DiscussionLGB Alliance UK, and the transgender-identified people who want to support LGB - What are your opinions?

submitted by reluctant_commenter from self.LGBDropTheT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]motss-pb 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I approach gender ideology in the same way I approach religion. Religious beliefs can also be sexist and homophobic. And I don't agree with that, but I still believe in freedom of religion and that we should practice tolerance. So, even though I don't respect their beliefs, I can tolerate transwomen who say they want to "live as women" whatever that means. As long as they don't expect me or the law to pretend that TWAW, I'm glad to let them live their lives. Once their ideology starts affecting policy in a way that infringes on the rights of others, the gloves come off.

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

So, even though I don't respect their beliefs, I can tolerate transwomen who say they want to "live as women" whatever that means. As long as they don't expect me or the law to pretend that TWAW, I'm glad to let them live their lives.

Curious: Would you say that "expecting you or the law to pretend that TWAW" includes the pronoun debate? Like, would you call a transwoman "she" out of courtesy, or you would refuse to and still respect that person's right to self-describe as "trans"?

If I had to name a parallel in religion, I guess I would say, for example, how some Christian sects expect their priests to be called "Father ___." I would refuse to call such a person "father" because I don't subscribe to that belief system and have no desire to reinforce it, just as I would not call a transwoman "she" and have no desire to reinforce the beliefs of gender identity ideology.

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

I agree. I already had the "referring to priests as father" example in mind. I think a non-religious person can choose whether or not they want to refer to a priest as father. If not, there's always the secular "Mister" option. As a gender "atheist" I don't think I should be forced to change my language to enable an ideology I don't hold. So no, I would not call a transwoman "she" out of courtesy. If I were to use pronouns for a transwoman, I think would default to the gender neutral "they/them" out of courtesy. That's my compromise at the moment, but I'm still debating it. Certainly, "he/him" is not incorrect.