The Republican War on Transgender People, Drag Queens, and Queerness in General

[DannyL]

look, I am aware that I can be abrasive. this stuff fills me with boiling rage. not the flamewar insults - I could not give less of a shit about any of that - but the abject cruelty that is at the bottom of most transphobia. t.

This is the roots of my position, really. It's essentially an ethical one, aside from all the arguments and definitions of what gender really is etc etc. It's interesting etc etc but really being pro-trans rights is simply an affirmation against cruelty. No one arguing the anti-trans position here seems to recognise the consequences of their arguments is to increase the amount of hatred in the world.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

one reason behind all the random guys huffing this nonsense is because they're overcompensating for their own transphobia. they're weirded out by trans people and they're ashamed they feel disgust so they go the other way to overcompensate.

another factor is guilt about being too late to the party when it came to gay rights. they can't be arsed to look closely into this so just assume it's essentially a repeat of the same movement and don't wanna be on the wrong side of history again.

not giving a shit about women's rights seals the deal.

I don't want to ruin the olive branch above, but I have to say that trans and other gender-nonconforming people have been a part of the gay rights struggle literally since its inception (shoutout Marsha P. Johnson and all the other heros on whose shoulders we stand), and to frame trans rights as a "repeat" is an inaccurate rewrite of history. it's the same struggle.

and the other two points are also wrong, as well as pretty offensive, but they're not really serious - no offense, they're just not - so idk as they need to be seriously addressed. the overcompensation thing is straight out of the "but what if the real fascists are the anti-fascists" school of bizarre inversions of reality.

 

[DannyL]

This is the roots of my position, really. It's essentially an ethical one, aside from all the arguments and definitions of what gender really is etc etc. It's interesting etc etc but really being pro-trans rights is simply an affirmation against cruelty. No one arguing the anti-trans position here seems to recognise the consequences of their arguments is to increase the amount of hatred in the world.

To develop that, and respond to your point above, to convince me, you'd have to convince me that the positions your advocating aren't going to turn up the dial on violence, verbal or otherwise.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

This is the roots of my position, really. It's essentially an ethical one, aside from all the arguments and definitions of what gender really is etc etc. It's interesting et c but really being pro-trans rights is an affirmation against cruelty.

it's true, all the rest is really a scaffolding built onto the bedrock of opposing that cruelty. a very important scaffolding, because it determines why that stance is important and how to best go about doing it, but that is its emotional core for me and I suspect any ally. for trans people themselves it's obviously a struggle for survival and the right to physical safety and the same basic dignities that other people have.

and it's not the only part of society where similar cruelty is directed at vulnerable people. the way, especially in the U.S., that homeless/unhoused people are often treated and discussed. demonization of migrants. or the way that anti-abortion laws disproportionately target the poor, especially poor women of color, and underage pregnancies, and deny them the control of their own bodies. it is all the rhetoric, and often policies, of cruelty.

this is the one I know best and that is the closest to me, so this is the one I focus on, but they're all important to stand against.

could you relink that podcast when you get a chance, also? I'd like to listen to it. it's definitely a better forum for it, bc as you said these are complex and multifaceted issues which are hard to capture in message board posts.

 

[DannyL]

could you relink that podcast when you get a chance, also? I'd like to listen to it. it's definitely a better forum for it, bc as you said these are complex and multifaceted issues which are hard to capture in message board posts.

Sure, here ya go: https://thedigradio.com/podcast/trans-children-w-jules-gill-peterson/

Would like to read her book but I already have too many tomes to get through

 

[maxi]

I've done multiple lengthy breakdowns of the exact processes by which that narrative is created and sustained, with names and facts and links, and people don't even contest them - they just ignore them entirely and repeat the same gender-critical talking points ad nauseam again and again.

that's a fair point I know I haven't addressed loads of the things you've said. but in my defence, I had just argued all day with mr tea, I had stuff to do and couldn't take on a whole other discussion. then I lost my temper after seeing what read to me as increasingly emotive and accusatory posts in reply to me.

anyway I have a lot to say in response to all your replies but it will take some time. I want to keep everything calm and respectful. Ultimately we both feel strongly and obviously we just disagree massively on loads of things including the facts, so there's always a danger of it spilling over, but I promise I will try my hardest. I hope we can agree that we are not just trying to wind each other up and are arguing in good faith, so that's the starting point.

(not that I'm suggesting this is some kind of one-on-one thread and there aren't plenty of others with an interest, but just putting it this way cos you made a lot of posts in reply to mine)

 

[maxi]

first of all, to be absolutely clear on definitions: I'll use the phrase "trans activist" rather than "transactivist" if you prefer. By this I do not mean "trans people who are activists". Instead I'm referring to anyone involved in activism that purports to advocate for trans rights. many of these activists are not trans themselves of course, and many trans people are not involved in activism. so just getting that out the way, because I'm not using this term to criticise trans people as people.

also, as always, the claim that transphobes are motivated by care for children or the supposed sexualization of children rather than yunno, transphobia, is revealed as total bullshit by the fact that they are totally silent about the rampant sexualization of children in things like child beauty pageants etc, and surgeries done on intersex infants and children which, unlike gender-affirming care, are totally nonconsensual

things which, you may notice, reinforce rather than challenge the gender binary

In response to this I said "they're not silent on those things though". Then you said:

point me to anywhere that TERFs - or GC ppl if you prefer - or other anti-trans folks have been publicly, vocally critical of nonconsensual surgery performed on intersex minors

these are people who post obsessively about trans people 24/7/365. Surely you should be able to find some material about intersex surgery if they're equally concerned with it.

as a preliminary point, I think people should be allowed to focus on one issue, without being accused of being unconcerned with other related issues. This would be like accusing an academic focused on the holocaust of being racist because they don't write about other examples of genocide. People can only do so much and tend to focus on one area.

But that aside, in the post I was replying to here, you referred to transphobes (which I took to mean anyone critical of gender ideology - obviously I don't view them as transphobes) as "totally silent about the rampant sexualization of children in things like child beauty pageants." - but this is the kind of thing Kathleen Stock comments on all the time, outside the context of trans issues. Here are her Unherd articles which discuss many other issues unrelated to trans. https://unherd.com/author/kathleen-stock/

Here's one that specifically focuses on the sexualisation of children with no mention of trans https://unherd.com/2022/12/why-is-fashion-selling-children/
"..But there are subtler ways to use children as means to adult ends. We can sign them up to a modelling agency. We can put them in a beauty pageant. We can upload their pictures with amusing captions on Facebook, in a way that makes us look like good parents."

The substantial left-wing feminist movement in the UK that criticises trans activism has a long history of involvement in a plethora of other feminist issues, and they are of course critical of the gender binary. That's what makes them feminists or radical feminists in the first place. So ultimately I don't really understand your point here. Feminists are concerned with women and girls, so care for children is a significant part of that.

As for nonconsensual surgery performed on intersex people, this affects a miniscule number of people. They deserve compassion and attention, but at the same time it makes sense that this issue would not be focused on by people claiming to be "motivated by care for children," as you put it, to an equal degree as gender ideology's effects on children, which has grown exponentially recently so warrants particular attention. Nevertheless, I've seen criticism of surgery performed on intersex people by feminists too, as the issue has come up tangentially in the trans debate because of the fact that trans activists, in my opinion, politicise intersex people to make arguments about sex not being a binary, despite the fact it is an entirely separate issue from trans.

also I forget that part where the UK was a totally harmonious polity that didn't have a generationally divisive vote that has thrown the country into disarray for the last 7 years. absolutely no polarization among British people.

I swear there is almost nothing sillier than smug Europeans pretending they are somehow above American nonsense. yall are just less honest about it.

I didn’t suggest it’s "totally harmonious" in the UK, but I think US politics is extremely polarised to a level that you don't get in the UK. My impression is that politics come as a package in the US and you choose one extreme or the other, especially post-trump. If someone starts criticising trans activism, people on both sides in the US assume that person is right-wing. If someone wants to be on the left, they are pressured to adopt all the associated views wholesale including all the gender ideology stuff. (not that the mainstream US left is particularly left at all but that's another issue)

This does exist in the UK too, I'm not denying that, but to a much smaller extent. This can be seen by the fact that there are many more prominent left-wingers criticising gender ideology/trans activism, such as the grassroots feminists I mentioned above.

 

[subvert47]

First off, "gender ideology" is a strawman. It doesn't represent what trans people actually think either about themselves or about gender, which in my experience tends to be very feminist. Indeed, elsewhere "gender ideology" is primarily used to hate on feminists.

Similarly, "trans activism" is a dehumanising formulation. It's a way of hating on trans people while maintaining plausible deniability. It's the same as "extreme gay activism" in the time of Section 28. Or, if we have to go there, "global jewish conspiracy". Trans activism is just trans people campaigning to improve their lot in society. (Allies are not trans activists.)

No, your "prominent" left-wingers and feminists have always been on the fringes in the UK. Here the left, and feminists, and women in general, are (as polling shows) mostly supportive of trans rights. Your feminists (etc) are only prominent now because the right have decided to boost them for political ends. That they don't care they're being boosted by the right, by people who are mostly against everything else they believe in, that they don't mind being associated with them, don't care about facilitating them regardless of the consequences, not least to themselves, is indicative of how extremely transphobic they are. Thus, for example, you get JK Rowling liking a pro-Taliban tweet simply because it's anti-trans.

I'm reminded of something Clive James once said: which was that whenever he found himself in agreement with Jane Fonda he immediately revisited his opinion to see what was wrong with it. Equivalently (putting Jane Fonda to the side), when you find you're in agreement with the right en masse – including the extreme right, the Christian fundamentalist right, the hardcore Islamic right, homophobes en masse, anti-feminists en masse, people who are against everything else you believe in – I'd suggest that, rather than doubling down, it's way past time to revisit your opinions to see what's wrong with them.

This is what I meant by...

What you've actually said isn't worth addressing. It's all scary what-iffery without substance. (...) So why shouldn't I just regard you as another ignorant rightbro?

So you're on the left. So what. Your opinions are the same as everyone I just mentioned. I'm not interested in how you try to justify them. Padraig can take them apart line by line, word by word, and respect to him for that. But really you should be thinking yourself about why you think the same on this one issue as people you disagree with about everything else.

 

[maxi]

First off, "gender ideology" is a strawman. It doesn't represent what trans people actually think either about themselves or about gender, which in my experience tends to be very feminist. Indeed, elsewhere "gender ideology" is primarily used to hate on feminists.

not a strawman but I agree with the second sentence here. like i said I'm not talking about trans people or what they actually think which obviously varies as they are all individuals. I'm using that term to refer to the thinking underpinning the activism claiming to represent them. So that's what I mean by it, and that's how it's commonly used. I have to use some shorthand terms to refer to what I'm talking about.

Similarly, "trans activism" is a dehumanising formulation. It's a way of hating on trans people while maintaining plausible deniability. It's the same as "extreme gay activism" in the time of Section 28. Or, if we have to go there, "global jewish conspiracy". Trans activism is just trans people campaigning to improve their lot in society. (Allies are not trans activists.)

At the beginning of my post I made it clear how I defined the term. Again, I have to use shorthand terms to refer to what I'm talking about or it will take forever. What term do you use to refer to this activism? It's not the same as "extreme gay activism" because it doesn't use the word "extreme". It's a neutral term this is clear to see.

No, your "prominent" left-wingers and feminists have always been on the fringes in the UK. Here the left, and feminists, and women in general, are (as polling shows) mostly supportive of trans rights. Your feminists (etc) are only prominent now because the right have decided to boost them for political ends. That they don't care they're being boosted by the right, by people who are mostly against everything else they believe in, that they don't mind being associated with them, don't care about facilitating them regardless of the consequences, not least to themselves, is indicative of how extremely transphobic they are. Thus, for example, you get JK Rowling liking a pro-Taliban tweet simply because it's anti-trans.

there's a lot of disagreement among feminists around whether it's OK to work with enemies towards a specific common goal. many of them refuse to do this, recognising that the right have entirely different motivations and a totally different ultimate goal which obviously opposes feminism too. Others are willing to work with them on specific issues. So the way you've characterised it is wrong. The fact that someone clicking like on a tweet is the best example you can provide is revealing.

when you find you're in agreement with the right en masse – including the extreme right, the Christian fundamentalist right, the hardcore Islamic right, homophobes en masse, anti-feminists en masse, people who are against everything else you believe in – I'd suggest that, rather than doubling down, it's way past time to revisit your opinions to see what's wrong with them.

they're not in agreement though. their opinions are just mischaracterised as being in agreement with the far-right as a crude attempting of discrediting them. they say completely different things. I'm saying and have said completely different things to them right here.

So you're on the left. So what. Your opinions are the same as everyone I just mentioned. I'm not interested in how you try to justify them. Padraig can take them apart line by line, word by word, and respect to him for that. But really you should be thinking yourself about why you think the same on this one issue as people you disagree with about everything else.

Please can you stop personalising everything. No, my opinions aren't the same as everyone you just mentioned. That's a ridiculous thing to say

I'm not interested in how you try to justify them. Padraig can take them apart line by line, word by word, and respect to him for that.

if you're not interested in what Im saying then why respond? just let padraig respond instead if you want, that would probably be for the best, because for the most part you haven't addressed any of the points I raised, and they were in response to a very specific point he was making about people motivated by caring for children supposedly being transphobic.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I know who Margaret Sanger was, yeah. She's been dead for going on 60 years and modern Planned Parenthood is vastly different from her original vision. Whatever public credibility eugenics had was destroyed, as I'm sure you already know, by its close association with the Nazis. Modern eugenics is almost entirely a far-right phenomenon under the guise of "human biodiversity" (HBD), which is just a newer iteration of exactly the kind of pseudoscience race theory that the Nazis advocated (and before them, phrenologists etc).

Whereas the many awful people promoting anti-trans (and anti-choice, it's mostly the same people) rhetoric and policies are doing so right now. They are not long dead, and the organizations they're involved in are expressing their current, actual views. So that equivalence is false.

This an approach RWers will also commonly use when claiming that anti-racists are actually the real racists, saying some version of "but which party was against/ended slavery?", as if the respective political parties have been frozen since in stasis since 1860, the Civil Rights Act and subsequent mass exodus of white Southern Democrats never happened, etc

A valiant effort in the circumstances, but you do realise that the outcomes of abortion policy nowadays exactly match the objectives which Sanger had, right?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I looked at it

I don't think the original post - the screenshot - is really transphobic. there are disapproving overtones, but it's a parent struggling to get to grips with a major event that just happened, and it's reasonable in that context. if her kid had been saying this for 3 years and she was asking for advice on how to stop it, different story.

the comments, however, are overwhelmingly transphobic. the very first one says there is no such thing as trans children (the child in question is 15, tbc). not just no surgery/hormones, they don't exist. they frequently mention "social contagion" and blame social media, and say transition is a fad and/or attention-seeking (i.e. ROGD). they complain that about transitioning being a replacement for pushing against normative gender roles without transitioning. and so on. every single one of these is a key TERF talking point and none of them are true. multiple posts direct her to a support group for parents, Bayswater, which enumerates those same points and more - all the greatest TERF hits, really - in greater detail, as well as linking to specific GC websites - the 4th Wave, Transgender Trend (I mean, come on), etc. the entire message is "don't trust your child, it's a phase, do everything you can to stamp it out". that is the essence of transphobia.

I'm sure that there are plenty of areas of mumsnet which focus on parenting issues that have nothing to do with trans people, but based on that thread, in addition to all the other evidence, I would absolutely call it a haven for transphobia. I mean one of the commenters literally says "us TERFs". if that's not sufficient evidence, what exactly is?

So you think it can be a phase then if you think the screenshot is acceptable...interesting. There are tens of culture-specific phenomena so obviously there could be a memetic element.

And if you're anti-essentialist everything's contagion

 

[mixed_biscuits]

First off, "gender ideology" is a strawman. It doesn't represent what trans people actually think either about themselves or about gender, which in my experience tends to be very feminist. Indeed, elsewhere "gender ideology" is primarily used to hate on feminists.

Similarly, "trans activism" is a dehumanising formulation. It's a way of hating on trans people while maintaining plausible deniability. It's the same as "extreme gay activism" in the time of Section 28. Or, if we have to go there, "global jewish conspiracy". Trans activism is just trans people campaigning to improve their lot in society. (Allies are not trans activists.)

No, your "prominent" left-wingers and feminists have always been on the fringes in the UK. Here the left, and feminists, and women in general, are (as polling shows) mostly supportive of trans rights. Your feminists (etc) are only prominent now because the right have decided to boost them for political ends. That they don't care they're being boosted by the right, by people who are mostly against everything else they believe in, that they don't mind being associated with them, don't care about facilitating them regardless of the consequences, not least to themselves, is indicative of how extremely transphobic they are. Thus, for example, you get JK Rowling liking a pro-Taliban tweet simply because it's anti-trans.

I'm reminded of something Clive James once said: which was that whenever he found himself in agreement with Jane Fonda he immediately revisited his opinion to see what was wrong with it. Equivalently (putting Jane Fonda to the side), when you find you're in agreement with the right en masse – including the extreme right, the Christian fundamentalist right, the hardcore Islamic right, homophobes en masse, anti-feminists en masse, people who are against everything else you believe in – I'd suggest that, rather than doubling down, it's way past time to revisit your opinions to see what's wrong with them.

This is what I meant by...


So you're on the left. So what. Your opinions are the same as everyone I just mentioned. I'm not interested in how you try to justify them. Padraig can take them apart line by line, word by word, and respect to him for that. But really you should be thinking yourself about why you think the same on this one issue as people you disagree with about everything else.

You are just proving his point on the package deal thing.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

@subvert47 already nailed the main points quite well, but

not a strawman but I agree with the second sentence here. like i said I'm not talking about trans people or what they actually think which obviously varies as they are all individuals. I'm using that term to refer to the thinking underpinning the activism claiming to represent them. So that's what I mean by it, and that's how it's commonly used. I have to use some shorthand terms to refer to what I'm talking about.

At the beginning of my post I made it clear how I defined the term. Again, I have to use shorthand terms to refer to what I'm talking about or it will take forever. What term do you use to refer to this activism? It's not the same as "extreme gay activism" because it doesn't use the word "extreme". It's a neutral term this is clear to see.

there's a lot of disagreement among feminists around whether it's OK to work with enemies towards a specific common goal. many of them refuse to do this, recognising that the right have entirely different motivations and a totally different ultimate goal which obviously opposes feminism too. Others are willing to work with them on specific issues. So the way you've characterised it is wrong. The fact that someone clicking like on a tweet is the best example you can provide is revealing.

they're not in agreement though. their opinions are just mischaracterised as being in agreement with the far-right as a crude attempting of discrediting them. they say completely different things. I'm saying and have said completely different things to them right here.

Please can you stop personalising everything. No, my opinions aren't the same as everyone you just mentioned. That's a ridiculous thing to say

if you're not interested in what Im saying then why respond? just let padraig respond instead if you want, that would probably be for the best, because for the most part you haven't addressed any of the points I raised, and they were in response to a very specific point he was making about people motivated by caring for children supposedly being transphobic.

your representation of trans activists is anything but neutral. "the activism claiming to represent them" is a bullshit formulation, suggesting that it is insincere/self-interested, overly demanding, and not representative of the community. it's both the standard GC construct of trans activists - anyone familiar, again, will know that GC ppl use TRA as basically a slur - and the same exact line of attack that has been used against activists of every marginalized group from civil rights to gay rights.

it's especially crazy to go on and on about how "trans activists" don't represent trans people when TERFs represent not only a small minority of cis women, but even a minority of feminists. subvert is exactly right that TERFs are a tiny, fanatical, fringe group whose ideology has been picked up by the American right-wing for largely cynical political purposes (tho there's probably plenty of actual bigotry in the mix too).

there are many examples of TERFs actively embracing the right, numerous of which I've mentioned in this thread, so no, the example of clicking like on a tweet is not "revealing". the links of various key GC figures to the Heritage Foundation and other far-right American organizations, their willingness to work with RW evangelicals in the UK, etc, as well as the RW astroturfing of things like LGB Alliance and Gays Against Groomers. it feels pointless to list them all out for a 3rd or 4th time since yall will just ignore them again, but I can.

there's also the passive embracing of allyship. they do not say "completely different things". obviously they differ on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage (in most cases, anyway, LGB Alliance has said some wild shit there), but on trans issues - gender-affirming care for minors, gender-affirming care in general, bathrooms, self-recognition, the medicalization of transness, "biological reality", etc - they are basically in lockstep with the RW. the chuds and tradbros on social media may express it more vulgarly (tho as I've mentioned before, TERF rhetoric is often surprisingly crude) but it's the exact same ideology. none of that is controversial to anyone outside of GC ppl, btw.

"gender ideology" itself is a RW construct, just like its versions of critical race theory, wokeness, etc. it's definitely influenced by foundational TERF theory - Mary Daly, Janice Raymond, etc - via its modern proponents, filtered thru the U.S. RW worldview. when TERFs use it they probably mean something slightly different and closer to that original model, but both versions are transphobic bigotry exemplified, and the similarities are much greater and more important than the differences.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

oh I guess I should specifically address minors, since that's supposedly the main concern

Kathleen Stock is on record (ofc on Unherd, where else) about child beauty pageants. Alrite, I'll rephrase from "totally silent" to "overwhelmingly focused on trans people to an absurdly disproportionate level". Go to the Twitter of Stock, Helen Joyce, Julie Bindel, etc or indeed JK Rowling - they're all almost exclusively trans-related. like, almost 100%. very, very little if anything about beauty pageants or equal pay or any of the other thousand issues related to feminism they could be talking about.

whenever they discuss puberty blockers, surgery, etc, it is as a part of their greater hyperfixation on trans people. keep in mind that at least most (I can't say all for certain, but it's very common) GC ppl are against not only medical transition but social transition, including pronoun use. there is an entire GC cottage industry of literature devoted to convincing parents not to listen to their children - I mentioned Bayswater which was linked in that mumsnet post, which itself links to FAQs at anti-trans sites like 4thWaveNow and Transgender Trend. it is inevitably framed as a fad or phase, and the advice is inevitably to do everything possible to stop them from transitioning.

(reminder here that "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" the cornerstone of social contagion theory, is based on a single, heavily criticized study done by Lisa Littman, who just happens to be deeply involved in multiple GC NGOs, and which has been repudiated by the American Psychological Association and dozens of other related professional organizations)

so no, I do not find this supposed primary motivating concern for minors to be credible, when they are equally fixated on trans adults, and more concerned with stopping people from transitioning than with the welfare of minors.

and for the U.S. RW/religious end of transphobia, obviously creating moral panic about children is a cynical rehash of the same attack made against gay people, and more importantly a strategic means of getting a foot in the door for broader anti-trans legislation, which is exactly what has been happening in the U.S. for the last year plus. the RW strategists who crafted this attack are very clear on this point - they did research, focus groups etc, and found that the two issues people responded most to were children and women's sports. appeal to pathos.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

the example of clicking like on a tweet is not "revealing"

btw, let's just be clear that this is handwaving someone saying that the Taliban are better than "trans activists". The Taliban. like, what the fuck are we doing here?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

reminder here that "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" the cornerstone of social contagion theory, is based on a single, heavily criticized study done by Lisa Littman, who just happens to be deeply involved in multiple GC NGOs, and which has been repudiated by the American Psychological Association and dozens of other related professional organizations)

her sources, btw?

surveys of parents from 4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and a site called Youth TransCritical Professionals, which definitely sounds like an unbiased place welcoming to trans people

and I could go thru the links again to J. Michael Bailey and Ray Blanchard and Stella O'Malley and whoever tf else again, but yall will just ignore it and say the same stuff again so what's the point

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

and if TERFs were still out there in the wilderness, howling into the void, it would all be whatever

but they're being used to help promote a vicious slate of anti-trans legislation that is destroying lives and literally forcing people to flee their homes

the Heritage Foundation specifically has a terrifying document called Project 2025, outlining policy for a new GOP Presidential administration. Among other things, like for instance totally gutting American climate change policy, it literally proposes making all trans representation "pornography", and calls for outlawing all pornography (of any kind).

now, a prominent think tank policy paper doesn't mean it will became actual policy, or law, but the fact is that we're at a point where criminalizing trans existence is becoming a serious GOP idea

this is the logical outcome of your ideas and the people embracing your ideas who you choose not call out because you care more about your nonsensical ideas that trans people are somehow a threat to women

and in that context I guess I don't really give any kind of a fuck if TERFs show up in this thread about that vicious assault to derail it with TERF nonsense and get offended when I tell them they're bigots etc

 

[mixed_biscuits]

it is inevitably framed as a fad or phase

If it's not a fad or phase why is it so culture- and time-specific? There's scant evidence of much previously suppressed demand, unlike homosexuality.

You can't see the wood for the trees: just cycle through other languages' versions of the relevant Wiki articles to see the huge spectrum of interpretations worldwide at this very moment, let alone the past. The Swahili pages will have you reaching for your pith helmet in no time; there's no way this discourse is getting decolonised!

Furthermore, lots of languages don't have distinct words for 'sex' and 'gender' so most of the arguments on here or malelesbian's magnum opus would make little intuitive or other sense to those speakers.

Not sure why you're making a fuss about the meds and surgery for kids thing as your stated personal policy is really not that far from 'TERF' opinion.

 

[CorpseysEvilTwin]

If it's not a fad or phase why is it so culture- and time-specific? There's scant evidence of much previously suppressed demand, unlike homosexuality.

You forget that homosexuality was conceived as sodomy in tributary societies. In that sense, homosexuality per your definition, as understood by us all, is equally a fad. I don't like the term 'fad' though, it reaks of inexactitude.

and no, homosexuality and sodomy are far from identical. the point of sodomy is precisely that it is a temptation, whereas modern bourgeois homosexual ideology establishes the idea of sexual orientation. so you've contradicted yourself, to a degree.

 

[maxi]

@subvert47 already nailed the main points quite well, but


your representation of trans activists is anything but neutral. "the activism claiming to represent them" is a bullshit formulation, suggesting that it is insincere/self-interested, overly demanding, and not representative of the community. it's both the standard GC construct of trans activists - anyone familiar, again, will know that GC ppl use TRA as basically a slur - and the same exact line of attack that has been used against activists of every marginalized group from civil rights to gay rights.

it's the term that's neutral - obviously my representation of the activists isn't neutral. but no, it's not a "bullshit formation" and doesn't suggest they're insincere or overly demanding necessarily. but yeah I don't think the activism is representative of what all trans people think. even if it was, it wouldn't mean they're beyond criticism.

you keep getting bogged down in the terms I'm using and I think this is used as a distraction from the arguments. Plus it's absurd to describe a neutral term like "trans activists" as a slur (honestly what term would you prefer?), especially after I've made it very clear what I mean by it in this context -- when you keep repeating "TERF" which is much closer to an actual slur, not to mention inaccurate. Some of the people you use it for aren't radical feminists for a start. But until now I haven't mentioned it cos it's expected you'll use that language. I'm trying to see through to your actual points and respond to them rather than get bogged down in that but here we are.

the constant and vague attempts to associate this with earlier civil rights movements aren't convincing. it's an entirely different thing and operates in a different way