I'm trying to come up with a "neutral" sheet which shows the views on both sides. Thoughts? It feels like a religion at this point.

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Thatstealthygal 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

On the terven side, I would be inclined to reshape some of the arguments so they highlight the focus on science.

For instance, rather than saying "intersex is an anomaly, they are stlll either male or female" I would try something like "intersex people are always either male or female, with developmental differences that can affect the way their body expresses its sex. They are not the same as trans people."

"Biological sex is is complicated but all humans, even those with variations, can be grouped into two groups, those whose bodies normally produce small gametes (sperm) and those whose bodies normally produce large gametes (eggs)".

Or whatever the proper science is.

Then you don't get the issues with "binary" being also tied to gender.

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

It's a nice start :) I'm not sure about a few things, though:

I don't agree that gender is an expression of one's self, or that it is a spectrum. I think gender refers to the norms that are imposed on us on the basis of our actual or perceived sex. It varies in different cultural contexts, but it's not a spectrum. The way we respond to gender norms is quite possibly unique, and a spectrum, but we shouldn't conceal the fact that the norms are imposed and policed from without, in a way that systematically disadvantages women compared to men.

Trans women don't become women, they become trans women. They also aren't assigned male at birth, they are male. Only people with ambiguously sexed bodies are assigned at birth, and I don't know if they can be trans, really. Like if a genuinely androgynous intersex person (not a clearly male person with a DSD) is assigned male at birth but says they're a woman as an adult, maybe they're just a woman, not a trans woman?

Also, not all TRA think gender is an expression, some treat it as an innate essence. Not all of them think sex is real, some say it's a social construct. Not all of them think that masculine behaviour makes you male; see posts to the effect that you're also 'valid' as a trans woman if you aren't feminine and don't transition, and discussions of 'gatekeeping' around who gets to count as trans.

Next step: different views on who gets to compete in women's sports, have conditional or unconditional access to women's spaces, whether 'gender identity' should be in the law as a protected characteristic, and who feminism is 'for'. :)

Also, 'gender critical' will do just fine.

[–]uwushallnotpass 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I disagree with the lines that say “Gender is the expression of one’s self” and “Gender is a spectrum”. I think that presenting it in this way obscures an important division between TRAs and GCs. I’d put it more like this:

TERFs and TRAs agree: Gender is a set of stereotypical attitudes, behaviours and clothes that society represents as being only for men or for women.

TERFs: This societal representation is wrong. It is used to oppress women, and prevents men from living in a psychologically healthy way.

TRAs: This societal representation is right. These attitudes and behaviours reflect what defines men and women rather than their biology.

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

Yes, I agree. That phrasing is a misrepresentation of the core of our worldview and renders it incoherent.

Gender is IMPOSED and then we express ourselves by ignoring, following, or rebelling (being GNC) against those rules. Society creates gender and it changes with the zeitgeist.

[–]jkfinn 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There's stuff about gender and sexual attraction that I differ with. One doesn't conform to gender because it's a false construct and should be abolished. Also sexual orientation is not innate... if it is where do you place half of the leaders of the second wave who became lesbians as adults. & are we saying that compulsory heterosexuality cannot be exited? (a life sentence) It seems to me some of these points are overly shaped by trans ideology and language and could be more independent & based in radical feminism itself. There are not like two sides really, only one, and that's what needs to be clearly stated.

[–]crodish 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

My idea for this was to present both arguments of the debate as neutrally as possible (regardless of which is backed up by science/proof) as a kind of starting point for people new to the debate to get a quick overview, and then hopefully do their own research on what is true and then decide what they believe from there. Obviously I personally don't believe in the TRA viewpoint (facts, etc), but it's what I see them saying whenever they're challenged, so I put it in. I didn't really want to come across as "this is TERF propoganda!" too since that also pushes people away.

I wanted to post this on GCdebatesQT actually, but the sub is temporarily closed (it would probably be a better fit there and be open to more opposing view points that could clarify whether this was truly neutral information or biased).

I'm also a bit unsure what you mean by being able to opt out of heterosexuality... Wasn't that the whole point of the LGB? You can't choose your orientation. There might be people who were born lesbian or bi but never embraced it until much later in their lives, it doesn't mean they changed sexual orientation. That implies a choice and is what the LGB is fighting against.

Edit: I just realized "compulsory heterosexual" was that thing where women are expected to grow up, get married, and have kids... for me it still means they were always lesbian or bi, but had to "fake straight" to get through society I guess, as unfortunate as that is

[–]jkfinn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

i answered quickly because had to get offline---so no framing of my points and more of my points left out. But no, I'm absolutely certain that sexual attraction is not innate. One's sex IS biological, but one's sex attraction can and does, in many, change. I can even site dozens of examples in persons in my own life, without even citing the known, like Adrienne Rich and Robin Morgan and the thousands of gay men who at age 42 suddenly become hetero because they lose their looks and appeal and want a wife to support them... ( a flip of the switch)

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

I'm not leaving out any of your points, I'm just still gathering responses on this thread, and will revise the list with given suggestions, to be re-posted at a later time.

Regarding your latter point - I unfortunately still can't quite agree with this, because it would fall back on telling LGB people that they do have the choice to be straight, instead of LGB. Would this mean that you would agree with the stance that not wanting to date a trans person is transphobic, if sexual preferences can be a choice? Can people make themselves want to date trans people?

I'm not trying to be hostile here, just seeking opinions.

[–]jkfinn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The very concept of "choice" or making one's own decision means you're absolutely free to have sex with whomever you want, or to have no sex at all. Male sex systems try to undermine consent by pretending it exists when it doesn't, but I'm talking real consent and real choice. Once again, I think you're using trans language as your base of reasoning.

[–]crodish 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was thinking more just attraction, not just sex, but I see your point. Thanks for taking the time to reply! I'll have a think on this.

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

everything was so much simpler until trans purposefully confused, reversed, and obfuscated the lang. around sex & sexism

your OP was very fine... except for a few points. (in my opinion)

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

I like your use of the terms "feminine traits" / "masculine traits". I think you could introduce this into the common ground definition for "Gender is..." as it ties into the points below.

I would avoid using the term "assigned at birth", especially as common ground. Nobody gets "assigned". Maybe this is another difference: birth sex is observed vs. assigned.

The TRA definitions for Gay/Lesbian/Straight sound all too reasonable, until you realize that it's not the usual definition of "men" and "women" that are being used there. That could be made more obvious or called out, maybe with asterisks or "as defined above".

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

The "what is bi" in the TRA side is wrong: for them is bi whoever is attracted to two or more genders (and I'm rolling my eyes sooo high)

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

*There's an unfortunate typo; it should say "women" instead of "men" /facepalm

Trans men are trans men / biologically female / biological women.

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

i love this chart! its nice to see that there is actually a lot of common ground between the two camps. The only thing i would tweak is the section on homosexuality definitions on the TRA side. they view homosexuality as anyone who identifies as a man/woman to be homosexual, so "men/women who identify as such who are attracted to men/women who identify as such" or something like that. hope i'm making sense. haha