QT: How is the concept of a "gender identity" not sexist?

submitted by Penultimate_Penance from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (9 children)

The problem is that doctors failed to ask for his birth sex, not him presenting as a man. Also, I don't trust sources that purposefully misgender trans people. Many trans people are fighting for better health care and we need to join the fight by listening to trans men.

[–]BiologyIsReal 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The problem is that professionals who should know better caved to the trans lobby and started using gender identity rather than sex in medical records. Also, Whitley was so happy with all this "validation" that Whitley didn't think of challenging the doctors' misperceptions. But that is beside th point. If it were true that you can change everything but height through "transition", then why would "birth" sex matter at all in trans identified patients' health care?

I don't trust sources that purposefully misgender trans people.

Just in case you think this story is made up, they list this BBC article as their source.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (7 children)

I'm not saying the story is made up. I'm saying GC sites like womenarehuman.com have no business pretending to advocate for trans men. Trans men have said over and over again they do not want gender critical activism.

Take a look at r/FTM. There are 20+ threads complaining about "TERFs". There are also many articles on other sites written by trans men complaining about "TERFs" and mind you GCs consider TERF a slur. So that means they don't want your activism. In contrast I found only ONE thread on r/FTM complaining about trans women, yet GCs keep saying trans women talk over trans men. This is obviously a GC concern more than trans men's concern.

To be an ally to a group, you have to listen to actual members of that group, not impose your own ideas. Imagine a white self-proclaimed ally saying "well, that interaction wasn't really racist" when multiple POC say otherwise? Besides the blatant misgendering, trans men are a marginalized community and its rude and gross to speak over people who made it clear they don't want you to speak for them.

Trans men are fighting for better healthcare. Just yesterday there was a thread on r/FTM titled I hate when I feel like there’s something wrong with my reproductive stuff and I try to see what the problem is and how to fix it but everything is labeled as “WOMEN” “GIRL” and “FEMALE.”. I know this is contradictory to what GCs want, as they call for eliminating the terms women and girls for health issues traditionally considered "female" But GCs and trans men have opposite agendas, which is why GCs should never speak for trans men and trans men should never speak for GC. GCs do their activism. Trans men and their allies do their activism.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

How are GC suppused to get our point across if we are not allowed to talk about trans people?! (I assume you don't like we speak for "trans women" and people with other "gender identities", either, right?) You've said yourself: we have opposite goals, that is why we need to talk. Why are transactivists the only ones allowed to talk about women's rights?

Moreover, I also care about science and public health. That is why I talk (and share articles) about how transgenderism affects these areas.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

You can talk about trans people, but that site is using an example of a specific person who most likely does not want his case to be used as an example by transphobes, and has the same opinion on "TERFs" as r/gendercynical. At the very least they could have been respectful by using he and Mr.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That sounds a lot like we can't talk about trans people or if we do it should be in TRA's terms. So, again, how are we supposed to get our point across? And why are transactivists allowed to use terms we disapprove of?

[–]strictly 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

that site is using an example of a specific person who most likely does not want his case to be used as an example by transphobes

J.K. Rowling is an example of specific person who most likely does not want her case to be used as an example by those who call her TERF but trans activists use her as an example of "bigot" anyway. People will be used as examples by the opposing side, that's just how it is.

Besides the blatant misgendering

To misgender the speaker needs to claim a person has a gender identity the person doesn't have, which requires the speaker to use gender identity based definitions for the words involved in the supposed misgendering. This makes it very unlikely that any misgendering happened as would require the speaker to be a genderist, aka not gender critical.

To be an ally to a group, you have to listen to actual members of that group, not impose your own ideas.

You call us bad allies but I don't get why you consider us allies to the current trans activism in the first place. We are on the opposing side so you shouldn't really expect us to act like allies. It would be like me complaining about trans activists being bad allies to GC for not actually listening to us instead of imposing their own ideas, it wouldn't make sense for me to expect trans activists to act like allies. I believe female people, even those who identify as men, should have the same female rights as all other females, but that doesn't make me an ally to current trans activism. It's like how I believe all female people, even the conservative ones against abortion, should have the same right to get abortions should they choose to, and that doesn't make me an anti-abortion ally either.

At the very least they could have been respectful by using he and Mr.

There is no moral duty to lie about trans people just because they like being lied about.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

J.K. Rowling is an example of specific person who most likely does not want her case to be used as an example by those who call her TERF but trans activists use her as an example of "bigot" anyway. People will be used as examples by the opposing side, that's just how it is.

J.K. Rowling is a public figure, just like Caitlyn Jenner and Elliot Page. Plus, she chose to make her statements public.

To misgender the speaker needs to claim a person has a gender identity the person doesn't have, which requires the speaker to use gender identity based definitions for the words involved in the supposed misgendering. This makes it very unlikely that any misgendering happened as would require the speaker to be a genderist, aka not gender critical.

You don't have to be a "genderist" to misgender someone.

There is no moral duty to lie about trans people just because they like being lied about.

It's polite and the right thing to do.

[–]strictly 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

she chose to make her statements public

Then you should have no problems with people having opinions about people who made public statements which this female trans person did.

You don't have to be a "genderist" to misgender someone.

You can't lie about someone having a false gender identity unless you first refer to a gender identity which requires the speaker to use gender identity based definitions for the words involved in supposed misgendering. You have to prove that the source consider "she" a pronoun to be used for those with a specific gender identity. It's very unlikely that they would be referring to any type of gender identity with pronouns as they are not genderists thus they can't misgender anyone with pronouns, only missex if they referred to sex.

It's polite and the right thing to do.

Lying goes against my moral principals and I don't care if people who ask me to lie about them consider me impolite for refusing to lie, it wasn't polite of them to expect me to lie in the first place. I am not going to adopt gender-identity based definitions either as that would lead to misgendering people en masse with false gender identities just to benefit a few, it goes against moral conscience. Innocent people shouldn't have suffer being labeled with false gender identities just because some people don't like being their sex.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

she chose to make her statements public.

Yet she isn't remotely the only person to be labeled a "TERF" for making public statements. Labeling, threatening, and silencing have been routine TRA tactics against any publicly expressed dissent.

Is JKR a permissible target because she's a public figure? If so, what's the TRA rationale for attacking all public expressions of dissent, regardless of the popularity of the dissenter?

"Making her statement public" here is equivalent to "speaking her opinion." If some statements can be expressed while others are extrajudicially punished, the punishment is enacted based on the statement, not the popularity of the person making the statement.

This isn't the targeting of a public figure; it's the suppression of speech in general.