LGB refutation of TQ+, Part 1: Self-defense

submitted by PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust from self.LGBDropTheT

It seems to me that what LGB people need at this point is an argument refuting the T (etc.). One that's carefully thought out, clear, concise, and above all convincing. It should have two components: self-defense (against the immediate, personal threat of T demands that we surrender our spaces/private lives/bodies to them); and going on the offensive (against the genderist ideology as a whole). It needs to work both on the T themselves (during our inevitable confrontations with them) and the general public.

So I've been working on this, mostly here, refining my analysis and trying to boil it all down to its essential elements. There's SO much to say, and I get so damn upset, that it's hard to think clearly enough, or ruthlessly discard everything other than the core points. Still, I think that I've come up with something that can at least serve as stage 1.

This is the simpler component: self-defense. Not seeking to defeat the T as a movement, just to protect us (individual LGB people/entities, such as subs) from its assaults; therefore very focused and largely non-confrontational. (I'll present the more complex, going-on-the-offensive component in a follow-up post, assuming you guys are interested, that is.)

What we say: maybe T sexuality works this way, but ours simply does not. T's is based on gender; ours is based on biological sex. Because our identity is LGB, and these are all sexual orientations, which are by definition based on biological sex. So LGB and T are sexually-incompatible: like oil and water, we just don't mix.

Well, what does everyone think? Of the self-defense component, and my notion that this two-part argument is needed in the first place? Do you have any suggestions for either? Are you interested in a second post on the other component? Any other thoughts? All input is appreciated!

all 48 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]our_team_is_winning 23 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 0 fun24 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thumbs up to you! I'm not going to say anything that hasn't been said before, but here's my input FWIW.

Gay men are men, lesbian women are women (duh, right, but in a world of Riley J. Dennis it needs to be said). There's no transformation involved. That's the key thing. Some men are gay the way some men are left-handed. Still men. Still he. Same for lesbian women. There's no need to change pronouns or play pretend. No costumes or surgery is required.

The big thing, I think, has always been that others have wrongly called homosexuality a choice or a lifestyle, and thus the notion that you can change is out there.

You could put a gay man or woman in a room of attractive people of a similar age and say ok, which ones would you like to date, the men, the women, or both? It has nothing to do with being attracted or repulsed by your own body. Everyone feels they have their flaws, but that's not the same as wanting full mutilation of your whole body because you think your brain got put in the opposite sex's body by mistake.

The T exists in the mind. The Trans Agenda seems to be about telling people their whole body is wrong. It's not about who they are sexually attracted to. It's about rejecting themselves and wanting to live in a fantasy world. For gay people who get pushed down this path, it's heartbreaking.

For self defense, I'd say all men have the right to male-only spaces. All women have the right to female-only spaces. That is for the sake of bodily privacy and it's true for gay, bi, or straight people. It's also wrong to try to trick people into believing you're something you're not. I keep reading about "stealth" moves on this forum, how transpeople try to trick others into thinking they are "cis" (hate that term) -- lying to people is hurtful.

"Gender" is bound by time and place. What was considered "manly" in 16th century France was probably quite different from "manliness" in Papua New Guinea in the 20th century. The whole idea that wigs, make up, certain colors, who takes care of the finances, hobbies, etc. are what determine if you are male or female -- that makes zero sense. Zero. Several decades ago there was a big "preppie" craze in my school and pink (was it Izod?) shirts were THE thing for the boys. These were boys who were pursuing girlfriends. It was just the preppie color. The notion of "I like pink, so I'm a girl" starts to define male and female by likes and dislikes. (Enter the homophobia: if you like men, then you're a woman. Wrong! Both men and women can be attracted to men.) That is not what defines male and female. It's gametes. If you like other men, you're a gay man. If you like women (as a man), you're a straight man. Either way, you're still a man.

If you are a man who likes pink and lipstick and wearing satin tights, guess what? You're still a man.

tl/dr: Gay, straight, and bi men are all men. Repeat for women. Trans is about trying to change biological reality, which is impossible. LGB don't deny reality. Trans seek to defy reality, which can't be done. Two totally different directions; no reason to lump them together at all.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the thumbs-up! :) I'm giving you one in return, cuz not only is everything you said here right on the money (of course), but also very well-put (that tl/dr exemplifies the phrase "short and sweet").

Yeah, I've been thinking about how to cover the bio-sex element, actually. Since, in my view, our critique of transgenderism basically comes down to three things: biological sex; infringement of others' rights (esp. LGB people and women); and how dangerous the concept of "gender" is. But each point leads in so many different directions-- all of them important! And I have a tendency, when I'm arguing for a position, to wanna include EVERYTHING. But of course this approach has its pitfalls. That you'll lose people, and get bogged down in all the subheadings yourself. A major motivation for the strategy outlined here is that, whenever I tried writing the ACLU about their indefensible pro-trans policy, my ideas kept branching off until the letter threatened to reach War and Peace proportions. So I felt like a "condensed version" was called for.

The thing about both the "changing one's sex" and "gender identity" angles is that they require some expansion/explanation. I mean, it's hard to believe that otherwise-(reasonably)-intelligent adults could fail to understand what the hell biological sex is (or the distinction between it and gender)-- much less en masse-- and yet... here we are. :( Ditto the need for single-sex spaces, which is a combination of the two (maleness/femaleness + gender-roles).

As far as defining biological sex goes, it seems to me that, ultimately, this must be placed in a greater context: going beyond just "man" and "woman"-- our own species-- to what the actual category means overall. That would serve to clear up the confusion with gender that works for the T and against us.

I would sum it up thusly: "biological sex" is composed of two sexes, male and female. These are reproductive categories. They are the basis for sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction evolved in order to ensure genetic diversity: since it requires the combining of two individuals' DNA, the resulting offspring are genetically-unique. (Asexual reproduction essentially means cloning: the offspring are, barring random mutations, genetically-identical to their parent.) Most of this planet's animal and plant species reproduce sexually. So male and female existed long before human beings did, and will continue to exist long after we're gone. Like all other animal species using sexual reproduction, humans evolved to recognize our own sexes, and our sexuality is based on response to them. It's how we're wired as organisms. No amount of "transition", be it medical and/or social, will change that. Nor will it enable anyone to "become" the opposite sex, since that's entirely a matter of biology.

The downside here is that accusations of thinking that "woman = baby-machine" are sure to follow. See what I mean about how, when arguing against transgenderism, one thing just leads to another? sigh...

Anyway, maybe what's needed is two versions of our trans-refutation: "condensed" and "comprehensive"? The latter being set up so that it tracks smoothly, and heads anticipated counter-attacks off at the pass?

And speaking of stuff that rivals War and Peace for length, maybe I should stop right here :)

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

This is great! I'd be interested in hearing your second part. I think it is also important to point out that it is not bigoted or hateful to need single sex spaces. When TRAs try to draw analogies to Jim Crow laws or racial segregation, respond that ethnicity is a social construct that has zero impact on bodily safety when the two groups coexist in one space.

By contrast, male and female are not social constructs, but objective, provable biological realities, which highly influence the way individuals grow up and move about society. It's a fact that the majority of men can kill a woman with his hands (even though most men are peaceful and would never do this; the ability exists). Most women cannot kill a man with her hands. Men are capable of violating a woman with his body (again, most would not), but the capacity exists. The fact of the matter is that men pose a physical threat to women, even though I'd wager the vast majority would never desire to hurt a fly. But, and this is the big but: some men do harm and kill women. Some get off on violating their privacy, some enjoy stalking and psychologically (or physically) torturing women for fun. If someone handed you a bowl of 3 billion M&Ms, and told you 100 were poisoned, would you still blindly trust the bowl? Even if activists were screaming "not all M&Ms! That one identifies as a Skittle!" would you dive in, for the sake of inclusion? I for one fucking wouldn't.

Denying our right to single sex spaces (LGB and otherwise) is denying our right to say no to that bowl of M&Ms.

Further, specifically when it comes to denying men the "right to access" of even be "considered" by lesbians, or denying women the "right to access" gay men, or "access" to bisexuals, hold our ground and insist that we owe them no explanation. If they push and insist we "unpack our preferences", or "But I am a woman/man!" say they are not entitled to anything. If you feel like it, ask "what is a woman?" or "what is a man?" That tends to trip them up. B/c they can't explain without using the word itself, or relying on stereotypes.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And if they throw it that question back at you, you can easily define men and women without stereotypes (and hopefully these definitions takes care of gotchas like 'what if a man lost his dick in an accident, is he still a man?')

A woman is a human female who has breasts that will be able to, can or have in the past, produced milk. Their bodies have or have had a uterus, and can (or had the capacity to) produce eggs. Women are also born with sex specific genitalia, such as the vulva, clitoris and cervix, which may or may not have been removed.

A man is a human male who have chests that do not produce milk; those who do are a minority and anomaly. Their bodies have a prostate, and can (or had the capacity to) produce (viable) sperm. Men are also born with sex specific genitalia, such as the foreskin, penis, and testicles, which may or may not have been removed.

Even if certain parts of their bodies cease to function, or do not function properly, humans are regardless born with sex-specific organs and features. People with intersex conditions should not be used as examples of a third/inbetween sex, as it is not true and I believe quite damaging to public perceptions of people with intersex conditions. They are not your wildcards.

Hopefully this is the best way to describe men and women and there's nothing there that can be refuted.

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

I think the platonic idea of "forms" actually helps to differentiate male and female when dealing with trans people. There is an "ideal" male and female form, ie. men have a penis, produce sperm, upper body strength, body hair, a prostate, etc. and women have a uterus, eggs, breasts capable of lactating, less body hair, strength is focused in the lower body, etc. These combinations of traits can be altered, but no matter how far away a male gets from the "ideal" male form, he does not cease to be a male nor become a female. The same is true of women.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a really good point!

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

This is the crux of it for me. Women can't trust men in the same way they'd trust other women. That isn't to say women can never trust men, but women need to be cautious around me.

E.g. if a man came and sat down next to me on an uncrowded train that would make me nervous. I wouldn't go walking around at night without another person or my dog. If a man was hanging outside the women's loos or change rooms I probably wouldn't go in there. I wouldn't share a cab home with a guy I didn't know and trust. If I was in a mixed group with guys I didn't know well I wouldn't drink much at all. Etc.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The fact of the matter is that men pose a physical threat to women, even though I'd wager the vast majority would never desire to hurt a fly. But, and this is the big but: some men do harm and kill women. Some get off on violating their privacy, some enjoy stalking and psychologically (or physically) torturing women for fun. If someone handed you a bowl of 3 billion M&Ms, and told you 100 were poisoned, would you still blindly trust the bowl? Even if activists were screaming "not all M&Ms! That one identifies as a Skittle!" would you dive in, for the sake of inclusion? I for one fucking wouldn't.

This is a vital point, and one that's certainly meaningful to me personally. However, I've had a hard time fitting it into my T-refutation from the LGB side, you know? Since it seems so specific to women and girls. Of course, that's plenty of the B and all of the L, but it still feels like the case against the T from the sex-based, as opposed to sexual-orientation-based, POV is a somewhat different argument. Largely because of the factor that you've highlighted here (the physical threat which men pose to women).

Problem is: 1.] this really doesn't apply to GB men at all (or, for that matter, LB women where T-identified females are concerned); and 2.] it brings up the issue of gender (the reason why so many men USE their biological strength advantage to threaten women), which the "self-defense" refutation otherwise treats as irrelevant.

While the "going on the offensive" component does deal with gender's harmfulness to both same-sex-attracted people and women, I'm still unsure of how to handle the "poisoned Skittles" element in an LGB-specific manner. Any suggestions?

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

I've had a hard time fitting it into my T-refutation from the LGB side, you know? Since it seems so specific to women and girls. Of course, that's plenty of the B and all of the L, but it still feels like the case against the T from the sex-based, as opposed to sexual-orientation-based, POV is a somewhat different argument. Largely because of the factor that you've highlighted here (the physical threat which men pose to women).

It's true, my argument earlier pertains more to women and girls from a safety perspective. I guess I was trying to refute the overall idea that MtFs should be blindly trusted in women's spaces (prisons, shelters, locker rooms) b/c of their intangible, unprovable "identity". That could be extended to lesbian spaces (they still pose a physical threat there) but I'm guessing that probably won't win many people over b/c it's such a niche perspective for anyone to understand who hasn't lived it. I will try a different approach.

For defending LGB spaces (bars, support groups, charities, etc), I think the best course of action is arguing on terms of equality and boundaries. It is reasonable for trans people to want specific spaces to be around and talk to other trans people, and for bisexuals to want spaces to talk to other bisexual people, b/c it's valuable, healthy, and natural to want to find people who relate to your experiences, get advice from, give advice, share information, and relax and enjoy one of the rare moments in life when you're not a minority in the room. We need to argue this case: as homosexuals we need spaces for ourselves too. We respect the boundaries of bisexual and trans-specific spaces, as a lesbian woman I respect the boundaries of gay male spaces and recognize they might not feel like hanging out with me at all times, and vice versa. This is a natural and healthy expression of emotional, social, and physical boundaries, and helps protect bodily boundaries too (ex. straight/bi women going into gay clubs and groping the men, or straight men groping lesbians in lesbian bars). If they retort by calling you a segregationist, point out how offensive that is, and that ethnicity is not the same as sex or sexual orientation, and that free association is not the same as forced segregation. A minority group freely associating among themselves for a specific purpose is not segregationist, in fact far from it: it helps protect the minority group, and contributes to the unity and health of society. Anyone who doesn't grasp this has a very superficial and racist view of the civil rights movement (or they have very poor emotional intelligence).

The crux of my argument comes down to respecting boundaries, and recognition of when boundaries are needed. Homosexuals need and deserve spaces of our own, and lesbians and gay men can choose to associate and set up spaces for lesbians and gay men separately, as needed, or come together, when needed. The same applies for bisexuals, and trans people. We all have the fundamental right to freedom of association under the law, and banning exclusive homosexual/gay male/lesbian/bisexual spaces, for people of those sexes and orientations, is against the law.

If some TRA defends the right of transbians or gaydens to associate with lesbians and gay men, respond that their rights end where another person's rights begin. If they see a lesbian/gay men space (whether physical or virtual) that is only for actual, biological lesbians and gay men, and doesn't permit trans, it's b/c the people that set it up and the people that are there want and need their own spaces. Tell the TRA to set up spaces for transbians and gaydens instead of trying to push the boundaries of other minority groups. If they keep pushing, and saying the "only purpose is to keep out transwomen" retort that it's not about transwomen, and the fact they don't understand this, and thinks it's all about them shows that they don't understand the issue at hand, or homosexuality. Tell them how creepy it is to keep pushing boundaries after being told no, and stand firm on this, b/c we are right.

An analogy you can use is: imagine you set up a charity for people living with heart disease, either b/c you personally have/had it, or know someone who does. You advertise your charity and support group, and collect donations, people with heart disease, or with family members, show up, and you build a small but mutually-supportive community. Outside your doors, a belligerent, annoying person with blue hair appears and starts ranting about how they don't have heart disease and feel "excluded" and "hurt". They say you are excluding people who don't have it, including people with breast cancer, diabetes, anemia, lung disease, etc. They stand outside your doors and scream and cry how you are a "breast cancer/diabetes/anemia-exclusionary radical charity", and they nail a dead rat to your door while they're at it. You try and explain how you need this space, as it's specific, and they keep going, "what have you done for people with ear infections? you're denying people with coronavirus from accessing valuable community and resources!" The issue is that it's not about them! The right in question is freedom of association, and we can focus on our own damn issues for once!

[–]SnowAssMan 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I've been trying to do something similar, but from a feminist angle. I've found that arguing on their terms in a way reinforces their ideology, when that is completely unnecessary. All you have to do is dismantle the ideology brick by brick, then there will be nothing left to address.

This is what I've got so far (sources not included):

Feminist Conspectus: Addressing the Trans Movement’s Ideology

The following is a succinct feminist perspective addressing the conflict between trans issues and women’s issues, by deconstructing the ideological narrative that has monopolised the discussion on this topic, as well as redressing the false representation of the feminist position.

The conspectus is divided into two sections. Section 1 Foundations of Gender targets gender specifically, its definitions, origin & more. Section 2 Assessing the Evidence tackles the claims made, taking the evidence in its entirety into account. The content of each is in the form of bullet points.

Section 1: Foundations of Gender

1a) Gender (synonym for sex): male/female

1b) Gender (construct): masculinity/femininity

2a) Gender identity: a social identity, not naturally occurring, but shaped by gendered upbringing in accordance with the norms associated with a child’s sex, not their preferred sex

2b) Cross-gender self-identification/felt-gender (almost exclusively incorrectly referred to as ‘gender identity’, & usually shortened to: ‘gender’): one of many, usually temporary phenomena collectively referred to as ‘childhood gender nonconformity’ that typically affects underage homosexuals.

• In the West this identity transition is considered proper medical treatment, indirectly pathologising homosexuality & making transgenderism into a method of conversion therapy

• Recently, the definition has stretched to include non-homosexual men with a paraphilia called autogynaephilia

3) Gender role (often shorted to ‘gender’): a traditionally masculine, or feminine social role, or performance

4) Woman (not a construct): an adult human female

5) Transgender men are adult human male transsexuals who present as feminine (names & pronouns, minimally) & most make their bodies appear female (e.g. tucking), but they share their sex, their gender identity & their privilege with men, which makes their preferred sex, felt gender & strong desire to appropriate women redundant:

a) Transgender men’s sex is unambiguous & binary, not on a spectrum, not assigned, not intersex, not female, but male. Therefore excluding them on these grounds does not indirectly exclude any women

b) Transgender men’s felt-gender is undetectable, indefinable & inconsequential:

• David Reimer was socialised a boy for the first 2 years of his life, then sexual abuse took its place under the guise of “re-socialisation”. So the major case purported to favour felt-gender theory, did the opposite. Conversely, the vast majority of infant males assigned female at birth & socialised accordingly did not desist

• Transsexuals prove that gender identity > felt-gender, otherwise they wouldn’t have to train themselves not to walk, talk, behave etc. in a gender-congruent way, nor would they have to put any effort in to emulating the gendered behaviours of their preferred sex

• Transsexuals’ gendered behavioural trends are consistent with their gender identity & inconsistent with their felt gender e.g. positions of power, media representation, crime rates, HIV distribution are male-dominated, while attempted suicide is female-dominated, regardless of trans or not

Section 2: Assessing the Evidence

• Proof trans people exist ≠ proof that "trans-womxyn are women"

• There is no academic source for the activist slogan: "trans-womxyn are women", not in the icd-11, not in queer theory, nowhere.

• By “brainsex”-logic gay men are women

• Trans-rights need to be tied to trans-status, not self-ID, otherwise we are throwing 2/3 of trans people (the female ones) under the bus (as well as 50% of the population)

• Sex-concordant pronouns are benign, accurate & descriptive, not "violence"

• Calling feminists "cis" & "TERFs" is violence by the trans movement’s own standards on self-identification

• ‘Male-exclusionary’ exists, ‘trans-exclusionary’ doesn’t

• Transgendered males benefit from male privilege (as with homophobia, transphobia does not offset male privilege), the ones who pass benefit from "cis privilege", meaning they are never more oppressed than women. Women in their natural, unfeminised state are “GNC” too.

• The male sex is the social majority, the female sex is the social minority, therefore “cis-privilege” vs. “transmisogyny” is a sexist reversal of the power dynamic

• The trans movement is just as sexist & androcentric as any other the microcism, male transexuals outnumber female transexuals in high positions & media representation

• The trans movement engages in parasitic activism, hijacking gay rights, BLM, feminism, the progressive movement etc. to further a biology-abolitionist cause

• There is more evidence of radical self-ID dogma harming women than there is of even the most radical of feminist sentiments harming transgender people

• Inequality between the sexes needs to be addressed independently by feminists without the trans movement vilifying & censoring them

• Women's sports, shelters, prisons, changing rooms, medicine & sexual orientations are not ideology-affirmation playgrounds for the self-ID cult. Two separate unisex spaces makes one redundant

• Being treated as a “woman” socially, among friends, family, neighbours, even shopkeepers is one thing, but being treated in law as indistinguishable from the female sex is sexism via erasure.

• Distinguishing between the sexes is justified, distinguishing between transgender-males who identify as women & transgender-males who identify as men is not, because differences in ideological beliefs are not material differences.

• Some trans people say “trans-womxyn are women”, others say trans-womxyn are men – neither view is "transphobic"

• "Gender dysphoria" in 2022 will be re-named, re-classified & de-pathologised. There is no mental disorder inherent to gender variance & therefore no symptoms, treatments, no clinics are required

• It’s unethical to transition kids when the majority desist before adulthood, without intervention

• The fact that the use of puberty blockers yields a 98% insistence rate is evidence of conversion therapy

• Homosexuality (exclusive same sex attraction) is overrepresented in the desisted, detransitoned & trans populations, therefore many trans people are just confused, or self-hating, gay people

• Transtrenders are teen girls who appropriate trans identities to fuel their teen sub-cultures

• Autogynaephiles appropriate trans identity to fuel their paraphilia (“transbians” only exist in the West)

• Transgender-males embracing feminine tendencies is authenticity, but emulating women, adopting the labels: ‘woman’ & ‘female’ even, is sexism via appropriation

• Gender abolition is feminism, men appropriating women is sexism via erasure

• Raising issues with the trans movement is not "transphobic"

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

The fact that the use of puberty blockers yields a 98% insistence rate is evidence of conversion therapy

I wanted to respond to this: isn't it 100%? Don't 100% (all) children put on puberty blockers persist in trans ID? And the ones that are not, re-identify with their sex during puberty, around 80% of the time?

I also take issue with the statement that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness/symptom of mental illness. There is clearly more going on than just "gender variance" if these people are willing to do extreme body modification, including mutilating their primary & secondary sex organs. The experiences of desisters, and (my personal experience with trans friends) is that there is 100% mental illness going on, including but separate from the dysphoria.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think it was 46 out of 47 kids on puberty blockers went on to transition, while the lowest estimate of the desistance rate in kids left to their own devices is over 60%.

The medical community can't decide whether it's a mental disorder, or not. They seem to want to have it both way: a mental disorder in all but name. Gender clinics are on the increase, as are medical transitions, in the meantime they have removed 'distress' from the definition of what they now call "gender incongruence" & re-classified it as a "sexual condition". Now it simply reads "a strong desire to be the opposite sex". You'd think the verdict for "a strong desire" would surely just be "get over it"? Maybe the craze will begin to dwindle in the aftermath of this change.

Personally I think "gender dysphoria" is a type of identity crisis that historically affected some homosexuals. It only makes sense knowing how heteronormativity will affect LGB people adversely & that LGB youth are more susceptible to mental health problems. Like most identity crises it passes most of the time on its own. I don't know enough about psychology to really give an informed opinion though.

All I know is that increasing the desistance rate shouldn't be considered "conversion therapy" or "transphobia", but that medical transition with drugs like puberty blockers, which is literal conversion from a homosexual identity to heterosexual one, must be discontinued.

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

All I know is that increasing the desistance rate shouldn't be considered "conversion therapy" or "transphobia", but that medical transition with drugs like puberty blockers, which is literal conversion from a homosexual identity to heterosexual one, must be discontinued.

100% agree. The fact that they co-opted the phrase "conversion therapy" to support medical intervention on children and teens that changes them from homosexual to heterosexual, is turnspeak, nothing more. It is an incredibly manipulative tactic. There is no "conversion therapy" for trans identity, b/c frankly a lot of social conservatives and religious people actually support transition. A conservative Christian woman who I knew for years went on a rant at a family gathering years ago, about how she "understood transgenders, but not homosexuals". I thought it was so strange and mismatched back then, but it makes sense now.

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

It's weird how they pathologise "gender variance", except they "help it along". Like, normally cross-gender identification (as it was called in the DSM-IV) would be temporary, but they try to ensure its permanence. So contrary to some critics beliefs, the controversy is not the pathologising of transgenderism, but rather transgenderism itself is the pathologising of homosexuality (since the majority of childhood gender nonconformity, like cross-gender identification & feminine gender role preferences, affect gay children almost exclusively).

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

I think this is the right approach. I think that asserting the ways in which the basic claims and aims of the LGB vs. the TQ+ is more likely to draw more people into what we have to say than going out at the forefront talking about how gender ideology is homophobic, sexist, regressive, etc. It is all those things and more. But people in our current culture have, whether we like it or not, been trained to think that even talking about these issues as if there's a debate to be had is bigoted. That's not a good starting ground for a necessary and open dialogue. The point is to open that dialogue, and then ease into it from there. Culture is a powerful thing, and even well-meaning people who could be swayed to our side with the facts and the logic could instinctively back away if approached in the wrong way on the subject.

[–]reluctant_commenter 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But people in our current culture have, whether we like it or not, been trained to think that even talking about these issues as if there's a debate to be had is bigoted. That's not a good starting ground for a necessary and open dialogue.

Very true. The fact that open dialogue, itself, is seen as bigoted, is an issue we'll have to confront.

[–]Constantine 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, this is what actually peaked me, really. I just wasn’t raised to be so small-minded that I wouldn’t even give an idea I hated a fair hearing. Even when I thought I 100% agreed with everything the woke people were parroting, it bothered me when they challenged the basic principle of the free exchange of ideas. Which led me to question more than just that.

I’m kind of an unusual person, though, at least for my generation. I don’t think younger people have the kind of appreciation for free thought that other generations have, because they’ve grown up in a time of relatively great social progress, with corresponding ridiculous anti-bullying campaigns in school teaching them that words are like weapons. Previous generations knew that in order to fight for their own rights, they had to protect the rights of those they disagreed with, too. The law isn’t selective, or at least it shouldn’t be.

I don’t know how to reach these people, but the OP’s suggestion seems like the best place to start to me.

Edit: word

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

campaigns in school teaching them that words are like weapons.

Like using the word "she" for MEN and thereby erasing women? It's funny how they think only non-Woke words are weapons. Threatening to rape and kill "TERF" is never flagged by their anti-bullying campaigns.

Calling one's 5 year-old son or daughter "trans" also seems like bullying with words to me.

The Woke need to re-examine how THEY use words to hurt people.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am now wondering if illustrating the ways that people who make this claim are narcissistic might help. For example, showing a range of the things that they say online, when it clearly demonstrates that they have a personal psychological issue driving them to make these false accusations. (Which are then repeated by people who want to be seen doing the right thing but maybe are not themselves narcissistic.)

And, also, pointing it out when they are children or teenagers. A lot of the noise that is influencing people is coming from those too young to really make solid judgments about these things or understand the consequences of their actions.

AND, pointing out when people saying these things have conflicts of interest, i.e. they are making money, OR they are in a profession that is being bullied (OB / GYN) and lying because they are afraid of those bullies.

[–]BiHorror 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's good!

TQ+ "sexuality" is based on their "gender identity," LGB (and non-GAMP straights) are based on sex. I'm not gonna "gender" like that since the majority/average person still sees sex = gender, but majority do kinda understand by what "gender identity" (usually as "sex identity" in the head) means. I think when it comes to spreading this type of stuff around, especially when the average person looks in as a lurker, we gotta remember that too.

LGB and TQ+ don't mix since one group is about sexual orientation and the other is about gender identity/whatever is going on with their wanting to be "seen as the opposite sex" or "neither" stuff.

Then there's obviously the bit about women are human females (as in actual females, not mtf. Intersex women are still females) and vice versa with men. Feminine women/men are still women/men and vice versa with masculine women/men being women/men. Same goes for androgynous women and men still being their sex.

Edit: as someone else mentioned, when they bring up that whole of trying relate to Jim Crow laws or the whole "b-b-but if black women are women..." bullshit. Call them out on their racist bullshit. Black women are still women because they're female. Black women (and men) did not choose to be black. Transpeople choose to be trans or "transition."

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

LGB and TQ+ don't mix since one group is about sexual orientation and the other is about gender identity/whatever is going on with their wanting to be "seen as the opposite sex" or "neither" stuff.

That right there is all that has ever needed to be said. Curses to every LGB organization that wrongly decided to conflate the two.

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

I love this! I was just recently thinking it would be cool to have posts along these lines, to try and anticipate what we could say that would get a gender identity ideology supporter to pause and reflect on their beliefs, or to share our perspective as same-sex-attracted people.

What we say: maybe T sexuality works this way, but ours simply does not. T's is based on gender; ours is based on biological sex.

I think this, in itself, is an important piece. Regardless of however transgender people, or people who believe in gender identity ideology, say that they experience attraction-- we don't experience it based on (so-called) gender identity. We experience it based on sex.

Some people online might call you a "genital fetishist" at that point but:

  • I've never heard that accusation IRL.

  • they are as much "gender fetishists" as we are "genital fetishists"-- that is to say, both terms are nonsensical

  • If someone actually called me that I would ask them what they think a fetish is. At some point we would get around to the point that a fetish involves attraction to something that is not human sexual features...

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Would it help to work on this via a wiki, btw? Not sure the one on this sub would be available for that but it might at least be an easier place to keep track of the conversations while discussing a framework for advocacy.

[–]reluctant_commenter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Along similar lines-- I am currently in the process of organizing a list of resources (which you and I have both brought up multiple times by now!) and was planning to post them in just a regular post as a list, but having a place to put them that's more accessible would be cool.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, I was just trying to figure out how to tag you and the OP in the above wiki question when I got interrupted. A predictable place for both would be ideal for sure.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I think just mentioning someone's name e.g. u/wafflegaff usually does it :)

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Yep, but I felt like ass today and had an IQ of about 20. ;-)

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

Ahaha, I think many of us have 20-IQ days, you're in good company. :) Hope you feel better tomorrow.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I appreciate you working on this, agree that it's time, and was just, in fact, thinking about how to bring a friend up to speed who made a FB post the other day trying to avoid "TERF-y" FB groups, and she is smart and caring, which makes me think that showing her first how LGB are being harmed—which I bet she doesn't even realize is happening—would actually be a compelling argument for her to hear what I have to say. I don't think she wants to be seen as homophobic either. So yes, it's self-defense for sure.

No other concrete suggestions tonight but I will try to follow along, and thank you again to you and others who provide useful collaborative input on this. We have to have a focused, clear, evidence-based way to defend ourselves.

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

makes me think that showing her first how LGB are being harmed—which I bet she doesn't even realize is happening

Totally. The propaganda has drilled LGBT LGBT LGBT into everyone's heads. They don't grasp that T is at odds with LGB.

[–]ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I think Dr John Money, the person who coined the current use of gender and ruined the lives of at least two children is a person worth researching in this debate.

[–]BiHorror 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Uh... Mate, you might not want to do that. Because he's also the same person who coined the gender and sex terminological differentiation. Something that GC is at fault of using.

[–]ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Not sure of your meaning. Gender critical people are critical of the whole concept of gender as something different to sex and involving an internal "identity" and stereotyped behaviours/presentation. Money is the person responsible for creating the gender malarky that the TRAs have decided to run with. I think a lot of people who mindlessly parrot TRA talking points would be fucking shocked to find out about what he did.

[–]BiHorror 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Which also includes the whole "gender = societal expectations" eventually. Because he's the one who also created that. The whole questioning of if xyz is internal is based on his works involving those two kids. Past feminists adopted that into their stuff and he's still considered the overall coiner of "sex =/= gender" bs.

Although, he did help create the monstrosity that TRAs use, he isn't the one who coined gender identity. He built off of the person before (Robert J. Stoller aka the original coiner of gender identity).

TRAs have decided to run with. I think a lot of people who mindlessly parrot TRA talking points would be fucking shocked to find out about what he did.

Nah, how I know? Because I talked with these people before. And the majority of them? Usually make excuse on why they should still continue using it. Like, "how it's unfortnate he did this to these two kids" and blah blah blah but let's continue using it!

Only the majority/normal/average people outside of ALL (as in people who still see gender = sex) don't know of any of this. Lucky them...

Personally, I think the word "gender" should just drop from use completely (which it was but he and Robert brought it back when in the past it was used in only grammar related stuff) and replaced everything with sex. People are smart enough to figure out the context of if it's being used to refer to intercourse or body/sex types.

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

Nah, how I know? Because I talked with these people before. And the majority of them? Usually make excuse on why they should still continue using it. Like, "how it's unfortnate he did this to these two kids" and blah blah blah but let's continue using it!

This is extremely horrifying! I have also talked to people (otherwise intelligent, compassionate) who somehow apologize for/explain away why child transition should be a thing. It shows me how many people are susceptible to propaganda, b/c that is so, so far from a healthy/normal/humane viewpoint.

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

It baffles me how can you supposedly be against child abuse, esp to this extreme, but wanna continue using this man's work? You could literally use anyone else but no... You decided you wanted to go with this sicko's experiments. They don't see how this is making them (and others because I have seen some actual homophobes using John Money and associating him with LGB) look bad.

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Hey BiHorror, you replied to me I think by accident. I didn't say anything about John Money.

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

Super late reply: I don't think so. Although, I did write John Money in my previous comment talking about how actual homophobes (like outside of tras) who are using him as ammo against lgb.

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh I get it now. You were using "you want to continue using this man's work" not directed to me, LOL. My bad. Yeah John Money's work shouldn't be used now, ever.

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

It's alright! But yeah, his works shouldn't be used but these people are very keen on using it while supposedly being "against" the shit he did.

[–]Destresse🇨🇵 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree it's time to organise and come up with common strategies. I'm not sure about claiming Ts have a "gender-sexuality", I don't think it's accurate, so I wouldn't argue in that sense.

The only fact I know for sure, is that homosexuals, exclusively attracted to the same sex, individuals exist. As do heterosexual individuals, as a result. This insistance that everyone is basically bi, however they decide to name it, "attracted to genders", "hearts not parts", "pansexual", is wrong. Theorically, heterosexual people should understand this reasoning, as this implies their sexuality doesn't exist either. Theorically. Facts are, the Ts hold the power and heterosexual people are not being colonised the way we are, and natural preservation instinct will tell them to side with the winning side.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm incapable of arguing without getting incredibly upset, which isn't very good for credibility, haha.

I think we should have: this space (or another) to organise the... uh, international resistance online?

And different spaces for different continents. Namely, I think European LGB should be a thing. If it gets big enough, country-specific LGB groups would be ideal.

Btw, mes chers compatriotes, please contact me, let's find each other :)

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree it's time to organise and come up with common strategies. I'm not sure about claiming Ts have a "gender-sexuality", I don't think it's accurate, so I wouldn't argue in that sense.

I don't know that many of us would believe it's true, but it's rather "You are saying you have a gender-based sexuality and ours is based on sex." I think it's better to not try to fight them on their subjective experience here because that's a losing argument. In fact, I've been told that I'm lying about my sexuality being sex-based so we need to be firm in this point. The dating, sexual, and romantic behaviors of established gay people (i.e. not self-ID under 25s) shows gay people consistently dating based on sex, even when they support transgenderism. This is evidenced by every celesbian YouTuber, for example. Unless they want to go after those celesbians for being bigoted and peak their audiences?

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know that many of us would believe it's true, but it's rather "You are saying you have a gender-based sexuality and ours is based on sex."

Yes, this is my intended meaning, since I actually don't believe that ANYONE'S sexuality is gender-based. (The closest thing might be certain kinds of fetishism-- specifically, how straight men can seem more attracted to the artificial stuff symbolizing "woman"-- the trappings of the female gender-role, such as makeup, high heels, lingerie, long hair, and so on-- than to women themselves. But even this looks like it's still really about biological sex; that's just getting confused with, and obscured by, cultural signifers thereof somehow.)

The reason I don't debunk this gender-based-sexuality assertion in my post is that we can use it against them. Because, if it's true, shouldn't the T only pursue each other sexually? And, if it's not, quit harassing us to be attracted to THEM based on "gender"? The upshot either way being: leave LGB people the hell alone.

(So, if you want my argument in a more confrontational form, maybe just add this bit where the self-own implications of gender-based sexuality are spelled out.)

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm all for this. What you've written is very clear and concise as far as the defensive strategy. I like it!

I think going on the offense against gender ideology as a whole is absolutely necessary. However I think we should do so in stages. If we jump straight into 'transgenderism is a cult' no one's going to listen. We'll need to first appeal to people's common sense. We should also have receipts on hand because TRAs will attempt to change their stories or play dumb 'I've never seen people say that/we never said that/only TERFs say that'. These receipts should be in the form of archive links, studies, and articles. Screenshots are okay, but they can be easily faked, especially if they're tweets.

Stage 1: "Preferences for hobbies, careers, clothing, social roles, and beauty accessories typically associated with the opposite sex do not actually make someone the opposite sex. To claim that it does is regressive and only makes societal gender confines more restrictive while undoing decades of progress."

Stage 2: "Gender theory tells people they must identify as nonbinary or trans in order to defy gender roles. We say people should be able to do so while not abandoning their sex."

Stage 3: "Puberty is not a medical condition. Discomfort with one's body during or near puberty is normal. Children need support and understanding during this time, not blockers and hormones. Furthermore, gender dysphoria is very common among LGB children. Telling them that they should transition in order to please a society that hates them for being GNC and/or same sex attracted is both homophobic and again, regressive. Support of trans people should not mean sacrificing LGBs in the process."

Stage 4: "People who transition during adulthood are free to do as they please. They should NOT however, teach impressionable teenagers and young adults that any sort of discomfort with their sex makes them trans. They also should not continue spreading this lie that non-trans people are comfortable with our gender roles. No one is 100% comfortable with their body or gender role."

Stage 5: Link to stories by detransitioners and desisters. Make it clear that 'trans' is not the same as 'gay'. Highlight that while homosexual conversion therapy is unsuccessful, many detrans people have expressed that proper therapy to unpack their dysphoria and helping them be comfortable in their bodies was very successful. I am one such desister.

Etc, etc. Then we can get into the cultish ways TRAs operate and how they groom kids to boost their numbers. We can get into the way they try to rewrite history, how they've taken slogans from other movements over the years, how they gaslight and manipulate, the violence they display via stalking, harassment, doxxing, and deplatforming. We can get into the nitty gritty of how they almost exclusively go after LGBs with their 'genital fetish' and 'transphobia' rhetoric while leaving straight people alone. That can lead into AGP/AAP. I'm very interested to hear your take on the offensive component.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think going on the offense against gender ideology as a whole is absolutely necessary. However I think we should do so in stages.

I hadn't even thought of this; excellent point, as well as identification/progression of potential stages. A desister's analysis is especially welcome here (since you know the T mindset from the inside).

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

No problem! I'm very happy to help however I can. Detransitioner and desister testimonials should be one of the last stages IMO because of how hated we are by TRAs. We're a direct contradiction to everything they stand for so they fight to silence us at every opportunity in a very specific way. Many spaces like r/detrans are always on thin ice and always being threatened with the ban hammer. So until we get a buffer of support, so to speak, we risk putting those spaces in even more danger.

TRAs got so much support by performing their activism in stages, so I think we should do something similar. "It's not what you say, but how you say it." Even if we are right in saying TRAs operate like cults, humans can't change sex, and gender identity doesn't override sexual orientation, those statements will come off as too radical at the moment. We would only be giving them more ammo to deplatform us.

We need to start with something simple and easy to understand if we want to dismantle gender identity politics. "You can wear makeup and it won't make you less of a man/wearing short hair and blazers doesn't make you less of a woman" are such statements that appeal to people's common sense while not stepping on anyone's toes. If we start there, then the rest of the dominos will naturally fall into place. Because if more people understand that there's no one way to be a man or a woman then it follows that identifying out of your 'gender' so you can do those things makes no sense.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Honestly? No. I'm tired of "playing it safe." I'm doing that in a majority far-left leaning group right now. I'm having to keep my mouth shut when idiot trans people go around spouting really nonsensical shit, and it's immensely tiring.

Here's my take - nobody should be forced into silence. Concepts like "transphobia" and "bigotry" are what they use to control the situation. By silencing yourself and "playing it safe" they successfully have control over you (and others.)

The bravest thing you can do is not care about "transphobia" and say what you mean anyway. Anyone with half a brain won't see it as a "hate crime" and anyone who does is not worth wasting your energy on.

Sure, I may get a reputation for being "extreme", but at least I say what I mean, and mean what I say. Honestly is more valuable than people seem to think. I don't give a FUCK if Twitter teenagers and awkward adult hipsters think I am a "violent fascist" for making statements such as "Gender isn't real", "Trans people are actively oppressing intersex people and it's not okay" or "I do not personally support the LGBT+", I'm still going to keep saying these things because they're important. Silencing myself and not speaking up is never beneficial.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Have more to say in response, but I'll just start with:

  • What do you mean by "playing it safe" here? Dishonesty? Self-silencing to avoid accusations of transphobia/bigotry? And are you talking about my "self-defense" argument only, or the entire strategy laid out in my post?
  • When you make these statements (where you say what you mean, and mean what you say), do you have a purpose beyond just telling the truth? Are you trying to defeat trans ideology? Discredit its proponents? Convince people that it's wrong, and they should oppose it? If so, can you tell whether you're succeeding in this effort?