct: they are “women”? And if so, what is it that that could possibly mean?

Edited - yep, I get that I’m pushing the question further, so apologies for that. But it’s just really interesting to me to work out where it is that you might think someone like me is out on a limb, because the frustrating thing is that I think you’re totally reasonable in what you say there, but it’s like there’s a reluctance to follow the thought through to the end, perhaps because if you did, you might end up having the same opinion as I do (if not expressed as stridently)

Basically I want to find out where it is that I’m beyond what’s reasonable, to a person who I think is reasonable

[Tuffers#2]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-67660475

An awful story, thankfully in court.

[CEB]

[Dunners]

I for one would like to thank Greater Manchester Police from protecting this nonce from the trauma of being misgendered.

[CEB]

[Proposition Joe]

If you let yourself be less guarded though, and just think about it clearly: do you believe some male people who say they are women are correct: they are “women”? And if so, what is it that that could possibly mean?

Edited - yep, I get that I’m pushing the question further, so apologies for that. But it’s just really interesting to me to work out where it is that you might think someone like me is out on a limb, because the frustrating thing is that I think you’re totally reasonable in what you say there, but it’s like there’s a reluctance to follow the thought through to the end, perhaps because if you did, you might end up having the same opinion as I do (if not expressed as stridently)

Basically I want to find out where it is that I’m beyond what’s reasonable, to a person who I think is reasonable

Hadn't actually ignored this, just a difficult question to answer. Truth is, I don't actually know where the line is. I think some of the discourse around "women being erased" and concerns about trans people invading particular spaces is way overblown and a bit like "Reds under the bed" type stuff and comes from a place of fear and othering, with some people tagging along for their own benefit.

However, I appreciate that if I turned round tomorrow and said "I'm now Mrs PJ and everyone should treat me as a woman and I should be able to use the women only session at my local pool" etc, I have to say that would be a bit odd/off and yet I appreciate that view means I'd likely now be in some people's crosshairs as being intolerant or even a TERF. Without meaning to 'both sides' things, I think the extreme voices of both persuasions have poisoned any chance of discussing things properly and, there's probably a reasonable line to be found somewhere underneath the noise that most people could maybe agree on, but it's going to be almost impossible to unearth it now.

Actually think I owe you an apology for some previous comments, you've tried to consistently discuss this in a reasonable manner, even if I think perhaps some of your examples or hypotheticals have been a bit close to some of the more extreme chat I mentioned above (probably more for effect, I appreciate - and please don't ask me to list examples, got a game to ref).

[Hoover Attack]

Is Naomi transgender?

[Hoover Attack]

Is Melissa transgender?

[CEB]

Appreciated. I pretty much agree with all of this - I even agree that some of my examples err towards the extreme ones (my justification/contextualisation of that is always that I quietly did maybe 98% of my looking into this trying to prove my pro-trans instincts right, until I realised I couldn’t, and that the nature of the issue means that highlighting any egregious aspect of it, will always *look* extreme, because of the inherent ridiculousness of some of the claims)

I think what I’m always trying to get at here is that with most people who are casually in support of trans rights, there is barely a fag paper between what they think and what I think (the main thing is that I’ve concluded I can’t in good conscience refer to anyone as if they were the opposite sex, or not a member of their sex, while there are consequences of doing so that I think are regressive) , it’s just that I know what the big trans organisations are actually advocating for. That’s my principle concern here - what stonewall et al advocate is an extreme version of an ideology that collapses when it comes into contact with reality, and there are real practical consequences when policies and approaches are put in place based on their assertions without full scrutiny.

Anyway, cheers, that means a lot. Being out on a limb on this isn’t much fun, even for someone who enjoys an argument

[CEB]

In reply to Hoover Attack: they are both transgender according to what the main trans organisations advocate, which is self ID that can’t and shouldn’t be questioned.

That’s the point, really. And it’s where the struggle for middle ground is most difficult. Any middle ground that attempted to legislate for what actually counts as being transgender (and which ruled out as criminals) would have to be setting in stone some criteria for behaviour/presentation appropriate or inappropriate for one’s sex, essentially enshrining masculine or feminine norms in law.

What I mean is that if a law set out some criteria that ought to rule these people out from being seen as women, what would that criteria be? It forces you to consider the usefulness of the actual criteria for being a woman - being female - and to recognise that saying “Naomi above is a male criminal” is a neutral fact, not an ideological one

That is to say, neither Naomi nor Melissa re any less of a woman than, say, the male actor who identifies as a trans woman who starred in doctor who recently, or the male actor who played a Barbie in that movie; to believe that those men are actually women, while Naomi and Melissa are not, is *only* possible if you associate being a woman with meeting certain standards of behaviour or feminity.
Naomi is not a woman, but Rose West is.

[CEB]

A useful hypothetical I think, is this.

For straight men, this request

“Treat some men as if they are women”

asks literally nothing of us, while it does ask something of women.

In practice, “treat some men as if women” actually gives progressive leaning men a chance to show their progressive credentials with no drawbacks, and no real consideration of what “treating someone as a woman” actually means - most of the time, in practice, it just means “don’t draw attention to trans identity, validate their identity”

But for women, it asks that they accept the potential for male nudity in single sex spaces, male carers for elderly relatives, male people representing women in political parties, male people in female hospital wards etc.
so I kind of feel like for any man to advocate for women having to accept that, the question is

“Has your dating pool been inclusive of trans women?”

If not, then I sort of feel that men need to realise where the one place where “treat some men as if they are women” actually asks something of them, they usually decide not to. Or, as the pithy rhyme goes: TRA in the tweets, TERF in the sheets

[Dunners]

[Long slender neck]

Guidance that woke teachers will ignore

[Story of O]

Do children know who they are or what they want to be? I don’t think I did

[Dunners]

I still don't.

[Tuffers#2]

Do children know who they are or what they want to be? I don’t think I did

I wanted to be a Lion, Raaahrr

[Daily Express bot]

I knew what I wanted to do and be when I was in school as an 8 year old, pair up with Dawn Smith who looked like a human doll , in Country Dancing like every other boy in the class. We never had any Trans boys or girls as it was not in fashion.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Enjoying this interesting twist

[Proposition Joe]

I don't know the background that prompted the start of that thread but, for someone posting about people losing their sh*t, that lady is super angry.

[CEB]

The most illuminating thing about the “Kurt Cobain was trans!!!” debate, is not the stupid “no he was NOT!!!!” “we’re not saying he WAS! We’re saying it wouldn’t be SURPRISING!” back and forths, it’s this:

We know Kurt Cobain was male. We know he wore make up and dresses and was comfortable with femininity. As far as we know, there is no evidence he suffered from gender dysphoria.

Rather than thinking about which speculation is correct about how he would or wouldn’t relate to social dynamics and subcultures in 2023, it’s more useful to think about which position does more to actually fight against regressive notions of expected behaviours for the sexes.
Is it more progressive to think

1: the good looking man with long hair who sometimes wore make up may well have been a woman

2: the good looking man with long hair who sometimes wore make up is a good example of why societal expectations of masculinity and femininity are stupid.


Had Kurt been alive today, he may well have bought into ideas of transness. Whether he did so or not is immaterial to whether him doing so or not means anything

[CEB]

I don't know the background that prompted the start of that thread but, for someone posting about people losing their sh*t, that lady is super angry.

Charles Clymer is always angry

https://www.salon.com/2014/12/02/fast_c ... _feminist/

[Story of O]

The most illuminating thing about the “Kurt Cobain was trans!!!” debate, is not the stupid “no he was NOT!!!!” “we’re not saying he WAS! We’re saying it wouldn’t be SURPRISING!” back and forths, it’s this:

We know Kurt Cobain was male. We know he wore make up and dresses and was comfortable with femininity. As far as we know, there is no evidence he suffered from gender dysphoria.

Rather than thinking about which speculation is correct about how he would or wouldn’t relate to social dynamics and subcultures in 2023, it’s more useful to think about which position does more to actually fight against regressive notions of expected behaviours for the sexes.
Is it more progressive to think

1: the good looking man with long hair who sometimes wore make up may well have been a woman

2: the good looking man with long hair who sometimes wore make up is a good example of why societal expectations of masculinity and femininity are stupid.


Had Kurt been alive today, he may well have bought into ideas of transness. Whether he did so or not is immaterial to whether him doing so or not means anything

In the early 70's, a lot of men had long hair and wore make up. We called it Glam Rock

[CEB]

A good way of thinking about the Kurt Cobain thing…

You’re watching telly in 1992. Your dad comes in the room, sees Kurt in a dress and eyeliner looking brilliant. Says “is that a man or a woman?”

Is the dad showing an uncannily prescient recognition that Kurt may well have an inner female essence? Or is he being a willy because he doesn’t think real men wear make up?