Keir Starmer does not believe trans women are women, No 10 says
Keir Starmer does not believe trans women are women, No 10 says
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman should be based on biological sex.
You're viewing a single thread.
Remeber how when there was a fight for gay marriage a good portion of people said they didnt mind the legal concept and just wanted to call it "civil unions" and we totally did that as a first step to placate those people before going full on equal marriage...
I wonder why the approach to trans rights has been so all or nothing with people It seems like there is no real desire for progress from eithet side the way things stand now.
What is there to compromise here? Every building with gendered facilities has to build a third set of toilets for trans people? The government has to build a third set of prisons for trans people?
An example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women.This is not an extreme or hateful idea. Other issues like sports or bathrooms can still be nuanced discussions that acknowledge peoples concerns and work to educate rather then alienate. Acceptice means different things to different people and it wont come all at once.
To compare a similar example imagine someone who comes out as gay to parents in the 90s: strict chrisitan parents might kick them out of the house and never speak to them again, - OR- they could be the type of conservative parents who say "well i dont agree with it but i still love you". Whch would you rather have? Which one would potentially lead to a potentially better outcome/changed mind?
It seems to me that completely alienating people who have reasonable objections to relatively new ideas is not the best way to go.
That didn't answer the question you replied to, and didn't actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this "compromise" manifest? I'm guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way...
They asked "What is there to compronise" and i answered "an example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women"...
Its called agreeing to disagee, have civil discussions with people who you might actually find you have more in common with then you disagree on and minds can be moved that way.
This whole all or nothing approach is just turning more people away, you want to talk about putting trans folk in harms way, but what happend to just wanting to be able to live a normal life?
I guess when you are in your own bubble its hard to see other perpectives, but surely you dont honestly think if you surveyed a random set of a few hundred people, the majority of them would not be on the same page about any trans rights issues, insulting or chastising them wont win them over and will only cause more resentment against trans people.
Literally no one thinks cis women and trans women are the same, so your compromise doesn't mean anything in and of itself.
I'm asking you what your position means in real world terms. What are the consequences of these differences? Because that's what really matters.
Feigned outrage because I asked you for specifics seems counter to your stated goals of reaching compromise and makes me question your motives.
So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.
Its about engagjng in good faith discussions so that people who just passivly observe things dont get the impression that the disenguous "just asking questions" people are the moderate and reasonable ones.
"I think people should have respect" isn't something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.
Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women's safety, as if trans women aren't part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.
And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.
The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don't just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.
I'm also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven't become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.
That's why
Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you, I don't. I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback (and this happens on both sides, across all issues, not just trans rights). You're taking what i'm saying to mean people should not push back at all, and that is NOT what im saying. You are also conflating an observation with a prescription. My initial post was only critical of the "all or nothing" approach that most people seem to take to issues these days, and how that can negatively affect progress. I'm expressing a concern about how black and white things are compared to how things seems 20-30 years ago with gay rights or 50-60 years ago with civil rights even.
I'm very curious what you think the positions i've become entrenched in are? I suppose the one thing is that I believe we as a society/human race are extremely fucked at the moment, probably past the point of no return on a number of things that will end us, but not really specific to this conversation.
Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you
You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.
I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback
Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.
Your framing of that as "all or nothing" means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don't believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people
You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.
Cool strawman, but I don't think that, not even close
Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.
I never said to give up on anything. I was making a statement about how different the current situation is from a past situation in which noticeable progress was made on some kind of civil rights. Are you implying that people in the 90s and 00s who fought for gay rights just did stuff to appease their way to marriage equality?
Your framing of that as “all or nothing” means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don’t believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people
I'm simply pointing out that things seem to have gone beyond a point of no return in terms of 2 sides being able to agree on pretty much anything anymore because one side is composed almost exclusively of narcissists with oppositional defiance disorder, and the other side is so busy in-fighting that they don't realize they're alienating their own and not making any progess.
Again, there is no suggestion being made here... everyone should continue fighting as hard as you are able, in whatever ways are accessible to you to forward the cause of trans rights and any other rights you believe in.
An example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women.This is not an extreme or hateful idea.
It is also not in dispute.
What is in dispute is sometimes the extent of those differences, but is usually whether those differences are relevant at all.
Other issues like sports or bathrooms can still be nuanced discussions that acknowledge peoples concerns and work to educate rather then alienate.
Opposition to trans rights generally comes from three motivating factors:
- The propensity to find trans people icky.
- The desire to deny the existence of gender identity as something that is distinct from sex. (This comes in both pro- and anti- gender essentialist flavours and we could discuss it all day, but that is not relevant for now.)
- Having a genuine concern about biological differences. The reason why we're not having nuanced discussions is because people in categories 1 and 2 will masquerade as people in category 3 and not participate in any discussion in good faith.
Let's take trans women in sports as an example. There is - for sure - a small number of people who will argue that that anyone who identifies as a woman should be able to compete as a woman in any circumstances, but this is not a mainstream position, even in the trans community. The mainstream position is that trans women should be generally be allowed to compete as women in competition after some suitable amount of time on hormone replacement therapy.
This is because strength is not stored in the balls or in the genes; the difference in strength between cis men and cis women is a result of the effect of testosterone on the muscles, and the presence of testosterone needs to be maintained in order to maintain those muscular differences. Such studies that there are seem to suggest that trans women tend not to have any advantage over cis women after a year or two on HRT when controlling for differences in height.
Some people who are hostile to trans women in sport are unaware of this and think that strength advantages are permanent, and when you explain the reasons that they aren't then those people may become less hostile to the concept. Maybe they have doubts about the specific studies or want there to be more research for any given sport or whatever, but that is the region in which compromise is possible. But maybe they'll just start pulling further justifications out of their arse.
- "Those height differences are significant enough to merit banning trans women!" If it were then the sport would have height categories, wouldn't it?
- "What about muh bone density?" In what world does having heavier bones and weaker muscles to move them around with constitute an advantage?
However, the debate is mostly populated by people who pretend to care about biological differences, but in reality simply object to any concession that trans women are in any way women. Anyone who claims that men are biologically better than women at chess or darts is fundamentally unserious. The film Lady Ballers came about when someone at the Daily Wire suggested that they make a documentary about men identifying as women so they can compete against women. When they found out that actually, that's not a thing that happens and there are requirements that you have to meet, did they let that stop them? No, they just wrote a fictional film about it instead because they object to trans women being treated as women for ideological reasons, and they want to poison the well by persuading people that it is a thing that happens.
How do you compromise with that? How do you compromise with someone who objects to a trans woman competing as a woman in a chess competition because they fundamentally object to the premise that a trans woman is in any way a woman?
First off, thank you for taking the time for an execellent response. This is pretty much the kind of compromise im talking about, you acknowledge there are people with genuine concerns, but the vocal majority are acting in bad faith. You didnt just say anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, you brought more information to backup your positions.
Honestly, i am with you 100% on everything you mentioned already. The reason im posting the question like this is because sadly it seems my partner of 16 years, has fallen down the Jk Rowling rabbit hole, and i know for a fact my wife does not hate trans women, but also wants "women only spaces" because on facebook and twitter you basically get nothing but hateful stuff vaguely disguised as "safety” or fairness concerns. Its not exactly easy to convince a 49 year old life long feminist that they are falling for propaganda.
Its one thing when to have this kind of disagreement with random internet people, and quiet another to have it with someone you respect and care about. The point is conversations can and should be had. If its mostly bad faith actors being vocal with fake concerns, why not respond with something that has genuine aswers to those concerns, like what you did here so that the people who do have good faith concerns but arent speaking up dont get overwhelmed by only seeing the bad faith side of things?
Well, that whole civil union thing didn't really work out so well and those same people were still (and are still) homophobic to the extreme so why give them anything? They are clearly not interested in compromises anyway.
And why the fuck is there a compromise position at all? Bigots don't have a right to discriminate against people. If they don't want to get on board they can fuck off.
What happens when that attitude ends up creating more biggots and we find ourselves even more outnumbered. I dont know what the best solution is but surely its not to alienate a full third of the entire population and expect that to work out well for everyone.
On a personal one to one level i do agree they can fuck off. But from an observing the reality of living in a country that just elected a fascist, im worried all the demanding people accept things they disagree with lest they be shunned, its just going to lead to more pushback against trans and other vulnerable people.
I dont know what the best solution is but surely its not to alienate a full third of the entire population and expect that to work out well for everyone
A full third of the population is already alienated. It's not working well for anyone. I'm simply saying we should leave a full third behind in the dust if they don't want to give up bigotry. These people are not helpless, they know that they're wrong, and they're doing this shit anyway. Compromising with them is exactly why we elected a fascist.
And to be clear, conservatives drove this, they had a million opportunities to turn around, and refused every time. I'm not the one who brought us here.
Again i agree with this 100% on a personal level, my concern is just that it seems like that third is growing and the other side is shrinking due to increasing in fighting. Im not really sure what the solution for that is, i just think its a bad trend and leads to more hostility.
It certainly did work out in many countries, which transitioned from it to Marriage for all in the end
Thanks to the people who were in favor of marriage equality in the first place, not thanks to the bigots who wanted "civil unions" instead. Those are even more vicious in their bigotry these days.
How didnt it work out? It lead to eventually getting marriage equality world wide, in large part because those first states tried to do civil unions.
By your logic, when they freed the slaves, they really should've done it slowly instead of all at once, because look how many racists it made!
Or was civil rights too fast as well?
Im not sure you have my logic correct... Im not saying we should do things slower, im saying its concerning how black or white everything has gotten, everyone has purity tests and if you dont pass you arent worth engaging with and im concerned that will have a lot of negative consequences and lead to increased hostility.
I am sharing an observation, not suggesting a solution. I am saying the way things are is concering and while i hope for a positive outcome (one where people are accepted for who they are) i see a lot more pushback than acceptance with the current strategy/mindset.