all 17 comments

[–]Chronicity 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I wouldn’t argue them out of their position. If dressing a certain way and taking certain drugs to affect a certain appearance makes someone feel better about themselves, then cool.

If they use these feelings to justify disrespectful actions towards others, that’s where I draw the line. Female athletes shouldn’t lose titles because a transwoman feels happier playing against women than men. Women and girls shouldn’t lose a sense of safety and privacy in restrooms and locker rooms for the sake of transwomen’s feelings either. Correctly identifying a transwomen as a male and acknowledging this observation with the “wrong” pronoun shouldn’t cost someone a job or opportunity just because it upsets a transwoman.

If all we were talking about is making changes to oneself to alleviate distress, then we’d hardly have anything to debate. But obviously we are talking about more than that.

[–]pilf[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Correctly identifying a transwomen as a male and acknowledging this observation with the “wrong” pronoun shouldn’t cost someone a job or opportunity just because it upsets a transwoman.

There a plenty of true things that a person can lose a job or opportunity for acknowledging because it upsets another person. Why should this be different?

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

What kinds of truths are you asserting people should lose their jobs for acknowledging?

Do you think, for example, a science teacher should be fired if people in the community are upset by the idea that the world is more than 6,000 years old?

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There a plenty of true things that a person can lose a job or opportunity for acknowledging because it upsets another person. Why should this be different?

Please name some of the "plenty of true things that a person can lose a job or opportunity of acknowledging" and specify in what countries or local jurisdictions you mean. I know that in countries like North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and China, people can be fired and penalized for saying "plenty of true things" - but this traditionally hasn't been the case in countries with robust civil rights and freedom of speech.

Sorry if I misunderstand you, but it sounds like you think that firing and penalizing people for saying "true things" is a good thing, or at least justifiable. Exactly which "true things" do you think people should lose their jobs and other opportunities for saying?

Do you think people should lose their jobs and opportunities for saying these things ever, or only in certain settings?

Interestingly, the decision in the employment tribunal of Maya Forstater comes out tomorrow, July 6.

ETA: The tribunal has ruled in Forstater's favor on the main point: that the think tank/NGO she previously worked for did indeed illegally discriminate against and "victimise" her for the beliefs he expressed on Twitter and in other writings - namely that sex is real; sex has enormous implications in life, law and policy especially for female people; and human beings can't change sex.

In other words, the GC woman on whose account a judge of the UK High Court ruled that GC beliefs are legally protected under the EA of 2010, has won another huge victory not just for GC women and men, but for all working people, and for free speech in the UK.

The decision of the tribunal released today, which I am just beginning to read and haven't gotten through in entirety yet, says on page 2:

The Claimant holds the belief that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity. She considers that statements such as “woman means adult human female” or “trans women are male” are statements of neutral fact and are not expressions of antipathy towards trans people or “transphobic”.

Page 3:

In the course of her evidence in the present hearing, Ms Forstater said the following about her belief, when asked about a tweet in which she referred to “literal delusions”: “I have made clear that I have used the word “woman” to mean adult female. It is impossible for a male to become female. It is possible to undergo a social transition. Anyone who believes a male can become female and give birth, that is a delusion. My belief is that sex is real and immutable. I haven’t expressed an opinion on gender.”

The tribunal has specifically ruled that although some might find them offensive, the following statements of Forstater's are simply "straightforward expressions" of her legally protected beliefs that are themselves lawful to say or write and "worthy of protection" even in at work, in work products and in contexts related to the workplace and work:

“other people are not compelled to accept it [the proposition that a transwoman is a woman] as relating to any material reality”

and

“a man’s internal feeling that he is a woman has no basis in material reality”.

The tribunal also has found that there was nothing objectionable or unlawful about instances

where Ms Forstater drew a comparison between transwomen and Rachel Dolezal...

the point that Ms Forstater was making – that there is an analogy to be drawn between someone who is white identifying as black and someone who is (according to gender critical belief) male identifying as a woman – did little more than assert her gender critical belief.

The tribunal found that

in the context of a discussion of whether recognising transwomen as female potentially posed a risk to women and girls

It was lawful and reasonable for Forstater to say

“the places that women and girls get assaulted and harassed are ‘normal life’”

This was not, as CGD’s counsel had argued, “catastrophising” but was instead “an unobjectionable observation in the course of the debate … not an objectively unreasonable observation to make”

The tribunal found that it was within Forstater's legally-protected rights to say that

allowing male-bodied individuals access to women-only spaces gave rise to “an increase in risks, threats and discomfort” to women and girls

And to describe

opposing views [to hers] as “stupid, dangerous or unfair”

And to refer to London banking executive Pips Bunce, who goes to his job in the City of London dressed as his alter ego "Pippa" a few days a week as a

“part time cross dresser”

(For those not aware: Bunce, a heterosexual father who is married to a woman, has been rewarded for his cross-dressing at work by being named one of Britain's "top women in business" by the Financial Times. Bunce has also been feted, showered with praised and given awards by "LGBTQ" orgs and media outlets for advancing "LGBTQ diversity and inclusion" and for being a model of "the LGBTQ" whose cross-dressing at work shows "courage and bravery" on behalf of "LGBTQ rights." Many others of course think that it's preposterous to say that straight white men who bring their cross-dressing kinks to work like Bunce are advancing gay rights, and believe that holding up Bunce as an admirable model of "the LGBTQ" makes a mockery of "the LGBTQ" and will cause outsiders to be less accepting, not more.)

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well, namely, pretending that plastic surgeries and artificially induced hormonal imbalance makes someone into a woman just because they claim they have a "female brain" or "feel like women" or "because women are anything under the sun and have no meaning as a concept" is not something that feminist women should be required to partake in. It's basically telling women to play-pretend with a distinctly backwards and misogynistic ideology that has a long patriarchal history of being harmful to them (erasure of women's issues, ignorance of female biology, androcentrism, brainsex, claims of female inferiority and gender roles being innate etc.).

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

Id say good for you but it doesn’t really mean anything to anyone else and we shouldn’t have to validate anything you feel or be effected by your hormonal imbalance and cosmetic surgeries in any way (meaning language spaces sports etc)

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If an adult of sound mind and body is suffering and can find no peace or happiness, if therapy to reconcile to one's biological sex has not helped and their dysphoria is debilitating, then I have no problem with that person transitioning medically as long as they are fully informed of all the risks.

I would still be worried for their physical health. There is mountains of evidence that testosterone has a detrimental effect on female bodies in particular. I'm not as well informed about the risk of estrogen for male bodies, but none of these treatments are safe. The surgeries can be brutal and are all too often botched by surgeons who cannot easily be held accountable. But again, adults can make their own choices in that regard. If they weigh the risks and decide that a happy life now is worth it, then I have no quarrel with that.

The main thing is that medical transition should be a last resort. It should never be a first option or done for reasons of "euphoria." It's not something to play around with. These drugs and surgeries have significant risks that can permanently and irreversibly damage one's health.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You raise an excellent point about the lack of accountability of the surgeons performing gender surgeries. Seen a lot of people discussing their surgeon being unavailable to help with complications and other doctors/surgeons being unable to help due to the surgeries not being standardised.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That’s great but it doesn’t change my perceptions, doesn’t mean a thing to womens rights or to language, doesn’t mean that the treatment that worked for you should be applied universally to children, doesn’t make QT any less sexist, and doesn’t entitle them to a free pass for their own sexism when they discuss their treatment.

Glad they’re no longer so unhappy and sincerely hope they have the safest possible procedures should they choose to go through with them.

I don’t think it’s a solution, any more than I think MDMA is a solution to depression, but your body your rules.

I don’t feel animosity towards any individual because they are trans. I take issue with the ideology, but I’d still treat a transgender person the same as anyone else. I’ll hire an employee whether they’re trans or not, especially since the job would have zero bathroom issues. (We work in empty residences, use the loo that’s here we’re cleaning it anyway)

There’s a lot of transwomen in online sewing communities now and frankly, in my experience, more are excellent contributors than not. Necessity has made some of them expert pattern-hackers and I’m glad they’re sharing the tips. It’s not a female only community so come on in, tell me how you adjust a sleeve.

I don’t think anyone here wants transgender people to be shunned or to not engage with society at large.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would be happier if that person didn' t have the issues that led them to transition in the first place.

I believe transition doesn' t help people per se anyway, it exacerbates their issues without finding a way to solve them. It' s a placebo, and one that is doing a terrible job to boot.

But even if I entertained the idea that it' s great and that it' s the best thing that ever happened to humanity, it still doesn' t change the fact that this person is posing as something they are not and wants the entire society and the legal system to carry on with that. Like sure, I am happy you feel better, but I am still not buying that what you did to yourself made you the other "gender" or sex, I am not pretending that your feelings come before material reality, that it' s done without any objective way to prove that it' s needed, useful or who should get it, I am not going to ignore the fact that many other people are taking advantage of the same thing you used for their fetish and to destroy women' s rights, LGBs and children and I am not playing along with it.

[–]JoeyJoeJoe 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The placebo effect is real, and if some people are helped by cosplaying full-time and they're not harming others, then fine.

HOWEVER, it's not OK to demand others play along. They might find that people are more likely to be kind to cross-dressers of both camps when it's not mandated we participate in the gender woowoo via compelled speech. That, and stay the fuck away from kids.

This whole thing is a distraction from the bigger issues of the elites harvesting the last remnants of wealth before the economy implodes, by the way.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Please spell out exactly what you mean by "transition" here. And say where the money has come from/is coming from to cover the costs of whatever "transition" entails.

Is the hypothetical person you have in mind male or female? How old is he/she? Does he/she have a spouse and children? Is his/her family of origin still alive - if so, what is this person's relationship with them like? Did this person's "gender journey" and "transition" entail trampling on the boundaries of any family members or friends, issuing ultimatums and threats, throwing tantrums, creating needless drama, taking advantage of and/or behaving abusively towards anyone else?

What are the motivations behind this person's "transition"?

How exactly has "transition enabled them to live a more normal life"? Doesn't deciding to "transition" mean going in the opposite direction of living "a normal life"?

[–]levoyageur718293 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Whether it benefits you personally is neither here nor there. By transitioning, you're committing a wrongdoing against either the group you're trying to enter or the group you're trying to leave, or possibly both - for all the reasons that normally apply to this kind of chicanery, that you would recognize if it was any other group. You cannot seek out self-improvement at the expense of others.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

By transitioning, you're committing a wrongdoing against either the group you're trying to enter or the group you're trying to leave, or possibly both - for all the reasons that normally apply to this kind of chicanery, that you would recognize if it was any other group.

Can you explain this a little more? I don’t quite understand the wrongdoing especially with “the group you are trying to leave.” It totally understand how someone could be doing harm to “the group you're trying to enter”, but maybe not always? I assume by entering or leaving groups you just mean socially, because you can’t actually change your sex.

[–]levoyageur718293 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sorry it took me so long to reply to this, I don't check Saiddit very often. But here is my answer in short: by moving between groups on the basis of their archetypal characters, you are reinforcing the association with those archetypal characters, which is ultimately harmful to everyone.

My go-to example for this is astrology. Everyone has a birthday, which is based on objective fact. The state of heavenly bodies at the time of one's birth - one's "sign" is also an objective fact. But the archetypal characters we associate with people born under different signs - people born under Aries are assertive and impetuous, people born under Libra are cautious and patient - are arbitrary and negative. Imagine if a person was born under Aries, but was cautious and patient and had all the archetypal characteristics of a person born under Libra. If such a person were distressed by the mis-matched, they might try to re-cast their birthday and legally change it so they were born in October, under Libra. They might also try to separate the archetype from the birthdate, saying that, for instance, "Libra" refers to all people who feel an affinity with its archetype, regardless of the time of their birth.

Both of these things would be bad, because both of them reinforce the idea that these archetypes are real, that they resound throughout the universe, and that most people adhere to them - that Libras really are a certain way, that Aries really are a certain way, and if you don't match with the others under your sign, you need to book it and detach from them and re-attach to the people you're supposed to be among.

If it's astrology, it's a little bit silly and we can all acknowledge it. But when it comes to groups that marginalize each other and are in class hierarchies, it's really shitty. If you're a member of a low-status group, then by trying to escape it because you don't like the pejorative opinions that the high-status group hold of you, you're essentially validating those opinions. Imagine a gay man who was definitely homosexual, in the sense that he only desired sex and love with other men, but who hated all the ephemera of gay culture and didn't want to be associated with the swishy queens, so he cooked up a new schema for himself - "gay" was any man who was swishy, in terms of mannerisms and presentation, and "straight" was any man who was manly, in those same terms. Under that schema, he could escape from being associated with the swishy queens, which I suppose would make him happy in the short term, and this schema theoretically allows swishy heterosexual men to buy into being gay, with all the cachet that possesses. But by refusing to fight the stereotype of the swishy queen, he's harming all homosexual men - including himself - by suggesting that they must or ought to fall into a set of stereotypes unless they specifically exclude themselves from it.

Maybe some swishy queens would like this; their swishyness is more important to them than their homosexuality, and they'd rather make common cause with swishy straights than with fellow homosexuals. But I think most of them would realize that being swishy is incidental to being gay, and would recognize that this attempt to jump ship is harming their collective position by chopping it up.

[–]penelopekitty 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good for them I'm glad they feel better but they still haven't changed sex.

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We live in a sexist society. I cannot blame people for wanting to be gender-nonconforming in the safest and most drama-free way possible, and I'm not surprised that for many this reaches the point of mental illness (which is common with socialised gendered traits). Living as your true self despite what society thinks is nice and all, but sadly is a life of suffering.

My real issues with trans people result from the ridiculously misogynistic ideology that they keep pushing, and the fact that their path to liberation requires women's rights to be pushed back decades. I don't think that putting individuals on drugs and through plastic surgeries should ever be seen as an acceptable fix for the broken patriarchal system, but I can't fault individuals for using it as a convenient escape. I can fault them when they try to sell that to me as true liberation where women should just shut up and get gender-validated by knowing their place.