On "trans rights" and rights in general
Contrary to popular misconception, critics of the transgender movement do not disagree that trans people have "rights" as a monolith. They're talking about whether trans people have specific rights including:
- not being misgendered
- tax-payer funded gender surgery/hormones
- (specifically children) to get surgery at all without their parents consent (or with)
I don't definitely disagree with all of the above, but it gives you a sense of the reasonable criticism people can have with the concept of "trans rights" as "allies" actually mean it (not as the basic human rights they claim to mean).
I do definitely disagree with the right to not be misgendered, as that goes against the right to free speech, which I value a lot.
Trans rights I definitely agree with:
- having surgery with their own money as an adult
- social transition (excluding the bit where they force other people to play along calling them by their preferred pronouns using laws such as the German self-identity law)
- freedom from violence from bigots
Human rights are not just a stand-in for "things I like". They actually mean something. Namely, government force applied to protect a property of a human being or group thereof (legal right), or a moral obligation on someone to do or not do something to/for someone (moral right).
A legal right to not be misgendered means that the government passes laws prohibiting misgendering trans people. Think about that.
@randrews
Motte and Bailey
@light Yes, exactly, but specifically around definitions and terms. First thing I saw about this was the shifting definition of "feminism," from "women should have voting / property rights" to "every corporation needs to be managed mostly by women." If you question the second one then you're motte-and-bailey'd into being told you're against the first one.
On "trans rights" and rights in general
misgendering people, whether they're cis or trans, is likely to hurt them. making mistakes illegal usually involves very demanding requirements of negligence, but making willfully hurting others out of spite and prejudice illegal is a lot more reasonable
as for medical and psychological treatments needed by any person to be able to live a happier life, ruling some out just because you don't experience or need them comes across as horribly selfish to me. I hope you never need treatment for a condition that others reject as legitimate, and if you do, that you aren't, like, taking back at another vulnerable group. especially teens and children, who may have to deal with bigotry and intolerance not only in society at large, and in doctors, but also in parents that were supposed to be supportive
On "trans rights" and rights in general
> misgendering people, whether they're cis or trans, is likely to hurt them. making mistakes illegal usually involves very demanding requirements of negligence, but making willfully hurting others out of spite and prejudice illegal is a lot more reasonable
Misgendering a trans identified person hurts the same way as denying the existence of God to a believer. Misgendering is not out of spite or prejudice if done on the basis of respecting biological reality. Making it illegal is not just a violation of freedom of speech, but also of freedom of conscience
@light
and don't get me started on religion. lots of harm have been brought onto humankind by hateful behaviors (pseudo)justified by religion, but religious freedom is also a human right that is also often disregarded, and such beliefs can go pretty deep in a person's identity. hurting them purposefully is also unkind, even if you disagree with them.
CC: @light@qoto.org
it's not even the case that gonads and brain development are always aligned: there are biological factors that can make them develop differently, and also to be misaligned with genes.
mistaking them for binary and aligned is a hurtful oversimplification.
say, why do you take/accept me as male? you've never seen my genome, you've never looked at my private parts, you've never scanned my brain. at most, you've seen some secondary characteristics that hormones, whether natural or artificial, would bring about. yet you don't hesitate in accepting me as male.
why is it so difficult for you to extend similar kindness to other fellow human beings?
CC: @light@qoto.org
Sex is (commonly?) defined by gamete size. It sounds like you have a definition using brain development and gonads that is not equivalent to the gamete size definiton.
If sex is not binary, as you said, can you name a third sex?
I assume you are male based on information such as the pronouns used to refer to you and that there's no evidence suggesting you are trans identified. If someone refers to himself as she/her and claims to be trans then I assume he is male too.
@light
as for sports fairness, I've already suggested that the solution is not for people to be forced into an imaginary binary, but to have more categories that encompass all human diversity, as done in para-olympics
I'm afraid I don't know what these newly-won rights are that you speak of, so I can't comment on them. care to clue me in?
CC: @quasi@peister.org @light@qoto.org
> the concern over safety is a misdirection: it's not a reason to misgender people, it's a reason to worry about fraudsters who are also sexual predators. don't conflate such monsters with trans people, that's hateful.
Practically how is a woman supposed to distinguish between someone who is "genuinely trans" and someone who is "fraudulently trans", thus achieving not being hateful in your book?
@LostInCalifornia @light
my understanding is that solidarity has historically been a workaround for that. when someone is attacking someone else, that's pretty easy to tell, and for others around to take action and help the victim.
CC: @light@qoto.org @LostInCalifornia@spinster.xyz
you're right that there are plenty of men who don't respect women as equally deserving of rights and respect. that's why we ended up living in patriarchies. that's probably why women feel it's safer to go to the bathroom or for walks in groups. that sucks, and needs to be fixed.
but we don't need to make more victims in the process.
CC: @quasi@peister.org @light@qoto.org
did you see where I proposed a solution for the sports problem, that you pretend I regard as imaginary?
are you ready for an honest, respectful dialogue, or should I start ignoring you now?
women can have their own movement as much as I'm concerned, but that won't stop me for advocating for their rights, whether they're cis or trans women
CC: @quasi@peister.org @light@qoto.org
On "trans rights" and rights in general
> free speech doesn't encompass shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no reason to believe there is an actual fire.
See
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
https://www.thefire.org/news/reminder-about-shouting-fire-crowded-theater
@light
On "trans rights" and rights in general
@lxo
> misgendering people, whether they're cis or trans, is likely to hurt them. making mistakes illegal usually involves very demanding requirements of negligence, but making willfully hurting others out of spite and prejudice illegal is a lot more reasonable
Different idea gets argument. Never bullet. Full stop.
On "trans rights" and rights in general
@lxo
> as for medical and psychological treatments needed by any person to be able to live a happier life, ruling some out just because you don't experience or need them comes across as horribly selfish to me.
I wasn't ruling them out. I thought it was clear that I was on the fence about them.
I understand the argument that they are mental health treatment and the argument that they are unnecessary cosmetic surgery that some don't want to pay for.
In the USA, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is protected free speech no matter what (as it should be) - you just face the consequences if anything happens (nothing ever happens anymore, as theaters are designed to avoid crowd crushes and people now tend to ignore crying wolf).
It is a terrible idea to let the government get away with making any speech illegal, ever, even if you are opposed to such speech - as the government can and will exploit that weapon against you on a whim (for example, they'll gleefully take the chance to go look back over everything you've ever said until they find illegal speech and then put you in prison for years to life for such bad speech).
It is not reasonable to make even hurting others feelings out of spite and prejudice illegal, as the cure to spite and prejudice is more speech - not arrests and censorship.
Many people absolutely hate my guts for daring to like freedom and community and do their absolute best to try to hurt my feelings (but they do not win, as I do not stoop to their level by attempting censorship) and would love nothing more for speech that points out that free software even exists (after all, it hurts the feelings of corpo suits badly) - it is highly important that such people do not end up with such power! (some of them already partially do - there are some microsoft businesses that have a contract+NDA that states that mentioning that free software even exists to business customers is forbidden).
@Suiseiseki
And add to that that it's not spiteful or prejudiced to not believe that men can be women or vice versa.
It is absolutely an insane argument to say that affirming reality can be morally wrong, let alone should be illegal.
@lxo
On "trans rights" and rights in general
@light This is the usual dodge people like this use: co-opt a term everyone wants to mean something that very few people want, and then if you want it they pretend you want their new extreme meaning; if you call them on it they pretend you’re against the original broad meaning.
It’s fundamentally a bullshit argument. They only do it because they can’t get support any way but with lying bullshit.