The trans debate

[oxo]

What I think is rude - and maintain that you are doing - is avoiding the substance of a progressive pushback against what trans activism actually says.

I don't agree that there's anything rude about not engaging with you on your own terms. I don't owe you a debate (and neither does anybody else), even if I share my opinions here and those opinions aren't the same as yours.

For what it's worth (absolutely nothing I imagine), there are things you've posted that I broadly agree with (for example, a person can't demand that somebody else should want to sex with them; butch lesbians are not the same as trans men; sex chromosomes obviously determine the development of observable sexual characteristics; people with certain body types pose an impact risk to others in contact sports; people who have undergone male puberty on average have physical advantages in terms of strength and power).

Having said that, as I posted before:

I've read a bunch of accounts of trans people saying that gender affirming healthcare/transitioning saved their lives (i.e. that their life, lived as it was, was felt by those people to not be worth living), and now it is.

I believe those people's accounts of their own experience, and I want to believe we can progress as a society to a point where trans people can just about their business like everybody else.

I agree that this whole thing strays into the realm of metaphysics, and that's partly why I don't think you can just follow the kind of logic that applies to more straightforward subject matter and reach a meaningful conclusion about what it means to be trans.

As a society, we're in a position at the moment where Caitlyn Jenner, a trans woman, thinks that Lia Thomas shouldn't be able to compete in women's swimming tournaments, but one of the women who was beaten by Thomas the other week (the one wearing the cowboy hat in the photos, who, incidentally is a cis woman and a lesbian) has penned an article saying she supports Lia Thomas's endeavours as an athlete in the women's category.

I'm one of those mugs who does YouGov surveys, and I've seen that twice a year they ask questions about trans rights etc. When they ask people about the statement 'trans women are women', women are more likely to strongly agree than strongly disagree with the statement, and men are more likely to strongly disagree than strongly agree. If the statement 'trans women are women' is as absurd as you believe it is, it's hard not to conclude that the men who filled out the survey have a better idea of what constitutes a women than the women who filled out the survey.

So for me, this really is a complicated issue, and for you it isn't, and I think we're just going to have to leave it there.

[Max Fowler]

That’s not how it works, oxo. You don’t just agree to disagree and leave things there with CEB.

[Dextercoindexter]

Its a complex issue which I have differing opinions on, depending on the element.

If it was my child I would do my absolutely very best to support them and help them into being themselves. But I'd also try to do the very hard job of convincing them to wait. Your body and your mind changes so much before and after puberty. The things I wanted at 10 were very different at 16, as were the things i wanted at 23 are different today, ten years later. It's hard to understand that when you are young though and ultimately it's very difficult for anyone if they cant be themselves, no matter what age. I think you need to balance listening, understanding and your responsibility as a guardian.

‘It’s a complex issue’

Not many!

[CEB]

The survey you respond to has vastly different results when - on the part that has been cropped out of the version you’ve seen - it’s made clear that people who retain male genitalia are included in the category “trans women”


Regarding the rest - it’s meaningless. If you are not prepared to actually say what meaning you ascribe to the terms “man” and “woman” (and instead resort to “look at other people who think the same as me”) then you aren’t actually saying anything aside from repeating a faith based mantra.
It’s quite baffling that you don’t think “accepting male demands” is something women are conditioned to do from birth, and so male people are indeed less likely to comply with bullshit - especially in a context where women who don’t comply are condemned.

But again, “trans women are women” is meaningless without a definition of “woman”. If you have a definition of woman or some criteria for eligibility in that category, let’s hear it. If you don’t, then you’re very welcome to just handwave it with “some women agree”. I know the arguments of the women who actually agree: they’re no better than yours. I don’t be.I’ve trans women are women, and that’s because “woman” is the word to describe an adult female human. Are you suggesting that trans women are adult female humans?

I’m sorry if I seem combative, but it’s hard not to come across as such when addressing such piss poor, badly thought out nonsense as what you’re saying in support of your position.

[CEB]

And since I’ve seen young, same sex attracted women go into severe mental health decline, cycling through eating disorders, self harm, and then onto the “lovely”cultish bullshit that is trans tumblr and within months be fundraising to have healthy breasts removed at EIGHTEEN years old to affirm a trans identity they’ve convinced they had, as part of a significant f***ing rise in young women identifying out of womanhood (coincidentally over a period where young men watch lots of violent porn and where “lesbian” is mostly seen as a category of porn, and where identifying as trans is considered very socially credible) you can forgive me for thinking that supporting this bullshit is homophobic as f***, as well as being regressive and misogynistic. So you do misunderstand, because actually, OF COURSE young trans men are OVERWHELMINGLY women who would have been “butch lesbians” in a different social context.

[CEB]

That’s not how it works, oxo. You don’t just agree to disagree and leave things there with CEB.

This is a thread called “the trans debate”; I’ll be articulating my position. I fully expect people to decide not to engage with the fundamentals of my position, because absolutely no robust acknowledgement of the left wing objection to trans activism has ever actually been put forth.

There’s an open invitation for anyone who doesn’t have to dash due to it being game day to put me right on a few points on which I’m unsure.

[Max B Gold]

"I’m coming at this from a left wing, progressive perspective"

CEB LOFC MB March 2022

Yeah, you and Putin both. #Demented.

I'm beginning to wonder just what it is that makes you so angry, intolerant and abusive when it comes to this particular issue.

Did you have a bad experience with a transwoman when you got to second base and got a fright when you discovered the old tadger?

Anyway must dash. Fives to ref tonight.

[oxo]

Did you have a bad experience with a transwoman when you got to second base and got a fright when you discovered the old tadger?

Don’t think there’s any need for this really, Max.

[oxo]

And since I’ve seen young, same sex attracted women go into severe mental health decline

I’m genuinely sorry to hear this, I’ve experienced severe mental health problems myself, and it’s unspeakably bad.

[Dextercoindexter]

Seems you know f*** all then.

I used to play with my sister’s Barbie Dolls as a kid with my Action Men and have the odd peek up the kilt. Was a shock to see they both had the same then underneath, naff all!!!

[Mistadobalina]

That’s not how it works, oxo. You don’t just agree to disagree and leave things there with CEB.

This is a thread called “the trans debate”; I’ll be articulating my position. I fully expect people to decide not to engage with the fundamentals of my position, because absolutely no robust acknowledgement of the left wing objection to trans activism has ever actually been put forth.

There’s an open invitation for anyone who doesn’t have to dash due to it being game day to put me right on a few points on which I’m unsure.

You keep referring to trans activism as a catch all term and then using that as grounds for attacking anyone who identifies as the opposite gender, who's politics on the subject you know nothing about. The moral certainty and fundamentalism you seem to be ascribing to the entire population of trans people has never existed in the real life scenarios where I've actually known trans people. When it has come up as a subject with them, the general line has been 'i appreciate this stuff is complex, but the main thing is for people to be respectful and supportive, even if they don't get it 'right' or agree 100%'. Stuff like referring them to by their preferred pronoun or essentially recognising their own sense of femininity. It may seem silly or like semantics to you, but it has mattered a lot to the people I know.

To give a very shortened definition, I'd say a trans woman or man is asking to be treated according to the defined gender roles that we as a society have created and to at least be afforded the dignity of being referred to/treated by the gender they identify as. Obviously there are many variations within that, but as a baseline of what it means, I don't think there's much to object to.

There's a more assertive wing of trans rights activism that goes beyond that into areas that are much thornier, I wouldn't contest that at all. But there is a need to massively cool down the language on this for both sides. Mostly people are trying their best to understand a relatively novel phenomena that is difficult and challenges assumptions that are built into us at a very young age.

[CEB]

That’s not how it works, oxo. You don’t just agree to disagree and leave things there with CEB.

This is a thread called “the trans debate”; I’ll be articulating my position. I fully expect people to decide not to engage with the fundamentals of my position, because absolutely no robust acknowledgement of the left wing objection to trans activism has ever actually been put forth.

There’s an open invitation for anyone who doesn’t have to dash due to it being game day to put me right on a few points on which I’m unsure.

You keep referring to trans activism as a catch all term and then using that as grounds for attacking anyone who identifies as the opposite gender, who's politics on the subject you know nothing about. The moral certainty and fundamentalism you seem to be ascribing to the entire population of trans people has never existed in the real life scenarios where I've actually known trans people. When it has come up as a subject with them, the general line has been 'i appreciate this stuff is complex, but the main thing is for people to be respectful and supportive, even if they don't get it 'right' or agree 100%'. Stuff like referring them to by their preferred pronoun or essentially recognising their own sense of femininity. It may seem silly or like semantics to you, but it has mattered a lot to the people I know.

To give a very shortened definition, I'd say a trans woman or man is asking to be treated according to the defined gender roles that we as a society have created and to at least be afforded the dignity of being referred to/treated by the gender they identify as. Obviously there are many variations within that, but as a baseline of what it means, I don't think there's much to object to.

There's a more assertive wing of trans rights activism that goes beyond that into areas that are much thornier, I wouldn't contest that at all. But there is a need to massively cool down the language on this for both sides. Mostly people are trying their best to understand a relatively novel phenomena that is difficult and challenges assumptions that are built into us at a very young age.

I agree with you insofar as trans people absolutely aren’t a homogenous mass of one opinion. The issue is that the “more assertive wing” of trans activism is actually the mainstream form of it, and is what informs the policies of Stonewall, Mermaids and has been the cause of controversial practices at gender identity clinics (with stonewall also aggressively pushing to change the law based on the “assertive” form)

I absolutely understand that in taking up the position where - due *solely* to maintaining clear objections to mainstream trans activists - it involves a refusal to change language in a way that would suggest that I share the belief in a gender identity: understand that I use language on this topic in one way when being clear about my position on contentious subjects, while being more accommodating in social situations.

If/when mainstream trans rights organisations focus on rights *as* trans people and holistic health care that examines underlying causes of dysphoria and honest engagement with consequences of treatments for young people, rather than focusing on redefining/erasing sex, then I will happily and actively change tack to being a supporter of trans rights, and - as with religion - respecting a belief in gender identity, without sharing it myself. I appreciate your engagement.

[Max B Gold]

Did you have a bad experience with a transwoman when you got to second base and got a fright when you discovered the old tadger?

Don’t think there’s any need for this really, Max.

Ok, so you don't like my joke. Is this any good?

[Mistadobalina]

This is a thread called “the trans debate”; I’ll be articulating my position. I fully expect people to decide not to engage with the fundamentals of my position, because absolutely no robust acknowledgement of the left wing objection to trans activism has ever actually been put forth.

There’s an open invitation for anyone who doesn’t have to dash due to it being game day to put me right on a few points on which I’m unsure.

You keep referring to trans activism as a catch all term and then using that as grounds for attacking anyone who identifies as the opposite gender, who's politics on the subject you know nothing about. The moral certainty and fundamentalism you seem to be ascribing to the entire population of trans people has never existed in the real life scenarios where I've actually known trans people. When it has come up as a subject with them, the general line has been 'i appreciate this stuff is complex, but the main thing is for people to be respectful and supportive, even if they don't get it 'right' or agree 100%'. Stuff like referring them to by their preferred pronoun or essentially recognising their own sense of femininity. It may seem silly or like semantics to you, but it has mattered a lot to the people I know.

To give a very shortened definition, I'd say a trans woman or man is asking to be treated according to the defined gender roles that we as a society have created and to at least be afforded the dignity of being referred to/treated by the gender they identify as. Obviously there are many variations within that, but as a baseline of what it means, I don't think there's much to object to.

There's a more assertive wing of trans rights activism that goes beyond that into areas that are much thornier, I wouldn't contest that at all. But there is a need to massively cool down the language on this for both sides. Mostly people are trying their best to understand a relatively novel phenomena that is difficult and challenges assumptions that are built into us at a very young age.

I agree with you insofar as trans people absolutely aren’t a homogenous mass of one opinion. The issue is that the “more assertive wing” of trans activism is actually the mainstream form of it, and is what informs the policies of Stonewall, Mermaids and has been the cause of controversial practices at gender identity clinics (with stonewall also aggressively pushing to change the law based on the “assertive” form)

I absolutely understand that in taking up the position where - due *solely* to maintaining clear objections to mainstream trans activists - it involves a refusal to change language in a way that would suggest that I share the belief in a gender identity: understand that I use language on this topic in one way when being clear about my position on contentious subjects, while being more accommodating in social situations.

If/when mainstream trans rights organisations focus on rights *as* trans people and holistic health care that examines underlying causes of dysphoria and honest engagement with consequences of treatments for young people, rather than focusing on redefining/erasing sex, then I will happily and actively change tack to being a supporter of trans rights, and - as with religion - respecting a belief in gender identity, without sharing it myself. I appreciate your engagement.

'The cause of controversial practices' is a massive simplification. Presumably you're referring to Tavistock. It sounded like the issues there owed at least as much to being under resourced, demanding parents and old fashioned medical uncertainty - ie there's a lot we don't know about how puberty blockers effect body in long term, only now understanding the sorts of profiles of pubescent kids that come forward with self identified gender dysphoria (ie we now know children with autism are highly over represented). They were working in a difficult and relatively new field with a paralysing workload in an enormously emotional situation.

I don't want to sound like I'm downplaying the significance of mistakes that clearly took place. But I don't think you can attribute that completely, or even largely, to mainstream trans activism. Teams of qualified medical professionals ultimately sign off on any treatments. I'd be interested to know how influenced they are by lobbyist groups, I'm skeptical that it'd be to a significant extent myself.

In the same way that you'd use non prejudical language against women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals on a board because you never know who reads this stuff- I think respectful tone toward trans people is basic decency. You can disagree on the rights and definitions whilst maintaining a respect for how people wish to be defined. Arm chair speculation on a rape victims reasons for coming out as trans pretty clearly misses the bar imo.

[CEB]

I respect people’s ability to define themselves right in to the point where their definition redefines another group against their will.

“Trans women are women” removes the meaning of the word “woman”, and doesnt replace it with anything tangible. Women have given good reasons why they say no to having *their* definition changed to accommodate male people who want in, and you - like everyone else - won’t be able to provide a meaningful definition of “woman” that would include some male people without being sexist.
Which is why I will support a trans activism that recognises that “trans women” are not members of the same sex as “women” (because they aren’t) and that there are circumstances where that matters.

“Female people have the right to organise politically and socially, and to have resources and spaces on the basis of sex, where male people can be excluded” is my position. mainstream trans activism doesn’t respect that, which is why I reserve the right to use language that maintains clarity, and to reject language that obfuscates in order to avoid addressing the question of why female people should not be able to say “we need spaces free from male people”

[Currywurst and Chips]

I don't think the people advocating for the position that it's impossible to define a woman or that women can have penises understand the impact that would have on law, especially around domestic violence and sexual offences.

[Max B Gold]

I don't think the people advocating for the position that it's impossible to define a woman or that women can have penises understand the impact that would have on law, especially around domestic violence and sexual offences.

And?

Change the law and ensure ALL citizens are protected by it. Its not beyond the Ken of man.

[Currywurst and Chips]

Old gammon in wanting to remove protections for women in law shocker

[CEB]

I don't think the people advocating for the position that it's impossible to define a woman or that women can have penises understand the impact that would have on law, especially around domestic violence and sexual offences.

And?

Change the law and ensure ALL citizens are protected by it. Its not beyond the Ken of man.

You’re absolutely right. It is not beyond the Ken of “men” (how do you know they’re men, out of interest?) to change the law and ensure that in doing so, all citizens are protected. The way that is usually done is by open discussion of the implications of law changes, and clarity of language, including absolutely clear definition of terms. And the reason that female people who are concerned about the potential impact of single sex spaces is because nobody - either in mainstream trans activism, or even in conversation here - can give meaningful definition of the terms used, or criteria for eligibility into proposed categories, and when feminists have publicly raised their concerns, they’ve been ignored, demonised, hounded out of jobs, threatened, subject to abuse and harrassment.

Mistabolina above suggested (paraphrasing) that most people agree that trans people are people suffering a degree of discomfort with their sexed bodies, and who live to some extent according to socially constructed expectations of the opposite sex. That’s a decent working definition of what it is to be trans, that would be a very good starting point for discussing trans rights. However, trans activism, and the proposed reforms to the gender recognition act, go much further, and overwrite sex with gender identity, without a working definition of either what a gender identity actually is, what the differences are between a “man” gender identity and a “woman” gender identity, and without any scrutiny of how somebody’s assertions about themselves might be falsified. What the “trans debate” actual;y *is*, is feminists pointing out that proposed reforms to the law are unworkable and have a disproportionate impact on female people. Feminists are the “men” providing the “Ken” of where there’s a potential clash of rights. I wonder who it is you’re thinking will magically ensure the interests of female people are protected? The most famous female writer in the world got rape threats and told to choke on girldick for suggesting that sex matters, so, you know, it’s not without consequence for women to discuss this if they object to some of trans activism’s demands…

[Max B Gold]

I don't think the people advocating for the position that it's impossible to define a woman or that women can have penises understand the impact that would have on law, especially around domestic violence and sexual offences.

And?

Change the law and ensure ALL citizens are protected by it. Its not beyond the Ken of man.

You’re absolutely right. It is not beyond the Ken of “men” (how do you know they’re men, out of interest?) to change the law and ensure that in doing so, all citizens are protected.

It's merely a cliche applied in a situation to make the point that it is not beyond human intelligence to find solutions.

It's ironic that as a man you are the robust advocate of what women think and want in relation to fair treatment for transwomen yet you imply that I'm being unconciously sexist! I'm not, the use of "men" was deliberate but even though you suspected that you just couldn't help yourself.


The way that is usually done is by open discussion of the implications of law changes, and clarity of language, including absolutely clear definition of terms. And the reason that female people who are concerned about the potential impact of single sex spaces is because nobody - either in mainstream trans activism, or even in conversation here - can give meaningful definition of the terms used, or criteria for eligibility into proposed categories, and when feminists have publicly raised their concerns, they’ve been ignored, demonised, hounded out of jobs, threatened, subject to abuse and harrassment.

The law doesn't work in the black and white way you desire. It provides working definitions and laws that are often challenged as to their interpretation and meaning and precedent is created via the Courts. It's a messy business as will be the process of protecting ALL citizens.


Mistabolina above suggested (paraphrasing) that most people agree that trans people are people suffering a degree of discomfort with their sexed bodies, and who live to some extent according to socially constructed expectations of the opposite sex. That’s a decent working definition of what it is to be trans, that would be a very good starting point for discussing trans rights. However, trans activism, and the proposed reforms to the gender recognition act, go much further, and overwrite sex with gender identity, without a working definition of either what a gender identity actually is, what the differences are between a “man” gender identity and a “woman” gender identity, and without any scrutiny of how somebody’s assertions about themselves might be falsified. What the “trans debate” actual;y *is*, is feminists pointing out that proposed reforms to the law are unworkable and have a disproportionate impact on female people. Feminists are the “men” providing the “Ken” of where there’s a potential clash of rights. I wonder who it is you’re thinking will magically ensure the interests of female people are protected? The most famous female writer in the world got rape threats and told to choke on girldick for suggesting that sex matters, so, you know, it’s not without consequence for women to discuss this if they object to some of trans activism’s demands…

See above. Nobody said it was going to be easy. I remain convinced that through reasoned discussion all parties can reach a settlement to protect the rights of ALL citizens and end sex and gender discrimination.

[CEB]

^ I note that MB Gold doesn’t actually offer any working definitions, potential solutions. He’s just “convinced” there will be one.

For the record, I don’t claim to speak for women on this, and plenty of women agree with the mainstream form of trans activism.i haven’t deferred to anyone in particular on this - I’ve just listened to a range of views and d]found those of trans activism to be - demonstrably - incoherent and inconsistent. But as a male person, I find it incumbent to listen to the female people who say “no” to male people in their spaces, and not only listen to the ones who say “yes”. When I see robust counter arguments to the feminist argument against trans activism, I’ll be all ears. I’ve not seen one on this thread yet.

[Max B Gold]

^ I note that MB Gold doesn’t actually offer any working definitions, potential solutions. He’s just “convinced” there will be one.

For the record, I don’t claim to speak for women on this, and plenty of women agree with the mainstream form of trans activism.i haven’t deferred to anyone in particular on this - I’ve just listened to a range of views and d]found those of trans activism to be - demonstrably - incoherent and inconsistent. But as a male person, I find it incumbent to listen to the female people who say “no” to male people in their spaces, and not only listen to the ones who say “yes”. When I see robust counter arguments to the feminist argument against trans activism, I’ll be all ears. I’ve not seen one on this thread yet.

I'm not a lawyer only someone who deals with probably some of the most complex legislation on the statute. I'm sure I could come up with something but what value would it have on here?

There's no counter argument because as I understand it most on here (me included) see many aspects of the trans activists positions as extreme.

[Dunners]

There's also precedent for the creation and development of law and a law-based society to exist in conjunction with nonsense beliefs that do not hold up to any intellectual scrutiny. We still tiptoe around the issue of religion.

But, as Wes "man of the people" Streeting said in that clip I posted on the other thread: we're still figuring this out. And while we may not end up with a solution that anyone loves, hopefully it can be one that we live with.

Although, judging by the reaction of the woke mob, you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd recited Mein Kampf.

[faldO]

Transgender issues were discussed in The Daily Politics today, with Emily Bridges the focus of attention. She was due to compete against the likes of Laura Kenny in the National Omnium cycle race at the weekend but now is not.

Stella Creasy described those who define sex as what people have in their underwear as "seeking titillation".

[Max B Gold]

There's also precedent for the creation and development of law and a law-based society to exist in conjunction with nonsense beliefs that do not hold up to any intellectual scrutiny. We still tiptoe around the issue of religion.

But, as Wes "man of the people" Streeting said in that clip I posted on the other thread: we're still figuring this out. And while we may not end up with a solution that anyone loves, hopefully it can be one that we live with.

Although, judging by the reaction of the woke mob, you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd recited Mein Kampf.

He's still a khunt though. Right?