Plenty of TERFs consider it a slur and negative. JK Rowling, for example, wrote: "...activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF."
The term "TERF" is exclusively used by people who attack and criticise "TERFs". It's never said without hostility, and it's often accompanied by explicit calls for violence (try searching Twitter for "kill TERFs" and "punch TERFs".)
So yes, it certainly is an offensive slur - those who use it invariably mean it an offensive way.
> We don't operate our universities on the heckler's veto.
I've seen a few videos from various Universities where invited speakers are shouted down because of supposed wrong views. But then it isn't the heckler's veto if their views are wrong or what?
What's weird is that not long ago is popular to say "I disagree with everything you have to say, but I'd die for your right to say it". It's amazing how times have changed from that shared belief.
The videos you haven't seen are the ones that were never made because the wrong-view person was stopped from even giving their scheduled talk via "de-platforming".
It was popular to say, but I challenge the idea that people have somehow become less tolerant of speech they disagree with than, say, Christians in the 1980s or the US government during the Red Scare.
They were wrong then, and these people are wrong now. Unfortunately, they also have an indelible record of the internet to hunt down those they don't like for words uttered back to their pubescent years.
Among a certain sect of internet libertarians, maybe. And we saw that the result of that was the proliferation of communities on popular websites dedicated to legal but sexually suggestive pictures of girls (ex. /r/jailbait on Reddit), communities dedicated to voyeuristic photography, vitriolic hate against people who are overweight, etc.
I'm sorry but Evelyn Beatrice Hall first wrote those words in 1906, as a description of the beliefs of Voltaire, who died in 1778 and whose ideas were extremely mainstream at the time the US was founded.
These ideas long predate the internet and the Libertarian political party and to box them in as such and dismiss them carelessly is extremely intellectually dishonest and bordering on flamebait.
Additionally, if your best evidence against freedom of speech is Reddit, I suggest you retool your arguments from scratch.
Western Liberalism is a self correcting, evolving system of ideas and rigorous analysis of what is considered knowledge. So yes, per the people that were considered "the people" during those times, this belief was very strongly held indeed.
Following on nemo44x's response, we also don't really have much written evidence to the contrary.
Literacy rates in late colonial America were 85-90% north of Virginia and around 60% in Virginia and south of it. If large numbers of people were disagreeing, they surely weren't writing about it.
Someone having a right to say something doesn't mean they are entitled to every platform to broadcast it.
Not everyone can go and speak at a University, there is not enough time and space for that to be viable, just as not everyone can demand to be broadcast on TV.
If you can't get enough support at a University to speak, the public square and the soapbox are always at your disposal. The government can't arrest you. That is the freedom of expression that is protected.
You are talking about enforced speech, where private individuals must listen to a speaker, and/or use their platform to amplify the speaker's words. It is a violation of their freedom of expression to tell them they cannot refuse or protest against what someone else wishes to say.
The person in the article was invited by the university. This isn't a random person demanding to be heard. This is the university succumbing to pressure from a small group to ban a guest from sharing their ideas with the student body that choose to attend.
The students have a right to freedom of expression in protest.
The University should absolutely be providing speakers that challenge the student's views and offer ideas they may not agree with, but that's an educational decision, not a free speech one.
If the student body wants to lobby the University not to accept you as a speaker, that's their freedom of the speech, and it is up to the University to weigh that against the potential educational value.
For example, to start somewhere obvious, someone coming in to talk about how your friends are subhuman doesn't provide a lot of educational value, and students rightly don't want their tuition spent enabling it.
Don't like it, use your freedom of speech to demonstrate enough value to your ideas the University and student body are willing to listen. Students are at University for an education, and they have a right to say what they find valuable and demand value from the University. Denying them that is limiting their freedom of expression.
I think another point of the article is the masses of silent people are starting become less silent. Their politeness has been mistaken for agreement.
The university should only allow speakers that the students agree with? That’s sort of ridiculous and an abdication of the university’s responsibility to expose their students to challenging and possibly hurtful intellectual thought. I listened to no shortage of intellectuals that criticized white men in western society in many ways for example. And that’s Ok if it’s thoughtful and with a point, however idiotic I might think it is.
The university has the job of determining what this level is. This speaker wasn’t claiming anyone was subhuman. And you don’t have to attend - it’s simple.
> The university should only allow speakers that the students agree with?
I was very clear that was not what I was saying, I said literally the opposite, so it seems like you didn't even bother reading my post.
> The university has the job of determining what this level is.
Exactly, and they decided that it wasn't valuable enough. I think they were right, you may well disagree. Either way, it isn't "academic freedom" under attack—as this is framed.
There will always be people pissed they don't get that platform for their idea—more people want a platform than there is time and budget to offer. It is a decision about the value of exposing students to the idea weighed against the cost of doing so.
If other students feel they are being denied value, they are free to go to the University and push back. Of course, we all know where this is going, just as with the reactionary response to homosexuality, it will become increasingly unpopular because the cat is out of the bag: people have trans loved ones and don't want them to be discriminated against.
You have cognitive dissonance in your thoughts then. On one hand you claim the students should be able to protest the speakers that the administration invites and on the other hand you suggest the administration should decide which intellectuals are educationally valuable. But yet, after the administration picked a speaker a minority of students protested and that same administration revoked the invitation under pressure. This suggests the minority of students, not the administration, decided what was of value.
This is a problem akin to letting a spoiled child instructing their parent just what’s for dinner. An abdication of duty.
There’s a difference from wanting discrimination against people and having a forum on very real issues regarding an ideology that claims a special access to a certain Knowledge. In a scientific liberal institution, no one is irrefutable and no one has the final say pending new evidence.
Of course the current motif is to dismiss scientific liberalism as racist and suspicious. You only have to read critical theory literature (race, queer, colonial, etc) , which oddly is not receptive to criticism itself.
It’s too late. The University is now the violent echo chamber, paranoid that the slightest disagreement or questioning of radicalism and power-obsessed minority tribalism, will lead to a collapse of the university’s cushy well-paid status as the true halls of higher learning.
I don’t know if this article is describing this phenomenon accurately, as the first paragraph contains an obvious falsehood: “ A flyer with an image of a gun and text reading “shut the fuck up, terf” (trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a slur) was circulating. ”.
TERF isn’t a slur. No one has successfully beaten and killed a woman while calling her a TERF and then got away with it in court like the gay panic defense and the trans panic defense has. No one was lynched for being a TERF like black people have been. This is a gross talking point trying to claim victim positioning and is inaccurate journalism. The whole article is suspect to be sympathetic to anti-trans politics as a result.
I do want to talk about how much gender has invaded the academic life in a way that gets in the way of education. Obviously, I don’t want even more gender politicking from the other “side”!
I’ve associated the term slur in the common understanding with an actual history of marginalization, and I think the claim is totally unnecessary politicking in the reporting.
A slur is any term that’s “a disparaging remark or slight” according to dictionary.com. It’s hard to argue they’re not using the term TERF as disparaging.
The problem is that you are saying "TERF" is a slur by using a wide definition but then using the narrow definition to claim it's a travisty to be called a "TERF". The point is that "TERF" is not on the same level as the n-word, f-word or the t-word which you are likening it to when you insist it's a slur. It's simply not harmful to call someone a "TERF" like it is to use slurs against the groups that TERFs are marginalizing.
Right, but "slur" by itself is used as shorthand for "offensive slur" - typically racially-offensive slurs or homophobic slurs, and so on - I'm not aware of normal public discourse referring to everyday insults as "slurs" - whatever the original definition slur had it now has a connotation of insulting the target by way of comparing the target to an intentionally hurtful stereotype. (I could enumerate examples but nothing good can come from that, methinks...)
Whereas "TERF" is an acronym - it isn't appealing to anyone's emotional opinions about what a "TERF" represents - that is if anyone is even clued-up enough to know what it actually means.
Maybe the people complaining are assuming that TERF is an offensive slur without doing their research first? I'll admit it does have that feel to it, the way it sharply rolls off the tongue...
TERF both manages to connote something that should be stepped upon and is used to box in a person's opinions to a caricature so that a label can be applied (a stereotype, in other words), rather than listening to what they say. I'd say that between that, karen, anti-vaxxer, and anti-masker, a number of niche slurs have been popularized recently.
Sure, if someone uses it in their paper on, for example, history of feminist thought I wouldn't assume it to be offensive. On the other hand I don't think that the intention behind a sentence like “shut the fuck up, terf” is very unclear.
> No one has successfully beaten and killed a woman while calling her a TERF and then got away with it in court like the gay panic defense and the trans panic defense has. No one was lynched for being a TERF like black people have been.
That is a bizarre standard for what constitutes a slur, and would exclude the vast majority of slurs. This reads more like an attempt to inject an emotional appeal to deny a point you personally disagree with.
TERF is a phrase pretty much always used to attack its target. Coupling it with "shut the fuck up" makes the intention pretty clear.
It’s not shaming to say someone is against trans people nor is it disparaging unless someone is bringing politics and moralism into it. Like I said I don’t want even more gender politics from the other “side” as some kind of “backlash” journalistic piece. It’s all a wash of nonsense.
No one in the mainstream is "against trans people," what they're against is denying biological realities like sexual dimorphism in pursuit of a fashion trend.
I don't care if you're a man and you want to go by she/her, that's totally fine, but you're still not going to be placed in a cell with a female in prison if you've raped someone and happen to be trans identifying, sorry.
It's a disparaging remark to make it clear that the other person's opinions are wrong and that they as a person is of lesser value and should be ignored or attacked. It's used as a conversation stopper and to polarize the discussion, i.e. rally support from like minded and suppress the other party.
It's also not used merely to say that someone is against trans people, like you suggest. It's used by a toxic community that are immune to nuance and opposed to debate other than to force their own view on everyone else. Very few people are against trans people, but maybe some doesn't buy all of the identity politics. Saying that women menstruate is enough to be labeled a terf by the online mob. There's also rarely any radical feminism expressed by the people being labeled as terfs.
I think the economist's usage was OK, as it appears in the supplied context to have been used as a slur (I'm not adequately connected on the topic to know what the "normal" usage would be).
> The whole article is suspect to be sympathetic to anti-trans politics as a result.
Clearly, given what I said above, I don't agree with this diagnosis. In particular I think a few articles like this are a good antidote to the "the universities are insane and have been taken over by crazy extremists" narrative.
Perhaps if this commend page doesn't descend into vitriol, more contextual discussion could lead me or you to modulate our opinion. As I said I don't follow this topic particularly closely, so my interpretation could be naïve.
There’s a difference between saying it’s used as a way to disparage someone and as a slur here. I’ve generally associated the term slur with a significant history of using it against a demographic, such as fggot, nggr, ch*nk, etc. saying that TERF is on the same level as those terms struck me as politicking and not journalism, which made me suspect the rest of the piece as political nonsense from the right.
Language is dynamic. Use something as a slur often enough, and it becomes a slur. And here it's clearly being used as a slur. That doesn't make it always a slur (yet), but here it clearly is.
It is a slur, it's used as an insult against women who refuse to bow to the gender ideology insanity. You don't get to be the arbiter of that.
So-called "anti-trans" politics is actually more sensitive to the needs of real transsexuals while the transgender movement makes life harder for women, homosexuals, and transsexuals primarily for the benefit of non binary and transgender people
TERF is a slur used by transgender activists against anyone who understands the difference between sex, gender, transsexuality, and transgenderism, and refuses to deny certain biological realities, like the fact that only women produce ova.
The fact that you don't realize it's a slur shows how uneducated you are on this topic. You're going to need to do better next time.
I would suggest that it is a slur because it is used as a term of disparagement that often doesn't even accurately describe the target. The label gets thrown at women who are not RF, and sometimes women who, for whatever reason (for example, a religion they adhere to) would be reluctant to even call themselves F. At that point, I don't see how the word is any different than people e.g. referring to any Arabs as "camel jockeys".
It seems like the critical thing at stake in this thread is what 'slur' means. Like you, I think of slurs as being only the words associated with minority violence, maybe curse-words+, the sort of thing that would make me feel uncomfortably speaking aloud due to the associations. Evidently other people feel that it means something more like 'insult'. I can't say what this means in the broader context, but it might be a good signal to re-evaluate how you interpreted its use-age in the article.
I think the courts are the right place for this battle, some fundamental free speech rights for both sides need to be enforced. I didn't think this would the necessary in academia but with universities turning into service industries it seems inevitable.
As an adult return student in college currently, while I could engage in "free speech," the college is also free to expel me for creating a hostile environment for my views (I'm speaking generally here).
Everybody hates Illinois Nazi's. But if a group them sprouted up at your school, can you really say it's fair freedom of speech-wise to shut them down at a publicly funded institution? No you can't. Not only that, but instructors can at whim grade you based on if they like you as opposed to legitimately getting good grades.
Ultimately it just creates a system to be gamed by those wise enough to survive it. It's never been about education in the US. It's always been about "who can navigate the waters without getting labeled."
Gender politics is a cancer on the left, even though I agree with it, it takes up so much time and energy away from things that would benefit everybody including trans people, like universal healthcare, better employee protection laws and better, more available education. Such a small percentage of the population has been the center point of so much discussion and debate, and for what benefit? All I see it doing is give the right-wing more ammunition to harden their bases.
Yeah I’m not on the left any more and now an independent due to the left trying to use identity politics for political engagement. Still support what Bernie/Yang are doing though with trying to universalize healthcare and income though.
The same could be said for most wedge issues. In the US, gun rights and and abortion also become a focal point of US politics despite the existence of issues that deal with millions of preventable deaths (automobile safety, obesity epidemic, poverty), issues that deal with hundreds of thousands of displaced peoples and killed civilians (Afghanistan and Iraq war, war mongering over Syria, Libya, Iran, etc), and climate change, which our brightness minds continue to tell us could lead to not insubstantial percentages of all forms of life on our planet going extinct and billions or trillions of dollars of economic cost.
But we just focus on emotional trigger point issues. See focus on and mass protests because of police brutality (hundreds of deaths a year) compared to zero widespread action on the injustice of the prison system (hundreds of thousands of lives ruined, literal slavery and imprisonment in cages over antiquated unequally applied drug laws).
There's truth here, feels-over-reals is very much a problem in US politics. That said, feelings/perceptions have consequences if left unchecked. A few hundred people being "made an example of" by the police each year can functionally oppress an entire ethnic group in a country.
All that said, in light of the previous example, it makes the abortion fight seem particularly...whimsical...given the stakes. The evangelicals believe they themselves are going to heaven regardless of what the non-evangelicals do and those getting abortions don't care so it's rather hard to point to a group being oppressed by their beliefs here.
> it takes up so much time and energy away from things that would benefit everybody including trans people, like universal healthcare, better employee protection laws and better
Distraction working as intended then? Neither political party has really shown any clear legislative intention on delivering on those things you ask for.
Gender politics are interesting because they are mostly just a source of in-fighting within various factions of the left [1] but because they cover a set of topics that seem so foreign to the right, it gives them lots of ammunition for cruel memes to distract themselves from their own internal struggles.
That said, it's a nuanced issue that touches a lot of aspects of life and effects more people than one would initially assume. It's very much worth sorting out, but it's the kind of issue that's easily going to be derailed by toxic personalities because much like guns and religion, it's an attack on one's self image. If you're a billionaire wanting to cause havoc to prevent wealth taxes or environmental regulation, throwing money at either side of this cause seems like a pretty good way to get high political-chaos ROI.
One thing I find quite odd is how the study of gender emerged out of an approach that demanded a critical understanding of assumptions and the things society insist upon (that there are only 2 genders, that gender is essentially related to biological sex rather than something that is manifest in social behaviour, ect.) and yet that view has twisted into a sort of all or nothing view that is extremely antagonistic to critical inquiry. The tendency for a number of trans activists and talking points to revert back to a kind of gender essentialism; the logical inconsistencies in the idea that one identifies a private gender identity, rather than a personal desire to transition or live as another gender; the insistence that a trans person has special insight into the concept of gender --- raise up any of these points and you bear the risk of being labelled a "transphobe" even though you are entirely committed to the protection of a trans persons rights and dignity.
A small, extremely vocal minority insists that anyone that voices the slightest hesitation in accommodating trans people into gender/sex segregated social functions must be a transphobe or be complicit in the violence against trans people. It makes the entire conversation exhausting.
I dunno if I'd agree that it's a small vocal minority, zero-tolerance to anybody questioning the current dogma is seen everywhere where trans acceptance is a focus. Ten years ago I was told, by trans people, that there are physical differences between trans and cis brains. Say that today, and you get kicked out of LGBT spaces for being a transmedicalist or truscum.
I have no idea whether it's true or not because you can't even find research on the subject because of how absurdly politicized the topic is.
"Truscum" being the word for someone who thinks that changing one's gender and sexual characteristics might not be the greatest idea ever unless you actually have, like, gender dysphoria. Never mind the many, many people who are now pursuing "detransition" after going one step too far. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
"many, many people" -- do you have numbers as to how many people detransition, not due to being pressured but because they aren't trans after all, and only after making irreversible changes?
The idea that you can even detransition is fairly recent. Before then you just had to live with it...and the suicide rate historically has actually been 20 times higher post-op.
You might want to look up what Danielle Bunten Berry, rest in peace, had to say on the matter. The important quote is on her wikipedia page.
I'm also genuinely puzzled by dang's remark. I had tried to limit the unpleasantness in my comment as far as possible, while providing clarifying info and staying accurate to (i) what the trans activism movement itself seems to be stating internally, as well as (ii) the easily foreseeable consequences of these attitudes, if stated only obliquely for the sake of general politeness. If even that counts as "furthering a flamewar", this has some remarkably unpleasant implications about the overall debate re: gender issues.
OK, I'll just agree to disagree then. I understand that boilerplate ideological rhetoric is an unavoidable hazard in a thread about gender issues (or indeed, politics more generally) and I'll keep trying to write comments that are as far as possible from any 'boilerplate'.
By "ideological boilerplate" I mean repetitive ideological points, the kind that people repeat over and over again to bludgeon their enemies with in internet battles. That's the opposite of the discussion we want here. What we want is people listening to each other, taking in the specifics of what they have to say, and then responding with something that they haven't thought or said before—let alone a thousand times before. Conversation should be a co-creation between mutually respecting equals. When done well, it is always new. This follows from the core principle of HN, namely curiosity [1], because curiosity withers under repetition [2].
Snark is also a clear indicator of repetitive bludgeoning because people only resort to that when they have, let's call it, surplus creative energy left over—no real thought being needed to repeat the underlying points—which they use to try to add force to the smiting [3].
That's easily disproven: HN commenters post views from every side of these questions, and as long as they do so thoughtfully and substantively, we don't moderate them.
Commenters in the habit of posting typical internet dreck love nothing better than to paint themselves in grandiose colors as noble, freethinking victims of repression. In fact the problem is, to put it crudely, that they post such shitty comments. We're just trying to have an internet forum that manages to hover a little above the bottom of the barrel.
p.s. It looks like your account has been breaking the site guidelines by using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against, because it destroys the curiosity this place is supposed to exist for. See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for more explanation. Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed here either, for the same reason. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
> HN commenters post views from every side of these questions, and as long as they do so thoughtfully and substantively, we don't moderate them.
It's the absence of action that is the issue. There is all kinds of left wing (I'm from the US for reference) dreck on here that receives no push back nor moderation. It's very common to see very low value statements on HN that disparage Republicans. People on here have said all kinds of nasty things about Republicans and conservatives. I rarely see any push back from you against these. It's pretty common to see people assume that Republicans don't care about people and state so, like it is an obvious truth without any supporting argument. How is that thoughtful or substantive?
I think your personal biases are blinding you to just how low value much of the accepted discussion here at HN is, when it is left-leaning
These perceptions are notoriously in the eye of the beholder: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870. The opposite side to you makes exactly the opposite generalizations. It's obvious that these claims can't all be right. What's less obvious, but I think also true, is that because they're so identical, there must be some common mechanism producing them. I think it's that people's perceptions are strongly conditioned by their passions.
In other words, while "I rarely see" is no doubt true, the reasons for that have to do with your own filters as much as the objective situation. This explains why the opposite side reaches the opposite conclusions from the same data: they have the opposite filters. It's the same mechanism in both cases, and there are more than enough datapoints to support every pre-existing view. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
As you can imagine, what this boils down to is that all passionate political observers feel equally aggrieved and, ironically, all share the same perception that HN is stacked against them and they're being treated unfairly.
Thanks for the response. There is a lot of truth to what you say. I've come to notice that different articles seem to be magnets for different groups of posters. So there seems to be a little bit of a echo-chamber-like-bubble around particular articles, which probably enhances these effects of everyone feeling aggrieved.
I do not know anything about the subject of the linked article, nor her views. Did not venture past the pay/registration wall. I have no opinion about her.
zero-tolerance to anybody questioning the current dogma is seen everywhere
Generally, of course dogma should be questioned.
However, academic freedom does not mean that universities must provide a platform to literally anybody that wants one. Their resources are finite and choices need to be made.
Surely, we can agree that some discussions by their very nature are harmful or at least deeply insulting. Imagine discussions such as "should women be allowed to vote?" or "are $ETHNICITY people worthwhile of being treated like other human beings?" or "was Hitler right?" or some other such topic.
I would certainly not say such speech should be banned, but it is equally clear to me that no institution should be obligated to provide a platform for such ideas.
It's worth noting that "teach the controversy" is the disingenuous rallying cry of creationists seeking to wedge anti-evolution religious dogma into US public school systems. Those people know that merely giving creationism a figurative seat at the table serves to legitimize it to some extent. They also hope to wear down their opposition (in this case, already-overworked educators) by consuming massive amounts of their time and energy. Well, such religious teachings should be denied a seat at the table, at least in publicly-funded secular schools.
I am not sure if your definition of academic freedom applies equally all over the world.
I understand Humboldts definition of "Freiheit von Forschung und Lehre" an university is obligated to support you once you have been taken on and to fire people because of their research alone would violate it.
In this specific case she was a guest of Essex University and not a tenured professor there, so they were under no specific obligation to provide a platform for her.
Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology
at Britain’s Open University, was due to
give a talk at Essex University
To your point though, I wouldn't find it good for a tenured professor to lose their job for such a thing. However, even the idea of tenure really is meant to be more like "freedom from interference" and not "unlimited freedom without consequences", right? And of course the tenure track prior to tenure is of course a period of intense vetting.
The way people aligned to academic gender and racism ideas justify discharging other tells me a lot about the quality of said ideas. It happens in other faculties too, but not nearly that often and that decisive.
You have to convince others of your ideas at some point...
Why are publicly funded institutions allowed to decide who's opinion matters and whose doesn't? Assuming the discussion is poised and not straight up slandering nonsense, what harm does it do? Are we trying to curtail freedom of speech? They shouldn't be allowed to take a stance because they are the government. Although for some reason colleges can operate as some separate entity that just happens to siphon government funds...
Why are publicly funded institutions allowed to
decide who's opinion matters and whose doesn't?
At a very minimum, there are real-world constraints at work.
There are a limited number of lecture halls and auditoriums. It costs money to run the facilities. Staff is required to maintain them. Somebody has to sweep the floors. There are heating and cooling bills to be paid and new boilers to be purchased every few decades. There are a limited number of hours available in students' academic careers.
A university cannot provide platforms for an unlimited number of professors and guest speakers; a student cannot attend an unlimited number of talks/lectures.
Therefore it is obvious. Choices must be made. One could even say that this curation is one of the most elementary duties of an educational institution.
What's your alternative? Should publicly funded institutions make zero curatorial choices whatsoever? Should literally anybody be able to teach there? If that is not your position, then you surely accept that some curation needs to occur.
This is not incompatible with the wishes of the people nor does it suggest that educational institutions should have dictatorial carte blanche. They must make choices, but must also be accountable to the public.
Are we trying to curtail freedom of speech?
No.
Nobody is arguing that the subject of the linked article should be barred from expressing her views. This is strictly a question about who should (or should not) be obligated to give her a soapbox and a megaphone.
They shouldn't be allowed to take a stance
because they are the government.
There would be considerable benefits to getting the government out of the education business entirely. The downsides would be considerable as well.
It would be worth looking for examples of times and places when government kept its nose out of education entirely. I do not think you will enjoy the correlation between "governments disinterested in education" and... well, anything good.
Yes. Decisions are made all the time. Sometimes they are reconsidered and sometimes even reversed. That is not inherently a bad thing, particularly when new information comes to light subsequent to the initial decision.
What are you getting at? I can guess, but these things work better if we don't make assumptions or guesses about what others are saying.
Given that reproduction in mammals is inescapably binary, and a really big fraction of social interaction in humans is shaped by courtship, both overt and covert, it's hardly surprising that our historical perspective on gender roles has been predominantly binary too.
I think another reason "things are different now" is that more of us think abstractly today than in years past. Many of the perspectives and possibilities we entertain today would have been alien to more of us 50 or 100 years ago, when the world was more conventional, more black and white.
Finally, with the multitudes of voices that no longer remain hidden behind mainstream media outlets, we're more aware of nontraditional, complex, and nuanced POVs today. That helps us realize that many psychological variations exist "between the lines", not as pathology but as a matter of natural variation.
> The arguments the two sides put forward, in other words, are complex and debatable. But many trans activists think that any disagreement is tantamount to hate speech and try to suppress it.
This is 100% my personal experience also. Even on HN last week someone said I should try to be a "better human" and compared my suggestion that maybe someone might oppose transgender women in women's spaces for reasons other than pure hatred or phobia of trans people, to segregation of blacks and whites. It's just absolutely impossible to have any disagreement with them without them trying these inane mob bully tactics. Being outraged should not be your only argument.
Take the case of Fallon Fox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallon_Fox): a mixed martial artist transgender woman (who didn't even disclose she used to be a he while she was competing against women), or Laurel Hubbard, the New Zealand transgender olympic weightlifter in the news this week. Even mentioning these cases which clearly have more to them than pure hatred or phobia of trans people, still get lambasted with abuse.
What's really frustrating is that they don't really listen to what you actually say, but instead "read between the lines" and assume everything you say is just a ruse hidden behind some immense hatred and bigotry. How about no? Just take what I say at face value. No, I'm not full of hate. Yes, I know being transgendered must be hard. Yes, I do know some transgendered people (why is this relevant?). Yes, I am cisgendered myself. No, I really do think transgender women have an advantage in combat sports. No, again, I'm not full of hate... It's quite ridiculous.
The idea is to set up rhetorical either-or's and then browbeat the majority into silence:
Either you support unlimited immigration or you are a racist.
Either you are 100% on board with the entire vaccine schedule or you are an anti-vaxxer.
Either you say that Covid was a natural occurrence or you are a conspiracy theorist (and probably a racist too).
And so on.
Say what one will, but it's effective.
I think one reason it works so well in the US is our puritan heritage, which has always had a strong manichean current in it. As the elites lost their religion, they retained this characteristic and it now manifests itself in the secular realm.
Sometimes the either-or's are not just either-or's, they're catch 22's. Trans people are suffering from gender dysphoria and denying that is transphobic, but if you say trans people are suffering from gender dysphoria you're a transmedicalist truscum. Checkmate atheists!
Transgender is a psychiatric disorder with potential medical treatment. The problem is that it’s also a lifeline for people who are seeking an identity, and they become hyper sensitive to any questioning of something that, again, is all in their heads.
If it can happen spontaneously, is it impossible that sometimes therapy might speed that spontaneous process along? Would that be a "cure"?
I have struggled with obsessive behaviour ever since I was a child. I probably have undiagnosed ASD (I have many other traits of ASD than just obsessions). I'm actually on a waiting-list to see a psychiatrist for an ASD assessment. Some of my obsessions are more ASD-like (pleasurable rather than anxious), others more OCD-like (anxiety-driven), so sometimes I wonder if I might have OCD too. I'll let my psychiatrist work that one out, when I see him. But what I realise now is that my gender dysphoric feelings were just another one of these obsessions. And like most of my obsessions, with time they fade and get replaced with new ones. If I had this self-understanding 15, 20 years ago, I think my gender dysphoric feelings might have remitted faster.
If I'd sought help back then, would they have helped me gain that self-understanding of my own obsessiveness? Or would they have encouraged me towards transition? I'm glad I never transitioned, I think I'd be in a far worse place now if I had. But I worry with this idea of "affirmative care", people like me may be encouraged in that direction whether it is the right thing for them or not.
What about your comparison with homosexuality? Does homosexuality ever "spontaneously remit" in the same way that gender dysphoric feelings sometimes do? I honestly have no idea. My feelings about my birth gender (male) have waxed and waned, but a constant for me has been attraction to women with never more than fleeting feelings for men; given that, the equivalent question for homosexuality is beyond my personal experience.
(Sorry for the throwaway. I hope one can understand why. I wish I had the courage to talk about this stuff under my real name. I hope that one of these days I will, but not today.)
> If it can happen spontaneously, is it impossible that sometimes therapy might speed that spontaneous process along? Would that be a "cure"?
I think we need to be careful and precise when using the word "cure". Is one outcome preferable over another? Preferable to who, and why? What, precisely, are we curing? What effect does using the word "cure" have on people? Anecdote: When I realized I had dysphoric feelings, my mental health _improved_ overnight and has stayed that way. I took up piano. Became more expressive. I even began working out! What would my cure be? Everyone's different - as you seem to suggest (correct me), pushing for self-understanding is a good way to navigate this. I think my personal positive outcome is in no small part due to key people in my life making it clear that no outcome is preferred over another, and that they'll support me no matter what I find. I count myself as extremely privileged in this regard, and by my reckoning anything we can do to foster this kind of support is time well spent.
> But what I realise now is that my gender dysphoric feelings were just another one of these obsessions.
That may be. And that's OK. Very few people figure everything out the very first try. And people can sometimes change over time. But equally, sometimes they don't. In any case, we can't expect people to understand themselves if we take away the tools to learn. In some sense, aren't these transient obsessions a vehicle for experimentation and learning? For mine, they are.
You, have2throwaway, are valid. Here's to your journey.
> Is one outcome preferable over another? Preferable to who, and why?
For me personally, I believe the outcome in which these feelings went away without me acting on them (by which I especially mean hormones and surgery) is much better for me than one in which they stuck around and I did act on them. And I'm sure I'm not the only person for which this true.
On the other hand, I totally accept there are other people for whom the feelings are unlikely to ever go away, and for those people, if they believe that acting on them is the best option for them, it isn't my place to disagree with them.
The problem is how do we tell the two groups apart? How do we help people having these feelings work out which group they belong to? I don't have any confidence that the current system is good at doing that. Part of the reason why, is that those who transition have their stories celebrated by much (of course, not all) of the culture, while those who remit without transitioning (or who detransition) are mostly hidden in the shadows. That ends up presenting the former stories as more valid than the later, something which I see as problematic.
Yes and no. Yes, it's effective at shutting people up. No, it's not very effective at convincing people that you're right. It's more effective at convincing people that you're completely unreasonable, and that it's better to just not talk to you at all.
"Yes, it's effective at shutting people up. No, it's not very effective at convincing people that you're right."
I see things differently, through the lens of power and influence. How much power does the opposition have if it's been effectively silenced? Members of the other side certainly aren't convinced of your cause, but what difference does it make? You've already gotten them to submit.
As time goes on the younger people will pretty much only hear from the intolerant folks because the people who were silenced can't propagate their worldview effectively.
> Either you say that Covid was a natural occurrence or you are a conspiracy theorist (and probably a racist too).
Interesting how media coverage completely changed. Under the previous administration it was considered racist to even mention the theory and it's proponents were considered racists or conspiracy theorists. Why such a sudden change? China certainly didn't change its position on the issue...
Trump is gone. Since he was the main proponent of the idea, and he was despised by half of the nation, they had to despise the idea too, even if it was quite fitting in the context of the anti-China rhetoric of the last few years. Now Trump is gone and the other half of the US is free to pick up his ideas.
But why would you discuss someone's medical suffering by leading with a topic on trans elite sports, which focuses on an extreme niche and elite phenomena?
Because I am making the point that even mentioning something as extreme as that still gets me lambasted with abuse. So if we can't even discuss that civilly, how on Earth are we meant to discuss more nuanced issues?
So you are saying you choose to lead with elite trans sports, a niche phenomena of a niche phenomena, in order to demonstrate that you will be lambasted with abuse?
And that is how you choose to lead with your speech?
And you are saying if we can't discuss elite trans sports with nuance with civility, then how can we discuss an even more nuanced topic than trans elite sports?
So did you want to discuss trans elite sports or were you trying to demonstrate that people cannot handle a conversation with greater nuance? Or both at the same time?
> And you are saying if we can't discuss elite trans sports with nuance, then how can we discuss an even more nuanced topic than trans elite sports?
That's all i'm saying. It's pretty obvious having an objection to Fallon Fox fighting biological women has more to it than pure hatred and bigotry towards trans women. If the gender ideology crowd can't acknowledge that or debate that civilly, I really see no chance of debating less clearcut topics. I deliberately chose it as the most extreme example I could think of to demonstrate how unreasonable and emotional I think that segment of the political spectrum is.
> So did you want to discuss trans elite sports or were you trying to demonstrate that people cannot handle a conversation with greater nuance? Or both at the same time?
The latter, but if you want to talk about the former we can do that too.
What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?"
But when you lead with Joe Rogan, I'd have to ask, is Joe Rogan the best you have?
I think threatofrain is proving your point. Their approach seems to be to try to find something, anything, that they can argue, no matter how unrelated to the point at hand, and to keep arguing forever. Points that they can't answer get silently dropped, with no admission that the other side has a point.
I've seen this pattern before. At best it's someone so committed to a position that they are determined to do battle rather than actually have a conversation. At worst it's someone arguing in bad faith.
Or, I suppose, most charitably, it's someone who lost the thread of the conversation and replied to the wrong person.
> Because I am making the point that even mentioning something as extreme as that still gets me lambasted with abuse. So if we can't even discuss that civilly, how on Earth are we meant to discuss more nuanced issues?
I'm not the person who setup a discussion by leading with a tactical argument. If you want an argument on substance, you should lead with a proposition that you have something of substance to give, not that you have tactics to offer because you don't trust real conversation.
There are very few cases of transgender elite sports. Leading with that discussion implies that you have very little to say on actual transgenderism, and it implies your taste in curation or how you choose to lead in a discussion.
> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?"
I asked a question to invite display of expertise on the underlying primary subject -- actual transgenderism. The response is that medical suffering sucks.
So far this debate has never elevated past the Joe Rogan level of discourse. You can look at any other branching thread to see the intellectually inspiring quality of opening discussion with trans elite sports.
You're the person who entered the discussion by assuming that the original post was a tactical argument, rather than a good-faith post of a reasonable position.
And, what on earth does Joe Rogan have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing him up, and he's irrelevant to Moodles' point. What on earth does clinical suffering have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing that up, and it's irrelevant to Moodles' point.
You're giving off this really strong "only here to do ideological battle" vibe. That's not what HN is for.
You can choose not to offer people your faith. In this case it was validated by an admission that an argument was tactically made.
> Because I am making the point that even mentioning something as extreme as that still gets me lambasted with abuse. So if we can't even discuss that civilly, how on Earth are we meant to discuss more nuanced issues?
>> So did you want to discuss trans elite sports or were you trying to demonstrate that people cannot handle a conversation with greater nuance? Or both at the same time?
> The latter, but if you want to talk about the former we can do that too.
But you're still focused on whether we afford good faith to tactical arguments.
You're accusing me of bad character while espousing whatever it means to offer faith, but whether anyone is here to do ideological battle is easily confirmed by simply clicking on their account history.
And what does Joe Rogan have to do with discourse on elite trans sports? He's a benchmark for conversation quality and focus and a major player in discussing trans issues. There are other branching threads here. See if anything ever rises above Joe Rogan's playground of debate.
> What on earth does clinical suffering have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing that up, and it's irrelevant to Moodles' point.
And surely one does not ask, "What does transgenderism have to do with transgendered people in elite sports?"
> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?"
This is what I wanted to discuss. An open invitation to discuss the course of medical debate across the west, one which squarely hits at "What is trans?"
> In this case it was validated by an admission that an argument was tactically made.
Huh? Essentially all I have said is this:
"I agree with the Economist article. This is my personal experience also. Here's an example."
Tactually made? What does this even mean? Do you think I have a hidden agenda of bigotry towards trans people or something? What exactly am I doing wrong in your eyes? Is there any actual specific sentence I have written you disagree with?
> > The arguments the two sides put forward, in other words, are complex and debatable. But many trans activists think that any disagreement is tantamount to hate speech and try to suppress it.
> This is 100% my personal experience also.
And it's looking a lot like your experience here. You're getting told that you can't have put forth your comments in good faith, that it was "tactically made". (Which I interpret as meaning that it's to push an agenda rather than in good faith. I could be mistaken, but threatofrain is not clarifying what that accusation means.)
So, yeah, I stand by my statement that this whole thread proves your point...
Good discussion is give and take. There should be no competition, even if someone decides to bring up sports as an example.
Maybe if people tried to listen and understand more, they could ask followup questions and try to get what the other person had in mind, instead of trying to tear down opponents?
In order to partake in give and take, you have to have something to give.
When you pick up the microphone, that is your chance to make an offering of what you have to give. What we have here an offering of Joe Rogan debates.
> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?"
The response is "I think clinical suffering is bad?"
You ask me "what do you think of suffering?". I honestly have no clue what you expect as a response. Yeah, it's bad. I don't want people to suffer. What is your point? What has this got to do with what I was saying?
And again, the only person who keeps bringing up Joe Rogan is you. What has this got to do with anything? Can we just focus on actual points being made here?
My OP was about how impossible it is to have sensible debates about trans issues without being lambasted. Where is this thread going now? What direction are you taking it?
I'm mostly bothered by the focus on trans elite sports, because I find it to be a niche phenomena, and it suggests the curation of those who lead with such an argument.
By tactical argument, I mean an argument you make which you don't think is your leading argument, but you make it anyway because you want to demonstrate an effect.
Discussing trans elite sports warrants a broad biological and medical discussion on sex. The trans phenomena includes those who have received clinical classification under gender dysphoria to hormonal differences with sexual effects.
You keep wondering why I bring up Joe Rogan. It's because I don't think any discussion here will rise above the playground of arguments made by Joe Rogan, a major player on the conversation of trans elite sports.
You might look to the entire discussion stemming from the article to see if anything ever rises to this level of discussion.
> I'm mostly bothered by the focus on trans elite sports, because I find it to be a niche phenomena, and it suggests the curation of those who lead with such an argument.
The reason I mentioned combat sports is because it's literally the clearest example I can possibly think of where one can have objections to transgender women in women's spaces without having hate in their heart, and yet still one gets lambasted for bringing it up. So my overall point is about the lambasting, as the Economist article talks about.
> By tactical argument, I mean an argument you make which you don't think is your leading argument, but you make it anyway because you want to demonstrate an effect.
My leading argument is: "the gender ideology community lambast people way too much. Here's an obvious example of something which they shouldn't lambast about but they do anyway.". I honestly don't know how I can be any clearer here. There is no hate. No hidden agenda. Just what I've actually said at face value multiple times. Please stop trying to read between the lines.
> You keep wondering why I bring up Joe Rogan. It's because I don't think any discussion here will rise above the playground of arguments made by Joe Rogan, a major player on the conversation of trans elite sports.
I find this ironic since you're the one bringing down the quality of discussion with all the red herrings. What do you actually want to discuss? Where am I going wrong and what do you want to convince me of?
This is an invitation to track the course of medical debate through the west. That's a very open platform from which to discuss transgenderism, its etiologies and its impacts.
>> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?"
And surely you don't think we're the only conversation in town. Look at this entire post and see if there's anything which rises above the Joe Rogan level of debate. It won't.
> I find this ironic since you're the one bringing down the quality of discussion with all the red herrings. What do you actually want to discuss? Where am I going wrong and what do you want to convince me of?
I don't accuse you of hate. I accuse you using the topic trans elite sports as an intellectual point to push around.
I'm so confused. I never mentioned Joe Rogan. But even if I did say "Joe Rogan said X", then let's talk about X? How is the fact that Joe Rogan said something automatically invalidating the argument itself? I don't even like the premise that it's a bad thing to even speak the guy's name.
People don’t like their identity being debated. Bringing up trans women in sports as a talking point would be pretty upsetting to most trans women as it is likely to feel like you’re invalidating their personal experience of being trans.
There’s this thing with marginalized communities where people outside of the communities “just want to have a discussion” but the stakes of that conversation are way too high for marginalized people. Trans people’s existence is not for you to challenge or debate. The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions. It’s not really something that’s there for you to “discuss”.
Yes funnily enough those who wanted to "Just have a discussion" were the ones who forced us into this mess in the first place.
People might not like "having their identity being debated" but people also don't like having their opportunities taken away or being forced into situations they don't feel comfortable in or ones that threaten their safety.
I think the best thing for you to do in situations like this is quietly listen to the counter points being given to you and gently and wholesomely get your hands off of the people and their lives that you are reaching for. It's really not something you are entitled to have or control.
Everyone here agrees that they oughtn't be harassed. We disagree on whether or not folks who disagree with trans activists have the right to speak on the matter.
I'm sorry, but this is a classic example of what I'm talking about.
> People don’t like their identity being debated.
But this is reframing. I'm not debating that someone is trans or should be treated with respect or anything like that.
> Bringing up trans women in sports as a talking point would be pretty upsetting to most trans women as it is likely to feel like you’re invalidating their personal experience of being trans.
Ok? Feelings might be hurt. Feelings are subjective. That's not an argument. It's also pretty upsetting for the women who are now competing at a biological disadvantage. Particularly in combat sports where there's potentially dier consequences for losing. What about their feelings?
> Trans people’s existence is not for you to challenge or debate.
Again... That's not what I'm challenging or debating at all. I'll be honest, I fucking hate this debate switcheroo. I'm not challenging someone's existence. Listen to what I'm actually saying. This is so annoying to me.
> The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions
No, it isn't. Not when it affects more than just the marginalized community. If their actions affect others (e.g. women) then it's not primarily up to just them to figure out what they want to do.
Again, this is nothing to do with hate or bigotry. I'm not "debating their existence". I literally don't know how much clearer I can be here.
Sorry, I can't respond anymore since my account has been rate limited.
You can say you’re not debating their existence till they’re blue in the face, but I’m telling you that’s how it will feel to 9/10 trans people when you try to discuss this topic with them.
You can ignore their feelings but that’s the problem. You don’t care that it’s upsetting. To you it’s just some abstract intellectual thing to discuss but to them it could be a source of trauma and pain. I don’t think you’re appreciating what you’re asking a trans person to do when you bring up topics that relate to trauma they’ve experienced.
> You can say you’re not debating their existence till they’re blue in the face, but I’m telling you that’s how it will feel to 9/10 trans people when you try to discuss this topic with them.
Indeed. Though I'm honestly not sure if it's "9/10 trans people" or just the gender ideology crowd. Regardless, having strong feelings doesn't win the debate. I can give platitudes all day about how sympathetic I am to people with gender dysmorphia or any other difficulties in life, but when it comes to debating issues, we need to be more dispassionate as my original point and the point of the Economist article is that these topics are nuanced and shutting down the conversation as "hate speech" is not productive at all.
> You can ignore their feelings but that’s the problem. You don’t care that it’s upsetting.
No, in my view, this type of comment is the problem. You're assuming I don't care at all just because I disagree. Please just take my comments at face value. I said in my original comment I have sympathy for trans people.
> To you it’s just some abstract intellectual thing to discuss but to them it could be a source of trauma and pain
Take the women in mixed martial arts. To them, it's a source of actual, physical pain.
You’re presuming that there’s a debate here that you’re part of. I don’t see why you think that. No one owes you an explanation for their needs. No one owes you debate.
I wrote a comment describing how I think these differences should be resolved without forcing marginalized people to endlessly participate in “debate” about the legitimacy of their needs:
Again, there quite clearly is a debate going on in society and I think the salient point you’re missing is that trans folks aren’t just deciding for themselves among themselves; there’s obvious negative externalities for women involved (such as in sport). Literally, world records have been broken, women lose spots in the Olympics, and there are even potentially severe physical consequences for fighting trans women who have massive strength differentials. So I think just to say “shut up and listen!” snd “don’t deny my existence!” aren’t really arguments here. So let me ask you: why do you think only trans voices are allowed in the debate? Why do their feelings superseed everyone else's?
I have actually read White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo and for the most part vehemently disagree but to be honest I don’t want to comment so much on it right now as I’m afraid my account will be rate limited again...
But listen, as I said before, I understand being trans must be hard. But that’s simply not good enough. You don’t get everything you want just because it’s hard for you. You don’t (necessarily) decide if you can compete with biological women on a level playing field. That’s really the realm of science, not feelings. Also, is it really that traumatic if trans women have to compete with men as opposed to women if they want to compete in certain sports? Not to sound callus, but given there’s biological reasons for it, I honestly don’t think it’s that offensive? It's reality. And, again, it’s not denying their existence and bigotry and hatred, etc. It’s just a question of science and what’s fair: There’s a reason we separate men and women in certain sports.
Let’s even stick to combat sports as my original, extreme example, to find some common ground. Do you agree trans women shouldn’t be the only ones deciding if they’re allowed to fight biological women? Do you at least think women, and scientists, and combat experts should get a say in that debate? Do you agree they shouldn’t fight them at all? Or do you think us even talking about it is too traumatic (or at least inappropriate) for trans people to listen to? Honestly, if it's the latter, I don't see us finding any common ground at all, and that's what my OP and The Economist article was talking about.
But people are literally proposing a separate a set of laws and class of citizen for trans people over a fear that, as you admit, something that happens so seldomly that it's irrelevant.
The same thing happened with the "debate" about gays in the military. Bigots brought up the problem of shared showers in the military even though most gym showers are individual stalls. Still, this was used actually used as a rational to keep a ban on gay people, not recognize gay marriage (which means less pay for gay people in the military) and more.
Now we have proposals to ban trans people from public facilities, outlaw medical procedures for trans people and defund any publicly funded trans-related medical drug. And what is fueling this "discussion"?: bullshit stories about trans women assaulting people in bathrooms and sports being dominated by trans athletes (both of which are demonstrably false).
> There’s this thing with marginalized communities where people outside of the communities “just want to have a discussion” but the stakes of that conversation are way too high for marginalized people.
Presumably the "high stakes" are that they might fall out with the majority population, right? In that case why not do all you can to engage productively with them? There was a time when civil rights activists wished for good faith participation.
> The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions.
There are a couple of problems here.
The first is that "their conclusions" are often the conclusions of certain activists and not the marginalized people in question (e.g., "defund the police"). I find this to be the most repulsive kind of rhetoric, because it exploits marginalized groups to the harm of everyone else and to the exclusive benefit of the activist and their ideological comrades.
The second is that it dehumanizes everyone else: others are to simply keep quiet and listen to the marginalized group's needs; to acquiesce. We are all (aspirationally, at least) equal participants in a free society, and we need to find something that works for all of us. Debate is how we do that, even if the topic hits closer to home for some than others.
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. Can you please not do that? It's against the rules here because it destroys the curious conversation that HN is supposed to exist for. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of what their ideology happens to be. See [1] for more explanation.
Ok I promise. My last topics I posted on were about this, a security blog post, the news, Simone Biles and accents. I do actually talk about lots of topics on HN but I tend to get drawn into political discussions which are replied to a lot more. Also it's hard for me not to respond when someone calls me a bigot, etc. I'm definitely not on HN just to troll about politics. I really think it's unfair to say I'm on HN to "battle" anyone. I don't think my comments here have been particularly confrontational?
Ok, I've taken the rate limit off your account. To prevent it kicking in again, please remember that on HN the idea is to value quality over quantity, and please stay up to date on the site guidelines.
> I really think it's unfair to say I'm on HN to "battle" anyone. I don't think my comments here have been particularly confrontational?
When I skim through your recent comments I'm mostly seeing posts like these (just a random sample) - these are examples of what we don't want on HN:
If you don't like the words "political/ideological battle" or "flamewar" we can find a different description; the point is that this is not the curiosity-driven, respectful conversation that the site is supposed to be for.
I’d like to see some introspection here. Can you imagine why they would respond so strongly? I’ll tell you.
The trans experience is one that is in many ways beautiful and joyous but is sadly also fraught with trauma. Trans people experience a lot of pain that stays with them. Much of that pain has to do with people who refuse to accept who they truly are. Or people will “just want to have a discussion” where they try to see invalidate the persons identity.
When a cis person enters a discussion like this, to the cis person it’s just an intellectual discussion. But to the trans person it can be threatening and it can trigger memories of past trauma they’ve gone through.
So yes, trans people get upset when you bring things like this up because you’re bringing up a topic that may have been used as a “gotcha” to invalidate their identity, and it can be unclear if that’s what you’ll try to do. This makes the whole conversation upsetting to them.
Imagine if a man who didn’t believe in women’s rights wanted to discuss it with a woman who has been discriminated against. That would be a difficult conversation and it wouldn’t be surprising if she got upset and didn’t want to have a “rational debate” about her rights.
What you’re doing when you bring up difficult topics to a marginalized person is you’re forcing them to re live traumatic memories in order to educate you. I learned this from learning about the experiences of people of color. (If you’re white) DO NOT go ask a random black person to explain to you the everyday racism they feel, because inevitably it won’t make sense to you and when you challenge something they say it will become a lot of emotional labor for them to try to make it make sense. Sure some people are fine explaining this stuff but not everyone.
Instead what people of color say about this is: go do the learning on your own. Go find out what people in this marginalized group say about your issue without making one of them explain it. Their identity is not up for you to debate. But you can read articles written by people within the community or listen to YouTube interviews. You can find the answers without making a marginalized person re live their trauma to educate you.
This is all surrounding the topic of “emotional labor”. Debating someone’s trauma requires huge amounts of emotional labor for them to stay civil and most people don’t have the energy for that, so you should not ask that of them. There are other better ways to educate yourself.
EDIT: Folks, I’m trying to honestly tell you the experience I’ve had. I had to learn this stuff too. I know that this community hates being told they have to change their behavior, but I’m kindly and honestly explaining what I know and you’re downvoting me. Please stop.
People who have had trauma have my empathy, but I really don't think there's a tenable path forward besides dispassionate debate. How do we work through a conflict without dispassionate debate? If trans people insist that the only parties to the debate are trans people or those who already agree with them (ignoring that trans people aren't the homogeneous entity that activists make them out to be), then how are they going to gain acceptance in society more broadly? By fiat?
Yeah, it sucks that individuals in the majority don't have the same emotional skin in the game as in the minority, but progress of any kind requires that we can talk through stuff. For those of us with trauma (i.e., my trauma isn't "trans trauma"), we should excuse ourselves when the debates hit too close to home too often. We explicitly cannot use our trauma to discredit others (e.g., to conflate their criticism with 'hate') is not going to garner sympathy even if a lot of people who are already "allies" upvote our post on social media or wherever.
And indeed, if it's not in the best interest of the legitimately traumatized to use their trauma to silence others, who in their right mind would allow their "allies" to use their trauma to bludgeon others? What rational person would let someone else spend their credibility in contradiction with their own best interests? If the traumatized person overreaches, it might be overlooked on account of the trauma, but what excuses can we make for the mere "allies"?
> I really don't think there's a tenable path forward besides dispassionate debate. How do we work through a conflict without dispassionate debate?
I will explain my understanding of the answer. I do not claim my answer is the right one, but it is what I see.
Let’s say there are two groups. One group we will call a marginalized minority and another group we will call the majority or dominant group.
The answer is not for the marginalized people and the dominant group to debate directly. Imagine people from the black civil rights movement debating whether or not they should be guaranteed the right to vote with no interference. What really was there to debate?
Instead of direct debate I see it like this. First, both groups recognize their position. Trans people have been marginalized by a broadly cisgendered society. If you learn a little bit about the murder of trans people throughout the last 5 decades and the lack of investigation, I think that is evidence enough that they are a marginalized group.
Okay so step one is recognize the power dynamic. Step two is for the people in the dominant group to listen, without challenge or debate, what the people in the marginalized group want.
Step three: the people in the dominant group discuss with themselves how to make those changes. How do we make sure trans people feel welcome and comfortable in bathrooms and sports? How do we make sure trans kids grow up feeling welcomed by society as their whole self?
Fourth, the people in the dominant group discuss their difficulties they have with the changes, and they do their best to work it out on their own.
Five, some members of the marginalized group who have agreed to discuss this will talk to people in the dominant group and try to address their questions.
Six. Having made some changes, the people in the dominant group ask for feedback, and the process repeats.
At no point in that course of action do random members of the dominant group need to discuss these changes with members of the marginalized group. As a white person I simply do not challenge what people of color say. There is no need for me to challenge them and I recognize that as a member of the dominant group it could be emotionally distressful for them to have to discuss it with me.
Anyway that’s my answer. I hope it helps. Sorry I didn’t answer the rest of your post but I found this the part that felt most salient to me.
I appreciate your perspective. I agree with a lot, including that trans people are legitimately marginalized in our society in some measure (certainly the extent to which authorities fail to investigate murders of trans victims is abhorrent).
> The answer is not for the marginalized people and the dominant group to debate directly.
To be clear, this isn't "trans people" vs "non-trans people". There are lots of trans people who don't think it's appropriate to change our bathroom policies and non-trans people who think we should change those policies. The parties to the debate are different ideologies, not different trans/non-trans identities.
With respect to your steps vs debate, I think your steps describe a national debate, except for the earlier caveat that the debate isn't "trans vs non-trans" but rather different ideological positions and also that at any given moment different individuals in the debate (on any side) are at different "steps" in the process, and also that individuals on all sides vary in their willingness to listen or participate in good faith.
So basically a debate is a mess because people aren't uniformly acting in good faith nor are they uniformly disciplined about listening before speaking nor are they acting in synchrony (everyone within a group meets to listen to an ambassador for the other group, and then carefully considers together, and so on). However, over the course of months or years, things do tend to converge in a direction that most people feel pretty good about. That's what progress looks like.
> At no point in that course of action do random members of the dominant group need to discuss these changes with members of the marginalized group. As a white person I simply do not challenge what people of color say. There is no need for me to challenge them and I recognize that as a member of the dominant group it could be emotionally distressful for them to have to discuss it with me.
With respect, I disagree in the strongest possible terms here. No doubt you mean well, but black people and white people are equal, and race doesn't confer anyone with either authority or fragility with respect to having their positions criticized. If any given black person or white person feels triggered (in the clinical, not pejorative, sense), they are certainly not obligated to engage with the criticism, but to assume that someone is fragile on the basis of their race is the height of racism (however well intended).
I appreciate the thoughtful response. I’m in the go so I will try to make a quick reply.
> The parties to the debate are different ideologies, not different trans/non-trans identities.
I think the concept of intersectionality is useful here. Ideology is one component but identity is another. If we treat this like a simple ideological debate the potential trauma of the marginalized group could be ignored, potentially causing the mere act of the debate to re traumatize people in that group.
> No doubt you mean well, but black people and white people are equal, and race doesn't confer anyone with either authority or fragility with respect to having their positions criticized.
Respectfully I think this is a misunderstanding of my view. I learned to keep my mouth shut not because people in marginalized groups are fragile. I learned to keep my mouth shut because I learned that my outsider status means a lot of things marginalized people say night not make immediate sense to me. Trying to interrogate (neutral sense) their reasoning can be a traumatic experience for them. I learned this when I asked women at Google to explain their sexual harassment to me. A female friend took the time to explain to me that even asking the question could cause distress in women. Now when someone says something I disagree with I stay silent and I go and google the thing and learn more about it on my own.
Certainly in some cases the person wants to discuss the thing with me, but I don’t assume that to be the case.
I also learned this from a person of color who did not appreciate similar questions from me. While there is a LOT of worthwhile criticism of Robin DiAngelo, her talks helped me understand that concept better.
Without doing a deep-dive into the way you communicate I'd recommend that you broadly reconnect on shared values, like the importance of human dignity and compassion, before trying to proceed further in a conversation where it is starting to feel like other parties are treating you like a faceless adversary.
There's no historical reason to think that not supporting extreme speech will lead to fascism. There are historical reasons to think that curbing extremist speech protects democracy (see the Weimar Republic).
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. Can you please not do that? It's against the rules here because it destroys the curious conversation that HN is supposed to exist for. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of what their ideology happens to be. See [1] for more explanation.
There are also historical reasons to think that tyranny has to suppress free speech in order to survive. So even if extreme speech can lead to tyranny, free speech can lead you back out - if you can keep the tyranny from destroying the free speech.
My point is to keep track of the order of cause and effect. Unlimited free speech may create a tyranny. But tyranny always at least tries to limit free speech. So when you see a limiting of free speech, you should ask "Is this really in defense of liberty? Or is it just tyranny trying to preserve and extend itself?"
Note that tyranny trying to preserve and extend itself almost always says that it's in defense of liberty...
"Is this person defending free speech in favor of liberty? Or because his anti-liberty extremism won't be tolerated otherwise?".
It works both ways so this isn't a practical way of looking at implementation of free speech. You can't keep a system that doesn't protect itself free forever - propaganda travels faster and further than truth, and I doubt the founding fathers wrote the first amendment with mass media in mind.
You can start the argument of who gets to decide what should be allowed and what shouldn't, and in the current political climate (at least in the USA) the answer to that is obviously nobody. Ideally those decisions would be made during a time of cultural unity, where a whole nation can say "These are our values that we want to write in stone", like Germany did with the new constitution in the 20th century where it put well-defined limits on what kind of speech should be forbidden.
It's doubtful if that kind of unity is even possible in the USA anymore, so I'm worried that, on a long enough time-scale, unfettered free speech will inevitably lead to tyranny of a kind because there is no system in place to protect it.
The usual citation is the Paradox of Tolerance but that posited a right to protect against people using fists or pistols, rather than ideas, to debate and premised it on the right of self-defense from physical harm.
> There are historical reasons to think that curbing extremist speech protects democracy (see the Weimar Republic).
You think the Weimar Republic is a point in favor of that claim?
In my research, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic and found that, contrary to what most people think, Germany did have hate‐speech laws that were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti‐Jewish sentiment is irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti‐Semitic speech had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis, including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher, were all prosecuted for anti‐Semitic speech. And rather than deterring them, the many court cases served as effective public relations machinery for the Nazis, affording them a level of attention that they never would have received in a climate of a free and open debate.
In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times. The more charges Streicher faced, the more the admiration of his supporters grew. In fact, the courts became an important platform for Streicher’s campaign against the Jews.
Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, points out that cases were regularly brought against individuals on account of anti‐Semitic speech in the years leading up to Hitler’s takeover of power in 1933. “Remarkably, pre‐Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti‐hate law,” he writes. “Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti‐Semitic speech…
An American libertarian think-tank is not a source of historical interpretation I'm going to trust at face value and neither should you. I'll reply more thoroughly to this after work.
This is a great comment. It seems to me that some in the US far right and left wings have an analogous view of using the political system as a way to garner publicity rather than governing. It's less obvious in the court cases. Many of the people associated with the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol folded pretty rapidly once they were indicted.
> In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times.
Streicher and his fellow editors were already active members of the NSDAP (Nazi party) during the 1920s. Streicher and other editors were taken to court, yes, but the assertion that it was for the content of his magazine and not actions like the Hitlerputsch is not something I can find support for in any source.
> Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, points out that cases were regularly brought against individuals on account of anti‐Semitic speech in the years leading up to Hitler’s takeover of power in 1933.
Antisemitism was alive and well in the Weimar Republic, the claim that people were taken to court for antisemitic speech is another one that I can't find a source for. People were taken to court for violence against Jews, as they were still full German citizens in the Weimar Republic. I looked up the passages of the Weimar Republic constitution around religion and freedom of assembly and there is nothing about hate speech or similar kinds of discrimination. One of the major causes of increasing violence against Jews was Der Stürmer and similar publications, because they could be circulated without impunity.
In fact, I looked up Alan Borovoy's quote, he said:
> During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech.
I find this number of 200 interesting, because 200 is roughly the same number as Jewish cemeteries that were desecrated between 1923 and 1933, and makes me suspicious that he's taking court cases about desecration and equating them with hate-speech - which are obviously not the same things.
> In einer regelrechten Schändungswelle wurden zwischen 1923 und 1932 fast 200 Fälle registriert [1]
Sorry it's in German, but it should be easy to translate. In any case, the passages you posted have no substance other than a quote from one guy that from anything I can see seems to be conflating two different things to support his argument.
What exactly is extreme speech? I don’t recall for advocating for illegal speech.
Everything up to imminently calling for violence in the US is protected so if that is what you are saying then I’d agree with you.
However what is “hate” or “intolerant” depends on the person and identity group. E.g. “All lives matter, marriage is between a man and a woman, men can’t get pregnant, Muhammad was a pedophole, flipping the bird to a police officer” all would offend different groups of people but are protected speech.
We’ve already skipped so far down the slope that it’s unrecoverable. We’re in the midst of a Cultural Revolution.
It’s bonkers how being gender-critical can get you fired or silenced or violently protested. Or how being anti-Marxist makes you a racist. Or how even having traditional values is worthy of being firebombed.
This comment right here shows where discourse is at with the right wing.
Screaming and crying about some imagined persecution while controlling everything.
I'm so sick of it.
Should teachers be allowed to say anything they want to students, regardless if it offends them? If a student asks a teacher not to call them something that offends them, is the teacher required to stop using the slur?
Yes they should offend their students because history is offensive.
We should also teach about the Holocaust and read the uncensored version of huckleberry Finn, even though it may be offensive.
People (students) will be offended but they will learn how history has changed, be able to think for themselves, and not fall into ideological line. If this scares the left/right establishments that is a great thing.
The question wasn't whether the teacher was allowed to talk about things that might upset a subset of students. In some cases, like talking about the Holocaust or slavery in the US that will not be possible to avoid entirely. The question was this:
> If a student asks a teacher not to call them something that offends them, is the teacher required to stop using the slur?
If a teacher calls a student a slur, or otherwise directly addresses the student using a slur/derogatory term, should this teacher stop doing this? Stop moving the goalpost.
There’s a lot that’s already been said in this topic but I feel compelled to bring up the damage imposed by TERF talking points. The conversation goes something like this: “Transgender women possess an innate maleness that carries a non-zero threat to female spaces.” They believe that dictionary definitions of woman are prescriptive, declared at the chromosomes during birth, rather than descriptive, as in how one presents in both dress and phenotype.
In my experience this is the center of every “debate.” It’s less about the merits of the cause and more about convincing this point against the hypothetical risk of a male who’s taken advantage of self identified gender. TERFs are generally not interested in dynamics of trans men, who seem to be more like “gender traitors” than their deceptive counterparts.
Personally I find this whole movement a farce. Every talking point not only misaligns with trans women, it causes more harm to cis women at scale. “Real women” give birth — except hundreds of thousands who cannot. “Real women” look like the contemporary feminine ideal, yet 1 in 10 women suffer from PCOS enduring testosterone levels higher than any trans woman has to contend with. And the cake topper of them all, “trans women fuel negative stereotypes of femininity,” while simultaneously not appearing feminine enough, often barred from HRT until after puberty. This Goldilocks zone of womanhood is always out of reach, and therefore transness is never acceptable.
I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss what seems to be a reasonable discussion as simply “TERF talking points” and then reframe what your opponents are saying in an un-sympathetic way.
Maybe it's like telling ME patients it's all in their head, and they can be cured psychologically. It may work on some, but for many they get permanently damaged from too much pressure and stress. After such abuse and being ground down, it's hard to be sympathetic to ignorance and abuse.
I don't know enough to conclude, but trying to understand and ask more questions is a first step.
That seems to me a very uncharitable take on the TERF position. For example, approximately 1/4 of women have been raped at some time. It's not very hard to see that such women could have a problem with someone who's biologically male in the women's room - a serious, traumatic problem.
You can say that and still be sympathetic to the plight of trans people.
Sorry, I don't buy this concept that hordes of (or any, for that matter) predatory trans women are queuing up for the chance to prowl round changing rooms. Do you, really?
Say you're right. What stops them sneaking in right now? It's not like there are mandatory ID checks at the entrance.
This is what I don't understand. How many examples are there of the horrible ills these bathroom bills will "solve"? Trans people exist today, they use bathrooms, where are the problems?
Virtually none. In fact trans people are vastly more likely to be victims of the sorts of things that the people pushing those policies argue those bills are meant to prevent.
Gendered bathrooms are a concrete expression of the fact that it is gender that is the major fault line through our society. The fact we need them is a damming indictment on our society (on men probably)
Without proof to the contrary the assumption should be that the trans population has a similar proportion of rapists as any other does.
Since its been well established that essentially all rape no matter who is raping who goes under reported it is completely rational for women to be just as fearful as they would with any other stranger.
The question isn't whether women should assume that a transperson is less likely to rape them than any other stranger. That's not what "bathroom bills" are about.
The question is whether bathroom bills forcing transpeople who wish to not break the law (potential rapists are obviously not part of this set...) into men's bathrooms, and a surrounding climate of generalised hostility towards anyone with any remotely masculine element of their physique or style in women's bathrooms actually meaningfully reduces the risk of rape, or just makes the environment more intimidating for everyone.
It's literally in response to the posit that trans women would rape strangers in changing rooms. I've tried to make it as far from a strawman as possible by arguing against even a single occurrence of that happening.
Cis women can perpetuate rape. Should we ban them from changing rooms too? How far through the looking glass does this have to go?!
The reality is predatory men already invade women's restrooms for perverted reasons. You don't think they would not be emboldened by being able to shame people for being transphobic to increase their chances of getting away with whatever they are doing?
I'm not hypothesizing anything. I'm pointing out that "someone who's biologically male in the women's room" doesn't have to mean "predatory trans-woman" but could be "predatory man pretending to be trans".
And I'm asking you, when you are just-pointing-out, if it's actually happening in a way that is statistically recognizable and thus a contribution to the discourse in question, or if it's not.
Even if we ignore the fact this is a nonsense non-issue that isn't solved by the "solution" of forcing people into bathrooms by biological sex rather than gender identity, it's still nonsense.
You've just created a world where predatory men pretend to be trans men, who are now legally required to use women's bathrooms.
At least most trans women are trying to express in a feminine way (disregarding the issues with women—cis and trans—being discriminated against for not being “feminine enough” by someone's standard), with this "solution", you've just normalised people actively trying to be as masculine as possible going into women's bathrooms. Congrats.
(Of course, predation in bathrooms is illegal, why on earth would someone who is willing to break that law be stopped by another one saying they aren't meant to be there? It's literally the same nonsense argument used by homophobes to argue we shouldn't allow gay people into those spaces.)
CIS (as born) women may also have (traditional) male-like traits. If you separate people by traits in prison, then why separate based on trans-ness alone? For example, large women are more likely to rape small women in prison simply because they can. If you separate based on such risks, then separate large women from small women also; why focus on just trans?
Many prisons already separate by ethnic group simply to keep the peace. Yes, it's segregation, but the alternative is more prison riots.
Thus, if separation happens for practical reasons, then don't limit the separation practices to one group; otherwise, you will be accused of discrimination, perhaps justifiably. Use statistics, not stereotypes, to find the split points.
Or get better security so mixing doesn't result in problems. Lowest-bidder security has down-sides.
What you just said will understood as extremely hurtful and a purposeful attack on trans people by (some) trans people or trans advocates.
Did you do that on purpose?
It's the truth. Trans women are not real women as they do not have the same DNA and cannot birth children (amongst many other differences).
I may be offended when people talk negatively about my under-performing sports team, but that doesn't give me a right to delete their comments just because I perceive them to be hurtful.
Its this sort of thing that backlash is all about.
You cant have an unapproved opinion or refuse to use their terminology or authoritarians will silence you, label it as trolling or hate speech etc.
Real is absolutely the simplest and best description. Trans and cis are poisoned terms their use designed to support the legitimacy of the identity. There is only real and fake.
This thread is full of people commenting on both sides of the question so obviously there's no "you can't have an unapproved opinion". What you can't do is toss obvious flamebait, for the same reason you don't get to toss lit matches at a gas station. You can describe that as "you can't have an unapproved smoking device" if you want, but it's misleading.
I don't see how it is unreasonable for a female inmate to be uncomfortable sharing sleeping quarters with a person who has a penis (regardless of how that person identifies).
The fear that cis-women have of rape is real. The fear that transgender women have of rape in a men's jail is real. I think the fairest thing to do is take both of these fears seriously and house intact trans-women in a space where they neither feel threatened with rape, nor impose that threat on cis-women.
I think referring to this fear as a "TERF talking point" is as disrespectful as it would be to minimize the fear that trans-women experience in men's prisons.
No, you don't have to place them in solitary confinement. You can place them with other trans-women.
Men are housed with men in jails. Yes, sometimes they commit violence against each other, including rape. But we don't put all men in solitary confinement.
This begs the question of why it is acceptable for men and trans women to be raped, but unacceptable for cis women to be raped?
There is no justification for accepting any prison rape—or, for that matter, sexual assault, which cis women are entirely capable of.
(And, to be clear, sexual assault is not inherently a lesser crime than rape, rape is just a specific form of sexual assault, and depending on jurisdiction, may be defined in such a way as a cis woman can be a rapist).
It is not acceptable for men nor trans-women nor cis-women nor anyone to be raped in prison. My comment does not condone rape. If you think that all men and all trans-women should have separate cells to prevent this possibility, I think that could be a positive step forward. I do not think that subjecting cis-women to the fear of rape is a positive step forward.
There is no evidence that trans women are more a threat to cis women than cis women are to each other. If a cis women is afraid of being assaulted by a trans women, that is a fear rooted in bigotry, not reality. If the individual in question is a convicted rapist, than precautions should be taken regardless of that persons genitals or gender to make sure they dont assault anyone else. Prison rape is horrific and needs to be addressed, and concern trolling about trans women doesnt help anyone and does hurt public perception of trans women.
The fear of being impregnated from a sexual assault is not rooted in bigotry. It places cis-women in a very uncomfortable position of having to birth and raise a child created from sexual assault or have an abortion. This is not concern trolling. It is a very real fear. Prison rape is horrific for everyone, not just cis-women. It is horrific for men and trans-men and trans-women as well. Housing cis-women with intact trans-women does not solve or address the prison rape problem.
> It places cis-women in a very uncomfortable position of having to birth and raise a child created from sexual assault or have an abortion.
I want to be very clear: I do not want this to happen. I don't want any woman to be raped, especially not impregnated as well. But my point still stands: this does not happen on any sort of regular basis. I do not think you're arguing in bad faith here, and I hope you see that I'm not either. Segregating trans women from cis women does nothing to protect cis women. Implementing this segregation across the prison system would not impact the occurrence of prison rape by half a percent. But by insisting that trans women are a threat to cis women, you are hurting trans women. You are playing into and amplifying a very popular narrative in our society that trans women are deceptive, dangerous predators. And this leads to legislation that harms the whole trans community.
It is actually incorrect, I just responded to that comment. See below:
If you read the article you linked, you will find that is not true. From the article: "between 2016 and 2020, there were seven sexual assaults against females in women's prisons by trans women." 7 assaults in 4 years is not 5x more.
If you are referring to the statistic that "trans inmates are 1% of the population and commit 5.6% of the assaults", you will find that the trans inmates in question are actually trans men being incorrectly housed in women's prisons.
Then why did you present it as a zero-sum game where you were quite willing to suggest putting trans-women into a situation you find unconscionable for cis-women?
You have thoroughly proved the original poster's point: TERF talking points are damaging. You bought one up, defending it as "reasonable", but when pressed you accept that there is a preferable solution that doesn't involve throwing trans people under the bus.
The talking point is there to push a narrative that trans people are dangerous, just as was done with gay people before. It is designed to imply that we must choose between women's rights and trans people's rights, which is a false dichotomy.
Even beyond that, a cis woman can sexually assault another woman (Rape has different definitions depending on where you are, but clearly the distinction is irrelevant—sexual assault isn't inherently of a different impact, just different exact actions).
It's the exact same argument that was used as justification to try and criminalise homosexuality, that they would all be assaulting people in bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons.
By that line of reasoning every inmate should be held in solitary confinement by virtue of the fact that rape is possible between every possible pair of gender identities.
Fear of rape or pressurised sex amongst prisoners is perfectly real, but if a tiny minority of transpeople are a distant third in terms of sexual threat to female prisoners behind male warders and natal females and a campaign organization proposes rehousing transpeople (all 125 of them) in different prisons as their solution to prison rape over better safeguarding practises or single occupant cells which might offer many more women more protection from more pervasive threats it sounds suspiciously more like a "talking point" against the target group than a practical solution to sexual violence in prisons. Especially if the campaign groups responsible have long lists of other issues with transpeople, and somehow the sexual activity involving people with penises and keys doesn't get the same attention...
I think housing intact trans-women in single occupant cells in women's prisons is a reasonable middle ground. The trans-women are in a space that affirms their gender identity, but it does not require cis-women to share a cell with someone who can rape and impregnate them.
These are true statements. Cis-women can be raped and impregnated by people with penises is also a true statement. Perhaps the complete solution is to house all in-mates in separate cells regardless of sex or gender. I do not think that creating situations where female prisoners can be sexually assaulted and impregnated by their cell mate is a positive step forward.
> I do not think that creating situations where female prisoners can be sexually assaulted and impregnated by their cell mate is a positive step forward.
You keep combining impregnation and sexual assault as if they're the same thing. Cis women are already sexually assaulted by other cis women in prisons! This is not a problem created anew by housing trans women in women's prisons. I venture that the problem is not trans women, the problem is the assumption that prisons cannot stop inmates from sexually assaulting each other.
Impregnation and sexual assault are obviously not the same thing, and I am not combining them as if they are. Housing cis-women and trans-women creates a unique situation where cis-women can be sexually assaulted AND impregnated. I don't dispute that cis-women can sexually assault other cis-women, and that sexual assault is a problem in men's prisons and women's prisons and exists with or without the presence of trans men and women.
To completely stop sexual assault in prisons, people would have to be housed in separate cells. Housing cis-women and trans-women in the same cell does not stop the sexual assault problem.
> I don't dispute that cis-women can sexually assault other cis-women, and that sexual assault is a problem in men's prisons and women's prisons and exists with or without the presence of trans men and women.
In that case you're hard pressed to argue why housing trans women in women's prisons exacerbates this issue, unless you think trans women are more likely to be rapists. Excluding an entire population on the basis that some of them might rape people is not just if rape is already a problem.
> To completely stop sexual assault in prisons, people would have to be housed in separate cells.
I mostly agree, but it's very easy to construct a solution to these problems while ignoring the present reality. Almost no trans people are currently housed in prisons that accord with their gender identity, and 35% of trans people in prisons themselves report having been sexually assaulted in the past year as of 2015 [1]. The status quo is pretty dire for them too, and their safety should be weighed against the safety of the cis people they might otherwise be housed with.
Without any stats for transwomen in particular, human males are more likely to be rapists, and an intact transwoman is closer to a man than a ciswoman is, no? Unless you think that the reason men are more likely to be rapists is purely a result of their gender identity and has nothing to do with biology.
With regards to the danger of trans people being sexually assaulted in prisons: yes, it is absolutely a problem. MyHypatia literally made the same point you're making in their original comment.
Side request: if it doesn't bother you too much I would prefer you refer to trans women with penises as trans women with penises rather than as "intact" trans women. Such phrasing suggests that trans women without penises are damaged.
> Without any stats for transwomen in particular, human males are more likely to be rapists, and an intact transwoman is closer to a man than a ciswoman is, no?
This argument is rather tangential. Is there any empirical evidence that trans women are more likely to sexually assault people than cis women? Is the median trans woman more likely to sexually assault people than cis women who have been convicted of sexual assault, or who have already committed sexual assault in the prison?
> MyHypatia literally made the same point you're making in their original comment.
Specifically, they said that putting trans women in women's prisons would be imposing the threat of rape on cis women. After I pointed out that cis women already rape other cis women in women's prisons, they clarified that it was actually impregnation they were really worried about introducing, not rape as such. I don't think my criticism of this concern has been addressed.
I think your posts in this thread are downright admirable, and for that reason, in case you're not aware (and if you are, readers probably aren't)--it is probably worth noting that "intact" is common TERF watchwording, pushed and intended to normalize the position that trans women are not women.
I mean, I'm not trans, I'm not in a place to note "preferred" nomenclature, but I moderate spaces where there are trans folks and "pre-operative", or perhaps "without bottom surgery", seems to be a neutral description.
With that said, the focus on genitalia strikes me as odd and really unfounded in the first place for a productive conversation.
I do agree that focus on genitalia is generally unnecessary and unwelcome. In this case though we are discussing trans-women fearing people with penises raping them in men's prisons, and cis-women fearing people with penises raping them in women's prisons.
In this context, if a trans-woman doesn't have a penis then this fear is unfounded and they should be housed with cis-women. If a trans-woman does have a penis, then I think this fear is reasonable (after all, that is what trans-women are escaping when they leave men's prisons). Basically, this is one of the few cases where discussing genitalia is relevant.
In this context “trans woman with a penis” or “woman with a penis” is fine. You can’t go wrong with scientific language. Pretty much nobody who is trans uses the word “intact,” I would go so far as to say it’s offensive and that you should avoid using it in the future if you don’t want to offend people. I find it offensive, certainly. It’s reminiscent of transphobic people describing trans women who have had vaginoplasties as mutilated.
Sure, no problem. Though I would point out that "intact" is also a word used to describe uncircumcised males, without strictly implying that circumcised males are damaged.
I don't think there are enough transwomen in prisons to make any reasonable statistical statement about transwomen in particular being more or less likely to be rapists. And I don't really think the argument is tangential. People with penises are more likely to be rapists than people without them, this is a clear statistical reality. If a large population of people are being held together, historically because they did not possess penises, and are worried about the introduction of someone with a penis (who statistically is much more likely to be a rapist by nature of having a penis), I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that gender identity is a confounding factor in those statistics. And if there isn't a difference between having a penis and not having one in this circumstance, why do we even need to have gendered prisons?
With regards to MyHypatia, I was referring to the fact that, in the second half of your comment to which I initially replied, it seemed like you felt MyHypatia did not recognize the direness of the trans situation in prisons. But they clearly do, as evidenced by this from their first comment:
> The fear that transgender women have of rape in a men's jail is real
> Though I would point out that "intact" is also a word used to describe uncircumcised males, without strictly implying that circumcised males are damaged.
It may be used to describe their foreskin, but I've never heard or seen it used to describe them as whole people. It sounds very odd. What is the negation of intact? You can't really use a word to describe a category exclusively without implying the opposite of the other category.
> People with penises are more likely to be rapists than people without them, this is a clear statistical reality.
I don't think you can argue this is a clear statistical reality without data about trans women. As far as I know contemporary research suggests sexual assault by women has been historically undercounted. I don't know if the numbers come out similar in the end, but it seems like the kind of thing that is easily colored by social bias.
> If a large population of people are being held together, historically because they did not possess penises
Is it because they didn't have penises? Or because they weren't men? I don't know of any specific information, but this is an important distinction, because the general perception for a long time has been that men are more violent than women, and I think it's more because of male secondary sexual characteristics (muscle tone and height, mainly) than primary. Would a burly intersex person with high testosterone and ambiguous genitalia who sexually assaulted somebody have been put in a women's prison? Should they be today?
> And if there isn't a difference between having a penis and not having one in this circumstance, why do we even need to have gendered prisons?
I don't know, but I do think it's worth asking the question! Do we segregate people by gender because it's fundamentally necessary, or because our prison system is so brutal that we can't imagine inmates of different genders living together peacefully? There could very well be science on this subject that I'm not aware of, but on its face the sexual segregation of American prisons seems hard to separate from their brutality and corruption.
I think we will need to agree to disagree with regards to "intact" being a harmful adjective to use in this particular situation, but I am happy to no longer use that phrasing if you or anyone else finds it objectionable. I was using it as shorthand for "transwomen with an intact penis" which I think is a fairly accurate way of putting it. Mostly I was using it because that is the phrasing that had been used previously in this conversation and nobody had objected to its usage until this point. To my mind dancing around realities (e.g. saying things like "passed on" instead of "dead") is a strange obsession we have as a society that I generally find tedious and counter-productive regardless of the situation, but that is just my opinion and I am perhaps a bit more direct than average.
Sexual assault by women being undercounted does not account for the fact that most estimates put male perpetrators at around 90% of sexual assault cases. It would have to be severe undercounting (in anonymous surveys to boot) to get anywhere close to make up for that divide. Also, unless I am misinformed, I was under the impression that the majority of transwomen share male secondary sex characteristics – I have certainly not seen any indication that transwomen are shorter than the average male and would not expect that to be the case, given that the majority of trans people alive today were not on puberty blockers + hormone therapy before any such primary sex characteristics could do their thing in puberty.
Historically, being a man was having a penis. At the end of the day, humanity is a sexually reproducing species and there are two fundamental sexes required for procreation (intersex individuals notwithstanding). For better or for worse, human societies have divided themselves along this line (as best they could judge) since time immemorial. Given this universality, it seems incredibly unlikely that the various discrepancies between men and women (whether with rape or anything else) can be explained away by society / sociological conditioning (and therefore fixed by a change in the same).
I fully agree that the solution is to look at the problem holistically and question whether a system which allows for any sex/gender to be raped by any other sex/gender is a system that should be maintained. But as it stands, that system is still around, so we can't just pretend the decisions we've made going into that system are totally irrelevant and now that we're "more enlightened individuals" we can just switch things up without that fundamental revisiting. Said another way, this strikes me as a bit of a Chesterton's fence situation: I don't know exactly why we decided to make men's and women's prisons, but until we've firmly established that "why", I don't think it is sensible to use our 21st century definition of "men" and "women" and apply it to systems that were not made with those definitions in mind.
This comment gets a lot wrong and I don't think it's a productive use of my time to explain it fully but I will try to enumerate my main objections.
1. "Intact" is straight-up offensive. I was trying to explain why without saying so (because people on here always seem to object that something isn't offensive when I say it is) but you didn't get it, or I did a poor job of explaining. The term implies that trans women with vaginas merely have damaged penises, and made a choice to ruin their bodies, and consequently that cisgender bodies are better, because they are always intact. That is where it originates from.
2. Many human societies throughout history up to today have recognized at least three genders, most famously for the US, indigenous Americans with two-spirit people. It is incidental, not inherent, that Western culture does not have a category like this outside of scientific classification.
3. Feminists ostensibly believe in equality between men and women. This idea that men are uncontrollable rapists, and that women are defenseless and purely innocent, seems blatantly sexist to me. Sure, men are especially violent in our society. It's plainly true. They also happen to hold most of the power in our society. The concept of rape culture goes a long way to explaining why men rape people and are generally more violent: it is condoned by the people who hold most of the power. Justice for trans people is inseparable from justice for all women, and the destruction of patriarchy. That's what I was trying to get at in talking about the obvious violence in the US prison system. The state treating people with violence legitimizes people treating each other with violence, and that's only the start. Humans are highly intelligent and by all accounts we have, through great effort, managed to become much less violent in our dealings with each other over time, for the most part. At some point you can't blame animal instinct for choices that humans make.
1. I wish our medical technology was at the point you seem to believe it is, I truly wish it was. But it's not. I wish society was at the point it is in the Culture series, where every individual in the Culture has the ability to change their biological sex at will (and even become androgynous if they wish!). But we are certainly not at the point. Post-op transwomen don't have vaginas, just as they have none of the other plumbing that exists as part of being one half of a sexually reproducing pair. They have imitations of them, poorly reconstructed from, yes, as you say, a mutilated penis. I hope that one day (sooner rather than later) we will get to the level of medical prowess where this is not the case, but we are certainly not there in 2021. In the same way, I hope that one day soon we will be able to make legs for people that lost/never had them (if they wish). Offense is taken, not given – it is not that I don't understand that people can be offended by "intact", it is that someone taking offense at an accurate description of reality is generally not worth the effort to guard against, because with that low of a bar people can be offended by anything. But again, I already agreed not to use that terminology, which (again) I was only using in the first place because it had been used previously in the conversation without objection by someone else.
2. Two-spirit was a term invented in 1990, so that seems like a bad example of a concept that has existed throughout history. Even the concept of a "special third gender" necessitates that you have two primary ones. I am not arguing that every society throughout history has had two distinct gender roles and that is all. The point I am making is that the reason gender exists as a concept at all is because there are distinct human sexes. The reason there are distinct sexes is because that is what we are: a sexually reproducing species with binary sex characteristics. One sex that produces the large gamete and one sex that produces the small, which come together to form zygote, which is incubated by the aforementioned large gamete provider. If it worked in any other way, if there was any variation on this theme, you and I would not exist. Your progeny involves one male having sex with one female and the female carrying the result of that in her womb for at least 20+ weeks (usually 40) in an unbroken line back to the first human, and then much, much further.
3. I never claimed men were uncontrollable rapists, just that the statistics (to the best of our ability to measure them) indicate that rapists are far more prevalent among males than among females. Clearly the vast majority of men are capable of not raping people. Furthermore, "rape culture" is a strange way of describing a culture which has harsh punishments for rapists and frequently makes people unemployable after the mere accusation of rape, with little proof needed (name another crime we do that for as readily). In fact if I was going to invent a "rape culture" from scratch those things would definitely be the opposite of what I'd include as norms.
Look, if you want to dismantle the prison system because it normalizes and perpetuates horrible violence, then by all means say that. But this is not at all the same thing as saying "we can just stick people in whichever prison best matches their gender identity regardless of what reasons we had for making men's and women's prisons in the first place because clearly the people who made that decision were poorly reasoning morons/bigots who had no reason to make such a distinction". Just as saying "we should develop more gender-neutral bathrooms" is different from saying "men and women's bathrooms are functionally identical just with different signs on the doors", even though men's bathrooms were clearly designed around the assumption that users of said bathroom are likely...
No, I don't think trans-women are more likely to be rapists. Trans-women are at high risk of sexual assault in male prisons and that should be taken seriously. Cis-women are at risk of sexual assault and being impregnated from that sexual assault if they are housed with intact trans-women.
I think both of these concerns can be addressed. None of the options address everyone's needs and preferences, but are certainly better than leaving trans-women completely vulnerable in men's prisons.
1) House trans-women in a separate part of men's prisons so that they are not at high risk of sexual assault. Some people do not like this because it doesn't affirm their gender identity.
2) House trans-women in prisons for trans people. This is likely unrealistic because the number of people is small and for most inmates it would mean spending prison time far away from their community, making it harder for friends and family to visit.
3) House trans-women in women's prisons, but not force cis-women to share a cell with intact trans-women. This scenario would remove the threat that trans-women face, affirm their gender identity, but not impose an unfair burden on cis-women who fear being sexually assaulted and impregnated by intact trans-women.
I think scenario (3) goes most of the way in protecting trans-women from sexual assault, allows them to serve their sentences (hopefully not too far away from family), yet still acknowledges that many cis-women in prison have been sexually assaulted or fear sexual assault by people with penises because it can result in pregnancy which creates an entire new set of physical, psychological, and moral challenges for that cis-woman.
No. Correctional officers do not sleep next to prisoners in the same cell every night, so it doesn't create the same threat and fear.
Sexual assault by correctional officers is a problem that also needs to be better addressed. But that's true regardless of the question on how to house incarcerated trans-women.
>but if a tiny minority of transpeople are a distant third
Here's the problem I have with this line of defense: it doesn't accommodate the reality of self-id and the likely downstream effects if it becomes the accepted norm. If all it takes for a male to be housed in a female prison is a checkmark on a form, we should expect that many cis-men will take advantage of the situation, thus creating a very real threat of abuse for women in women prisons. If I were being locked up for an extended period of time and all it took was a declaration to be housed in a female prison, I would do it. I would go from one of the smaller and weaker inmates to one of the biggest and strongest. It is a no-brainer in terms of my personal safety. And I have no interest in abusing anyone or taking advantage of forced-proximity. Imagine how many abusers would take advantage of that circumstance? An argument in defense of gender-affirmation in prison assignments that doesn't accommodate this likely reality isn't substantive.
>all it took was a declaration to be housed in a female prison
That's not at all what it takes.
>Imagine how many abusers would take advantage of that circumstance?
Imagine how many abusers already take advantage of the power they already have over women in women's prisons. That the real problem of sexual violence is focused and framed wholly and entirely on trans women is exactly the point made by the parent: this is an entirely disingenuous effort by people wholly uninterested in actually preventing the real, existing, non-imagined abuses in women's prisons and more interested in enforcing a strict gender binary that harms both cis and trans women.
In fact, it is all it takes in some jurisdictions[1]
>Imagine how many abusers already take advantage of the power they already have over women in women's prisons.
This is a disingenuous reply. The issue of abuse is colored by the difficulty in mitigation, i.e. available funds to significantly alter prisons, increase guards, etc. The fact that existing abuse has no easy, cost-effective solutions is not an argument against preventing the likely increase in abuse due to policy changes which are comparatively low-cost.
>Thornton said that “a person’s gender identity is self-reported and CDCR will evaluate any request submitted by an incarcerated person for gender-based housing.”
This CDCR review process is a hurdle, and staffers are hypervigilant (to the point of manufacturing anxiety) of the transfers that have already happened.
>But Moore, 43, said that she has also heard staffers question inmates housed with Calvin, asking whether she has exposed herself, explained her sexual behavior to them or said things that made them uncomfortable. She said the questioning has fomented anxiety and false rumors that Calvin is in a relationship.
>...when groundbreaking legislation gave transgender, intersex and nonbinary inmates the right, regardless of anatomy, to choose whether to be housed in a male or female prison... When asked whether inmates in the men’s prisons trying to manipulate the transfer system has been a significant issue, Thornton said that “a person’s gender identity is self-reported and CDCR will evaluate any request submitted by an incarcerated person for gender-based housing.”... Inmates can request transfers to their correctional counselor, which are then considered by a committee that includes the warden, custody, medical and mental health staffers, and a PREA compliance manager. Staffers review the inmate’s criminal record, health needs, custody level, sentence and safety concerns.
There's certainly room for interpretation here, but it seems like the evaluation is based on specific personal requirements and any explicit safety concerns, not a medical or psychological exam to determine whether the request is due to one's genuine identity.
Additionally if you only have to vocally identify as a woman without having to take any further steps (Hormone replacement, srs, etc) this seems exploitable.
While you are throwaway I am still gonna remind you of "assuming good faith" is one of core tenants of hn.
Other things that are exploitable: driving vans/cars in cities as they can be driven into crowds.
I agree that it is thinkable that some people might want to exploit these rules. However I haven't seen anything that suggest abuse will be rampant enough and not be able to be dealt using existing laws and shaming exploiters. So I think we should give trans people their rights and deal with perverts and abuser separately.
A cost on switching can be imposed but it shouldn't make it more stigmatising or harder on trans people ideally.
Alternatively, this could be an opportunity to address sexual assault in prisons more broadly. No inmate, no matter how heinous their crimes, should be subjected to sexual assault.
The prevalence and sexual assault in prisons is an example of a normalization of deviance that should be opposed, instead of tolerated.
Why would a rapist stop wanting to rape regardless of the state of their genitals? Is sexual violation with a penis so much more horrific than other violations it deserves special consideration?
Yes, because women can get pregnant. Then not only do you have to deal with trauma of your sexual assault, you have to deal with the trauma of having a child born from that sexual assault or have an abortion.
Its also about the possibility of being impregnated
Just personalize the idea, your sister or female significant other was thrown in jail, and then housed with a male who is a trans woman who has sex with her with or without her consent and creates an ongoing consequence that is impossible if trans women were not there
That would be the expectation you would start with to form a conclusion
In good faith and not as whataboutism:
Do you think being forced to impregnate someone against your will is similarly horrific although less burdensome for the first 9 months?
By this logic, it would be fine if they were infertile, which is obvious nonsense.
Sexual assault does not hit some magic breaking point where it becomes an unacceptable risk at the chance of impregnation. If there is a significant risk of sexual assault, then the prison has fundamentally failed and that is the thing that needs fixing.
It simply doesn't matter if someone is trans or not, cis people are just as capable of sexual assault, and prisons must be protecting all inmates, not only cis-women, from assault.
the rest of us are starting with the premise that prisons have all failed equally, and find them equally incompetent at any additional vector of assault such as the one that introduces pregnancy
its not nearly as gendered as you are making it out to be, this a condition statement satisfied by some gendered combinations
I can't really speak to the psychology of rapists in prisons, but I imagine there are a good number of people that, if they're gonna rape someone with a penis anyway, it is more enjoyable to rape the person that is presenting as a woman.
Also because rape in prison is very much about power, and exerting power over people you dislike for one reason or another (in this case trans people because they are trans) especially.
There are a lot more straight male rapists than non-straight male rapists, just because there are a lot more straight people. Yes, there is also situational homosexuality, but trans women change the situation.
Trans people are way more likely to be raped then non trans. And cis women do get attacked by trans men. Like, if your concern is prison rape, it is quite odd to start with lowest probability events and ignore high probability events.
My comment was in response to the parent comment referring to cis-women's concerns as "TERF talking points". I am saying that cis-women's concerns shouldn't be invalidated, and that we can figure out a path forward that acknowledges the threat that trans-women may face in men's prisons and also acknowledge the threat that cis-women may face being cell mates with a person who has a penis.
Basically, I think that sexual assault in prisons should be taken far more seriously for everyone. That may mean every prisoner should get their own cell regardless of sex or gender. I don't think housing cis-women and intact trans-women in the same cell alleviates this.
I am cis woman. I happened to look at prisom rape and sexual violence statistics a while ago.
The trans men in jail abusing cis women is real thing. They are housed together now. The trans women being raped or abused is incredibly frequent thing - includig by guards. (Male on male rape is a joke, basically. Transwomen in prison are assumed to enjoy sexual abuse basically.)
But despite the former being literally about cis women safety too, it just dont interest people. There are many ways to make prisons safer and making it so trans women or gender non conforming men are a bit safer is topic only for radical trans activists and no one else.
If there is heated discussion about issue that dont currently exist which ignores issues that do cureently exist, it is ok to call it talking point.
If you read the article you linked, you will find that is not true. From the article: "between 2016 and 2020, there were seven sexual assaults against females in women's prisons by trans women." 7 assaults in 4 years is not 5x more.
If you are referring to the statistic that "trans inmates are 1% of the population and commit 5.6% of the assaults", you will find that the trans inmates in question are actually trans men being incorrectly housed in women's prisons.
“there were 125 trans prisoners in 2017, 60 of whom were serving sentences for sexual offences. Of those 60, 27 were serving a prison sentence for rape.” which is more shocking than your 5x statistic. Note the 5x statistic appears weak to me because “Between 2016 and 2020, there were seven sexual assaults [reported] against females in women's prisons by trans women.”.
Indeed, well said. Even outside of the realm of gender, the rhetoric of biological essentialism is harmful.
When I see people say things like "biology is what is real", I think about the harm done to every adopted child who is being told that their parent isn't really their parent, that their relationship should not be respected as much as someone who is biologically related to their parents.
Sorry to break it to you, but chromosomes are prescriptive. You cannot simply ignore that there are differences between X and Y chromosomes. Society's distinctions between the sexes is not arbitrary. Why do we have separate bathrooms in public but not at home? Why do we have segregated sports? Why do we celebrate feminists but not MRAs? It's because there is a real-world difference.
Chromosomes are not detectable from the outside. Phenotype is not entirely dependent on genotype. Trans women may suffer from both certain "female" diseases and certain "male" diseases.
Flamewar tropes like "Sorry to break it to you" are not acceptable on HN in any case and certainly not on a painfully divisive and inflammatory topic like this.
If you can't keep in mind that you're talking to other human beings who may have deep and good reasons to feel differently than you do on a topic, then please don't post here. This is a difficult enough topic without poisoning it with swipes and snark.
> Sorry to break it to you, but chromosomes are prescriptive.
... Except when they aren't. Even biology doesn't paint such a simple picture. Chromosomes are important, but not as important as hormones -- and how the body responds to those hormones.
If you're not aware of CAIS, it is probably the clearest way for you to re-evaluate your view that chromosomes are prescriptive.
Edit - puzzled by the downvotes here. Do you know what chromosomes you have? Have you checked? If you do, there's a nonzero chance that they aren't the chromosomes you're expecting to find.
If you were to test your chromosomes and found they didn't match your expectations, you would either have to change your belief about the prescriptiveness of chromosomes, or your belief about your gender. Which belief would you change? Which belief do you hold more strongly?
> They believe that dictionary definitions of woman are prescriptive, declared at the chromosomes during birth, rather than descriptive, as in how one presents in both dress and phenotype.
If you were responsible for compiling a dictionary, what is the accurate definition of "woman" that you would provide?
I must admit that I’m apprehensive to give an answer given this thread’s…liveliness, but I’ll do my best.
“Woman” describes a collection of chromosomal and phenological traits observed within an ongoing and temporal culture lens. A human is often perceived as a woman when she simultaneously embodies a variety of these traits, especially so when those traits contrast that which is considered male.
Much like the concept of feminism, consensus on what is and isn’t in these categories continues to evolve as it’s observed and informed by the experienced of both genders.
I can understand why a definition like this wouldn’t be as satisfying as something more concrete and well, definitive.
Apologies if this question is too stupid, I mean no disrespect, just trying to understand things better.
If gender is a complete social construct and 'man' and 'woman' are something that is traits observed within an ongoing and temporal culture lens, then why not create another of your own?
Most problems that I see in this debate are due to one group wanting to widen the scope of a existing understanding, the other wanting to preserve it.
Wouldn't creating a 3rd gender and legislating it as a valid legal entity with compelled equal facilities solve the problem for both groups?
It’s a fair question. I can’t speak for all trans women, but the impression I get is that many trans people would prefer to think of their transition as a medical issue to be managed back into the gender binary. You’ll probably get varying answers depending on just how far someone is in their transition.
This doesn’t come up often but I think cis folks aren’t aware that many trans folk “graduate” out of the community once they feel sufficiently transitioned. After a few years of hormones and surgery, many would just prefer to go on with their life — skipping the debates and games of political football.
Personally speaking, the concept of a third space wouldn’t be so bad, but making gendered spaces less necessary to begin with seems like a more realistic target. Historically, women were chained to their homes because of a lack of public restrooms. Why we didn’t opt for single-stalls and shared facilities is probably more to do with existing building codes and social norms, rather than a natural order of things.
This reply is getting a little too long, but I’d like to pass on the much wiser words of Kate Bornstein:
Then there's gender attribution, whereby we look at somehody and say, "that's a man," or "that's a woman." And this is important because the way we perceive another's gender affects the way we relate to that person. Gender attribution is the sneaky one. It's the one we do all the time without thinking about it; kinda like driving a sixteen-wheeler down a crowded highway...without thinking about it.
In this culture, gender attribution, like gender assignment, is phallo centric. That is, one is male until perceived otherwise. According to a study done by Kessler and McKenna, one can extrapolate that it would take the presence of roughly four female cues to outweigh the presence ofone male cue: one is assumed male until proven otherwise. That's one reason why many women today get "sirred" whereas very few men get called "ma'am."
I don't think your explanation of "TERF talking points" is fair. Contra Judith Butler it's not clear that feminism has any meaning without some essential idea of "womanhood". That is fundamentally what disturbs "TERFs".
When you talk about "this Goldilocks zone of womanhood," I think you've rediscovering one of the oldest philosophical discoveries: mental concepts and ideas (in this case "woman") do not apply perfectly to the world of appearences. But this does not mean we can jettison concepts and ideas altogether. In fact they seem necessary. So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category.
And that's what's being asked of us. We are told "trans women are women". What does that mean? It if means "there is a category, women, and in that category there are trans women and biological women," that's fine with me. If it means "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," that seems wrong to me and to the vast majority of people.
I don't think "trans women are women" is a literal statement - I think it means "we should give trans women the rights and protections afforded to women"; it's an expression of support.
Kinda like "Black Lives Matter" - obviously they do, but the fact that you have to say it out loud and directly highlights the disparity and systemic injustices faced by people of color.
At least, that's what I think those things mean, someone with a more sophisticated understanding will probably correct me if I'm wrong.
> "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women,"
There is no category of women that is entirely identical, where you couldn't distinguish between them.
Some AFAB women can't give birth. Some of them have more androgynous bodies. Some of them are black. Some of them have different levels of estrogen, or grow up in different social circles that impose different expectations about how they should act, or provide different opportunities.
Nobody is saying that AFAB women don't have different experiences than trans women, any more than anyone is saying that Black women don't have different experiences than white women. Womanhood has always been a broad category, and there has never been a point where you could accurately say that there are no distinctions between the subcategories within womanhood.
If TERFs believe there is a fundamental quality that makes them indistinguishable from every other woman, then they are being absurd. Even if you ignore trans women, that world doesn't exist.
Did you read my post? I addressed all of this very directly.
To quote myself:
> When you talk about "this Goldilocks zone of womanhood," I think you've rediscovering one of the oldest philosophical discoveries: mental concepts and ideas (in this case "woman") do not apply perfectly to the world of appearences. But this does not mean we can jettison concepts and ideas altogether. In fact they seem necessary. So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category.
So, regardless of whether we can specify criteria by which we can decide whether or not someone is a biological woman, the essential concept of "biological woman" seems to me (and to gender critical feminists) to be indispensible. To me, because it allows us to provide a good (though not perfect) answer to the question "where do babies come from?" and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as central to their political/philosophical project.
In fact, we can use your method of argument to demolish any category or concept. Take death for instance. How do we define death? By what criteria can we say anything is dead? Take life. By what criteria can we say something is alive? In fact we can't answer these questions perfectly and this is well known. But I don't see any use in getting rid of concepts like life and death which seem central to how we all understand the world. Along the same lines, I don't think we can dispense with "biological woman".
And while all of this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me.
> So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category.
Right. But nobody is asking you to dispense of the category of women, what we're doing is we're agreeing with you that the category is fuzzy and we're saying that genitalia and sex assignment at birth do not clearly designate identity.
Nor are we getting rid of the category of cisgender and/or AFAB women. Trans women are not (and have never claimed to be) biologically identical to AFAB women. If trans women were claiming that they were biologically identical to women, then many of them wouldn't be taking estrogen. They are very aware about their biology :)
But acknowledging the fuzziness of women as a category overall means regularly reassessing our social norms about how women are expected to act and what their bodies are expected to look like. This is especially true in instances where we see people who are sharing a lot of experiences with other women.
Many trans women know what it's like to be catcalled. They know what it's like to be discriminated against at their jobs. Their experiences are not identical to everyone else's, in the same way that women's experiences in these areas are not all identical depending on their backgrounds/bodies/environments. But there is enough overlap that it is useful to group them together under the banner of womanhood. Because there isn't a perfect criterion for "woman", and part of feminism is critically examining biases about what hoops people need to jump through to be considered an "acceptable" woman -- regardless of whether those hoops are set up by men, or by other women.
> To me, because it allows us to provide a fairly good answer to the question "where do babies come from?"
Well, except for infertile women, who are fully woman and fully valid regardless of their ability to have children.
> and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as cental to their political/philosophical project.
I disagree that trans women mean that these political/philosophical goals can't be achieved. To me, this is just gatekeeping, I don't see a real motivating need for this kind of exclusion. Trans women do not have an agenda to take away women's rights, many of these people are feminists themselves.
> And while this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me.
The absurdity is not that you have different opinions about the definition of a woman, the absurdity is your implication that acknowledging the womanhood of trans women is tantamount to saying that their experiences are completely identical to cisgender, AFAB women, or that it's destroying some kind of sacred bond. That position is absurd because cisgender, AFAB women do not have identical experiences with each other.
You wrote:
> If it means "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," that seems wrong to me and to the vast majority of people.
That would be an absurd thing for anyone to claim about any attribute of womanhood, and nobody is doing so.
> Right. But nobody is asking you to dispense of the category of women, what we're doing is we're agreeing with you that the category is fuzzy and we're saying that genitalia and sex assignment at birth are not perfect criterion.
In fact we are being asked this. Which is why trans women are competing with biological women in sports. How is that not dispensing with the category of "biological women"?
You don't seem to realize it but your entire argument is based on undermining the category of "biological women" by showing that it isn't "real". You've typed a lot of words attempting to do that.
> I disagree that trans women mean that these political/philosophical goals can't be achieved. To me, this is just gatekeeping, I don't see a real motivating need for this kind of exclusion. Trans women do not have an agenda to take away women's rights, many of these people are feminists themselves.
All categories are "gatekeeping". To say X is X and not Y is "gatekeeping". This is why "gatekeeping" is such a dumb term.
> The absurdity is not that you have different opinions about the definition of a woman, the absurdity is your implication that acknowledging the womanhood of trans women is tantamount to saying that their experiences are completely identical to cisgender, AFAB women, or that it's destroying some kind of sacred bond. That position is absurd because cisgender, AFAB women do not have identical experiences with each other.
I don't define everything by "experiences" so this is all gibberish to me. But, again, we are being asked to deny the distinction between biological women and trans women. This is very explicit. You're choosing to ignore it because it's inconvenient to your argument.
> But, again, we are being asked to deny the distinction between biological women and trans women.
No one, literally no one, is saying that AFAB and cisgender women do not exist.
> your entire argument is based on undermining the category of "biological women" by showing that it isn't "real".
If your criteria for the category of "biological women" is dependent on having a strict bright line distinction between AFAB/cisgender women and everyone else, then yeah, I am trying to get rid of that bright line, because the bright line doesn't exist and has never existed at any point in history, and it's silly and unscientific to say it exists.
However, if your criteria for "biological women" is not dependent on some kind of mythological bright line, then no, I am not trying to undermine anyone or anything. I'll say it again, no one is claiming that AFAB/cisgender women do not exist as a category, and no one is claiming that they do not have unique experiences within that category. No one wants to get rid of the category of cisgender women.
> In fact we are being asked this. Which is why trans women are competing with biological women in sports. How is that not dispensing with the category of "biological women"?
This is too large of a topic to get into right here and would be too long of an aside, but I do not see strong evidence that trans women are destroying the competitiveness of women's sports, I do see strong evidence that the blowback against trans women risks harming AFAB/cisgender women who naturally have unconventional levels of testosterone or unconventional body types. I'm also a little bit thrown by the idea that forcing trans men to play in women's sports is going to somehow be an improvement over what you're worried about.
This harm to non-conforming cisgender women is not only isolated to sports, by the way. A side-effect of transgender bathroom bills is often an increase in harassment towards masculine cisgender women who face harassment when they use bathrooms that match their birth sex. A general increase in acceptance of gender fluidity and gender expression has been (as far as I can tell) largely beneficial to cisgender non-conforming women.
> I don't define everything by "experiences" so this is all gibberish to me. But, again, we are being asked to deny the distinction between biological women and trans women.
Arbitrary distinctions between women are less important than distinctions that affect their experiences and their fight for their rights. So if your position is that women should abandon shared experiences and solidarity over gender rights in favor of arbitrary biological distinctions, then guilty as charged, I am undermining that effort. Because it's an unhelpful effort that ought to be undermined.
However, outside of the TERF world, I do think that most women consider shared experiences and solidarity with other women to be important, and to be a part of their gender identity.
> No one, literally no one, is saying that AFAB and cisgender women do not exist.
I don't think anyone is asserting that, at least not the way you say. You're sort of responding to a perceived strawman with another strawman.
What gender critical folks are saying is that the more radical arm of trans-activism (particularly the powerful Self-ID movement) looks at biological sex as superfluous and arbitrary, and thus any spaces, programs, or resources that have been reserved for women up to this point must be made available to men if they so much as declare themselves to be female. Any requirements to "commit" to a transition, in terms of time or physical/hormonal adjustment are attacked as transphobic.
And then there's the language policing that the self-ID'ers want to enact, wherein, for example, biological women would be referred to as "menstruators", and transphobic phrases such as "breastfeeding" would be prohibited.
And in fact, breastfeeding itself is under attack in some TRA circles as an inherently anti-trans behavior, because obviously it cannot be part of the "shared experience" of women and transwomen.
I know there's a lot of space in between the extremes for people who truly were "born in the wrong body" as Mermaids says, but I think it's understandable that many honest and well-intentioned folks perceive the more radical TRA stuff as a misogynistic male colonisation of femininity.
> looks at biological sex as superfluous and arbitrary,
> biological women would be referred to as "menstruators"
> transphobic phrases such as "breastfeeding" would be prohibited.
> breastfeeding itself is under attack in some TRA circles
If you say there's a group of people out there who think this way I can't technically prove to you that group doesn't exist, but I have never personally met a trans person who would agree with those statements. At most, I have seen "menstruators" used as a shorthand for "women who menstruate" specifically in conversations about menstruation, which does not seem to me to be a particularly problematic use of the word.
I'll take you at your word that these people exist and are bothering you, and for whatever it's worth you have my permission/support if you ignore them. But I don't think it's accurate or fair to extrapolate from those people to make statements about what trans activists and trans people themselves believe overall. I am not trying to say that the experiences of cisgender woman are superfluous, and including trans women in feminine spaces or being conscientious of their experiences is not an attempt to erase anyone, it's an attempt to be inclusive.
I'm reminded of Hark, A Vagrant's Straw Feminists comic[0]. There's a pretty big difference between what the majority of trans community members are saying -- "Not all women breastfeed" (which is trivially true, even among cisgender groups of women) -- and "Breastfeeding is transphobic", which is nonsensical. While I totally understand why someone might look at straw trans-rights arguments and worry that this means trans people are "erasing" them, it is still important to understand that trans people by and large are not saying those things, it is a mischaracterization of the overall group.
If you let radicals define how you approach every social movements and how you characterize the people involved in that movement, then there are very few social movements that you won't begin to see as problematic, feminism included.
The way that black women experience sexism is often tangibly different than the way that white women experience sexism. Racial inequality can compound and complicate other inequalities.
I think it's important in feminist circles to understand that the Black community can be affected by sexism in ways that white women might not experience.
You can say the same about things like income. The sexism that a professional in an office job experiences can occasionally differ in subtle ways from the sexism that a blue-collar worker experiences. Not to say one is better or worse, just the way that inequality manifests is often contextually dependent.
No, but I do understand that the way society treats Black women is often different than the way society treats white women, and I understand that being a white woman does not automatically give someone complete insight into the struggles that Black women face.
It's really not complex. "Trans women are women" is directly comparable to "Adoptive parents are parents". It is a statement that biology is not the important factor generally, identity is.
The supposed fear that people believe there is some magic change to your chromosomes the second you chose to identify with a gender is patently absurd. There is obviously no real support for such an idea—it is a straw-man that no one reading the phrase "trans women are women" in good faith and taking even a second to look into what trans people are saying would assume was the intent.
> to bring up the damage imposed by TERF talking points
Even to the extent that there is a debate to be had about trans identity and how gender/sex works, it's really hard to have that debate when one side is terrified that their rights are being taken away. For trans people, this debate has immediate consequences.
It's kind of frustrating to me that people don't see this. People are mad about not being able to have academic debates about trans identity as if it's unreasonable for the trans community to be prioritizing their own rights instead of the intellectual curiosity of university professors.
2020-2021 has seen one of the largest jumps in anti-trans legislation since... I don't even know when, since before I was born. So yeah, everyone who cares about this issue is on edge about TERFs, because TERFs don't want to have a friendly academic debate, they want to pass legislation blocking affirmative care, policing bathrooms and sports, and generally erasing trans people from society. I'm annoyed when I see people online acting like the trans community is the reason that these topics are politically fraught. They're politically fraught because TERFs and anti-trans politicians are using them as a front to take people's rights away.
If that problem got fixed, if trans people weren't under attack, if a lot of the questioning wasn't tied up in bigotry, then conversations online about gender wouldn't be so tense. It's wild to try and blame the trans community for prioritizing self-preservation.
But I also know a trans woman who is over 6 feet tall and has a beard. She is considering hormone replacement therapy but has not committed yet.
I cannot help but have some empathy for women -- who might have very good reason to be fearful of men -- who are uncomfortable having this person in female-safe spaces. That is 100% independent of the intentions or actual danger posed by this trans woman I know, which is as close to zero as I can imagine.
Being trans is a personal philosophy. You may argue that the 'feeling' is innate, but must make major changes to your outside appearance/ biology / defy culture norms.
With that being said, defying cultural norms is a good thing but you can't force me to accept your reality. I have to option to have a difference in opinion than you. If i accidentally say sir, instead of mrs you can't cancel me because of it.
I don't claim to be a moral precept but what i do offer you A peace treaty. You can live your life in a way that is pleasing to you but you cannot force other people to accept your beliefs no matter how much scientific or cultural backing it may have. if the local womens book club doesn't want a dude who 'Claims' to be a women in their book club but can obviously still see he's a man, that's okay. It's not discrimination, it's difference in opinion and that is okay.
edit: Deleted a paragraph discussing sports. I think it mainly took away from my argument rather than helped it.
while this article focusses on the gender ideology issues, IMHO the censorship in universites is on a wider range of issues, with the common denominator being the viewpoints espoused in far-left circles (not passing judgement here on whether they are right or wrong)
Enforced group-think is going to be the death of these universities.
By expunging, shaming, expelling, disinviting, cancelling, eschewing, not offering positions, denying grants, avoiding publication, demoting those that don't meet the requirements of a radical orthodoxy.
Noam Chomsky of all people (!), and a bunch of other staunchly centre-left luminaries had to take out a full page ad in Harper's to make the point. [2]
How far would an ugly trend have to exhibit itself in order for these fairly respectable and otherwise mild mannered people to not only 1) notice but 2) act and then 3) make a big show out of it in a worldwide signal?
They tried to cancel Stephen Pinker [2] for postulating that the problem of Law Enforcement in the USA is a generally overbearing justice system, not necessarily specific to one race, although conceding that's a problem. For that utterly reasonable statement, they tried to remove his Chair and participation a bunch of groups. He was fine, but 'they came for him' and were he to have been less prominent, 'they' would have won.
It's intellectual cowardice and social bullying by angry people. My belief is that it's not even ideological at the end of the day, rather, it's the petty expression of power by those who've never had it before and who were transgressed themselves at some earlier point in their lives.
The late (devout Christian!) William Stuntz wrote an entire book (in front of me right now) about the overbearing justice system and and never got cancelled for it.
Mostly because it is a rejection of first principles thinking, which is a key tool in the toolbelt of critical thinking, supposedly part of any university's mandate.
Well then you're both 1) of the same political mindset of the majority and therefore less likely to notice and 2) unwilling to take the social temperature of such things because it's obviously happening [1] and there is a mountain of empirical evidence to support the fact that students and faculty are wary of speaking their minds.
I very seriously doubt that a middle-aged white male economics professor (who grew up in the sticks in North Dakota, no less) is of the same political mindset of "the majority".
> students and faculty are wary of speaking their minds
If you're worried about disapproval of others, being an academic is the wrong industry for you. If academic freedom and the first amendment aren't enough to protect your speech, you'd really be in trouble working in any other industry.
Now if you're going to claim that in society at large you have to use restraint when talking, and that you'll be attacked by people of all political views, I'd probably agree. That's pretty different from what you wrote.
Funnily enough, I spoke earlier this week with an academic whose concern about recent developments was that legal/policy papers he was writing for government departments were much more likely to be unpublished or partially redacted than in previous decades, for reasons which had nothing to do with culture warring.
Easy to see why governments would prefer the public believe the real threat to university research was a handful of students picketing the intentionally provocative...
"Gender critical" people claim that someone's sex cannot be changed, not even using surgery and hormones. So what is sex then? Obviously not one's hormones as those can be replaced just fine. That leaves chromosomes, primary and secondary characteristics.
They also claim that gender is more important than sex. When they, for example, address someone as "Dear Mr. Smith", they must be referring to their sex then. Which means they mean something like:
- "Dear Smith, who has XY chromosomes"
- "Dear Smith, who has a natural grown penis"
- "Dear Smith, who has a penis that works well enough that I consider them a man
- "Dear Smith, who can grow a beard"
- "Dear Smith, whose shoulder width is typical for a human male"
All of these are either bafflingly irrelevant, fucked up or inaccurate. So how exactly is one's sex relevant to anyone except their doctors and partners?
> In February, when Donna Hughes, a professor of women\u2019s studies at Rhode Island University, published an article critical of gender ideology, petitions sprouted calling for her to be fired.
The article, which the Economist didn't bother to link to:
It's more of a pamphlet filled with lies, sexism and conspiracy theories. I think academic freedom is too important to fire her over this, but I understand the petitions.
> In February Holly Lawford-Smith, a professor of philosophy at the University of Melbourne, launched a website which invited women to describe their experiences of sharing female-only spaces with trans women. It is not a research project and its reports are unverified. Most describe a feeling of discomfort rather than any form of physical assault.
So? I'm sure some women feel uncomfortable around black women. Or lesbians. Someone feeling uncomfortable around people of a given group is a common cause of discrimination and bigotry.
> If Maya Forstater, a British researcher who lost her job because of her gender-critical views
No, Mr. Forstater lost his job not because of his views but because "It is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment".[1]
A huge part of advocating for the right to self-identify is about respecting identity whether you like/respect someone or not. She didn't get her contract renewed because she made it clear she was going to be an asshole to coworkers on this exact dimension.
Correct gendering/identification is not something you have to earn. I still write J.K. Rowling's name out like that because it's how she goes by even though I wouldn't waste spit on her in hell.
J.K. Rowling has stated her love of transpeople and her wish to see them be fully accepted members of society. She has differences of opinion about the best political approach to achieving equality.
Because she makes a rational, temperate argument that you do not like, you "wouldn't waste spit on her in hell."
In a shared space, should the people that share that space have the right to exclude someone if it makes the majority feel unsafe? What about if it makes just one of them feel unsafe?
If one person says they feel unsafe, should they be asked to leave instead of the newcomer, with whom the majority are ambivalent?
Basically what I’m getting at is what’s the algebra / game theory of creating safe spaces based on tolerance and intolerance?
When ever I see someone talk about “safe space”, I ask myself, “safe space for which ideas?”
The things that are safe to discuss are different at thanksgiving dinner, a college designated safe-space, a therapist’s office, or a church meeting. There is no such thing as a universal “safe space” for all ideas.
Ostracizing people based solely on one own feeling sits squarely against the whole concept of presumption of innocence, it's the apotheosis of prejudices against coexistence.
Presumption of innocence is a legal presumption, and it exists there for very good reasons that would take too long to get into. Requiring such a presumption outside of a legal context in the way you're suggesting would undermine a different fundamental right, the freedom of association. People should have the right to associate (and disassociate) with whomever they like for whatever reasons they like, no matter how arbitrary or petty.
a and b want to associate, a want to associate with c, c don't want to associate with b, b doesn't care as long as he can associate with a, as per the grandparent comment statement, given that neither a, b and c did anything reprehensible yet.
everyone is free to act, but still a problem presents itself. what's the more just option for person a according to ethics and morals? that's the core of the conundrum, the right to associate and disassociate impacts other people freedoms, as such is the nature of interpersonal relations; of course individual have their individual freedom, but should A act on C prejudice, or in other word should C demand limits on A freedom (i.e. cancel culture)
mind you, the issue is about C own personal perceived feeling of unsafeness, not on B having done anything against C.
Right. Another loud article published on a very mainstream media about how a very established academic is being silenced and prevented from "debate". I wonder, if one collates all the articles on British media about transgender people, how many of them would actually concern the daily experiences of real transgender people, versus how many that consist of an established writer complaining loudly that they have been silenced?
Or to put it more quantitatively: how many words uttered by real transgender people have been published on British media, and how many words of these brutally silenced "gender-criticals"?
You put "debate" in quotes like it's somehow a dirty word, which is shocking and depressing to me. I DO care about what real transgender people have to say, and to be honest, especially on college campuses in the US, it is very easy to see they have a voice and are able to speak there opinion.
I have no idea whether this academic's opinion is one I agree with. Primarily because she wasn't allowed to speak.
She was allowed to speak far more than any trans people has been allowed to speak - she is speaking on The Economist. I do not see any trans people speaking on The Economist. The same applies across the entirety of published British media. That you willfully ignore this epistemological injustice, does not render it irrelevant.
The university ground is one of the very few places where real transgender people, along with other socially marginalised groups, are generally allowed to speak, and allowed to speak for themselves. They are particularly visible on campus, precisely because they are effectly not allowed to speak in other places. Such as The Economist and other print media.
And yes, certain "debates" are quite dirty. Debates are not neutral fields of free intellectual inquiry, but potent manifestation of prevailing epistemological injustices. It is shocking and depressing, that certain people must again and again defend their own existence in "debates" premised on a claim to the absurdity of their condition. It is shocking and depressing, that sincere experiences of trans people are not taken, but rather must be put under the forensic lens of "debate" to be constantly challenged and invalidated. These "debates" are dirty constructs, serving as a powerful mechanism of collective gaslighting.
I am not British, so I can't quite comment as well on the media landscape there, but I see tons of articles about transgender issues, with lots of commentary by trans people, in mainstream American media. A few simple examples:
And your last paragraph about claiming people are debating about forcing certain people to, as you put it, "again and again defend their own existence", is what I find so frustrating, because this is absolutely NOT what is going on in this instance. Yes, there are a tons of examples where this DOES happen, but lumping all honest debate about difficult problems (say, how does one determine if someone is eligible to compete in women's-only sports) as "defending your own existence" is just silencing all views that don't 100% agree with you.
Not "allowed" to speak? Jesus, the hyperbole doesn't help your case. Trans people are a tiny, tiny minority. That doesn't mean these organizations are actively excluding them. Get a grip.
I think the irony of the current battle around identity is that we have been making steady progress based on the idea that personal characteristics shouldn't matter. However this whole debate is reversing that by not only saying it matters a great deal but that other people should be forced to defer to others personal choices even when it directly affects them
Do you feel the same way about nicknames? If you call someone by a nickname that they don't like and they let you know they prefer their own name then do you consider it too onerous to defer to them about it?
I don't think that is what commenter is saying. I, personally, of course defer to nicknames and pronouns.
I think it is more similar to race-blind versus race-conscious policies - along with gender-blind versus gernder-concious.
Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics.
I think the answer is in the middle but clearly there has been a move in the last five years to say that gender inherently effects your worldview/characteristics while simultaneously saying that men/women should have equal outcomes in all fields. Its not internally consistent.
> Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics.
This is something I think a lot of people misunderstand about [id]-consciousness. Is it better to assume that you as an individual have biases that align/oppose with overarching biases in our society, or is it better to assume that you alone, or society at large, are bias-free? Can we address inequality by treating everybody the same in this moment and ignoring the historical context they exist in, or do observed biases need to be compensated for in some manner?
It's certainly consistent. Worldview happens as a result of experiences - if ones biological sex and/or gender is used as a reason to allow or deny certain experiences to someone, then maybe it affects their worldview, no?
This is different than whether the gating on biological sex makes sense.
(Note I don't mean strictly mechanical stuff like peeing your name into the snow, I'm talking about things like teachers "not wasting time on helping girls understand math"[1] - because I suspect that teachers not helping girls with math is probably more causal to fewer women in math than their vaginas.
[1] I've personally heard math teachers say this, and heard stories of others saying it too.)
That's not quite what I'm saying. It seems like you are advocating a gender blind policy - one in which no one is every denied treatment or eduction based on their gender. And one in which teachers do not insult girl students and make sure to have examples that would interest them.
However, what happens if this is completely eliminated and there are still discrepancies in grades, degrees, income? Many would say then that the subject matter is tilted towards men or women and needs to be reformed. Those who argue that position are arguing for gender conscious policy. Which is definitely not the same as gender neutral policy (which was the most popular 15 years ago when I was in school - but things seem to be shifting towards more conscious policy)
This is common in many of the team sports I've played in. The more someone hates their nickname the more likely it will stick. Generally it's only done with close friends.
I think it is, and it's sad that you have been so heavily downvoted.
We seem to be finding ourselves lacking the etiquette to deal with this situation.
Can you do this in the workplace, yes, with the right people and relationships.
Can you treat trans people like this, yes, with the right people and relationships.
If ribbing someone causes them to get offended, you leave them alone or it is just bullying.
If they come back at you, it's a game, a fun game that builds relationships with the right people.
This is a key element missing from the discussion. In some contexts being purposefully disrespectful is a good thing.
This also means you need to operate in an environment where it's okay to make a mistake, apologise and move on. You have to be able to read the person's response to attempt any of this. You cannot do that over text, so it can't be used online.
It's not just like a nickname, though. It's about who you're willing to date, who is put in which prison or who is allowed to compete in which sports competitions.
Still not a good reason to forbid trans people from public accomodations, keep it legal to discriminate against hiring trans people, deny them service, deny them loans, etc.
My point in asking about those edge cases is to say that it's not an excuse for the wide-ranging ways we torment trans people as a society.
> > > It's about who you're willing to date, who is put in which prison or who is allowed to compete in which sports competitions.
> > Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports?
> I assume they're dating.
Then the time to rise a stink and become loudly anti-trans is surely when the law starts to mandate[1] you dating them, or at the earliest, when it's starting to look as if the law is about to do so... But not before, right?
Not really an apt comparison since there's nothing about a nickname that defies observable reality, a name is a social construct to begin with. Sex however is a biological construct in which the characteristics are directly and quantitatively observable.
The idea is that sex and gender are different though; gender _is_ a social construct. I think lack of agreement on this is a big part of the issue right now.
Edit: as pointed out below, gender roles are something we've made up, but preferences and behavior themselves (which we're calling gender) are not. Still separate from sex.
Attempts to separate sex from gender are prescriptive, not descriptive. And the academic who first attempted to separate their meanings was a child molester with strong personal and ideological motivations for doing so:
This has no bearing on whether the idea is right or not, and shame on you for trying to shut down conversation by comparing adherents to child molesters.
Which was irrelevant, and intended to get people questioning whether thinking along the same lines would cause others to look at them the same way. "I don't want people to think I might be a child molester too... maybe I should keep these ideas to myself." It absolutely shuts down conversation.
Various societies throughout history have recognized gender identities as distinct from biological differences for about as long as there have been societies. That the modern English terms for those two categories emerged from academia is pretty irrelevant.
But "gender" is a made-up concept with no clear (non-self-referential) definition, seemingly made up specifically to cause confusion and conflict.
It's as if there were two concepts, "race" and "grace", and you could be "biologically" white but "identify" as black, or "height" and "gheight", and you could be "factually" 180cm tall but "identify" as 165cm.
Certain gender roles are social constructs, but gender as a whole cannot be a social construct because gender dysphoria exists. A transgender person’s gender identity is hardwired (and opposite of their genetic sex and outward sex characteristics), which is strong evidence that gender is an innate physiological characteristic. It’s likely something neurological, since trans people’s obvious physiological characteristics (e.g. hormone levels and anatomy) are consistent with their genetic sex.
(This is why trans-exclusionary feminists exist, because the existence of trans people nullifies their belief that gender is 100% a social construct.)
Although gender is not a binary concept. I honestly do think that gender is mostly a social construct but our definition of what it is is much better than it used to be - sterile men and barren women would often be considered outside of standard gender definitions since they couldn't "fulfill the intended role".
I have problems on this front though, I'm pan myself and gender seems really insanely trivial to me - I do understand that my experience is not the common one though.
> Certain gender roles are social constructs, but gender as a whole cannot be a social construct because gender dysphoria exists.
Huh? How does that logically follow? (Hint: It doesn't.)
Feels more like it's the other way around, that the existence of gender dysphoria proves that gender is a social (and psychological?) construct: If gender were always the same as biological sex, there would be no feeling of conflict between them. That some people do feel such a conflict shows that they are not always the same. Therefore they cannot both be purely biologically determined.
Maybe it would be easier for you to grok if you thought of it not as “gender conflicting with itself”, but think of it as — privately rename it to — “sex-gender dysphoria”?
> (This is why trans-exclusionary feminists exist, because the existence of trans people nullifies their belief that gender is 100% a social construct.)
On the contrary, that seems to be exactly what the TERFs don’t believe. They should just come out and admit that “if gender is a social construct, then we’re ‘feminists’ not in terms of female- gendered people but only in terms of people of female sex.” Which, since feminism is about the role of females in society, i.e. very much a social issue, would show them up as pretty damn silly... But that’s their problem.
> If gender were always the same as biological sex, there would be no feeling of conflict between them. That some people do feel such a conflict shows that they are not always the same. Therefore they cannot both be purely biologically determined.
The last sentence does not logically follow from the other two. Lots of physical/neurological properties are correlated in the vast majority of people (e.g. biological sex/the sex you're attracted to, age/cognitive ability); the fact that they’re occasionally inconsistent in some people has no bearing on whether they’re biologically determined.
By your logic, sexual orientation is also a social construct. Most males are attracted to females, and vice versa. Using your words, “if the sex you’re attracted to were always consistent with biological sex, there would be no feeling of conflict between them. That some people do feel such a conflict shows that they are not always consistent. Therefore they cannot both be purely biologically determined.” How does that logically follow? (Hint: it doesn’t)
> privately rename it to — “sex-gender dysphoria”?
That’s exactly my point: trans people have the body of sex A, but the brain that people with a sex B body typically have. Just as gay people have the body of sex A and the brain wired to be attracted to sex A, which is again something that sex B people typically have.
>They should just come out and admit that “if gender is a social construct, then we’re ‘feminists’ not in terms of female- gendered people but only in terms of people of female sex.”
Feminism is about achieving equality between genders by advocating for women, who have typically been marginalized in society. If gender is 100% a social construct, then there should be zero difference between the brains of men and women, which makes it a lot easier to argue that they should occupy identical roles in society and thus be truly equal. The fact that trans people provide strong evidence that male (gender) and female (gender) brains are fundamentally different scares some people (i.e. TERFs), and their solution is to dismiss trans people rather than realize that different genders can still be treated equally by society even if their brains are wired differently.
> >They should just come out and admit that “if gender is a social construct, then we’re ‘feminists’ not in terms of female- gendered people but only in terms of people of female sex.”
> Feminism is about achieving equality between genders by advocating for women, who have typically been marginalized in society.
No, that's my point: For "TERFs", feminism is apparently not about achieving equality between genders, but about achieving equality between sexes.
As for the rest... I'm not up to going through it all in detail, but on the whole it feels like about the same level of misunderstanding.
I don't think I'm exactly right about this, but consider three sets of words:
- man/woman
- male/female
- masculine/feminine
There is a concept of grammatical gender, where words can be masculine or feminine (or neuter in some cases, and there are other systems as well with different words). You don't talk about man words or male words, it's masculine. So, I tend to think of gender as masculine or feminine. That covers most people (although not all: nonbinary, gender fluid, genderqueer, etc. are all real).
I tend to think of sex as male or female. At least for human beings, that covers most people (not all, intersex is a real thing, and there are other unusual but 'natural' configurations as well)
So one way to look at this - which again, is probably not exactly correct, but it's how I think - male/masculine and female/feminine are what we've traditionally thought of as man and woman. But, I think it's pretty clear now that we need to account for the other combinations, i.e. male/feminine and female/masculine. That's where cis- and trans- come in: male/masculine is a cis male, female/masculine is a trans male, both are subsets in the set of all men. Same with women.
We've got nonbinary, genderqueer, etc. as well. I don't really understand the latter, but the former is pretty easy to explain: imagine being told you had to be masculine or feminine, and your response was "No, I don't. I prefer or reject some of each."
Overall, to me, gender is about what you like and how you behave, while sex is more biology (i.e., what's in your pants). It's easier to understand the arguments if you completely separate gender from sex, and don't make assumptions about one based on the other. In fact, I think the assumptions - e.g. gender roles - are the entire problem, and if people would just stop with that, a lot of things would get better.
> - ‘gender’ is being misused as a synonym ‘gender roles’, which are defined by one’s sex.
Sure, “Gender” = “What gender role(s?) a person plays” is one way to put the social definition of gender. (Seems pretty succinct and workable, so you can drop the “misused”.)
Here's where you go wrong, though: Gender, in terms of what gender roles people play, is not always determined purely by biological sex.
This distinction doesn't sit right with me though. What is Gender really, in the modern definition (since it seems to have changed over the years)? From what I gather it's a way for people to tell others that one of their physical characteristics (Sex) does not match their mental state (Gender). To me this doesn't really seem like a positive thing, it comes off like a potentially harmful delusion from someone who can't come to terms with their own biology.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a feminine man or a masculine woman, people can behave however they wish regardless of biology. But the most feminine man on the planet is still a man and saying so shouldn't turn you into a pariah, it's true after all.
Imagine we came up with 'Gender' like terms for other physical characteristics, it seems to me like the logic quickly breaks down when you think about it-
Gender is to Sex as
____ is to Race as
____ is to Age as
____ is to Height as
____ is to Weight as
____ is to Eye Color
etc.
As I wrote in another comment, trans individuals’ gender identity is hardwired to the same extent that people’s sexual orientation is hardwired, so there must be some innate physiological component to gender identity. My guess is it’s neurological, since there aren’t discernible hormonal, genetic, or anatomical differences between trans and cis people.
Your analogies don’t apply because, with the exception of age (mental age vs. physical age), there is no mental analog to race, height, eye color, etc.
I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
>Your analogies don’t apply because, with the exception of age (mental age vs. physical age), there is no mental analog to race, height, eye color, etc.
Why? What specifically makes transrace/race-identity any less valid of a concept than transgender/gender-identity? You say there is no mental analog to race but there's just as much proof of that as there is for gender identity. I've always loved african-american music and culture, I use black slang a lot, I felt like I didn't fit in with my white peers growing up- maybe I identify as black and will designate myself as such on my job/college applications going forward. Who are you to tell me my race-identity isn't valid? Maybe I'm just hardwired that way.
>I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term
> Why? What specifically makes transrace/race-identity any less valid of a concept than transgender/gender-identity?
Because there aren’t any (or infinitesimally few) people who believe from a very young age that their “race identity” doesn’t match their genetically defined race. Gender dysphoria is rare but not infinitesimally so (~1% of the population), and it usually first emerges in childhood.
> If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term
Sorry, I was a bit sloppy with my language. I should have written “there is nothing grossly physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people.” Colloquially, we don’t generally consider neurology to be physiological, since we don’t yet have the technology to identify subtle differences in neural topology. Doesn’t mean that neurological phenomena aren’t hardwired, and thus “physiological” on a microscopic level we aren’t yet able to detect. As an extreme example, mental retardation is certainly hardwired, even though there’s often nothing grossly physiological (i.e. detectable physical brain abnormalities) that causes it.
I suspect that as science and medicine advance, we will identify the neural wiring patterns that determine one’s sexuality and gender identity (assuming we are allowed to study such things), at which point we can actually point to a definitively physiological determinant of both.
> My guess is it’s neurological, since there aren’t discernible hormonal, genetic, or anatomical differences between trans and cis people.
That's exactly the point. If someone's "gender identity" doesn't refer any observable characteristic other than their "gender identity", then the entire concept is circularly defined and therefore meaningless. It's like if I were to say my biological height is 5'7" but my "height identity" is 6'3". What meaning does "height identity" have and why should anyone take a concept like this seriously?
Because you want to reduce suffering in the world. Calling someone putting effort in to presenting a female persona, even though you know there was a penis at birth, her is not that hard but if you purposefully him then you might flare up gender disphoria which is not nice to have.
The left and center has decided it is not a joke to call someone who had a penis at birth a her, nobody will laugh at you why are you resisting being courteous?
Well, while it could be argued that sex is biological given, it is surely that our society overstates the difference between men and women - plus our current society still aims to standardises / normalizes all other sexes. The social meaning of being male, of being female etc. is still socially constructed and therefore which sex you are born into has measurable impact on your life, your chances in terms of career.
Sure there is. My legal name and the name I sign on documents is "Michael" but I could have a preference for "Mike". Are you really going to deny that to me because there is an "observable reality" that is different from my preference?
I think it's pretty clear that other people's preference for nicknames (or gender pronouns) are not a burden on you and your insistance to call people by the wrong name (or gender) is for some other reason. That was my point. This isn't about trans people causing undue burden on you.
Pretending people are not the biological sex they actually are, to me that's an undue burden. I don't have to pretend a furry is an actual dog. The truth, evidential truth about the World, is central to my identity; why do I have to yield my identity to others? You identify as the third coming of Moses, well that's nice for you, why do I have to get involved in your delusion?
You're a male that feels like a female, well ok, why do I need to care again?
You don't have to pretend. Nobody thinks my name is actually "Mike" but if I ask you to call me that instead of "Michael" then what is it to you?
And if you really feel that your gender is being intruded upon by trans people then i encourage you to find something more meaningful and unique to attach your identity to, because your manhood feeling threatened is not a respectable reason to deny trans people their identity.
You describe one possible situation, let me imagine a different one. I say that I like going by Mike, and you keep making a point of always referring to me as Michael even when it doesn't really make sense to go full formal. After multiple months of it, I kinda get tired of this and decide to accept offer from another company and tell our boss that. When they ask me why I want to leave I'll be sure to mention that, and maybe they'll evaluate our productivity and decide it's better for business to just fire you instead. See how different those two situations are even thought the premise is the same?
A name is not an intrinsic trait of a person, it's a legal abstraction. Your name has no meaning outside of it's designation as a name and you can change it at any time. 'Mike', 'Michael', and 'Michelangelo' all mean the same thing- it's just an arbitrary word used to identify a person. 'Him' and 'Her' on the other hand are not arbitrary and do not mean the same thing, they refer to directly observable biological traits that cannot be changed.
We can tell instinctively based on a whole slew of traits, within a split second of looking at a person your brain identifies their sex whether you want to or not. Skeletal structure alone is a dead giveaway.
Human brains seem really good at these things, just like they're good at for example recognizing faces. Perhaps it has something to do with evolutionary pressure for our survival?
We use our best judgement. In my experience it's most often confused in babies because it can be difficult to tell at times. I do not get upset when they say my son is adorable even though I don't have a son. I accept the spirit of their comment and try to politely correct them with something like: Thank you, she loves to flash a good smile. Then I go on my way.
We actually recently hit this very issue - a bad account migration resulted in everyone having flastname accounts - but that first initial and last name were based on legal names not common names - as a result a number of employees were upset at being forced to revert to birth names, especially those who had immigrated at a young age and adopted a new name.
I have a friend who was named at birth after their absentee parent and really dislikes ever being called by that name. It is important and polite to use names that people personally prefer within reason.
Do you think legislators and employers should get involved in decisions about nicknames? If so, that would make you some sort of authoritarian.
And this is what the debate is really about: authoritarian vs libertarian political attitudes. I’m certainly ready to have that debate, but it would require the “woke left” [0] to abandon the moral high-ground.
[0] There’s surely a better term to use, but I can’t think of it right now.
My point was that this is not about how personally difficult it is for you to respect someone else's preferences. It's actually very easy and we do it all the time for other things, like nicknames. If you're so against trans people having similar status as you then you shouldn't claim that it's because trans people are causing you a burden.
>If you're so against trans people having similar status as you then you shouldn't claim that it's because trans people are causing you a burden.
Yes, I understand. But, much of the opposition you're seeing isn't because people are "against trans people". It's because they're opposed solving the problem of intolerance through authoritarian methods.
Aren't you being the "authoritarian" by insisting on calling people by the wrong nicknames (gender), promoting laws that outlaw nickname (gender) preference and going as far as violence if that person continues to disagree with your name (gender)?
The proposed protections for trans people are in response to real acts of violence that are not in line with laws like the 14th Amendment which promotes equality for all people.
And let's remember that these laws to protect trans people are only being proposed. Many laws on the books are against trans people. What you're reacting to is social pressure to treat trans people with respect, not authoritarian legal pressure. If anyone is feeling authoritarian legal pressure it's trans people.
>Aren't you being the "authoritarian" by insisting on calling people by the wrong nicknames (gender) ...
Of course not. I'm perhaps being an asshole, but authoritarianism is a concept applied to policymaking, not manners. It roughly translates to the belief that institutions should have more power over individuals. Calling people the wrong name, no matter how mean-spirited, is expressing no such belief.
The point is that certain things -- bad though they may be -- are not to be legislated. You may disagree with this premise, and you may even be correct, and that would definitionally make you lean towards authoritarianism.
To reiterate, many people -- myself included -- agree with you that it is unkind to call trans people the wrong name. Where you seem to disagree with us is that we find the prospect of things like compelled speech to be terrifying and fundamentally at odds with the principles of liberal government.
But you're not just calling people by the wrong gender, you're acting as a gender authority and upholding the laws and restrictions against trans people that the authorities put in place. Look at it from a trans person's perspective and it's clear that their struggle is a clash with authority. If your company forbids you from creating a toxic work environment for trans people then that is an extremely minor brush with authority compared to what trans people endure.
No. Sorry, but no. Nothing in expressing an opinion (much less indulging in name-calling) makes me a gender authority. Even if it amounted to a bona fide claim of authority, you can rightly dismiss it. No need to involve the law.
In fact, I could just as well retort that you are currently positioning yourself as an authority on becoming a authority, which is just as ludicrous, and just as irrelevant to the question at hand.
Again, this kind of conflation of ideas and Jesuit argumentation is precisely why CRT is opposed by a great many liberals.
When should bullying or similar behaviour become punishable? Certainly not if you accidentally say something that afronts a person.
The purpose of these compelled speech laws is to deal with repeated discriminatory or repeated bullying behaviour. Not to give everyone a tool to denounce strangers and get them into trouble with the law .
Do you have any suggestions how what laws freithen you can be adjusted to make you more comfortable with them while allowing for harsher punishments for bullying/discriminatory due to them being a class worth protecting more?
Where we seem to disagree is on the question of whether government, employers or other institutional powers have the power to silence those who don't see it our way. If we do indeed disagree, then by definition you lean towards authoritarian politics. You are willing to go further than I in restricting freedom of expression to defend trans people. You may even be right, but that makes you more authoritarian than me.
Why does this matter? Because it's the actual subject of debate. I want trans people to be treated with respect too, but my political opinion is that authoritarianism is the wrong way to achieve this outcome.
I think you will find that many people who reject identity politics / CRT / etc don't actually hate trans people. They fear authoritarian mobs and the governments they elect.
(Apologies for the multiple stealth-edits. It sometimes takes me a few tries to articulate my thoughts.)
Woah there, you're putting a whole lot of assumptions on me. I'm not against the rights of white men being up for debate in the public sphere any more or less than the rights of transgender people.
But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means. It's better in the US than it is in the UK, which in turn is much better than Saudi Arabia. The Gender Critical folks want more authoritarianism. They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people.
If you reread, you'll surely notice the qualifier "seems". I used it precisely because I can't be sure what you actually think, and can therefore only talk about surface-level appearances. Please be assured that I am doing my best to interpret your comments charitably, and assuming the best of your character :)
>But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means.
I believe you are confusing authoritarianism with something else. Authoritarianism is roughly the idea that institutions (government, businesses, etc.) should exert more control over individuals. The presence of inequities don't qualify as authoritarianism on their own, and neither does outright discrimination. To illustrate: discriminating against a group doesn't imply that government should have more control over individuals. It's definitely bad, but it's something else.
I would urge you not to conflate the two, as this is precisely what prevents the majority of liberals from adhering to CRT et al.
>They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people.
I don't know if you're talking about the US, the UK or Saudi Arabia here, but in the US and UK -- two countries in which I have, incidentally, lived for quite some time -- this is not what the majority of CRT-critics want. The majority are attached to liberal values, and are concerned that the confusion of ideas that permeates CRT discourse (of which your earlier conflation is an example) lead its proponents to the conclusion that authoritarian measures are desirable.
> You are willing to go further than I in restricting freedom of expression to defend trans people. You may even be right, but that makes you more authoritarian than me.
Sorry, no. I'm not sure how many "seems" you've inserted since my first reading, but those two sentences are what I characterize as putting assumptions on me. You continue to respond to things I haven't said, so I'll stop trying. Have a nice day.
Yes, that quoted text follows from the “seems” bit. If that premise is wrong, then you’re off the hook! That’s precisely why the “seems” was there to begin with!
I can’t shake the feeling that you’re storming off to avoid having an actual conversation. Hopefully I’m wrong about that too.
> I can’t shake the feeling that you’re storming off to avoid having an actual conversation. Hopefully I’m wrong about that too.
After I pointed out that your assumptions were wrong (rendering, I don't know how much of, that comment nothingburger), you edited your post a bunch and act like I'm the weirdo for not liking what you've put in my mouth. After hedging a pile of ungenerous assumptions with "seems" (on the basis of a statement we appear to agree upon), you're now having so much trouble refraining from ungenerous assumptions that you continue to voice them behind another hedge. Does this help you understand why I'm not interested in further conversation?
> Where we seem to disagree is on the question of whether government, employers or other institutional powers have the power to silence those who don't see it our way
Isn't it the default case that employers can set rules about how employees speak to each other? Do you see anything wrong with an employer saying "you must make a good-faith effort to call people by their preferred name and pronouns"?
I defer to nicknames, but if the State or my university or my company forced me to, on pain of getting fired, expelled, fined, or worse, then I wouldn't want to defer to nicknames anymore on principle.
I don't care what gender someone calls themselves, and as a nice person I'll try to remember and use it, so long as they don't attempt to get me fired if I get it wrong.
What if you insist on calling that person by the wrong name even though you know it's not what they prefer? That seems like a pretty good example of creating a toxic work environment and you should be fired over it.
Name has no factual meaning, it is an ID, referring to someone as male or female indicates a fact, the way you see the world. It is like demanding saying about someone that he is tall even though he is short factually. So I don't think it is a good comparison. Sometimes people sugarcoat reality, especially women when they compliment other women's kids in social media, but that's out of their own will and reasons, not because someone is demanding it from them.
It would depend on the specifics. There is a difference between harassing someone and not deferring to their request on the basis that you don't agree with it (however misguided you may be).
Conflating these two things is precisely why there's a backlash against CRT et al. from otherwise left-leaning individuals.
You missed the point that trans people aren't creating the burden here. It's pretty clear that it's a simple request and we regularly make similar adjustments, like with nicknames.
You're hitting the nail in the head that the problem is with the anti-trans person making a stink about it. That is where the real burden is, and that is who is to blame for the toxic work environment. The bully is the problem, not their target.
Let’s get specific. Here is a hypothetical scenario. It is not meant to be representative, merely plausible. It could happen at least once.
Imagine a Mr. Jones who does not agree with the basic premise of gender theory, and believes — say — that transgendered folk are suffering from a mental illness. Mr. Jones has a transgendered colleague with whom he is generally cordial, though not particularly warm. One day, said colleague learns about Mr. Jones opinion, and decides she will assert herself and “call out” Mr. Jones if she is ever offended by his behavior or speech.
One day, Mr. Jones refers passingly to this colleague as ‘he’. For the sake of argument, let us assume this was not meant to be disrespectful, but that this utterance is instead the result of being distracted, and that the colleague has some masculine features. In other words, it was uttered unthinkingly — an honest mistake.
Offended, Mr. Jones’ colleague confronts him publicly and berates him for his behavior. She demands to be called ‘she’, proceeds to shame him on social media, and demands a public apology.
Mr. Jones feels this is an unfair and disproportionate response. Moreover, he now believes her demands to be retaliatory. He firmly but politely refuses. The conflict is referred to HR, and Mr. Jones is ordered to use his colleague’s preferred pronoun. Mr. Jones’ ethics preclude compelled speech. He refuses and is fired.
My questions for you are simple:
1. Do you think it is appropriate that Mr. Jones be fired?
2. Should the law hold him accountable?
3. Should Mr. Jones’ colleague be able to sue her employer if Mr. Jones is not fired?
4. Should she be able to sue Mr. Jones?
The fact that I’ve depicted Mr. Jones as cordial and well-intentioned (despite holding a potentially distasteful opinion) and his colleague as bellicose and vengeful is no accident. This situation will necessarily arise, unless you somehow believe people can’t both be kind and disagree with you on gender-theory.
At any rate, you will find that many (most?) people object to CRT and the likes because they worry that it gives spiteful people the means to dispose of unsavory (though not necessarily bad) people like Mr. Jones. From there, they worry that they might be next. I submit that this should worry all of us, even you.
1. I'm not talking about "honest mistakes". Nobody is putting cisgendered people in jail for a slip of the tongue.
2. Your simplistic theories about how people ought to be should go out the window when you meet and interact with a real person who is different from you. Think of it as avoiding making a bad impression on someone who has just as valid a reason to be who they are. Yeah, maybe this is new and uncomfortable for you, but that is how meeting anyone is.
But I am talking about honest mistakes. I am worried that people such as yourself are incapable or unwilling to distinguish them from actual bona fide harassment.
>Nobody is putting cisgendered people in jail for a slip of the tongue.
People are already being fired and cancelled for such things. This is precisely why we're having this debate.
> 1. Do you think it is appropriate that Mr. Jones be fired?
Sure. Not for originally misspeaking, but for intentionally harassing her afterwards.
> 2. Should the law hold him accountable?
Of course, just like the above.
> 3. Should Mr. Jones’ colleague be able to sue her employer if Mr. Jones is not fired?
This one's hard to say -- but only in the exact same way all “how responsible is an employer for the actions of an employee?” matters are. Which has nothing to do with whether the employee in your example was in the wrong, because he obviously was.
> 4. Should she be able to sue Mr. Jones?
Of course.
All in all: What a hilariously silly, contrived, and wrong-headed example. How could you not notice, while typing it in, that all it shows is how ludicrously wrong your position is?
>Sure. Not for originally misspeaking, but for intentionally harassing her afterwards.
The point in this example is that the harasser-harassee relationship is exactly reversed.
It's revealing that you find the act of using the wrong pronoun to be harassment, but public shaming at the workplace and on social media to be acceptable.
I see we fundamentally disagree, which is fine. I do hope, however, that you can see why many of us disagree with you, and don't want your sociological theories enshrined into law.
No, the point in this example is that the harasser-harassee relationship is not reversed. You're only, for some weird reason and without any logical support, claiming it is.
And I'm sorry to disagree even on this, but no, it is not "fine": What you are disagreeing with aren't any "sociological theories" I am trying to get "enshrined into law", but with logic and reality.
Difference between the two is very subtle, and in my opinion comes down to bad faith. If the person in question is any good at deception, it would be extremely difficult to do anything about it without some kind of authority. I don't think it's possible to stop the conflation without discovering a way to detect bad faith or making all people respect each other.
There are many companies out there and I very much doubt all of them would be doing it. At the end of the day, it's company's choice on what policies to enforce and you are free to pick one that is more compatible with your beliefs.
> There is a difference between harassing someone and not deferring to their request on the basis that you don't agree with it (however misguided you may be).
There is? What is it?
In a couple of child comments you agree with some other commenter that it's “very subtle”... I'd argue that of course it is; most non-existent things are. Before rejoicing in your sophisticated ability to detect oh-so-subtle differences, please make sure there is something to detect in the first place. One of the best ways to make sure one has got something right is to explain it to others. So: What difference?
The toxic work environment argument mostly comes from people creating such environments to be honest. As long as people let others disagree, nobody should be fired. If that isn't possible, politics will again be banned as a topic in workplaces.
Wouldn't this be the opposite of that scenario? As in, someone has a given name at birth but they prefer a nickname and some people find using the nickname too onerous and use their given name instead?
Trans people aren't asking to get credit for certifications or degrees they didn't receive. Calling someone by their preferred pronouns isn't bestowing an honorific upon someone (as if it's up to you to be the arbiter of that anyways). It's basic decency.
Not the OP, but what a smug reply. This is not mathematics, you are not the professor, and it would be only fair if you started with your own description of said difference, as you see it. You cannot expect that everyone sees it in the same way, can you?
Can you really not see the difference? Do you need me to explain it to you? Because it's pretty clear that they're different and obvious that this was a bad faith comment.
If you honestly believe that respecting a trans person's pronouns is similar to calling them "Your majesty" and bowing to them, then tell me and I will patiently explain to you the lessons you missed as a child in basic human decency.
Is calling someone by their preferred pronouns as onerous as treating them like royalty to you?
I see now why so many people make such a fuss about this.
The point I was making is that giving someone a nickname they don't like is completely different from not calling someone a nickname they prefer.
Regarding nicknames, I do sometimes interact with people that have nicknames that I'm not comfortable with or the thought of using that name for them doesn't seem respectful. For example, I took a two week class that was taught by former astronaut Sherwood "Woody" Spring. His peers all called him Woody but it seemed too personal for the teach-student relationship we were in and I defaulted to calling him Mr. Spring. He didn't mind that. I suspect the majority of people that go by nicknames don't really mind when people call them by their given name or a formal version of their name.
Generally I think nicknames are just a bad analogy for gender, so we shouldn't use the comparison at all.
Is it a bad analogy? What extra effort do you go through to defer to another person about their gender? If anything it's less effort than remembering two names.
Please explain it to me because it seems awfully bigoted to perpetuate this myth that trans people are such a burden that we can't possibly treat them like how we treat each other.
I have that exact situation at work, twice in fact. One woman's nickname is Pookie. Some people are uncomfortable with using that term and they use her legal name. It doesn't bother her. Another man insisted on people calling him "PawPaw". Nobody was comfortable with that, especially the women he borderline harassed every day. He was fired for stealing food out of the break room before the name situation came to a head.
You don't have the right to compel speech in other people in any way. You don't even have the right to make people call you by your birth name. Some jurisdictions like NYC have laws against malicious miss-naming by an employer or landlord, but even that only applies if they essentially make it a harassment campaign.
What is interesting is that you value rights... but not for trans people. You wrote many paragraphs about your God-given right to misgender people. Noticably missing is any talk about trans people being able to use public accomodations or have access to medical care or not face discrimination in terms of hiring, loans, services.
Like, "compel speech"? Really? You were going to use a pronoun anyways. It's just such a simple ask for the sake of politeness but you frame it as "compel speech"? This idea that it's such a burden is obviously contrived.
That talk is missing because it wasn't the subject of the comment to which I was replying. Misgendering people is dick behavior and terfs are by and large hypocrites. Believing in peoples' rights to say mean things to each other is not the same as advocating for fascistic bathroom restrictions or arguing that trans people don't deserve the same freedom from legal discrimination as any other gender identity or sexuality.
In my experience it's pretty hard stopping people from calling you nicknames, if they feel like doing so. I've never introduced myself with a nickname to anybody, but somehow they often end up using one anyway. Then, a name is really something other people use for refering to you. Whatever is more convenient for them is probably the best name.
You know.. I call people their nicknames and preferred pronouns.
But... I have a name like David Goldsmith - common first name, two common syllable last name. People call me Dave, David, Davy, Goldsmith, and this one Indian coworker of mine always seems to call me Goldsith, which I think is cool because star wars, but also like wtf dude, you're missing the same letter every time.
The point is though, I don't really care what people call me. People call me a dozen different things nowadays. The last time I got bothered about what somebody was calling me, I was 12 and it was "Davy dumbsmith".
This was ironically one of the things that was hardest about coming out as gay, for me. Nobody ever treated me the same way again. I was either uncomfortably praised or silently judged, with practically no in-between. Suffice to say, my sexuality is on a need-to-know basis, now.
This is changing tho, with avatars and pronouns and emojis that display skin color. Now a thumbs up in Slack is segregated by color. Why people don't see this as an incredibly bad idea, I don't know.
In all fairness, the good old yellow ones still work fine too. It's not like they were overwritten by the constant burden of choosing a race for your ephemeral internet hand.
We've got that happening by gender as well - dancing is a gender independent activity, I don't understand why I need to pick a gender to express when I want to say "I feel like dancing".
It's weird to me that sexuality and identity are so intertwined. Why should someone "come out" as anything?
(I know a lot of people "come out" as various things in a mere bid for attention... I'll leave that issue aside.)
If I knew someone casually for a while who never talked about his/her sexuality, but one day they said "I never said this before, but I'm a heterosexual", I'd certainly feel awkward about it. Why did he/she say that to me?
To take it further, why phrase it "I am ..." instead of "I have ... desires"? If the latter sounds awkward, why is the former any less awkward?
People come out, because they keep their gayness secret for a whole lot of good reasons. The alternative to coming put is not dating your boyfriend and going to reataurant. It is making sure no one ever see you with him, kiss him, hold his hands.
Also, parents and relative reacting badly on finding out ypu are gay are not exactly unheard of. There are also plenty of accepting parents, sure. But as heterosexual, they already assume you are one and you dont have to guess whether it will be breaker for them or not.
Because it is something they felt the need to repress for a potentially long portion of their life. Coming out is the start of a process to release the pressure that has built up from that repression and letting the person's personal view of themselves realign with the public view of themselves.
Also, yes it is weird that sexuality and identity are intertwined, but that is not something that is new and it is something that is tied to all sexualities, including heterosexuals.
It's because it was ostracized for so long. If most of society is telling you that something is wrong with you, then you'll seek out other people who share that trait and develop a sense of community with them. It's normal to identify with your community.
The experience of "coming out" (to me) was reconciling my sexuality with my family. In America, you're basically born straight and everyone in your family assumes so. The easiest part of it was coming out to my close friends, who already know that I'm not vain or chasing attention with it. The harder half is finding some way to frame it to your parents (and grandparents). Knocking on their door, sitting down in their home and eating their food is just irreversibly ruined. In some sense, I know it's my fault: I'm basically telling them that their bloodline ends here, I hope they enjoyed their transient acknowledgement on this earth while it lasts. That's a tough pill to swallow for a generation that's all about making the idyllic "50s family" a reality.
> To take it further, why phrase it "I am ..." instead of "I have ... desires"? If the latter sounds awkward, why is the former any less awkward?
I wish we could do that too, but if I told that to people now I'm gay and a freak. Society won't care one way or the other, because queerness is political now. You're either with "them" or against "us", and never the two shall meet.
That's just my view on it though. I'm only 1 (one) gay person out of millions, so take my anecdata with a grain of salt.
> In some sense, I know it's my fault: I'm basically telling them that their bloodline ends here, I hope they enjoyed their transient acknowledgement on this earth while it lasts. That's a tough pill to swallow for a generation that's all about making the idyllic "50s family" a reality.
That is an uncommonly insightful and empathetic characterization.
I think fault implies intention, so I wouldn't call it fault. It's just a conflict of life goals and personal properties that no one particularly chose to have.
Though I also approve of the intention of GP to understand the situation from their parents' perspective.
I think many times coming out is about reconciling expectations with reality. If people assume one thing about you but that is not the case, coming out can be a way to correct assumptions. In a sense, not coming out can feel like lying to those close to you.
It can also have the effect of making a relationship more close...sharing something intimate with someone can strengthen a friendship (or, obviously, break it in some cases).
It's only weird to you because you are almost certainly straight, cis and male. Let me explain.
All of society is structured around your identity. Like the fish, you can't even see the water because you have always been in it. I'm unlikely to help you see the water, but let me at least try.
If you meet a friend, he might comment he saw a movie with his new girlfriend. He shows you a photo on his phone and you say she's really cute and nice catch. He asks if you want to grab a beer later. You say you have to pick up your wife from the airport later and pick up the kids from their school.
All of this, the girlfriend, the comment she's cute, the wife the kids, they are your life. It is who you are. If someone asks what you are doing later, it's all you have to say, because that's what you do. It is your identity.
I have a partner. We have lived together for 14 years. In order to tell you anything about myself, I have to tell you about him too. It is my life. It is what I do. This is who I am.
Coming out is something you do with each and every new person you meet. I am not rubbing your face in my sexuality. I'm just talking about me. If I tell you I went out for lunch, but avoid telling you with who, that is in the closet. If I tell you it was with my boyfriend, that is out of the closet.
So yup, done hiding here, and not going to start again because some people might be clueless or treat me as less.
Edit: nice, downvotes. Did I make you feel silly for listening to taking points from bigots?
It's distressing the degree to which people want to blame others for their identities while regarding their own as some kind of fundamental default of nature. It's only "identity politics" when it's somebody else's identity.
Thanks. I think that gets lost easily in these discussions. This is my family. My partner, my mother and father-in-law, my sister-in-law, my nephew, my home, my plans for the future. It's connected to everything I might tell you about my life over the past 14 years. Having someone label all that as "awkward" or "political" is pretty extreme, especially when the person suggesting it doesn't even have a hint at the enormity of what they just said. It's the very definition of "casual erasure", something that sounds political and till someone comes up to you and tries to erase you.
Edit: to the people down voting my mother-in-law, she is a kind and caring woman!
I don't think you deserve to be downvoted but I don't believe having a conversation about heterosexual relationships is somehow free of consequences. Even if I had a conversation about a partner who is straight, people are going to make snap judgements about the their appearance, what they do for work, what religion they belong to (Be prepared to be judged if it is the wrong one!) etc.
Many children have been disowned by their parents because they fell in love with someone from the wrong family. There is no shortage of thousand year old stories and plays describing this exact situation. So, the idea that "Like the fish, you can't even see the water because you have always been in it." doesn't really resonate with me. That doesn't mean our society is free from discrimination and unfair treatment, but painting people with a broad brush serves to alienate those who might be your allies, and is ironically the very thing you are advocating against.
I think you need to experience some discrimination to see the "water." It gives you an ability to better understand what other people deal with, even if you don't share their identity. I absolutely think experiencing religious discrimination, gender discrimination and so on can give you lots of empathy for a person not like you, but dealing with similar challenges.
To me it's pretty clear the person I was responding to had zero frame of reference to what discrimination feels like, which is why I said so. I really don't know how to get that through to a person with words alone. I think there needs to be a parallel experience to build on.
It's no broad brush to say that a person who thinks sexual orientation has no bearing on identity must be squarely within the favored majority.
> To me it's pretty clear the person I was responding to had zero frame of reference to what discrimination feels like, which is why I said so.
I sympathize with you here, I really do: but making such broad assumptions is a bad way to foster real, productive conversations. Identity and queerness are deeply personal topics with all sorts of nuance and interplay between them. I appreciate that you're living your truth, but coming off with this "scorched earth" rhetoric isn't going to win you any fans.
Can you unpack "scorched earth rhetoric" for me? I am clearly upset that someone tried to stuff me back in the closet, but isn't that a natural reaction? I think it's fairly generous to share my personal experiences in the hopes that someone out there might learn how to better respect others.
> It's only weird to you because you are almost certainly straight, cis and male. Let me explain.
I don't think that's a fair assessment, and it's certainly not a true generalization. I'm not cis, but I completely understand how weird the concept of "coming out" is. Nobody wants to put you back in the closet, we just want to discuss how much the current paradigm surrounding sexuality sucks.
My priors on who is most likely to have low empathy for minorities are pretty strong. I bet I am right, but could be wrong:)
I agree that "coming out" takes some explanation. You're going to have an easier time explaining it to some people than others. A shared experience certainly helps! Otherwise you're left trying to explain what blue looks like to someone who's never seen it.
Why does the current paradigm suck? There is unprecedented LGBT acceptance, and that does not suck. There are no sucky paradigms around jeans vs. khakis because there isn't a cohort of people who would prefer if khakis were banned in public.
From great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparent post:
> This was ironically one of the things that was hardest about coming out as gay, for me. Nobody ever treated me the same way again. I was either uncomfortably praised or silently judged, with practically no in-between. Suffice to say, my sexuality is on a need-to-know basis, now.
That does suck, but isn't this exactly why LGBT stories need to be shared instead of hidden? I have lived in more and less accepting places. In the less accepting places, I have experienced the unwanted praise and judgement. In the more accepting places I have been treated as a regular old person with a regular old life. And I think the world is moving more and more towards that place of boring acceptance, and that is just an awesome thing. I am forever grateful to the people who put in all that hard work so I can go about my life. And in gratitude I will keep talking about mine, and keep helping other people who aren't being heard to be heard as well.
For what it's worth, I didn't read any "scorched earth" rhetoric in dougmwme's original post. I thought it was a reasoned argument, well-explained, in a way that gave me a really interesting perspective on the situation (as someone who has heard and thought about these sorts of perspectives often).
Maybe read it after applying the principle of charity, without assuming the writer is angrily banging on the keyboard, and instead is being thoughtful and trying to teach?
I wasn't thinking as much about normal conversations - "I was at lunch with my boyfriend", etc. It's one thing to say that, it's quite another to make statements to people about what sort of sex you want to have -- that's what I find awkward.
I guess the takeaway is that sex is pretty central to civilization and society, as it's a prerequisite to and determinant of family structure. It really is part of our identity.
I think the issue is that a gay man or a lesbian does not yet know if it is safe to even have those normal conversations with some person they are just getting to know. If they're asked a question that would lead to "I was at lunch with my boyfriend/girlfriend", they might get a homophobic response.
Directly coming out to you, when they are comfortable and emotionally prepared for it, is a way to avoid a traumatic reaction during normal conversation.
Beyond that, when you've been forced to repress some part of yourself due to social expectations, it can be a big relief to be able to specifically tell people about that part of you, rather than just letting it come up obliquely during conversation when you happen to refer to a same-sex partner.
I really do appreciate your response and glad I got through. And yeah, sex is pretty foundational to society. As I get older I see that more and more. Just know that the next time a person comes out to you explicitly and says "I'm gay!", they are not trying to awkwardly insert their sex lives, they are doing the best they could to get through a potentially difficult moment with a person they had to come out to. This is especially true when a person is at the beginning of their journey to accept themselves and find acceptance in others.
> If I knew someone casually for a while who never talked about his/her sexuality, but one day they said "I never said this before, but I'm a heterosexual", I'd certainly feel awkward about it. Why did he/she say that to me?
That's because the dominant mode of society in _most_ cultures involves a heterosexual identity; it's just so deeply embedded in culture that most people can't tell. For the longest time, it was (and still is in many cultures) socially acceptable for men to ogle women. Why? Because there was a tacit understanding that part of being a man meant being hypersexual, and because all men are attracted to women (in this trope), ogling women is just part of "being a man". This ties a man's behavior and identity with his sexuality.
Because the choice is either to hide important aspects of yourself, or else come out, whether that's explicitly by saying something, or implicitly by your actions.
In my case, if I didn't explicitly come out as nonbinary / trans, the change in my wardrobe and appearance was going to "out" myself regardless. It seemed healthier and emotionally safer to be upfront about it with the people I know.
In your example, a person doesn't have to "come out" as heterosexual, they can just introduce their spouse, or mention who they are dating. Maybe in an ideal world that would be the case for everyone, but it's not today.
Isn't this just the process of getting to know someone? As you get to know someone, you share more information about yourself. I think it's a pretty normal desire for people you spend time around to understand you, and part of that is understanding the way you relate to other people.
> To take it further, why phrase it "I am ..." instead of "I have ... desires"? If the latter sounds awkward, why is the former any less awkward?
I definitely agree on this point, and what I find fascinating is that in my (albeit very limited) knowledge of French, instead of saying a phrase like "I am hungry", you say "j'ai faim", which has the literal translation of "I have hunger".
And the reverse: your sexuality - or anybody else's who is not my mate - is not on my list of 'want-to-know'. I simply do not care about the choices and/or attributes of other people though I believe they should be 100% free to make whatever choice they want and be whoever they are, and have gone out of my way to ensure that this is the case for people who find their life's choices frustrated or their reality denied by others.
This is probably a sign of my advancing age, I'm probably a prude by today's standards, but I simply don't find these subjects for semi-public or even public discussion with strangers.
Sure, but by the time I would call someone my friend or acquaintance I would assume that they would feel safe enough saying anything that might reveal that fact in an indirect way. Then again, being gay/lesbian is very much an accepted thing here. Being trans still not so much, though that is changing.
If I would meet some stranger or some person in a work setting their sexuality would not be on my list of things I would be interested in, either we don't know each other that well or we have at best a working relationship, a job to get done, and to move the subject to sexuality would be - according to me - inappropriate.
I think the issue is that a gay man probably wants to be comfortable answering "what did you do last night?" with "I went out to dinner with my boyfriend", but can't be with a new friend who doesn't know about their sexuality.
As much as we'd like to believe we have no biases, we do. Straight is the societal default. People who are not straight and just want to answer a question about their dinner run the risk of a bad reaction if the person they're talking to just happens to be homophobic.
Someone might prefer to get that reaction in a controlled setting, when they've emotionally prepared themselves for it, not during the course of answering a routine question about dinner. So that's why someone you're just starting to get to know might prefer to specifically tell you that they're gay, rather than waiting for it to just come up as an incidental fact during conversation.
This isn't about them assuming that you specifically care about their sexuality. It's about them being able to determine if you are a person with whom is safe to share details about their life... innocuous details that a straight person would take for granted as being safe to share.
Understood. I think the reason why such a scenario would not likely play out in my vicinity is that being gay is such an accepted thing here that the large majority of the people would not bat an eye. The Amsterdam gay pride draws crowds from all over Europe each year.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean there isn't any bigotry and associated violence against gays, lesbians, trans people etc. I wished that were true, alas here too we have our share of people who simply won't recognize reality. But I'm fairly sure that the people who are at risk of such violence here have their own ways of ensuring the chances of encountering people who are prone to acting on their bigotry in non-safe settings are reduced to a minimum, it's out in public where the risk is largest, and that increases as you get away from the larger population centers.
The bigger issue in 'coming out' here is to deal with such people in a family setting, that's where bigotry can and still does cause significant hardship.
Same here. I only address my sexuality when the topic comes up or with good friends. Otherwise I have noticed people do treat me differently, as was apparent at my previous workplace.
As someone who is CIS, I also don't try to imply a sexuality in myself or others unless I'm with people I know. I try not to speak about my wife, but my "spouse" and try to use gender-neutral terms where appropriate.
I often wonder where this misconception originated: why do people think that "cis" is an acronym? What do they think it stands for? It's just a prefix; the antonym of "trans."
You can notice this in a few fields of popular ideologies these days, that is overcorrecting for a problem to the point of becoming exactly the thing one was originally fighting against.
I am of the somewhat progressive-unpopular opinion that some people have an unhealthy interest in how they label themselves and how others perceive them, and in the attempts to be supportive the popular opinion is doing more harm than good. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against anyone with a certain genotype or phenotype having any particular interest in whom they love, how they dress, their hobbies, behaviors, etc. as long as they don’t put hurts on other people. I do have doubts about the amount of “identifying” people do with their preferences though. It can be a subtle point that is hard to make just right without getting pitchforks raised, I’m never sure i’ve done it right.
The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions. (I think PG had an essay on HN recently that talked about this - he called out religious and political opinions in particular.)
So their opinions aren't up for discussion. If you disagree with them, they feel offended and personally attacked.
> The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions.
When two ethical principles are in conflict, one has to take an even harder look at the formal ethics to either choose between the principles or to synthesize a newer, more informed principle.
Typically something like that ends up in the court of law, but academic philosophy and scientific ethics researchers often contribute meaningful avenues of avoiding the need for the application of justice to redress harms by providing legislatures with more clear ethical principles upon which to build their legal frameworks for justice.
To be sure, I think people's opinions about things (and any sense of identity they have in those opinions) are sacred and inviolate as far as social structure and society are concerned. It's morally and civilly wrong to treat people badly on the basis of their opinions.
I was just pointing out how some people take it so far that one can't even have a thoughtful discussion with them in which one is taking up a contrary position without them feeling offended (and perhaps even angry/combative). Some people even try to shut down contrarians. To such people I'd say: calm down and discuss your point of view civilly. The truth is strong enough to stand on its own without your non-discursive help.
Yea, identity politics may very well end up going down in history as a social engineering failure of the left based in a misunderstanding of ethics and science.
Similar to how the Capitol Riots could be construed as a social engineering failure of conservative political forces.
Suddenly we've got people so incapable of existing in an environment where there is gasp some disagreement, that folks go around saying that not being supportive of somebody's opinions and preferences is a violation of human rights.
That isn't explicitly what you are saying, but you are also very much not leaving room for that.
People have largely lost the ability to disagree, and to differentiate between somebody who disagrees with them and somebody who thinks their opinions and preferences shouldn't exist... and at the same time we have lots of people all over the spectrum who really do think only their way of thinking is acceptable and nobody who thinks differently should exist.
It is unacceptable and more pointedly, unsustainable from all sides. You can't have a society survive where people only think one way of thinking can survive.
One of the core foundations of the logical reasoning behind human rights declaration by UN is the following statement
> Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law
> People have largely lost the ability to disagree, and to differentiate between somebody who disagrees with them and somebody who thinks their opinions and preferences shouldn't exist
That could very likely be a result of the traumatic oppression that much of the world subsists within.
> You can notice this in a few fields of popular ideologies these days, that is overcorrecting for a problem to the point of becoming exactly the thing one was originally fighting against.
I've noticed this too, it's not only gender ideology but racial ideology and more. Seems to be form of ideological "pilot-induced oscillation"[0]
"[Pilot-induced oscillation] occurs when the pilot of an aircraft inadvertently commands an often increasing series of corrections in opposite directions, each an attempt to cover the aircraft's reaction to the previous input with an over correction in the opposite direction" (in this case the "pilot" is "society")
And the mechanism of this oscillation is people joining and leaving a movement.
In the beginning the radical idea is a basic kind of equality where some kind of person shouldn't be disadvantaged for some characteristic.
There is then a growth phase where many people join and small specific victories turn into general victories.
There is then a shrinking phase where people leave the movement or lose zeal as general victories are had.
The movement keeps much of its ideology capital and with the more moderate people losing interest, the median ideology moves towards special privileges for hyper-specific characteristics defended by a very real "the problem still exists".
The end stage is a movement that tries to conflate its extreme views as being equally as beyond question and equally morally right as the views during the growth phase, and you get conflict when people have a hard time sorting out the complexities of which is right and which is too far... and you get the backlash where the basic right is threatened by the connection with the extreme views... and so it goes.
The 21st century is the century of complexity, the basic problems are often solved and the complex ones need more nuance than the basic ones took... and the struggle is getting this point across that things aren't as simple as they were before.
Speaking of racial ideology, I honestly don't understand how we're supposed to become less racists if we're drawing so much attention to race and putting it left, right and center of any policy discussion?
Because, honestly, shutting up about it and ignoring it is the solution we tried from the 70s through the 2000s and it didn't accomplish anything - racist folk were just empowered by not being called out on it.
At least when it comes to America - there are some very deeply entrenched societal issues that we'd need to resolve to achieve anything near equality including generations of depriving wealth accumulation in communities (i.e. Native Americans).
Did it really not accomplish anything? Remember that Jim Crow laws officially ended in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act. 44 years later the first black US president was elected.
Is it really fair to say we've come nowhere since the 70s?
No, I think we've made some progress - it's just extremely slow. Don't forget that Fredrick Douglass was a major black political figure during the Civil War and that Sammy Davis Jr. was a sex icon - it doesn't mean that the majority of African Americans (and them too I bet they'd be happy to tell you) didn't suffer heavy racism. There are some good examples of African Americans thriving even in America as it stands today - but that doesn't mean that the playing field is equal, it just means that it's not so biased that it's literally impossible for them to succeed.
It's very difficult to pull individuals out of poverty, much less an entire demographic. Tribes have tried a lot, everything from covering all or part of college, regular per-capita payments, free healthcare, partially or fully subsidized housing, etc. and people waste it by trashing their free housing and blowing money on alcohol and drugs. I find it hard to believe there's a greater obstacle to growing wealth than growing up without any.
How can you fix what you never talk about? If people speaking out and identifying discrimination makes you more racist, I really doubt not talking about it would ever make you less racist.
I can’t comment on a particular field or ideology per se, but perhaps it’s social media newsfeed algorithms that are creating the similar effect to pilot-induced oscillation that you’re identifying?
Much more likely that it is an emergent property of collective human behavior.
Nonetheless, sophisticated social engineering attempts or clandestine social research are certainly within the realm of discovering by a quick search of the news.
I don't think it's an issue of people being interested in how they label themselves so much as society being interested in labels for people. If you come out as gay, suddenly there are a load of assumptions placed on you about how you speak, dress, act, what your hobbies are, etc. People adopt identities in these cases because society has preconceived notions of the identity, not because the individual themselves has decided that they want to make a big deal out of their identity.
This is a vicious circle. Gays or non-whites are now expected to vote for certain parties (depending on country) etc., and reap bewilderment at the very least if they do not comply with the expectations.
There is, for example, a fairly famous author (Ayaan Hirsi Ali), who is a Somali ex-Muslim, and she says she was having really hard time from the Dutch left when she lived there. Her ideas simply did not fit the preconceived concept of an African immigrant.
any of the three can become unhealthy when overdone, and different people have different amounts of interest in the three. They each have a set of problems associated with them.
I wouldn't go out of my way to say any one in particular is more of an issue. (i.e. they're all issues in different ways)
I agree and I'll add to that activists claiming to speak on behalf of a particular group are often not actually representing that group. I think there is currency in identity these days, to your earlier points, and some wish to spend others' currency for themselves.
You said it. One example I find somewhat relevant is the Boston bombers. They were young people in America, with little connection to their local Muslim community. But, like many young people, they were obsessed with identity. They joked about jihad, they bought a license plate holder that said "terrorista#1" for a friend, etc. They perceived themselves as Muslims (despite not following Muslim practices), had a thirst for identity, and sought out that identity online. When that thirst intensified, it drove them to radical communities, they started following those practices that they were told people of their identity _should_ follow, and it eventually led to tragedy.
How does this story go if they hadn't been obsessed with their identity as Muslims or if they had gone to the local mosque to ask about Islam instead of seeking out radical Muslims online?
100% Agree. At least in my home country, this is mostly fueled by the left (I consider myself center).
Lots of them just "work" of doing nothing but protesting, so once they get something they wanted, they have to move to the next thing.
For example, they start by making changes to the language so, instead of being "los" (male) or "las" (female) they started to say "les" (does not exists in spanish) as they say it is more inclusive (nor male nor female).
But it is not that they say "los", "las", and "les", they want you to say "les". So first it was an "innocent" thing, and now they are trying to pass laws and indoctrinate everyone, included kids from any age, 6 years old or less.
If it was natural an used by all, it could be, but it in this case it was not natural, not used or liked by all, and forced.
For example, thief's use their own words and it is not considered part of Spanish for example.
They started with gender ideology and then started to escalate. And it is not more inclusive if you force me to leave my believes. If you want to be called "les", and you ask nice, I will probably have no problem. Now, if you want me to embrace that "les" is more inclusive because you just say so and you force me to do it, is not part of Spanish.
A similar thing happened with abortion. First they started saying it has to be legal, then that it had to be free, and then that if you are a doctor and you don't agree with abortion you have to do it anyway (they force you to do it by law).
Do you have any more information on the abortion policy you're using as a comparison?
Tried to guess which country you were referring to but couldn't find concrete info after a bit of googling.
I don't think the comparison between using more inclusive language to refer to people, and you being forced to abandon your beliefs, makes much sense. Putting aside potential issues with beliefs and their effect on a person's treatment of those around them, no one is forcing you to stop believing whatever it is you believe.
Potentially limited may be how you treat or talk to people, but that is a separate limit than what you are allowed to believe, since once it becomes words or actions, now it's not just in your head but out in reality and potentially affecting others.
MY MISTAKE: apparently the law does allow a doctor to say no for his believes. I cannot edit the previous post.
Again, so this people today say that you have to say "les", what prevents me from saying I am not filling included, I want everybody to start saying "lus" or "chimichangas" for that matter? The problem for me is that they force you to behave however they want you to behave.
Honestly though, in my day job I've been trying to eschew gendered pronouns across the board - my coworker's gender is not relevant to them being my coworker. For a long time we've promoted gender as the single most defining trait as a person in a way we don't promote with height, weight or even skincolor. It's Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith that are used as common forms of address - but not Tall Smith or British Smith. I'm pretty much done with such an emphasis being placed on gender in common social interactions, the only thing it's relevant to is who's going to sleep with who which isn't really something I want to discuss at work anyways.
Mr. and Mrs. are both honorifics that are technically nouns - but they definitely modify the noun that comes after them which is one of the uses of an adjective. I can talk about the white house and the red house - just like I can talk about Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith.
There are plenty of other words (including adjectives) that you can use as honorifics - you've got Little John (and Lil Jon), Short Bob and Tall Bob.
I think it's fair to move away from Mr. and Mrs. being as prominent as they are.
> but they definitely modify the noun that comes after them
One of the two nouns is an appositive, but it's never been too clear to me which is which in English grammar. In my native tongue it definitely doesn't seem to be the case that Mr. modifies Smith, as our equivalent to Mr. is a common noun that is used to refer to any male human.
In English the word serves double duty (and does other stuff) - "Hey Mr., can you tell me which way it is to the subway station" is a perfectly natural sentence. They can even be anonymized nouns (similar to la blanca - referring to a white house depending on context) - "Oh, I was going to wait to open the bottle until the Mrs. gets back". Lastly you've got the example I had in my prior comment "Oh sorry, I actually wanted to speak with Mrs. Smith - can you put her on the line?" where it is functionally, I think, an adjective though the dictionary considers it a noun in that usage.
Academically speaking, my understanding of the linguistics at play are that there are biases embedded deep within the gendering of specific words, even.
There is a real gap in the archaic forms of Romance languages when it comes to the level of gender sophistication that was in the even more archaic Latin.
Modern languages are evolving rapidly and it is entirely within the realm of reasonableness to expect that humanity will tend towards meta-evolving it’s own languages.
But I am not well read in linguistics and suspect that Noam Chomsky has already written a book on this topic.
>Do you have any more information on the abortion policy you're using as a comparison?
No, s/he doesn't because is talking nonsense: conscientious objectors rights/persons are protected in Argentina by its Constitution and plenty of case law.
Re: Abortion: Doctors can (and have) very much deny to perform or "facilitate" abortions on moral or religious grounds but by law ("Ley del Aborto") they also have the legal obligation to refer the woman/patient WITHOUT delay of any kind to another doctor or another hospital (mostly public ones) to have the procedure.
Those "thief words" are part of a dialect, yes. A word being "forced" or "natural", whatever that means, has no bearing on this discussion, and neither your personal choice of using them or not.
What makes it forced or unnatural? It's intentional, to be sure, but hope does that make it less natural? Or put differently, how do you distinguish between a natural and unnatural change to language?
Unnatural because they thought of inventing it, they started saying "tod@s" (todos is everyone), didn't catch, they then moved to "todxs", didn't catch, then they said "todes", and because people don't naturally use it. They even use it wrongly all the time. But more importantly, unnatural because if you have to impose it and call me names for not using it, you are doing it wrong.
How is this different than any other term that was coined?
> didn't catch, they then moved to "todxs", didn't catch, then they said "todes", and because people don't naturally use it. They even use it wrongly all the time
This sounds like natural evolution to me. People try different terms until one sticks.
> But more importantly, unnatural because if you have to impose it and call me names for not using it, you are doing it wrong.
Why? You're calling their use of language "wrong". Can't they do the same?
The parent is pretty clearly saying that "les" wasn't previously a Spanish word, because HN is an English language forum and some of us don't know that. Let's not nitpick the English of folks for whom it's a second language.
> > Language is defined by the people who speak it, not by some authority.
> This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages.
Counterexample: The German Rechtschreibreform of 1996 was mainly retracted after a decade of popular resistance. Seems even languages that are ostensibly “regulated by a central authority” in the end follow the will of those who use the language.
English is already a counterexample. As for orthography reforms, well, they don't affect language as such, as languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant. And the fact that orthography reforms in particular may not be often successful is not surprising either since written words tend to more conservative as they have facilitated communication through time. Just look at the discrepancy between English speech and writing.
I meant counterexample in the sense of "language that does at least ostensibly have a central authority (the Duden) still in the end having to bow to the will of the language-using public". English isn't a counterexample of that, since it doesn't even remotely claim to be governed by any central authority.
> ...languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant
"Primarily" is not the same as "only". You haven't heard a word I've said, have you? And yet here we are, talking to each other...
No, left people in my home country do it all the time.
In general they are "militants" of the Peronist party.
There are videos and books for kids that shows Peron, Evita, and more recently our current Vice President as heroes and such.
https://i.imgur.com/zgVUcjS.jpg
There it literally says: Peron is the leader, everybody loves Peron, everybody sings long live Peron!, long live the leader! hurrah!
https://i.imgur.com/gkqespa.jpg
This one is about Evita, Peron's wife: Evita loves the kids. The boys and girls love Eva. Long live Evita! Hurrah! Hurrah!
This two are pages of books for kids of elementary school from 60 something years ago.
However, you can still see in school:
https://i.imgur.com/MJuFrQx.jpg
This one shows Cristina Kirchner, our current VP, in a book that tries to "leftiside" the kids.
I absolutely agree it's wrong to publicly shame someone to use this pronoun, but I don't agree with how you're framing the rest of the situation. Why is it that they're "indoctrinating" and not "teaching"? Also, if people are using this word it naturally exists.
You seem to accuse them of having an agenda, as if this is a bad thing on its own, but it's clear you too have an agenda of your own. But while theirs, misguided or not, is based on acceptance, what's yours based on?
I don't see any irony there, because there is a huge difference between accepting that certain personal characteristics shouldn't matter, and accepting that people nevertheless do face a wide range of problems because of their personal characteristics that shouldn't matter. The former has experienced some progress as you mention (at least for what's considered acceptable to voice publicly), but the latter appears to be highly controversial.
There's a nuance here: it's possible to both want systemic change on the macro scale, but also meanwhile seek a local maximum for oneself given the current system dynamics at play.
By proxy, I might advocate that income inequality is too high, and that some form of wealth redistribution should be considered. You might say that, therefore, I ought to donate my entire salary to charities. Someone might do that, as a radical stand against capitalism, and I would support that. However, I would also support someone that is trying to seek better wages under the current system, even if they do support wealth redistribution on the wider political scale--in context, it's understandable.
Translating that back to the original space, it seems that you advocate that someone that might today identify as a trans woman might instead identify as a man (or person) with phenotypically female presentation, due to medical treatment, and with a significant number of traditionally feminine attributes, as 'personal characteristics shouldn't matter'. This would place them in the vanguard of challenging gender dynamics. I think that's admirable of people that choose to do that. I understand that many other trans folk want to challenge the status quo less severely, and identifying as their gender allows them increased safety, sanity, and happiness within the confines of the current world.
>However this whole debate is reversing that by not only saying it matters a great deal but that other people should be forced to defer to others personal choices even when it directly affects them
Yep, and the problem is that this is obviously a principal that is not going to be impartially implied, but instead that deference towards personal identity is going to be parceled out based on tribal lines - look how common it is for many on the left to argue that black conservatives are "not really black" (or maybe they're black, but not Black?)
The battle for trans rights is intertwined much more tightly with a battle for control of language - extending to affirmative demands that others deeply change their normal language to avoid giving unintentional offense - than any other civil rights push I can think of, and I wonder if this will become more commonplace in the future.
I don't think gender ideology is an appropriate topic for HN. There is little to be gained and much to be lost from discussing it here. Little to be gained because it has nothing to do with software development, and because gender issues are thoroughly covered elsewhere. Much to be lost because gender issues are so divisive that we risk alienating members of our community.
You're certainly right that this is an inflammatory topic with strong political and ideological overlap, and as the guidelines explain, we don't want flamewar here, and we don't want ideological or political battle. The site exists for intellectual curiosity, and those things aren't compatible. There's a great deal of established moderation practice around this, if anyone wants to read past explanations:
That doesn't automatically make a story like this off topic for HN. It depends on whether there's enough new information in a story to support a substantive discussion. In this case, the topic is not just "gender ideology", it's ongoing developments at universities and in the discourse at large. All of these are significant and interesting phenomena. For that reason I turned the flags off on this submission. That's also established moderation practice (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). It requires a judgment call, of course, and we don't always make the right calls—but not making any would be an even worse call.
Of course it's commenters' responsibility to stick to the side guidelines if posting in such a thread. That means curious, thoughtful conversation and respect toward other commenters (and other people generally). Flamewar, flamebait, snark, name-calling, personal attacks and so on are not ok. People sometimes think that just because a topic is inflammatory it means they get carte blanche to spew what they will (e.g. "if you don't want me to post like this then you shouldn't allow this thread in the first place"). I call that argument "the topic made me do it", and not only is it false, the opposite is true: commenters here are under a greater obligation in cases like this, as the site guidelines make clear: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
> HN is for topics that gratify intellectual curiosity
I think that's the problem with a topic like this on HN. There will be little learning going on, with many statements made with certainty by individuals that have never studied any of these concepts in any detail. The level of dismissal in the comments is itself a reason to pull the plug.
That's certainly a big problem, but HN can't be a site for intellectual curiosity and at the same time exclude every story with political or ideological overlap. People sometimes imagine that that would be better, but only in the context of a specific story or thread they don't like. If you try to imagine it as a general policy it breaks down altogether. Nor would this community accept such severe restrictions on the range of topics. I don't think we have any choice but to patiently work together at having more thoughtful conversation.
If anyone has a question that hasn't been answered there, I'd like to know what it is, and if you know a better way for HN to relate to political topics while fulfilling its mandate of curiosity, I'd really like to know what it is. Just please familiarize yourself with the past material first, because if it's something simple like "just ban politics" or "just allow everything", I've answered many times already why it won't work.
HN is a non-siloed site, meaning we don't have subreddits, or any of the other ways that large communities segregate themselves. Here we're all in one big room together, like it or not. It's always been that way and I think it's part of its DNA.
This has advantages and disadvantages, as with all such design choices, but it's good to be conscious of what one's design actually is, since otherwise one might end up fucking with the DNA, which doesn't seem like a great idea.
Most of the discussion is the same old talking points. Probably because the only new information in the article is scant detail about a handful of disconnected events. The likes of which have gone on for years. The title is inflammatory too. Multiple ideologies are involved but only 1 is called that.
I too like nuanced discussion on HN and I generally don't shy from political questions.
That said, HN is the watering hole for people with multiple political approaches on a fairly wide spectrum.
I think debate between these people is best facilitated by prompts and articles which raise multiple nuanced questions. And I think we do have useful debates at this point.
What isn't useful is something like an overt manifesto for one or another "side" on this political spectrum. And HN generally avoids such things.
But there's a kind of article, like this one imo, that is more or less a manifesto - an article that stake out a position and only give apparent gestures at balance. These have the same low-quality potential as manifestos. In important questions, it's unfortunate have a lot of uninformed posts even when they aren't flame bait.
In the case of the present article, I don't think readers of the article will come away with any greater understanding of "Gender Theory" and what gives rise to it and so it's not really a generator of good quality discussion even when people are not shouting at each.
Edit: Another thing I should add is that in the case of article that are effectively manifestos, upvotes and downvotes are going to gravitate to being just around the popularity of various positions and that too lowers the quality of discussion.
I wanted to express thanks to Dang for the moderation of this site, precisely because we can learn, discuss, and evaluate difficult topics like this, without flame wars, and rudeness. There are a lot of good comments here today, that satisfy and stimulate, our moral, cultural, ideological and biological curiosities.
Thanks Dang!
For a while I'd really enjoyed HackerNews for the lack of politics. It was great not to hear about Trump during the Trump presidency, but since then and COVID times I find more and more highly politicized editorials being propelled to the top of the front page.
I'm not sure why you couldn't simply skip the topics that you don't like, and completely avoid them, regardless of whether the reason for your lack of interest is politics or just that you never owned a ZX Spectrum or whatever.
True, but a counterpoint: One may not like the topic but it may be best to be aware of what the conversation is should one find oneself someday blindsided by some political decision with negative consequences informed by these discussions.
Supporting evidence: I've gotta keep tabs on which places I shouldn't travel to in my own country where I was born and raised because people keep trying to make it illegal to use the bathroom safely [1] after getting scared by conversations such as the ones I've seen in this thread.
Yeah, I just tend to avoid political posts and threads altogether. Speaking as a trans woman who doesn’t use Twitter or most other social media, it can feel like I don’t have a voice and I’m just seeing this debate play out. But in a way I’m fine with that. Online it’s like people either hate me because I’m trans or hate others on my behalf because they’re not trans-inclusive enough. My lived experience is nowhere near as extreme. To most of my friends, family and coworkers, I’m the only trans person they know and the topic of gender rarely comes up. Aside from a few friends and family who disowned me early in my transition, I’ve found that people are generally respectful. Strangers can sometimes be mean / scary / creepy and dating isn’t easy (most guys aren’t into trans girls or if they are it’s usually a fetish thing) - so I just try to avoid situations where I’m unsafe or feeling bad vibes.
I know that was a bit off-topic but I guess what I’m trying to say is, it’s okay to create distance between you and the things that bring you down. I’ve found so much interesting content through Hacker News and it would be a shame to throw that away just because the politics here don’t always align with my own.
I think HN is an excellent forum for this topic. It’s not just about development here, it’s also about the business of building tech companies. It’s not an accident HN was built on the side of Y-Combinator. Also if we can’t have a productive and civil discussion about it here, where can we? Sure we get trolls and wing nuts here, but fortunately there are enough adults that even divisive issues can get discussed productively. Not always, not on every topic, but it happens.
For what it's worth, I like that we discuss controversial topics here if only because it's the only online forum I'm aware of where this stuff can be discussed with any degree of productive dialogue or without a constant barrage of bad faith (which isn't to say there aren't bad faith commenters here, but the signal/noise ratio is much higher here).
In my experience browsing HN almost daily, over the last year it has become something of an echo chamber for "anti woke" lines of thinking. I've seen little to no healthy discussion on the topic - by which I mean productive disagreement. It's usually just a top comment decrying twitter/etc and then a pile on of agreement.
I would disagree. I think that there is a strong pro free speech group, most of who are also literally woke, but who also want to keep the overton window broad.
There are, of course, some pretty reptitive comment threads, but you can collapse those and generally find more interesting discussion somewhere (don't forget there are often multiple pages of comments.)
I'm in the same boat. Its a bit tiresome and I feel it's getting worse (?)
Fwiw, current college student. My school isn't particularly "woke" beyond having a LGBT support center, but that strikes me as common decency rather than wokeness.
I disagree with this only because I frequently get downvoted for comments that don't "fit the narrative." Could I be a little less brash in the way I word it? Sure, but I keep vulgarities at a minimum to at least come across as somewhat refined.
People like me are very much liberal, left leaning, and dislike fascism. But as of now, it feels like freedom of speech is more of "freedom to speak about only certain things." Simply because so many people are kowtowing to these zealots. Of course you're going to get more vocal people opposed to this line of thinking. It's the exact same thing left leaning people like myself got away from in our psychotic religious upbringings. Only for us to see the exact same thing on the left, but with even more drastic and unfair measures.
Oh, the silent downvoting, I noticed it once than more.
And on two occassions, it seemed as if somebody was so vindictive as to visit my comment history and downvote tens of older comments from threads that were a few days old. At least I cannot explain the unexpected loss of precisely 1 karma point from multiple comments in multiple threads at once.
I wonder how such people look into the mirror without feeling even a slight pang of doubt about themselves.
It's entirely plausible that most were thinking that but didn't say anything for fear of backlash. If so then the mere act of them speaking what's really on their mind is, what I would argue as, "healthy discussion".
Either way, I've been finding a lot of what's being said here today as interesting and mentally engaging on some level.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Yes, gender ideology is pretty political (should it be?). But learning about it can obviously gratify one's intellectual curiosity if they're approaching it in good faith. So I don't think you're necessarily able to just make a blanket statement like "this isn't appropriate."
As for having much to lose, if you feel alienated by a good faith intellectual discussion -- regardless of topic -- that's your problem. This sort of thing is discussed daily in liberal arts programs across the US and in most of the world. You have to be able to discuss and learn about topics, even divisive ones, without losing your shit.
Certainly I am finding it very difficult to be heard. As a member of the trans community I’ve tried to be kind and helpful in my comments in this thread but I’m getting downvoted to hell.
I just really want people in this thread to learn about emotional labor and to consider what they’re asking of marginalized people when they want to “discuss” the validity of their needs.
Trans people are a hot button issue these days but it feels like we don’t really have a seat at the table in that debate. The healthiest thing you can do for yourself is just live your life, surround yourself with people who make you feel safe, valued and loved, and stop trying to convince random strangers online that you’re worth something. I take a lot of inspiration from the ball room / drag culture - how it creates families for LGBTQ folks where none exist and uses expression as a form of activism. It’s not my place to change anyone’s mind; all I can do is live my life and hopefully others will grow as a result of observing me.
This is the goal and the ideal and what I myself choose to manifest, but it does bring me sadness to see a place I go to lurk on the tech and science grapevines and stay away from the 'discourse' start featuring threads articles debating how many rights I should have and in which ways should I be segregated from the people that need to be protected from me, particularly when honest attempts to reach out and foster understanding and sort out confusions get talked past.
I'm a trans individual. I celebrate this and all the healing and personal growth that's come from coming to terms with this fact and so does mostly everyone I've ever been close with, and I live far outside the 'liberal bubble' of SV/etc. I am comfortable with having discussions and educating, but merely existing and advocating for one's own safety and happiness seems to be enough to start debates, even here. I don't want to have a 'culture war' or participate in a 'gender agenda', but as an adult human who wishes (i'd argue that it's somewhat of an obligation) to have an active role in civil society I must also advocate for myself and people like me.
I urge people to listen more if they haven't been through it themselves. I know there's a lot of information out there about trans individuals that has inspired a lot of confusion and concern. It can be a confusing topic! Trans people tend to know a lot about it by necessity but seem to be listened to the least when the topic comes up. I personally think there's more intellectual curiosity to be had in the meta-conversation around why this discourse is the way it is given the fact that we have plenty of testimony, data and research to indicate the talking points being wheeled into the discussion are mostly facile and misconstrued to stoke fears, much like we did already over homosexuality?
Well, the thing is I want to like Hacker News. And usually I do. But whenever issues around marginalized groups come up, out come the people who just can’t understand what all the fuss is about.
When I entered this discussion, the top comment on the article was talking about how trans people freak out when you just bring up the issue of one trans women in sports and try to “have a discussion”.
And it’s just like… I cannot leave that as the top comment and not say something. I mean, I could leave it, but I have to decide which is more upsetting - saying nothing or trying to engage and being shot down. We deserve better than that as the top comment on a thread about us.
Really glad dang stepped in and remoderated some comments.
I have 3 kids in college right now, actually one just graduated with a computer science degree. All 3 of my kids have talked about how much gender ideology has creeped into the classroom at the college level, to the point where virtually every class including computer science, engineering and science courses, has to start off with addressing pronoun preferences. It is a political hot-topic for sure, and those often go horribly in online forums but to say that it's not related to software development and startup culture is a bit disingenuous. It is effecting higher education in a big way, and it is creeping into corporate culture.
> has to start off with addressing pronoun preferences
To which I can only respond: "so?".
There are a decent number of folks in my circles who are gender-nonconforming. I'll bet, sans decades-plus of social pressure, there are more in your kids' classes. What's the problem with asking? And why does asking make you characterize the effect upon higher education as "big"?
How is it "bigger" than a prof or a TA asking if I want to be called Edward, Ed, or Ted?
I don't believe anyone here was holding off discussing any particular topic until we got the go-ahead from oofbaz. You don't get to decide what we discuss. If you don't want to discuss it you can close the tab and move on.
So the next time one of my co-workers suggests we should do more to be inclusive when our software asks a user if they are male/female, I should tell them that gender has nothing to do with software development?
I agree that this isn't the most productive HN thread ever, with a lot of comments repeating tired talking points or going for quick jabs instead of reasonable discussion. However, I would prefer to keep this topic open because it signals to me that there is still so much work to be done to educate people.
Trans people are a tiny minority that is only now coming into the public consciousness. We're going to have to work through a lot of ignorant discussions and bad faith actors to get to a healthier place.
These discussions used to be a lot worse. I think occasionally having people butt heads a little with good moderation has helped relax people a bit on the subject. This is the most productive thread I've seen on the issue on HN.
This is great news, because gender ideology has corrupted free inquiry and discourse in society as a whole, not just at universities. For example, the Royal Academy of Arts just issued an apology to an artist whose work they had removed from their shop due to pressure from trans rights activists (https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/jun/23/royal-a...). There was also the case of Maya Forstater, who was allegedly let go from her job because of tweets saying that biological sex is real - she initially lost her case about employment discrimination but won upon appeal (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57426579).
You shouldn't assume that nonbinary and trans people "choose" their identity. They might choose to acknowledge it, to themselves or to others. At least, that's been my experience. It was a realization, not a choice.
so you can't gain an identity by choosing to do certain things? I can't identify as a runner because I didn't inherit the genes that make me in the top 0.1% of all runners?
It’s not really a choice, rather than an often very difficult process of discovery, if they manage to accept it at all. A good friend of mine struggled for years with their self acceptance and I only realized that in restrospect. But coming out liberated them and an avalanche of happiness, productivity and positivity happened.
It’s a real struggle, and by belittling or ignoring it we can only make it worse. It’s time to listen, respect and embrace.
One of my favorite sci-fi authors is Ian M. Banks (discussed here on HN with regularity). His Culture series describe a post-scarcity interstellar society of human(oid)s who among many, many things can change their own gender just by thinking about it. After suitable body alteration time, you can be a male, female, or even something in between (that happens to be important part of one of the characters in one of the books), with most citizens transferring back and forth at least once to act as both a father and a mother at least once in their long lifetime.
A society in which it is so easy to change sex will rapidly find out if it is treating one gender better than the other; within the population, over time, there will gradually be greater and greater numbers of the sex it is more rewarding to be, and so pressure for change - within society rather than the individuals - will presumably therefore build up until some form of sexual equality and hence numerical parity is established.
Until our science invents this, this is a great thought experiment to conduct.
This won't happen though. It reminds me of 'Star Trek' futurism where we crudely apply some neat technology to our own circumstances, without thinking about the real dynamic changes that would come about if the tech did exist.
If we ever get to the point of this level of technology, then the notion of 'gender' would be completely arcane.
People would be 'growing' wings, tails, horns, extra limbs, extra large brains, fur, hoofs, cross breeding with animals, creating new species in petrie dishes.
The 'regular humans' in that culture would be viewed like we view Amish people or Mennonites.
You may also enjoy some of John Varley's early work (the short stories and books about the Eight Worlds). Physical sex changes (by cloning a new body and plopping the brain in, plus some extra "science magic" to make that work) are routine.
The Ian M. Banks quote equates gender and sex. That's probably a product of when it was written (1994) and I don't think too badly of Banks for writing it, however, in the contemporary dialogue, these are not equivalent terms. I caution you against getting caught up in an uninteresting semantic argument here: the question isn't one of definitions, but rather whether the phenomena classified as gender (clothing, hairstyles, etc.) are or should be tied to the phenomena classified as sex (genitalia and/or chromosomes). I won't comment my opinion on that as I don't have the time to do it justice, but I will say that to ignore the fact that those phenomena are very much in debate, misses a pretty big point:
That point being, that you can actually change your presentation of gender with relative ease. Norah Vincent did it (dressed as and pretended to be a man) for a year and wrote the book Self Made Man about her experience. The fact that the majority of people never change their presentation of gender and those who do change their presentation tend to feel strongly about it, says that there's more complexity to the choice of how to dress or style your hair than an economic cost/benefit analysis. The fact is, people want to be their gender even while claiming that their gender is treated poorly, and in the case of trans people, choosing to present in a way that is obviously treated poorly. If the hypothesis that people will gravitate to the gender presentation which is treated most positively were true, few people would choose to be the gender that gets spit on in the grocery store (happened to a trans friend of mine).
This seems very interesting, however instinctively I would have thought otherwise, meaning a society would tend towards the most rewarding, to the extreme of resulting in a non viable civilization. If you can change at will, why pick up the losing side?
As much as I would like it to be different, I wouldn't trust the human race with this capability.
We need, on social media, to learn how to deal more effectively with excessively loud, but not very numerous, activists. As some previous articles noted, trolling gets more clicks than facts. This empowers extremists, from Q-Anon on to trans activists.
I'm not sure it is. There are disimilarities of course, but there are enough similarities to support the point they were making. That it makes you uncomfortable doesn't invalidate that.
What a tough problem to solve. My current thought on the gender identity issue is that society should default to the absolute minimum amount of categorizing people by their gender. What you identify as only matters to the extent that we divide people. Nobody would care if you used the women's bathroom, if such a thing did not exist. And when it is absolutely necessary for a distinction to exist, then we can spend the effort required to justify why, and along with that justification we should be able to clearly identify how it applies to transgender individuals.
This would mean throwing out a lot of the more epheremeral complaints "I feel unsafe if there is a man in the bathroom." Why? Let's fix that part, then. Because there are going to be scary women too.
I don't know. I don't have a really good answer I feel comfortable with. I do think a significant part of the problem, however, is not ideological, it is technological. It's way, way too easy to pile on with very little effort.
> This would mean throwing out a lot of the more epheremeral complaints "I feel unsafe if there is a man in the bathroom." Why? Let's fix that part, then. Because there are going to be scary women too.
Do you recognize that there are actual reasons that a woman might not want to go into a bathroom with 5 men in it?
I recognize that. But isn’t that also a form of discrimination? The suggestion is that all men are capable of being perverts, using their camera phones inappropriately, bathroom harassment, etc.
To build gender-specific bathrooms because of that generalization of men is hypocritical of the entire gender discrimination movement. Reverse discrimination.
It took a lot of mental self-awareness on my part, and reading a lot of such statements, to recognise how strongly I've been mentally programmed (brainwashed) by society to think of men as evil, and not even flinch when I used to read statements like the one above (implying / assuming that men are, by default, extremely violent and dangerous, and that everyone is justified by judging every man as such).
It's easier to see if you replace "men" (currently a non-favoured demographic) by e.g. "black" (currently a favoured demographic).
> Do you recognize that there are actual reasons that a white person might not want to go into a bathroom with 5 black people in it?
This is a sore subject, but the difference here is that rape is an evolutionary artifact left over from when it was advantageous (from a reproductive standpoint) to do so. It was, quite frankly, an evolutionary advantage for men to rape women. I personally doubt this urge is different based on race. In fact, women’s fear or rape is one of the only times I find it acceptable to use phrasing like you described.
We are already so far into hating men that we’re fine with basically saying the desire to rape is evolutionally wired into all male brains? No complaints about sexism or anything?
You can acknowledge that premise without ‘hating men’. I am a man, and I have no problems admitting that rape was a legitimate tactic for our ancestors to pass their genetics along. It’s a fact that we’ll have to deal with. On the other hand, when it comes to issues of race, I’m hard pressed to believe there are massive evolutionary/biological differences that need to be accounted for.
Rape was a legitimate tactic for females to pass their genes along too, because if your male kid inherits rapist tendencies he’s more likely to procreate. So female brains really evolved in such a way that they want to be raped, and that’s why seductive clothing and rape kinks exist.
The point being: evolutionary biology is great for rationalizing just about any theory and therefore isn’t really a solid foundation for making conclusions about large swathes of the population.
Putting forward an argument like this doesn’t add much except for more male self hate. I don’t think you should have no problem “admitting” this.
Your point about using evolutionary theories to justify absurd arguments has merit - however the example you provided is a bad one. There are many species of animals in which males engage in rape [1] and almost none (that I can find) in which the females do.
Any way, every step we take towards admitting the biological differences that exist between men and women, is a step towards a more healthy society. Getting so angry over this is unhealthy.
I think you misread my example. I’m also not sure where I come across as angry.
> admitting the biological differences that exist between men and women, is a step towards a more healthy society.
Asserting to 50% of the population that they are, by nature, literal rapists, when the vast majority will never commit anything even close to such a crime, is not a sign of a healthy society.
> Asserting to 50% of the population that they are, by nature, literal rapists
That’s not the assertion here at all. The assertion is that men are more likely to commit rape, and that women have a _valid_ fear of this happening because of purely biological phenomena.
Calling a man a rapist, and telling him he is more likely to commit rape than a female is, are two completely different things. The healthy society I was referring to does not find anyone guilty of a crime they never committed, but acknowledges the fact that certain crimes are committed more often because of biological reasons.
Right, we're calling them "more likely rapists" instead of "rapists". That's still not a healthy message. Or would you also call black people "more likely murderers"?
I think you're mistaking 'healthy messages' with 'the truth'. Political correctness often separates the two. "Men are more likely rapists than women are" is simply a statistical fact that you are going have to come to terms with. Also, if you haven't understood why differences between men and women can't be compared to differences between black and white people, then there is no point in continuing this, to be honest.
> differences between men and women can't be compared to differences between black and white people
Why not? You never argued this before.
> "Men are more likely rapists than women are" is simply a statistical fact that you are going have to come to terms with.
If you can't be bothered to explain the above, maybe you want to tell me instead: did you oppose the firing of James Damore due to his memo in which he argued "statistical facts that people are going have to come to terms with"?
I am a man, and I don't want to go in to the same bathroom as 5 other men, especially not of they are a group and drunk. The reason is simple: I have found it much more common for men to take pleasure in having power over other people by threat of violence.
They are assholes of course, but that shit is pretty common. I would even claim that anyone that says otherwise probably never did more than 4 pub rounds. Or went to a public school.
There’s also actual data that black people commit an outsized percentage of violent crime in the US yet any statement like this with “black” substituted for “men” would be downvoted into oblivion. The common argument is that it’s really society’s mistreatment of black people which is to blame for the criminality. Why is that same argument not applied here?
Let's concede your argument that Black men are more dangerous than white men (I don't think so, at least not due to genetic differences). At best the data shows a factor of 2 more violent.
Men are more violent than women by 2 orders of magnitude. And, unlike your example, there is no doubt its physiological in nature
We have testicles and therefore are frothing with testosterone. And it's not unique to humans; farmers castrate bulls to make them docile in an ox team.
> I am a man, and I don't want to go in to the same bathroom as 5 other men, especially not of they are a group and drunk. The reason is simple: I have found it much more common for men to take pleasure in having power over other people by threat of violence.
Five drunk guys at the urinal? Heck, there's reason enough to avoid that just because they're liable to piss all over your shoes.
Classes of people are different from each other. That's not to say that one person is better than another. It's also not saying that any class of person is better than another. It is saying that all people are different, and there are classes of people, such as men, women, blacks, whites, trans, cis, and all sorts of classifications that differ in aggregate.
The reason we humans can get through life is by discriminating, in the sense of distinguishing, classes of people. This is NOT prejudice but is sensible. After all, there is a difference between discrimination and prejudice.
Please consider this: "Honey, stay here. Don't play with those 5 men at the end of the block." Are all strangers bad? Are all men bad? Are older people bad? Are all people at the end of the block bad? No, of course not. But, we need to remain sensible to circumstances and sensitive to people's situations.
What? Women have all kinds of rational reasons to be wary of strange men they don't know, especially in a secluded place like a bathroom. This isn't because "men are evil" or that all men are violent and dangerous, it's because some men are violent and dangerous, and even if that's only 1% of men, it only takes one violent man to ruin your life, so women don't like to take risks. The same isn't true in reverse because women don't pose a physical threat to men in anything resembling the same way.
I'm male. My relationships with women improved dramatically once I realised just how safety-conscious women need to be on a regular basis, at a level that men don't experience at all.
There are other solutions than what you're describing. I've been in a number of bars with unsexed bathrooms, where the sinks are all in the open and there are private secure individual stalls. I don't know that this is the best solution, but it does remove the gender distinction from the bathrooms and it certainly isn't "a bathroom with 5 men in it".
> This would mean throwing out a lot of the more epheremeral complaints "I feel unsafe if there is a man in the bathroom." Why? Let's fix that part, then. Because there are going to be scary women too.
You realize having a woman's bathroom was a thing many early feminist groups fought for right?
I sympathise. Sadly society seems to be moving the other way recently: my gym and pool both have significant women's only hours and classes. My previous employer had women only sessions with the ceo to promote more women faster.
There was a brief moment a few years ago when the government here (limey Britian) said people would be allowed to pick their gender without involving doctors/bureaucrats. I liked the idea, it's equality on steroids. Long queue for the ladies? Identify as a man for 5 minutes! Accidently go to the gym at 7 on a Wednesday? Be a girl for 90 minutes so you can work out!
> Long queue for the ladies? Identify as a man for 5 minutes! Accidently go to the gym at 7 on a Wednesday? Be a girl for 90 minutes so you can work out!
I like this.
I’ve already identified to my employer that I’m partially Black even though, to the best of my knowledge, I’m not.
They can’t deny it and it only benefits them (they can increase their ratios of minority employers which is public data).
Let us say that the OP believes in reincarnation and believes that his soul is black, used to live in black bodies, and was mistakenly reincarnated into a white body on this occasion, but still feels black and carries memories of being black.
Quite a lot of people on Earth believe in reincarnation and would find such a situation entirely possible. The question is, is a Western country obliged to respect a religious argument like this?
Maybe yes. After all, race is said to be a social construct. Why not add reincarnation into the mix.
This person willfully admitted they are not black, which is far different than your criteria of someone who "believes that his soul is black, used to live in black bodies, and was mistakenly reincarnated into a white body on this occasion, but still feels black and carries memories of being black." The analogy falls apart because the stance is based on trolling, not actual beliefs.
But I hate identifying so at work because I don't want to be "the gay guy". I don't want to be promoted early to boost the company stats. I don't want people thinking I was promoted for that reason either.
I don't know why anyone would want those things. I'm gay, but I'm here because I'm good at my job and I work hard. I'm taking your bonus, but not using my genitals, using my impressive mathematical skills!
I am very happy to just be dumped into the same pool as everyone else (metaphorically and for swimming)
>"I feel unsafe if there is a man in the bathroom." Why?
Because men (biological males if we're being pedantic) are statistically overwhelmingly more likely to commit rape and other forms of sexual assault (and other violent crimes) and to be horny creepy perverted sex pests in general. Add to that the fact that men are much more physically strong than women (a ~5th percentile male is about as strong as a ~95th percentile female) and the options a woman has to defend themselves against such a creep are severely limited.
But if you insist on creating a New Soviet Woman that isn't afraid of men, be my guest. Just do it far away from me in a different country, please.
IMO bringing statistical likelihoods into it is a dangerous road to go down and could lead to some seriously problematic outcomes.
For example, what if people in certain socioeconomic groups are more likely to commit rape? Or people of certain ethnicities?
Would it make sense to require them to use separate bathrooms? Or is it only ok to slice and dice the stats based on certain characteristics? To me it's kind of a scary idea— just because a certain demographic is more likely to commit a crime doesn't mean we should make life difficult for all members of that demographic. Even if their facilities are, in theory, separate but equal.
My rule for any of these things are all or nothing, in the margins lie chaos. I think a private business should be able to have as many or as few bathrooms for as many categories and groups as they feel like. But if you're going to block them from doing that, you'd better block them from splitting up bathrooms on any basis, otherwise all sorrs of special interest groups and lobbying groups will be looking to make special exceptions and cutouts that help their group and hurt their enemies, it's inevitable.
All bathrooms should be a single private stall, first come first serve. If you need more than one stall, then install them.
On average females take twice as long males in the bathroom. Sometimes some events have a disproportionate ratio of male/females. Both are evidence that having the same number of stalls for each of the two genders is wrong - even before talk about more than two genders.
From a statistical perspective, black Americans are more likely to commit violent crimes than white. Yet we got rid of white/colored restrooms, and claiming "I'm afraid of blacks" is rightly considered racist and offensive.
The counter argument to this is that African Americans are more likely to commit crimes because they are, on average, more poor because of systemic racism, not because they are biologically predisposed to committing crimes.
Are you saying that it would be okay to have segregated restrooms if someone could prove a biological basis for the somewhat higher violent crime rate among black Americans?
Because if you're not saying that, I don't see how this is a counter argument.
If you could find statistical evidence (controlled for income) that shows black Americans commit _insert violent crime_ at 9x [1] the rate of other races, then I would absolutely be in favor of taking steps that mitigated that crime happening. That's an extremely controversial thing to say, but the point is moot - as far as I am aware nobody has done such an analysis, and nobody wants to. However, there are plenty of species in which the males rape the women [2] because such a thing is simply advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint.
I want to unpack that statement to make sure I understand you correctly.
Did you just say that if statistics show that black Americans commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than whites, controlling for income, you would be in favor of racially segregated restrooms?
I personally find the idea of segregated restrooms to be incredibly offensive, no matter what the cause of this graph:
Looks like the homicide offender rate for blacks is 5X-8X for whites, depending on year. It isn't broken down by income but from my cursory knowledge of the statistics, that's not going to make the effect go away.
We could explore the root causes of this but I really don't think they matter. Segregated restrooms have no place in a civilized society, full stop.
As an aside, there are also plenty of species where females eat the males after mating. The problem with evolutionary arguments is that there's plenty of examples to choose from to advance any claim you'd like to make. We aren't those species.
I never said anything about racial segregation - you put those words in my mouth. I said “ I would absolutely be in favor of taking steps that mitigated that crime happening”. Whether that be education, support groups, whatever, I don’t know, this is an outlandish hypothetical scenario. Society settled on separate bathrooms for men and women because it’s convenient. Men use urinals, women don’t. Women need trash bins near toilets for tampons. Women don’t want to pull their pants down around men. Separating bathrooms was a relatively small concession to make.
> It isn't broken down by income but from my cursory knowledge of the statistics, that's not going to make the effect go away.
That is a huge assumption to make. In every study ever done on the matter, there are huge correlations between crime and income. Massive. Enough to explain the chart you showed. I really don’t want this to become footnote fight over statistics, but crime is definitely correlated with income, and black people make much less money on average in the US.
Can't violent men just enter these bathrooms or dress up as women anyway? Rape is already a crime, no matter what gender you are. I don't see what a bathroom bill would meaningfully solve. Plus bathroom bills have already been shown to force trans men into women's washrooms.
Sure they still can, but without such a bill the women in the bathroom can't take actions like calling security until the man actually starts doing something violent/criminal/creepy/whatever. With such a bill their mere presence is enough.
I agree except that I don't think we understand which ways of dividing ourselves are really biologically (including psychologically) important and which are just cultural and can be changed with the right environment. Culture often encodes biological needs that we don't really understand.
I would rephrase it as:
"Culture often encodes biological needs that we are not sure we did understand because nothing like that was written down and today we have a very good idea of our biological needs and can probably design more consistent or at least more utilitarian rules of culture"
1,365 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 397 ms ] threadBut doesn't work for ft.com articles
From the article
Not accepting incivility from people is hardly what I'd call a "backlash". We don't operate our universities on the heckler's veto.
It's like saying "bigot" is a slur, or being more afraid of being labelled a racist than actually being racist...
So yes, it certainly is an offensive slur - those who use it invariably mean it an offensive way.
I've seen a few videos from various Universities where invited speakers are shouted down because of supposed wrong views. But then it isn't the heckler's veto if their views are wrong or what?
The videos you haven't seen are the ones that were never made because the wrong-view person was stopped from even giving their scheduled talk via "de-platforming".
These ideas long predate the internet and the Libertarian political party and to box them in as such and dismiss them carelessly is extremely intellectually dishonest and bordering on flamebait.
Additionally, if your best evidence against freedom of speech is Reddit, I suggest you retool your arguments from scratch.
Literacy rates in late colonial America were 85-90% north of Virginia and around 60% in Virginia and south of it. If large numbers of people were disagreeing, they surely weren't writing about it.
Not everyone can go and speak at a University, there is not enough time and space for that to be viable, just as not everyone can demand to be broadcast on TV.
If you can't get enough support at a University to speak, the public square and the soapbox are always at your disposal. The government can't arrest you. That is the freedom of expression that is protected.
You are talking about enforced speech, where private individuals must listen to a speaker, and/or use their platform to amplify the speaker's words. It is a violation of their freedom of expression to tell them they cannot refuse or protest against what someone else wishes to say.
The University should absolutely be providing speakers that challenge the student's views and offer ideas they may not agree with, but that's an educational decision, not a free speech one.
If the student body wants to lobby the University not to accept you as a speaker, that's their freedom of the speech, and it is up to the University to weigh that against the potential educational value.
For example, to start somewhere obvious, someone coming in to talk about how your friends are subhuman doesn't provide a lot of educational value, and students rightly don't want their tuition spent enabling it.
Don't like it, use your freedom of speech to demonstrate enough value to your ideas the University and student body are willing to listen. Students are at University for an education, and they have a right to say what they find valuable and demand value from the University. Denying them that is limiting their freedom of expression.
The university should only allow speakers that the students agree with? That’s sort of ridiculous and an abdication of the university’s responsibility to expose their students to challenging and possibly hurtful intellectual thought. I listened to no shortage of intellectuals that criticized white men in western society in many ways for example. And that’s Ok if it’s thoughtful and with a point, however idiotic I might think it is.
The university has the job of determining what this level is. This speaker wasn’t claiming anyone was subhuman. And you don’t have to attend - it’s simple.
I was very clear that was not what I was saying, I said literally the opposite, so it seems like you didn't even bother reading my post.
> The university has the job of determining what this level is.
Exactly, and they decided that it wasn't valuable enough. I think they were right, you may well disagree. Either way, it isn't "academic freedom" under attack—as this is framed.
There will always be people pissed they don't get that platform for their idea—more people want a platform than there is time and budget to offer. It is a decision about the value of exposing students to the idea weighed against the cost of doing so.
If other students feel they are being denied value, they are free to go to the University and push back. Of course, we all know where this is going, just as with the reactionary response to homosexuality, it will become increasingly unpopular because the cat is out of the bag: people have trans loved ones and don't want them to be discriminated against.
This is a problem akin to letting a spoiled child instructing their parent just what’s for dinner. An abdication of duty.
There’s a difference from wanting discrimination against people and having a forum on very real issues regarding an ideology that claims a special access to a certain Knowledge. In a scientific liberal institution, no one is irrefutable and no one has the final say pending new evidence.
Of course the current motif is to dismiss scientific liberalism as racist and suspicious. You only have to read critical theory literature (race, queer, colonial, etc) , which oddly is not receptive to criticism itself.
I've also seen a few videos from various Universities. _Remarkably few_, given how much attention this topic gets.
TERF isn’t a slur. No one has successfully beaten and killed a woman while calling her a TERF and then got away with it in court like the gay panic defense and the trans panic defense has. No one was lynched for being a TERF like black people have been. This is a gross talking point trying to claim victim positioning and is inaccurate journalism. The whole article is suspect to be sympathetic to anti-trans politics as a result.
I do want to talk about how much gender has invaded the academic life in a way that gets in the way of education. Obviously, I don’t want even more gender politicking from the other “side”!
That’s hardly the defining characteristic of a slur.
Whereas "TERF" is an acronym - it isn't appealing to anyone's emotional opinions about what a "TERF" represents - that is if anyone is even clued-up enough to know what it actually means.
Maybe the people complaining are assuming that TERF is an offensive slur without doing their research first? I'll admit it does have that feel to it, the way it sharply rolls off the tongue...
> In academic discourse, there is no consensus on whether or not TERF constitutes a slur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF
Sure, if someone uses it in their paper on, for example, history of feminist thought I wouldn't assume it to be offensive. On the other hand I don't think that the intention behind a sentence like “shut the fuck up, terf” is very unclear.
That is a bizarre standard for what constitutes a slur, and would exclude the vast majority of slurs. This reads more like an attempt to inject an emotional appeal to deny a point you personally disagree with.
TERF is a phrase pretty much always used to attack its target. Coupling it with "shut the fuck up" makes the intention pretty clear.
b : a shaming or degrading effect
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slur
I don't care if you're a man and you want to go by she/her, that's totally fine, but you're still not going to be placed in a cell with a female in prison if you've raped someone and happen to be trans identifying, sorry.
It's also not used merely to say that someone is against trans people, like you suggest. It's used by a toxic community that are immune to nuance and opposed to debate other than to force their own view on everyone else. Very few people are against trans people, but maybe some doesn't buy all of the identity politics. Saying that women menstruate is enough to be labeled a terf by the online mob. There's also rarely any radical feminism expressed by the people being labeled as terfs.
I've noticed leftist communities frequently attempting to redefine incendiary words (such as 'racism') as a political tactic, to a lot of success.
These are federally subsidized academic fields
So if you want to see the Left stop redefining words, the public needs to stop funding their careers in academia
I think the economist's usage was OK, as it appears in the supplied context to have been used as a slur (I'm not adequately connected on the topic to know what the "normal" usage would be).
> The whole article is suspect to be sympathetic to anti-trans politics as a result.
Clearly, given what I said above, I don't agree with this diagnosis. In particular I think a few articles like this are a good antidote to the "the universities are insane and have been taken over by crazy extremists" narrative.
Perhaps if this commend page doesn't descend into vitriol, more contextual discussion could lead me or you to modulate our opinion. As I said I don't follow this topic particularly closely, so my interpretation could be naïve.
So-called "anti-trans" politics is actually more sensitive to the needs of real transsexuals while the transgender movement makes life harder for women, homosexuals, and transsexuals primarily for the benefit of non binary and transgender people
TERF is a slur used by transgender activists against anyone who understands the difference between sex, gender, transsexuality, and transgenderism, and refuses to deny certain biological realities, like the fact that only women produce ova.
The fact that you don't realize it's a slur shows how uneducated you are on this topic. You're going to need to do better next time.
An experiment you can perform at home: do an exact search on Google for the phrase "punch a terf" and wonder if this is meant to suggest violence.
Everybody hates Illinois Nazi's. But if a group them sprouted up at your school, can you really say it's fair freedom of speech-wise to shut them down at a publicly funded institution? No you can't. Not only that, but instructors can at whim grade you based on if they like you as opposed to legitimately getting good grades.
Ultimately it just creates a system to be gamed by those wise enough to survive it. It's never been about education in the US. It's always been about "who can navigate the waters without getting labeled."
But we just focus on emotional trigger point issues. See focus on and mass protests because of police brutality (hundreds of deaths a year) compared to zero widespread action on the injustice of the prison system (hundreds of thousands of lives ruined, literal slavery and imprisonment in cages over antiquated unequally applied drug laws).
All that said, in light of the previous example, it makes the abortion fight seem particularly...whimsical...given the stakes. The evangelicals believe they themselves are going to heaven regardless of what the non-evangelicals do and those getting abortions don't care so it's rather hard to point to a group being oppressed by their beliefs here.
It is harder to get a clear consensus on how to handle crime and imprisonment in general. It's a problem without a single good solution.
Whereas the solution to police brutality incidents like George Floyd should be pretty simple in comparison.
Distraction working as intended then? Neither political party has really shown any clear legislative intention on delivering on those things you ask for.
That's not a good argument for the left to stop defending trans people's rights.
That said, it's a nuanced issue that touches a lot of aspects of life and effects more people than one would initially assume. It's very much worth sorting out, but it's the kind of issue that's easily going to be derailed by toxic personalities because much like guns and religion, it's an attack on one's self image. If you're a billionaire wanting to cause havoc to prevent wealth taxes or environmental regulation, throwing money at either side of this cause seems like a pretty good way to get high political-chaos ROI.
[1] - https://xkcd.com/1095/
A small, extremely vocal minority insists that anyone that voices the slightest hesitation in accommodating trans people into gender/sex segregated social functions must be a transphobe or be complicit in the violence against trans people. It makes the entire conversation exhausting.
I have no idea whether it's true or not because you can't even find research on the subject because of how absurdly politicized the topic is.
You might want to look up what Danielle Bunten Berry, rest in peace, had to say on the matter. The important quote is on her wikipedia page.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I wonder if dang could point us to a reference of ideological boilerplate to be avoided, or if its just supposed to be something "we should know."
Snark is also a clear indicator of repetitive bludgeoning because people only resort to that when they have, let's call it, surplus creative energy left over—no real thought being needed to repeat the underlying points—which they use to try to add force to the smiting [3].
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
dressing it up under the term "boilerplate ideological rhetoric" doesn't change anything.
Commenters in the habit of posting typical internet dreck love nothing better than to paint themselves in grandiose colors as noble, freethinking victims of repression. In fact the problem is, to put it crudely, that they post such shitty comments. We're just trying to have an internet forum that manages to hover a little above the bottom of the barrel.
p.s. It looks like your account has been breaking the site guidelines by using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against, because it destroys the curiosity this place is supposed to exist for. See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for more explanation. Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed here either, for the same reason. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
It's the absence of action that is the issue. There is all kinds of left wing (I'm from the US for reference) dreck on here that receives no push back nor moderation. It's very common to see very low value statements on HN that disparage Republicans. People on here have said all kinds of nasty things about Republicans and conservatives. I rarely see any push back from you against these. It's pretty common to see people assume that Republicans don't care about people and state so, like it is an obvious truth without any supporting argument. How is that thoughtful or substantive?
I think your personal biases are blinding you to just how low value much of the accepted discussion here at HN is, when it is left-leaning
In other words, while "I rarely see" is no doubt true, the reasons for that have to do with your own filters as much as the objective situation. This explains why the opposite side reaches the opposite conclusions from the same data: they have the opposite filters. It's the same mechanism in both cases, and there are more than enough datapoints to support every pre-existing view. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
As you can imagine, what this boils down to is that all passionate political observers feel equally aggrieved and, ironically, all share the same perception that HN is stacked against them and they're being treated unfairly.
However, academic freedom does not mean that universities must provide a platform to literally anybody that wants one. Their resources are finite and choices need to be made.
Surely, we can agree that some discussions by their very nature are harmful or at least deeply insulting. Imagine discussions such as "should women be allowed to vote?" or "are $ETHNICITY people worthwhile of being treated like other human beings?" or "was Hitler right?" or some other such topic.
I would certainly not say such speech should be banned, but it is equally clear to me that no institution should be obligated to provide a platform for such ideas.
It's worth noting that "teach the controversy" is the disingenuous rallying cry of creationists seeking to wedge anti-evolution religious dogma into US public school systems. Those people know that merely giving creationism a figurative seat at the table serves to legitimize it to some extent. They also hope to wear down their opposition (in this case, already-overworked educators) by consuming massive amounts of their time and energy. Well, such religious teachings should be denied a seat at the table, at least in publicly-funded secular schools.
You have to convince others of your ideas at some point...
There are a limited number of lecture halls and auditoriums. It costs money to run the facilities. Staff is required to maintain them. Somebody has to sweep the floors. There are heating and cooling bills to be paid and new boilers to be purchased every few decades. There are a limited number of hours available in students' academic careers.
A university cannot provide platforms for an unlimited number of professors and guest speakers; a student cannot attend an unlimited number of talks/lectures.
Therefore it is obvious. Choices must be made. One could even say that this curation is one of the most elementary duties of an educational institution.
What's your alternative? Should publicly funded institutions make zero curatorial choices whatsoever? Should literally anybody be able to teach there? If that is not your position, then you surely accept that some curation needs to occur.
This is not incompatible with the wishes of the people nor does it suggest that educational institutions should have dictatorial carte blanche. They must make choices, but must also be accountable to the public.
No.Nobody is arguing that the subject of the linked article should be barred from expressing her views. This is strictly a question about who should (or should not) be obligated to give her a soapbox and a megaphone.
There would be considerable benefits to getting the government out of the education business entirely. The downsides would be considerable as well.It would be worth looking for examples of times and places when government kept its nose out of education entirely. I do not think you will enjoy the correlation between "governments disinterested in education" and... well, anything good.
By your own description[0][1], choices had already been made, and resources had already been committed.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27609417
1: > Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology at Britain's Open University, was due to give a talk at Essex University
What are you getting at? I can guess, but these things work better if we don't make assumptions or guesses about what others are saying.
I think another reason "things are different now" is that more of us think abstractly today than in years past. Many of the perspectives and possibilities we entertain today would have been alien to more of us 50 or 100 years ago, when the world was more conventional, more black and white.
Finally, with the multitudes of voices that no longer remain hidden behind mainstream media outlets, we're more aware of nontraditional, complex, and nuanced POVs today. That helps us realize that many psychological variations exist "between the lines", not as pathology but as a matter of natural variation.
This is 100% my personal experience also. Even on HN last week someone said I should try to be a "better human" and compared my suggestion that maybe someone might oppose transgender women in women's spaces for reasons other than pure hatred or phobia of trans people, to segregation of blacks and whites. It's just absolutely impossible to have any disagreement with them without them trying these inane mob bully tactics. Being outraged should not be your only argument.
Take the case of Fallon Fox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallon_Fox): a mixed martial artist transgender woman (who didn't even disclose she used to be a he while she was competing against women), or Laurel Hubbard, the New Zealand transgender olympic weightlifter in the news this week. Even mentioning these cases which clearly have more to them than pure hatred or phobia of trans people, still get lambasted with abuse.
What's really frustrating is that they don't really listen to what you actually say, but instead "read between the lines" and assume everything you say is just a ruse hidden behind some immense hatred and bigotry. How about no? Just take what I say at face value. No, I'm not full of hate. Yes, I know being transgendered must be hard. Yes, I do know some transgendered people (why is this relevant?). Yes, I am cisgendered myself. No, I really do think transgender women have an advantage in combat sports. No, again, I'm not full of hate... It's quite ridiculous.
... OP was flagged because...?
Either you support unlimited immigration or you are a racist.
Either you are 100% on board with the entire vaccine schedule or you are an anti-vaxxer.
Either you say that Covid was a natural occurrence or you are a conspiracy theorist (and probably a racist too).
And so on.
Say what one will, but it's effective.
I think one reason it works so well in the US is our puritan heritage, which has always had a strong manichean current in it. As the elites lost their religion, they retained this characteristic and it now manifests itself in the secular realm.
I didn't seek help. I didn't transition. I wanted to seek help but was too scared. What happened?
Well, after some years, the gender dysphoric feelings went away.
That happens sometimes – gender dysphoric feelings can spontaneously remit, go away by themselves. I don't have them any more.
I know from the literature I am not unique, see e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10929795/
If it can happen spontaneously, is it impossible that sometimes therapy might speed that spontaneous process along? Would that be a "cure"?
I have struggled with obsessive behaviour ever since I was a child. I probably have undiagnosed ASD (I have many other traits of ASD than just obsessions). I'm actually on a waiting-list to see a psychiatrist for an ASD assessment. Some of my obsessions are more ASD-like (pleasurable rather than anxious), others more OCD-like (anxiety-driven), so sometimes I wonder if I might have OCD too. I'll let my psychiatrist work that one out, when I see him. But what I realise now is that my gender dysphoric feelings were just another one of these obsessions. And like most of my obsessions, with time they fade and get replaced with new ones. If I had this self-understanding 15, 20 years ago, I think my gender dysphoric feelings might have remitted faster.
If I'd sought help back then, would they have helped me gain that self-understanding of my own obsessiveness? Or would they have encouraged me towards transition? I'm glad I never transitioned, I think I'd be in a far worse place now if I had. But I worry with this idea of "affirmative care", people like me may be encouraged in that direction whether it is the right thing for them or not.
What about your comparison with homosexuality? Does homosexuality ever "spontaneously remit" in the same way that gender dysphoric feelings sometimes do? I honestly have no idea. My feelings about my birth gender (male) have waxed and waned, but a constant for me has been attraction to women with never more than fleeting feelings for men; given that, the equivalent question for homosexuality is beyond my personal experience.
(Sorry for the throwaway. I hope one can understand why. I wish I had the courage to talk about this stuff under my real name. I hope that one of these days I will, but not today.)
I think we need to be careful and precise when using the word "cure". Is one outcome preferable over another? Preferable to who, and why? What, precisely, are we curing? What effect does using the word "cure" have on people? Anecdote: When I realized I had dysphoric feelings, my mental health _improved_ overnight and has stayed that way. I took up piano. Became more expressive. I even began working out! What would my cure be? Everyone's different - as you seem to suggest (correct me), pushing for self-understanding is a good way to navigate this. I think my personal positive outcome is in no small part due to key people in my life making it clear that no outcome is preferred over another, and that they'll support me no matter what I find. I count myself as extremely privileged in this regard, and by my reckoning anything we can do to foster this kind of support is time well spent.
> But what I realise now is that my gender dysphoric feelings were just another one of these obsessions.
That may be. And that's OK. Very few people figure everything out the very first try. And people can sometimes change over time. But equally, sometimes they don't. In any case, we can't expect people to understand themselves if we take away the tools to learn. In some sense, aren't these transient obsessions a vehicle for experimentation and learning? For mine, they are.
You, have2throwaway, are valid. Here's to your journey.
For me personally, I believe the outcome in which these feelings went away without me acting on them (by which I especially mean hormones and surgery) is much better for me than one in which they stuck around and I did act on them. And I'm sure I'm not the only person for which this true.
On the other hand, I totally accept there are other people for whom the feelings are unlikely to ever go away, and for those people, if they believe that acting on them is the best option for them, it isn't my place to disagree with them.
The problem is how do we tell the two groups apart? How do we help people having these feelings work out which group they belong to? I don't have any confidence that the current system is good at doing that. Part of the reason why, is that those who transition have their stories celebrated by much (of course, not all) of the culture, while those who remit without transitioning (or who detransition) are mostly hidden in the shadows. That ends up presenting the former stories as more valid than the later, something which I see as problematic.
Yes and no. Yes, it's effective at shutting people up. No, it's not very effective at convincing people that you're right. It's more effective at convincing people that you're completely unreasonable, and that it's better to just not talk to you at all.
I see things differently, through the lens of power and influence. How much power does the opposition have if it's been effectively silenced? Members of the other side certainly aren't convinced of your cause, but what difference does it make? You've already gotten them to submit.
As time goes on the younger people will pretty much only hear from the intolerant folks because the people who were silenced can't propagate their worldview effectively.
Interesting how media coverage completely changed. Under the previous administration it was considered racist to even mention the theory and it's proponents were considered racists or conspiracy theorists. Why such a sudden change? China certainly didn't change its position on the issue...
Trump is gone. Since he was the main proponent of the idea, and he was despised by half of the nation, they had to despise the idea too, even if it was quite fitting in the context of the anti-China rhetoric of the last few years. Now Trump is gone and the other half of the US is free to pick up his ideas.
And that is how you choose to lead with your speech?
And you are saying if we can't discuss elite trans sports with nuance with civility, then how can we discuss an even more nuanced topic than trans elite sports?
So did you want to discuss trans elite sports or were you trying to demonstrate that people cannot handle a conversation with greater nuance? Or both at the same time?
That's all i'm saying. It's pretty obvious having an objection to Fallon Fox fighting biological women has more to it than pure hatred and bigotry towards trans women. If the gender ideology crowd can't acknowledge that or debate that civilly, I really see no chance of debating less clearcut topics. I deliberately chose it as the most extreme example I could think of to demonstrate how unreasonable and emotional I think that segment of the political spectrum is.
> So did you want to discuss trans elite sports or were you trying to demonstrate that people cannot handle a conversation with greater nuance? Or both at the same time?
The latter, but if you want to talk about the former we can do that too.
But when you lead with Joe Rogan, I'd have to ask, is Joe Rogan the best you have?
I think clinical suffering is bad? I have not mentioned Joe Rogan. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
I've seen this pattern before. At best it's someone so committed to a position that they are determined to do battle rather than actually have a conversation. At worst it's someone arguing in bad faith.
Or, I suppose, most charitably, it's someone who lost the thread of the conversation and replied to the wrong person.
I'm not the person who setup a discussion by leading with a tactical argument. If you want an argument on substance, you should lead with a proposition that you have something of substance to give, not that you have tactics to offer because you don't trust real conversation.
There are very few cases of transgender elite sports. Leading with that discussion implies that you have very little to say on actual transgenderism, and it implies your taste in curation or how you choose to lead in a discussion.
> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?"
I asked a question to invite display of expertise on the underlying primary subject -- actual transgenderism. The response is that medical suffering sucks.
So far this debate has never elevated past the Joe Rogan level of discourse. You can look at any other branching thread to see the intellectually inspiring quality of opening discussion with trans elite sports.
And, what on earth does Joe Rogan have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing him up, and he's irrelevant to Moodles' point. What on earth does clinical suffering have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing that up, and it's irrelevant to Moodles' point.
You're giving off this really strong "only here to do ideological battle" vibe. That's not what HN is for.
> Because I am making the point that even mentioning something as extreme as that still gets me lambasted with abuse. So if we can't even discuss that civilly, how on Earth are we meant to discuss more nuanced issues?
>> So did you want to discuss trans elite sports or were you trying to demonstrate that people cannot handle a conversation with greater nuance? Or both at the same time?
> The latter, but if you want to talk about the former we can do that too.
But you're still focused on whether we afford good faith to tactical arguments.
You're accusing me of bad character while espousing whatever it means to offer faith, but whether anyone is here to do ideological battle is easily confirmed by simply clicking on their account history.
And what does Joe Rogan have to do with discourse on elite trans sports? He's a benchmark for conversation quality and focus and a major player in discussing trans issues. There are other branching threads here. See if anything ever rises above Joe Rogan's playground of debate.
> What on earth does clinical suffering have to do with the original topic? You keep bringing that up, and it's irrelevant to Moodles' point.
And surely one does not ask, "What does transgenderism have to do with transgendered people in elite sports?"
> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?"
This is what I wanted to discuss. An open invitation to discuss the course of medical debate across the west, one which squarely hits at "What is trans?"
Huh? Essentially all I have said is this:
"I agree with the Economist article. This is my personal experience also. Here's an example."
Tactually made? What does this even mean? Do you think I have a hidden agenda of bigotry towards trans people or something? What exactly am I doing wrong in your eyes? Is there any actual specific sentence I have written you disagree with?
> > The arguments the two sides put forward, in other words, are complex and debatable. But many trans activists think that any disagreement is tantamount to hate speech and try to suppress it.
> This is 100% my personal experience also.
And it's looking a lot like your experience here. You're getting told that you can't have put forth your comments in good faith, that it was "tactically made". (Which I interpret as meaning that it's to push an agenda rather than in good faith. I could be mistaken, but threatofrain is not clarifying what that accusation means.)
So, yeah, I stand by my statement that this whole thread proves your point...
Maybe if people tried to listen and understand more, they could ask followup questions and try to get what the other person had in mind, instead of trying to tear down opponents?
When you pick up the microphone, that is your chance to make an offering of what you have to give. What we have here an offering of Joe Rogan debates.
> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?"
The response is "I think clinical suffering is bad?"
And again, the only person who keeps bringing up Joe Rogan is you. What has this got to do with anything? Can we just focus on actual points being made here?
My OP was about how impossible it is to have sensible debates about trans issues without being lambasted. Where is this thread going now? What direction are you taking it?
By tactical argument, I mean an argument you make which you don't think is your leading argument, but you make it anyway because you want to demonstrate an effect.
Discussing trans elite sports warrants a broad biological and medical discussion on sex. The trans phenomena includes those who have received clinical classification under gender dysphoria to hormonal differences with sexual effects.
You keep wondering why I bring up Joe Rogan. It's because I don't think any discussion here will rise above the playground of arguments made by Joe Rogan, a major player on the conversation of trans elite sports.
You might look to the entire discussion stemming from the article to see if anything ever rises to this level of discussion.
The reason I mentioned combat sports is because it's literally the clearest example I can possibly think of where one can have objections to transgender women in women's spaces without having hate in their heart, and yet still one gets lambasted for bringing it up. So my overall point is about the lambasting, as the Economist article talks about.
> By tactical argument, I mean an argument you make which you don't think is your leading argument, but you make it anyway because you want to demonstrate an effect.
My leading argument is: "the gender ideology community lambast people way too much. Here's an obvious example of something which they shouldn't lambast about but they do anyway.". I honestly don't know how I can be any clearer here. There is no hate. No hidden agenda. Just what I've actually said at face value multiple times. Please stop trying to read between the lines.
> You keep wondering why I bring up Joe Rogan. It's because I don't think any discussion here will rise above the playground of arguments made by Joe Rogan, a major player on the conversation of trans elite sports.
I find this ironic since you're the one bringing down the quality of discussion with all the red herrings. What do you actually want to discuss? Where am I going wrong and what do you want to convince me of?
>> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?"
And surely you don't think we're the only conversation in town. Look at this entire post and see if there's anything which rises above the Joe Rogan level of debate. It won't.
> I find this ironic since you're the one bringing down the quality of discussion with all the red herrings. What do you actually want to discuss? Where am I going wrong and what do you want to convince me of?
I don't accuse you of hate. I accuse you using the topic trans elite sports as an intellectual point to push around.
Are you going to start doing so, or are you just going to go on as you have so far?
Am I mistaken here?
There’s this thing with marginalized communities where people outside of the communities “just want to have a discussion” but the stakes of that conversation are way too high for marginalized people. Trans people’s existence is not for you to challenge or debate. The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions. It’s not really something that’s there for you to “discuss”.
People might not like "having their identity being debated" but people also don't like having their opportunities taken away or being forced into situations they don't feel comfortable in or ones that threaten their safety.
I think the best thing for you to do in situations like this is quietly listen to the counter points being given to you and gently and wholesomely get your hands off of the people and their lives that you are reaching for. It's really not something you are entitled to have or control.
> People don’t like their identity being debated.
But this is reframing. I'm not debating that someone is trans or should be treated with respect or anything like that.
> Bringing up trans women in sports as a talking point would be pretty upsetting to most trans women as it is likely to feel like you’re invalidating their personal experience of being trans.
Ok? Feelings might be hurt. Feelings are subjective. That's not an argument. It's also pretty upsetting for the women who are now competing at a biological disadvantage. Particularly in combat sports where there's potentially dier consequences for losing. What about their feelings?
> Trans people’s existence is not for you to challenge or debate.
Again... That's not what I'm challenging or debating at all. I'll be honest, I fucking hate this debate switcheroo. I'm not challenging someone's existence. Listen to what I'm actually saying. This is so annoying to me.
> The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions
No, it isn't. Not when it affects more than just the marginalized community. If their actions affect others (e.g. women) then it's not primarily up to just them to figure out what they want to do.
Again, this is nothing to do with hate or bigotry. I'm not "debating their existence". I literally don't know how much clearer I can be here.
Sorry, I can't respond anymore since my account has been rate limited.
You can ignore their feelings but that’s the problem. You don’t care that it’s upsetting. To you it’s just some abstract intellectual thing to discuss but to them it could be a source of trauma and pain. I don’t think you’re appreciating what you’re asking a trans person to do when you bring up topics that relate to trauma they’ve experienced.
Indeed. Though I'm honestly not sure if it's "9/10 trans people" or just the gender ideology crowd. Regardless, having strong feelings doesn't win the debate. I can give platitudes all day about how sympathetic I am to people with gender dysmorphia or any other difficulties in life, but when it comes to debating issues, we need to be more dispassionate as my original point and the point of the Economist article is that these topics are nuanced and shutting down the conversation as "hate speech" is not productive at all.
> You can ignore their feelings but that’s the problem. You don’t care that it’s upsetting.
No, in my view, this type of comment is the problem. You're assuming I don't care at all just because I disagree. Please just take my comments at face value. I said in my original comment I have sympathy for trans people.
> To you it’s just some abstract intellectual thing to discuss but to them it could be a source of trauma and pain
Take the women in mixed martial arts. To them, it's a source of actual, physical pain.
You’re presuming that there’s a debate here that you’re part of. I don’t see why you think that. No one owes you an explanation for their needs. No one owes you debate.
I wrote a comment describing how I think these differences should be resolved without forcing marginalized people to endlessly participate in “debate” about the legitimacy of their needs:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27610009
I have actually read White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo and for the most part vehemently disagree but to be honest I don’t want to comment so much on it right now as I’m afraid my account will be rate limited again...
But listen, as I said before, I understand being trans must be hard. But that’s simply not good enough. You don’t get everything you want just because it’s hard for you. You don’t (necessarily) decide if you can compete with biological women on a level playing field. That’s really the realm of science, not feelings. Also, is it really that traumatic if trans women have to compete with men as opposed to women if they want to compete in certain sports? Not to sound callus, but given there’s biological reasons for it, I honestly don’t think it’s that offensive? It's reality. And, again, it’s not denying their existence and bigotry and hatred, etc. It’s just a question of science and what’s fair: There’s a reason we separate men and women in certain sports.
Let’s even stick to combat sports as my original, extreme example, to find some common ground. Do you agree trans women shouldn’t be the only ones deciding if they’re allowed to fight biological women? Do you at least think women, and scientists, and combat experts should get a say in that debate? Do you agree they shouldn’t fight them at all? Or do you think us even talking about it is too traumatic (or at least inappropriate) for trans people to listen to? Honestly, if it's the latter, I don't see us finding any common ground at all, and that's what my OP and The Economist article was talking about.
The same thing happened with the "debate" about gays in the military. Bigots brought up the problem of shared showers in the military even though most gym showers are individual stalls. Still, this was used actually used as a rational to keep a ban on gay people, not recognize gay marriage (which means less pay for gay people in the military) and more.
Now we have proposals to ban trans people from public facilities, outlaw medical procedures for trans people and defund any publicly funded trans-related medical drug. And what is fueling this "discussion"?: bullshit stories about trans women assaulting people in bathrooms and sports being dominated by trans athletes (both of which are demonstrably false).
Presumably the "high stakes" are that they might fall out with the majority population, right? In that case why not do all you can to engage productively with them? There was a time when civil rights activists wished for good faith participation.
> The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions.
There are a couple of problems here.
The first is that "their conclusions" are often the conclusions of certain activists and not the marginalized people in question (e.g., "defund the police"). I find this to be the most repulsive kind of rhetoric, because it exploits marginalized groups to the harm of everyone else and to the exclusive benefit of the activist and their ideological comrades.
The second is that it dehumanizes everyone else: others are to simply keep quiet and listen to the marginalized group's needs; to acquiesce. We are all (aspirationally, at least) equal participants in a free society, and we need to find something that works for all of us. Debate is how we do that, even if the topic hits closer to home for some than others.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
> I really think it's unfair to say I'm on HN to "battle" anyone. I don't think my comments here have been particularly confrontational?
When I skim through your recent comments I'm mostly seeing posts like these (just a random sample) - these are examples of what we don't want on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27606026
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27506628
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27506572
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27423188
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27379700
If you don't like the words "political/ideological battle" or "flamewar" we can find a different description; the point is that this is not the curiosity-driven, respectful conversation that the site is supposed to be for.
The trans experience is one that is in many ways beautiful and joyous but is sadly also fraught with trauma. Trans people experience a lot of pain that stays with them. Much of that pain has to do with people who refuse to accept who they truly are. Or people will “just want to have a discussion” where they try to see invalidate the persons identity.
When a cis person enters a discussion like this, to the cis person it’s just an intellectual discussion. But to the trans person it can be threatening and it can trigger memories of past trauma they’ve gone through.
So yes, trans people get upset when you bring things like this up because you’re bringing up a topic that may have been used as a “gotcha” to invalidate their identity, and it can be unclear if that’s what you’ll try to do. This makes the whole conversation upsetting to them.
Imagine if a man who didn’t believe in women’s rights wanted to discuss it with a woman who has been discriminated against. That would be a difficult conversation and it wouldn’t be surprising if she got upset and didn’t want to have a “rational debate” about her rights.
What you’re doing when you bring up difficult topics to a marginalized person is you’re forcing them to re live traumatic memories in order to educate you. I learned this from learning about the experiences of people of color. (If you’re white) DO NOT go ask a random black person to explain to you the everyday racism they feel, because inevitably it won’t make sense to you and when you challenge something they say it will become a lot of emotional labor for them to try to make it make sense. Sure some people are fine explaining this stuff but not everyone.
Instead what people of color say about this is: go do the learning on your own. Go find out what people in this marginalized group say about your issue without making one of them explain it. Their identity is not up for you to debate. But you can read articles written by people within the community or listen to YouTube interviews. You can find the answers without making a marginalized person re live their trauma to educate you.
This is all surrounding the topic of “emotional labor”. Debating someone’s trauma requires huge amounts of emotional labor for them to stay civil and most people don’t have the energy for that, so you should not ask that of them. There are other better ways to educate yourself.
EDIT: Folks, I’m trying to honestly tell you the experience I’ve had. I had to learn this stuff too. I know that this community hates being told they have to change their behavior, but I’m kindly and honestly explaining what I know and you’re downvoting me. Please stop.
Yeah, it sucks that individuals in the majority don't have the same emotional skin in the game as in the minority, but progress of any kind requires that we can talk through stuff. For those of us with trauma (i.e., my trauma isn't "trans trauma"), we should excuse ourselves when the debates hit too close to home too often. We explicitly cannot use our trauma to discredit others (e.g., to conflate their criticism with 'hate') is not going to garner sympathy even if a lot of people who are already "allies" upvote our post on social media or wherever.
And indeed, if it's not in the best interest of the legitimately traumatized to use their trauma to silence others, who in their right mind would allow their "allies" to use their trauma to bludgeon others? What rational person would let someone else spend their credibility in contradiction with their own best interests? If the traumatized person overreaches, it might be overlooked on account of the trauma, but what excuses can we make for the mere "allies"?
I will explain my understanding of the answer. I do not claim my answer is the right one, but it is what I see.
Let’s say there are two groups. One group we will call a marginalized minority and another group we will call the majority or dominant group.
The answer is not for the marginalized people and the dominant group to debate directly. Imagine people from the black civil rights movement debating whether or not they should be guaranteed the right to vote with no interference. What really was there to debate?
Instead of direct debate I see it like this. First, both groups recognize their position. Trans people have been marginalized by a broadly cisgendered society. If you learn a little bit about the murder of trans people throughout the last 5 decades and the lack of investigation, I think that is evidence enough that they are a marginalized group.
Okay so step one is recognize the power dynamic. Step two is for the people in the dominant group to listen, without challenge or debate, what the people in the marginalized group want.
Step three: the people in the dominant group discuss with themselves how to make those changes. How do we make sure trans people feel welcome and comfortable in bathrooms and sports? How do we make sure trans kids grow up feeling welcomed by society as their whole self?
Fourth, the people in the dominant group discuss their difficulties they have with the changes, and they do their best to work it out on their own.
Five, some members of the marginalized group who have agreed to discuss this will talk to people in the dominant group and try to address their questions.
Six. Having made some changes, the people in the dominant group ask for feedback, and the process repeats.
At no point in that course of action do random members of the dominant group need to discuss these changes with members of the marginalized group. As a white person I simply do not challenge what people of color say. There is no need for me to challenge them and I recognize that as a member of the dominant group it could be emotionally distressful for them to have to discuss it with me.
Anyway that’s my answer. I hope it helps. Sorry I didn’t answer the rest of your post but I found this the part that felt most salient to me.
> The answer is not for the marginalized people and the dominant group to debate directly.
To be clear, this isn't "trans people" vs "non-trans people". There are lots of trans people who don't think it's appropriate to change our bathroom policies and non-trans people who think we should change those policies. The parties to the debate are different ideologies, not different trans/non-trans identities.
With respect to your steps vs debate, I think your steps describe a national debate, except for the earlier caveat that the debate isn't "trans vs non-trans" but rather different ideological positions and also that at any given moment different individuals in the debate (on any side) are at different "steps" in the process, and also that individuals on all sides vary in their willingness to listen or participate in good faith.
So basically a debate is a mess because people aren't uniformly acting in good faith nor are they uniformly disciplined about listening before speaking nor are they acting in synchrony (everyone within a group meets to listen to an ambassador for the other group, and then carefully considers together, and so on). However, over the course of months or years, things do tend to converge in a direction that most people feel pretty good about. That's what progress looks like.
> At no point in that course of action do random members of the dominant group need to discuss these changes with members of the marginalized group. As a white person I simply do not challenge what people of color say. There is no need for me to challenge them and I recognize that as a member of the dominant group it could be emotionally distressful for them to have to discuss it with me.
With respect, I disagree in the strongest possible terms here. No doubt you mean well, but black people and white people are equal, and race doesn't confer anyone with either authority or fragility with respect to having their positions criticized. If any given black person or white person feels triggered (in the clinical, not pejorative, sense), they are certainly not obligated to engage with the criticism, but to assume that someone is fragile on the basis of their race is the height of racism (however well intended).
> The parties to the debate are different ideologies, not different trans/non-trans identities.
I think the concept of intersectionality is useful here. Ideology is one component but identity is another. If we treat this like a simple ideological debate the potential trauma of the marginalized group could be ignored, potentially causing the mere act of the debate to re traumatize people in that group.
> No doubt you mean well, but black people and white people are equal, and race doesn't confer anyone with either authority or fragility with respect to having their positions criticized.
Respectfully I think this is a misunderstanding of my view. I learned to keep my mouth shut not because people in marginalized groups are fragile. I learned to keep my mouth shut because I learned that my outsider status means a lot of things marginalized people say night not make immediate sense to me. Trying to interrogate (neutral sense) their reasoning can be a traumatic experience for them. I learned this when I asked women at Google to explain their sexual harassment to me. A female friend took the time to explain to me that even asking the question could cause distress in women. Now when someone says something I disagree with I stay silent and I go and google the thing and learn more about it on my own.
Certainly in some cases the person wants to discuss the thing with me, but I don’t assume that to be the case.
I also learned this from a person of color who did not appreciate similar questions from me. While there is a LOT of worthwhile criticism of Robin DiAngelo, her talks helped me understand that concept better.
If we do not support even the most offensive speech then we risk a very slippery slope leading to censorship and 1984.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Note that tyranny trying to preserve and extend itself almost always says that it's in defense of liberty...
It works both ways so this isn't a practical way of looking at implementation of free speech. You can't keep a system that doesn't protect itself free forever - propaganda travels faster and further than truth, and I doubt the founding fathers wrote the first amendment with mass media in mind.
You can start the argument of who gets to decide what should be allowed and what shouldn't, and in the current political climate (at least in the USA) the answer to that is obviously nobody. Ideally those decisions would be made during a time of cultural unity, where a whole nation can say "These are our values that we want to write in stone", like Germany did with the new constitution in the 20th century where it put well-defined limits on what kind of speech should be forbidden.
It's doubtful if that kind of unity is even possible in the USA anymore, so I'm worried that, on a long enough time-scale, unfettered free speech will inevitably lead to tyranny of a kind because there is no system in place to protect it.
Citation required.
You think the Weimar Republic is a point in favor of that claim?
In my research, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic and found that, contrary to what most people think, Germany did have hate‐speech laws that were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti‐Jewish sentiment is irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti‐Semitic speech had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis, including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher, were all prosecuted for anti‐Semitic speech. And rather than deterring them, the many court cases served as effective public relations machinery for the Nazis, affording them a level of attention that they never would have received in a climate of a free and open debate.
In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times. The more charges Streicher faced, the more the admiration of his supporters grew. In fact, the courts became an important platform for Streicher’s campaign against the Jews.
Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, points out that cases were regularly brought against individuals on account of anti‐Semitic speech in the years leading up to Hitler’s takeover of power in 1933. “Remarkably, pre‐Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti‐hate law,” he writes. “Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti‐Semitic speech…
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2015/war-free-ex...
Streicher and his fellow editors were already active members of the NSDAP (Nazi party) during the 1920s. Streicher and other editors were taken to court, yes, but the assertion that it was for the content of his magazine and not actions like the Hitlerputsch is not something I can find support for in any source.
> Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, points out that cases were regularly brought against individuals on account of anti‐Semitic speech in the years leading up to Hitler’s takeover of power in 1933.
Antisemitism was alive and well in the Weimar Republic, the claim that people were taken to court for antisemitic speech is another one that I can't find a source for. People were taken to court for violence against Jews, as they were still full German citizens in the Weimar Republic. I looked up the passages of the Weimar Republic constitution around religion and freedom of assembly and there is nothing about hate speech or similar kinds of discrimination. One of the major causes of increasing violence against Jews was Der Stürmer and similar publications, because they could be circulated without impunity.
In fact, I looked up Alan Borovoy's quote, he said:
> During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech.
I find this number of 200 interesting, because 200 is roughly the same number as Jewish cemeteries that were desecrated between 1923 and 1933, and makes me suspicious that he's taking court cases about desecration and equating them with hate-speech - which are obviously not the same things.
> In einer regelrechten Schändungswelle wurden zwischen 1923 und 1932 fast 200 Fälle registriert [1]
Sorry it's in German, but it should be easy to translate. In any case, the passages you posted have no substance other than a quote from one guy that from anything I can see seems to be conflating two different things to support his argument.
[1] https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Antisemi...
Everything up to imminently calling for violence in the US is protected so if that is what you are saying then I’d agree with you.
However what is “hate” or “intolerant” depends on the person and identity group. E.g. “All lives matter, marriage is between a man and a woman, men can’t get pregnant, Muhammad was a pedophole, flipping the bird to a police officer” all would offend different groups of people but are protected speech.
It’s bonkers how being gender-critical can get you fired or silenced or violently protested. Or how being anti-Marxist makes you a racist. Or how even having traditional values is worthy of being firebombed.
Especially given the historical record on empowered Marxists and saying/doing things that are extremely racist and homophobic.
We should also teach about the Holocaust and read the uncensored version of huckleberry Finn, even though it may be offensive.
People (students) will be offended but they will learn how history has changed, be able to think for themselves, and not fall into ideological line. If this scares the left/right establishments that is a great thing.
Living in a 1-party state would suck.
> If a student asks a teacher not to call them something that offends them, is the teacher required to stop using the slur?
If a teacher calls a student a slur, or otherwise directly addresses the student using a slur/derogatory term, should this teacher stop doing this? Stop moving the goalpost.
In my experience this is the center of every “debate.” It’s less about the merits of the cause and more about convincing this point against the hypothetical risk of a male who’s taken advantage of self identified gender. TERFs are generally not interested in dynamics of trans men, who seem to be more like “gender traitors” than their deceptive counterparts.
Personally I find this whole movement a farce. Every talking point not only misaligns with trans women, it causes more harm to cis women at scale. “Real women” give birth — except hundreds of thousands who cannot. “Real women” look like the contemporary feminine ideal, yet 1 in 10 women suffer from PCOS enduring testosterone levels higher than any trans woman has to contend with. And the cake topper of them all, “trans women fuel negative stereotypes of femininity,” while simultaneously not appearing feminine enough, often barred from HRT until after puberty. This Goldilocks zone of womanhood is always out of reach, and therefore transness is never acceptable.
- a trans woman
I don't know enough to conclude, but trying to understand and ask more questions is a first step.
You can say that and still be sympathetic to the plight of trans people.
Say you're right. What stops them sneaking in right now? It's not like there are mandatory ID checks at the entrance.
Gendered bathrooms are a concrete expression of the fact that it is gender that is the major fault line through our society. The fact we need them is a damming indictment on our society (on men probably)
Without proof to the contrary the assumption should be that the trans population has a similar proportion of rapists as any other does.
Since its been well established that essentially all rape no matter who is raping who goes under reported it is completely rational for women to be just as fearful as they would with any other stranger.
The question is whether bathroom bills forcing transpeople who wish to not break the law (potential rapists are obviously not part of this set...) into men's bathrooms, and a surrounding climate of generalised hostility towards anyone with any remotely masculine element of their physique or style in women's bathrooms actually meaningfully reduces the risk of rape, or just makes the environment more intimidating for everyone.
Cis women can perpetuate rape. Should we ban them from changing rooms too? How far through the looking glass does this have to go?!
It is a dessicated vegetative hominoid surely?
How about predatory men pretending to be trans-women?
Are predatory men pretending to be transwomen a problem on any statistically noticeable level?
You've just created a world where predatory men pretend to be trans men, who are now legally required to use women's bathrooms.
At least most trans women are trying to express in a feminine way (disregarding the issues with women—cis and trans—being discriminated against for not being “feminine enough” by someone's standard), with this "solution", you've just normalised people actively trying to be as masculine as possible going into women's bathrooms. Congrats.
(Of course, predation in bathrooms is illegal, why on earth would someone who is willing to break that law be stopped by another one saying they aren't meant to be there? It's literally the same nonsense argument used by homophobes to argue we shouldn't allow gay people into those spaces.)
Many prisons already separate by ethnic group simply to keep the peace. Yes, it's segregation, but the alternative is more prison riots.
Thus, if separation happens for practical reasons, then don't limit the separation practices to one group; otherwise, you will be accused of discrimination, perhaps justifiably. Use statistics, not stereotypes, to find the split points.
Or get better security so mixing doesn't result in problems. Lowest-bidder security has down-sides.
The word you're looking for is "cis".
I may be offended when people talk negatively about my under-performing sports team, but that doesn't give me a right to delete their comments just because I perceive them to be hurtful.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The only people using the term “cis” are trans-activists.
The fear that cis-women have of rape is real. The fear that transgender women have of rape in a men's jail is real. I think the fairest thing to do is take both of these fears seriously and house intact trans-women in a space where they neither feel threatened with rape, nor impose that threat on cis-women.
I think referring to this fear as a "TERF talking point" is as disrespectful as it would be to minimize the fear that trans-women experience in men's prisons.
Men are housed with men in jails. Yes, sometimes they commit violence against each other, including rape. But we don't put all men in solitary confinement.
There is no justification for accepting any prison rape—or, for that matter, sexual assault, which cis women are entirely capable of.
(And, to be clear, sexual assault is not inherently a lesser crime than rape, rape is just a specific form of sexual assault, and depending on jurisdiction, may be defined in such a way as a cis woman can be a rapist).
I want to be very clear: I do not want this to happen. I don't want any woman to be raped, especially not impregnated as well. But my point still stands: this does not happen on any sort of regular basis. I do not think you're arguing in bad faith here, and I hope you see that I'm not either. Segregating trans women from cis women does nothing to protect cis women. Implementing this segregation across the prison system would not impact the occurrence of prison rape by half a percent. But by insisting that trans women are a threat to cis women, you are hurting trans women. You are playing into and amplifying a very popular narrative in our society that trans women are deceptive, dangerous predators. And this leads to legislation that harms the whole trans community.
plank_time wrote: In the UK prisons, transgender women sexually assault women 5x more than cis women sexually assault women. https://archive.is/iYD5T
Haven't dug into it to see how strong that evidence is, but to say none seems incorrect.
If you read the article you linked, you will find that is not true. From the article: "between 2016 and 2020, there were seven sexual assaults against females in women's prisons by trans women." 7 assaults in 4 years is not 5x more.
If you are referring to the statistic that "trans inmates are 1% of the population and commit 5.6% of the assaults", you will find that the trans inmates in question are actually trans men being incorrectly housed in women's prisons.
You have thoroughly proved the original poster's point: TERF talking points are damaging. You bought one up, defending it as "reasonable", but when pressed you accept that there is a preferable solution that doesn't involve throwing trans people under the bus.
The talking point is there to push a narrative that trans people are dangerous, just as was done with gay people before. It is designed to imply that we must choose between women's rights and trans people's rights, which is a false dichotomy.
It's the exact same argument that was used as justification to try and criminalise homosexuality, that they would all be assaulting people in bathrooms, changing rooms, and prisons.
You keep combining impregnation and sexual assault as if they're the same thing. Cis women are already sexually assaulted by other cis women in prisons! This is not a problem created anew by housing trans women in women's prisons. I venture that the problem is not trans women, the problem is the assumption that prisons cannot stop inmates from sexually assaulting each other.
To completely stop sexual assault in prisons, people would have to be housed in separate cells. Housing cis-women and trans-women in the same cell does not stop the sexual assault problem.
In that case you're hard pressed to argue why housing trans women in women's prisons exacerbates this issue, unless you think trans women are more likely to be rapists. Excluding an entire population on the basis that some of them might rape people is not just if rape is already a problem.
> To completely stop sexual assault in prisons, people would have to be housed in separate cells.
I mostly agree, but it's very easy to construct a solution to these problems while ignoring the present reality. Almost no trans people are currently housed in prisons that accord with their gender identity, and 35% of trans people in prisons themselves report having been sexually assaulted in the past year as of 2015 [1]. The status quo is pretty dire for them too, and their safety should be weighed against the safety of the cis people they might otherwise be housed with.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/transgender-women-ar...
With regards to the danger of trans people being sexually assaulted in prisons: yes, it is absolutely a problem. MyHypatia literally made the same point you're making in their original comment.
> Without any stats for transwomen in particular, human males are more likely to be rapists, and an intact transwoman is closer to a man than a ciswoman is, no?
This argument is rather tangential. Is there any empirical evidence that trans women are more likely to sexually assault people than cis women? Is the median trans woman more likely to sexually assault people than cis women who have been convicted of sexual assault, or who have already committed sexual assault in the prison?
> MyHypatia literally made the same point you're making in their original comment.
Specifically, they said that putting trans women in women's prisons would be imposing the threat of rape on cis women. After I pointed out that cis women already rape other cis women in women's prisons, they clarified that it was actually impregnation they were really worried about introducing, not rape as such. I don't think my criticism of this concern has been addressed.
With that said, the focus on genitalia strikes me as odd and really unfounded in the first place for a productive conversation.
In this context, if a trans-woman doesn't have a penis then this fear is unfounded and they should be housed with cis-women. If a trans-woman does have a penis, then I think this fear is reasonable (after all, that is what trans-women are escaping when they leave men's prisons). Basically, this is one of the few cases where discussing genitalia is relevant.
I don't think there are enough transwomen in prisons to make any reasonable statistical statement about transwomen in particular being more or less likely to be rapists. And I don't really think the argument is tangential. People with penises are more likely to be rapists than people without them, this is a clear statistical reality. If a large population of people are being held together, historically because they did not possess penises, and are worried about the introduction of someone with a penis (who statistically is much more likely to be a rapist by nature of having a penis), I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that gender identity is a confounding factor in those statistics. And if there isn't a difference between having a penis and not having one in this circumstance, why do we even need to have gendered prisons?
With regards to MyHypatia, I was referring to the fact that, in the second half of your comment to which I initially replied, it seemed like you felt MyHypatia did not recognize the direness of the trans situation in prisons. But they clearly do, as evidenced by this from their first comment:
> The fear that transgender women have of rape in a men's jail is real
It may be used to describe their foreskin, but I've never heard or seen it used to describe them as whole people. It sounds very odd. What is the negation of intact? You can't really use a word to describe a category exclusively without implying the opposite of the other category.
> People with penises are more likely to be rapists than people without them, this is a clear statistical reality.
I don't think you can argue this is a clear statistical reality without data about trans women. As far as I know contemporary research suggests sexual assault by women has been historically undercounted. I don't know if the numbers come out similar in the end, but it seems like the kind of thing that is easily colored by social bias.
> If a large population of people are being held together, historically because they did not possess penises
Is it because they didn't have penises? Or because they weren't men? I don't know of any specific information, but this is an important distinction, because the general perception for a long time has been that men are more violent than women, and I think it's more because of male secondary sexual characteristics (muscle tone and height, mainly) than primary. Would a burly intersex person with high testosterone and ambiguous genitalia who sexually assaulted somebody have been put in a women's prison? Should they be today?
> And if there isn't a difference between having a penis and not having one in this circumstance, why do we even need to have gendered prisons?
I don't know, but I do think it's worth asking the question! Do we segregate people by gender because it's fundamentally necessary, or because our prison system is so brutal that we can't imagine inmates of different genders living together peacefully? There could very well be science on this subject that I'm not aware of, but on its face the sexual segregation of American prisons seems hard to separate from their brutality and corruption.
Sexual assault by women being undercounted does not account for the fact that most estimates put male perpetrators at around 90% of sexual assault cases. It would have to be severe undercounting (in anonymous surveys to boot) to get anywhere close to make up for that divide. Also, unless I am misinformed, I was under the impression that the majority of transwomen share male secondary sex characteristics – I have certainly not seen any indication that transwomen are shorter than the average male and would not expect that to be the case, given that the majority of trans people alive today were not on puberty blockers + hormone therapy before any such primary sex characteristics could do their thing in puberty.
Historically, being a man was having a penis. At the end of the day, humanity is a sexually reproducing species and there are two fundamental sexes required for procreation (intersex individuals notwithstanding). For better or for worse, human societies have divided themselves along this line (as best they could judge) since time immemorial. Given this universality, it seems incredibly unlikely that the various discrepancies between men and women (whether with rape or anything else) can be explained away by society / sociological conditioning (and therefore fixed by a change in the same).
I fully agree that the solution is to look at the problem holistically and question whether a system which allows for any sex/gender to be raped by any other sex/gender is a system that should be maintained. But as it stands, that system is still around, so we can't just pretend the decisions we've made going into that system are totally irrelevant and now that we're "more enlightened individuals" we can just switch things up without that fundamental revisiting. Said another way, this strikes me as a bit of a Chesterton's fence situation: I don't know exactly why we decided to make men's and women's prisons, but until we've firmly established that "why", I don't think it is sensible to use our 21st century definition of "men" and "women" and apply it to systems that were not made with those definitions in mind.
1. "Intact" is straight-up offensive. I was trying to explain why without saying so (because people on here always seem to object that something isn't offensive when I say it is) but you didn't get it, or I did a poor job of explaining. The term implies that trans women with vaginas merely have damaged penises, and made a choice to ruin their bodies, and consequently that cisgender bodies are better, because they are always intact. That is where it originates from.
2. Many human societies throughout history up to today have recognized at least three genders, most famously for the US, indigenous Americans with two-spirit people. It is incidental, not inherent, that Western culture does not have a category like this outside of scientific classification.
3. Feminists ostensibly believe in equality between men and women. This idea that men are uncontrollable rapists, and that women are defenseless and purely innocent, seems blatantly sexist to me. Sure, men are especially violent in our society. It's plainly true. They also happen to hold most of the power in our society. The concept of rape culture goes a long way to explaining why men rape people and are generally more violent: it is condoned by the people who hold most of the power. Justice for trans people is inseparable from justice for all women, and the destruction of patriarchy. That's what I was trying to get at in talking about the obvious violence in the US prison system. The state treating people with violence legitimizes people treating each other with violence, and that's only the start. Humans are highly intelligent and by all accounts we have, through great effort, managed to become much less violent in our dealings with each other over time, for the most part. At some point you can't blame animal instinct for choices that humans make.
2. Two-spirit was a term invented in 1990, so that seems like a bad example of a concept that has existed throughout history. Even the concept of a "special third gender" necessitates that you have two primary ones. I am not arguing that every society throughout history has had two distinct gender roles and that is all. The point I am making is that the reason gender exists as a concept at all is because there are distinct human sexes. The reason there are distinct sexes is because that is what we are: a sexually reproducing species with binary sex characteristics. One sex that produces the large gamete and one sex that produces the small, which come together to form zygote, which is incubated by the aforementioned large gamete provider. If it worked in any other way, if there was any variation on this theme, you and I would not exist. Your progeny involves one male having sex with one female and the female carrying the result of that in her womb for at least 20+ weeks (usually 40) in an unbroken line back to the first human, and then much, much further.
3. I never claimed men were uncontrollable rapists, just that the statistics (to the best of our ability to measure them) indicate that rapists are far more prevalent among males than among females. Clearly the vast majority of men are capable of not raping people. Furthermore, "rape culture" is a strange way of describing a culture which has harsh punishments for rapists and frequently makes people unemployable after the mere accusation of rape, with little proof needed (name another crime we do that for as readily). In fact if I was going to invent a "rape culture" from scratch those things would definitely be the opposite of what I'd include as norms.
Look, if you want to dismantle the prison system because it normalizes and perpetuates horrible violence, then by all means say that. But this is not at all the same thing as saying "we can just stick people in whichever prison best matches their gender identity regardless of what reasons we had for making men's and women's prisons in the first place because clearly the people who made that decision were poorly reasoning morons/bigots who had no reason to make such a distinction". Just as saying "we should develop more gender-neutral bathrooms" is different from saying "men and women's bathrooms are functionally identical just with different signs on the doors", even though men's bathrooms were clearly designed around the assumption that users of said bathroom are likely...
I think both of these concerns can be addressed. None of the options address everyone's needs and preferences, but are certainly better than leaving trans-women completely vulnerable in men's prisons.
1) House trans-women in a separate part of men's prisons so that they are not at high risk of sexual assault. Some people do not like this because it doesn't affirm their gender identity.
2) House trans-women in prisons for trans people. This is likely unrealistic because the number of people is small and for most inmates it would mean spending prison time far away from their community, making it harder for friends and family to visit.
3) House trans-women in women's prisons, but not force cis-women to share a cell with intact trans-women. This scenario would remove the threat that trans-women face, affirm their gender identity, but not impose an unfair burden on cis-women who fear being sexually assaulted and impregnated by intact trans-women.
I think scenario (3) goes most of the way in protecting trans-women from sexual assault, allows them to serve their sentences (hopefully not too far away from family), yet still acknowledges that many cis-women in prison have been sexually assaulted or fear sexual assault by people with penises because it can result in pregnancy which creates an entire new set of physical, psychological, and moral challenges for that cis-woman.
Sexual assault by correctional officers is a problem that also needs to be better addressed. But that's true regardless of the question on how to house incarcerated trans-women.
People who run prisons are often sadists.
In double bunked men's prisons rapists get to ply their trade. Get double bunked along with the rest.
Here's the problem I have with this line of defense: it doesn't accommodate the reality of self-id and the likely downstream effects if it becomes the accepted norm. If all it takes for a male to be housed in a female prison is a checkmark on a form, we should expect that many cis-men will take advantage of the situation, thus creating a very real threat of abuse for women in women prisons. If I were being locked up for an extended period of time and all it took was a declaration to be housed in a female prison, I would do it. I would go from one of the smaller and weaker inmates to one of the biggest and strongest. It is a no-brainer in terms of my personal safety. And I have no interest in abusing anyone or taking advantage of forced-proximity. Imagine how many abusers would take advantage of that circumstance? An argument in defense of gender-affirmation in prison assignments that doesn't accommodate this likely reality isn't substantive.
That's not at all what it takes.
>Imagine how many abusers would take advantage of that circumstance?
Imagine how many abusers already take advantage of the power they already have over women in women's prisons. That the real problem of sexual violence is focused and framed wholly and entirely on trans women is exactly the point made by the parent: this is an entirely disingenuous effort by people wholly uninterested in actually preventing the real, existing, non-imagined abuses in women's prisons and more interested in enforcing a strict gender binary that harms both cis and trans women.
In fact, it is all it takes in some jurisdictions[1]
>Imagine how many abusers already take advantage of the power they already have over women in women's prisons.
This is a disingenuous reply. The issue of abuse is colored by the difficulty in mitigation, i.e. available funds to significantly alter prisons, increase guards, etc. The fact that existing abuse has no easy, cost-effective solutions is not an argument against preventing the likely increase in abuse due to policy changes which are comparatively low-cost.
[1]: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-05/californ...
>Thornton said that “a person’s gender identity is self-reported and CDCR will evaluate any request submitted by an incarcerated person for gender-based housing.”
This CDCR review process is a hurdle, and staffers are hypervigilant (to the point of manufacturing anxiety) of the transfers that have already happened.
>But Moore, 43, said that she has also heard staffers question inmates housed with Calvin, asking whether she has exposed herself, explained her sexual behavior to them or said things that made them uncomfortable. She said the questioning has fomented anxiety and false rumors that Calvin is in a relationship.
>...when groundbreaking legislation gave transgender, intersex and nonbinary inmates the right, regardless of anatomy, to choose whether to be housed in a male or female prison... When asked whether inmates in the men’s prisons trying to manipulate the transfer system has been a significant issue, Thornton said that “a person’s gender identity is self-reported and CDCR will evaluate any request submitted by an incarcerated person for gender-based housing.”... Inmates can request transfers to their correctional counselor, which are then considered by a committee that includes the warden, custody, medical and mental health staffers, and a PREA compliance manager. Staffers review the inmate’s criminal record, health needs, custody level, sentence and safety concerns.
There's certainly room for interpretation here, but it seems like the evaluation is based on specific personal requirements and any explicit safety concerns, not a medical or psychological exam to determine whether the request is due to one's genuine identity.
Other things that are exploitable: driving vans/cars in cities as they can be driven into crowds.
I agree that it is thinkable that some people might want to exploit these rules. However I haven't seen anything that suggest abuse will be rampant enough and not be able to be dealt using existing laws and shaming exploiters. So I think we should give trans people their rights and deal with perverts and abuser separately.
A cost on switching can be imposed but it shouldn't make it more stigmatising or harder on trans people ideally.
There have already been people I would describe as attempting to abuse[1] the nascent systems that do exist.
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/23/canadian-transge...
The prevalence and sexual assault in prisons is an example of a normalization of deviance that should be opposed, instead of tolerated.
Why would a rapist stop wanting to rape regardless of the state of their genitals? Is sexual violation with a penis so much more horrific than other violations it deserves special consideration?
Just personalize the idea, your sister or female significant other was thrown in jail, and then housed with a male who is a trans woman who has sex with her with or without her consent and creates an ongoing consequence that is impossible if trans women were not there
That would be the expectation you would start with to form a conclusion
Sex in male prisons does not result in pregnancy
What circumstance made you think of that?
Sexual assault does not hit some magic breaking point where it becomes an unacceptable risk at the chance of impregnation. If there is a significant risk of sexual assault, then the prison has fundamentally failed and that is the thing that needs fixing.
It simply doesn't matter if someone is trans or not, cis people are just as capable of sexual assault, and prisons must be protecting all inmates, not only cis-women, from assault.
its not nearly as gendered as you are making it out to be, this a condition statement satisfied by some gendered combinations
Testosterone is correlated with sexual aggression. Chemical castration is a treatment for rapists after all.
Also because rape in prison is very much about power, and exerting power over people you dislike for one reason or another (in this case trans people because they are trans) especially.
Basically, I think that sexual assault in prisons should be taken far more seriously for everyone. That may mean every prisoner should get their own cell regardless of sex or gender. I don't think housing cis-women and intact trans-women in the same cell alleviates this.
The trans men in jail abusing cis women is real thing. They are housed together now. The trans women being raped or abused is incredibly frequent thing - includig by guards. (Male on male rape is a joke, basically. Transwomen in prison are assumed to enjoy sexual abuse basically.)
But despite the former being literally about cis women safety too, it just dont interest people. There are many ways to make prisons safer and making it so trans women or gender non conforming men are a bit safer is topic only for radical trans activists and no one else.
If there is heated discussion about issue that dont currently exist which ignores issues that do cureently exist, it is ok to call it talking point.
https://archive.is/iYD5T
If you are referring to the statistic that "trans inmates are 1% of the population and commit 5.6% of the assaults", you will find that the trans inmates in question are actually trans men being incorrectly housed in women's prisons.
“there were 125 trans prisoners in 2017, 60 of whom were serving sentences for sexual offences. Of those 60, 27 were serving a prison sentence for rape.” which is more shocking than your 5x statistic. Note the 5x statistic appears weak to me because “Between 2016 and 2020, there were seven sexual assaults [reported] against females in women's prisons by trans women.”.
When I see people say things like "biology is what is real", I think about the harm done to every adopted child who is being told that their parent isn't really their parent, that their relationship should not be respected as much as someone who is biologically related to their parents.
If you can't keep in mind that you're talking to other human beings who may have deep and good reasons to feel differently than you do on a topic, then please don't post here. This is a difficult enough topic without poisoning it with swipes and snark.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
... Except when they aren't. Even biology doesn't paint such a simple picture. Chromosomes are important, but not as important as hormones -- and how the body responds to those hormones.
If you're not aware of CAIS, it is probably the clearest way for you to re-evaluate your view that chromosomes are prescriptive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitiv...
Edit - puzzled by the downvotes here. Do you know what chromosomes you have? Have you checked? If you do, there's a nonzero chance that they aren't the chromosomes you're expecting to find.
If you were to test your chromosomes and found they didn't match your expectations, you would either have to change your belief about the prescriptiveness of chromosomes, or your belief about your gender. Which belief would you change? Which belief do you hold more strongly?
If you were responsible for compiling a dictionary, what is the accurate definition of "woman" that you would provide?
“Woman” describes a collection of chromosomal and phenological traits observed within an ongoing and temporal culture lens. A human is often perceived as a woman when she simultaneously embodies a variety of these traits, especially so when those traits contrast that which is considered male.
Much like the concept of feminism, consensus on what is and isn’t in these categories continues to evolve as it’s observed and informed by the experienced of both genders.
I can understand why a definition like this wouldn’t be as satisfying as something more concrete and well, definitive.
If gender is a complete social construct and 'man' and 'woman' are something that is traits observed within an ongoing and temporal culture lens, then why not create another of your own?
Most problems that I see in this debate are due to one group wanting to widen the scope of a existing understanding, the other wanting to preserve it.
Wouldn't creating a 3rd gender and legislating it as a valid legal entity with compelled equal facilities solve the problem for both groups?
This doesn’t come up often but I think cis folks aren’t aware that many trans folk “graduate” out of the community once they feel sufficiently transitioned. After a few years of hormones and surgery, many would just prefer to go on with their life — skipping the debates and games of political football.
Personally speaking, the concept of a third space wouldn’t be so bad, but making gendered spaces less necessary to begin with seems like a more realistic target. Historically, women were chained to their homes because of a lack of public restrooms. Why we didn’t opt for single-stalls and shared facilities is probably more to do with existing building codes and social norms, rather than a natural order of things.
This reply is getting a little too long, but I’d like to pass on the much wiser words of Kate Bornstein:
When you talk about "this Goldilocks zone of womanhood," I think you've rediscovering one of the oldest philosophical discoveries: mental concepts and ideas (in this case "woman") do not apply perfectly to the world of appearences. But this does not mean we can jettison concepts and ideas altogether. In fact they seem necessary. So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category.
And that's what's being asked of us. We are told "trans women are women". What does that mean? It if means "there is a category, women, and in that category there are trans women and biological women," that's fine with me. If it means "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," that seems wrong to me and to the vast majority of people.
I am not sure it is true, and utterly sure it does not matter
Kinda like "Black Lives Matter" - obviously they do, but the fact that you have to say it out loud and directly highlights the disparity and systemic injustices faced by people of color.
At least, that's what I think those things mean, someone with a more sophisticated understanding will probably correct me if I'm wrong.
There is no category of women that is entirely identical, where you couldn't distinguish between them.
Some AFAB women can't give birth. Some of them have more androgynous bodies. Some of them are black. Some of them have different levels of estrogen, or grow up in different social circles that impose different expectations about how they should act, or provide different opportunities.
Nobody is saying that AFAB women don't have different experiences than trans women, any more than anyone is saying that Black women don't have different experiences than white women. Womanhood has always been a broad category, and there has never been a point where you could accurately say that there are no distinctions between the subcategories within womanhood.
If TERFs believe there is a fundamental quality that makes them indistinguishable from every other woman, then they are being absurd. Even if you ignore trans women, that world doesn't exist.
To quote myself:
> When you talk about "this Goldilocks zone of womanhood," I think you've rediscovering one of the oldest philosophical discoveries: mental concepts and ideas (in this case "woman") do not apply perfectly to the world of appearences. But this does not mean we can jettison concepts and ideas altogether. In fact they seem necessary. So the fact that we cannot seem to come up with a perfect criterion for defining "biological woman" does not mean that we can dispense with that category.
So, regardless of whether we can specify criteria by which we can decide whether or not someone is a biological woman, the essential concept of "biological woman" seems to me (and to gender critical feminists) to be indispensible. To me, because it allows us to provide a good (though not perfect) answer to the question "where do babies come from?" and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as central to their political/philosophical project.
In fact, we can use your method of argument to demolish any category or concept. Take death for instance. How do we define death? By what criteria can we say anything is dead? Take life. By what criteria can we say something is alive? In fact we can't answer these questions perfectly and this is well known. But I don't see any use in getting rid of concepts like life and death which seem central to how we all understand the world. Along the same lines, I don't think we can dispense with "biological woman".
And while all of this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me.
Right. But nobody is asking you to dispense of the category of women, what we're doing is we're agreeing with you that the category is fuzzy and we're saying that genitalia and sex assignment at birth do not clearly designate identity.
Nor are we getting rid of the category of cisgender and/or AFAB women. Trans women are not (and have never claimed to be) biologically identical to AFAB women. If trans women were claiming that they were biologically identical to women, then many of them wouldn't be taking estrogen. They are very aware about their biology :)
But acknowledging the fuzziness of women as a category overall means regularly reassessing our social norms about how women are expected to act and what their bodies are expected to look like. This is especially true in instances where we see people who are sharing a lot of experiences with other women.
Many trans women know what it's like to be catcalled. They know what it's like to be discriminated against at their jobs. Their experiences are not identical to everyone else's, in the same way that women's experiences in these areas are not all identical depending on their backgrounds/bodies/environments. But there is enough overlap that it is useful to group them together under the banner of womanhood. Because there isn't a perfect criterion for "woman", and part of feminism is critically examining biases about what hoops people need to jump through to be considered an "acceptable" woman -- regardless of whether those hoops are set up by men, or by other women.
> To me, because it allows us to provide a fairly good answer to the question "where do babies come from?"
Well, except for infertile women, who are fully woman and fully valid regardless of their ability to have children.
> and to gender critical feminists because they view the concept as cental to their political/philosophical project.
I disagree that trans women mean that these political/philosophical goals can't be achieved. To me, this is just gatekeeping, I don't see a real motivating need for this kind of exclusion. Trans women do not have an agenda to take away women's rights, many of these people are feminists themselves.
> And while this may seem "absurd" to you, terms like "AFAB" seems "absurd" to me.
The absurdity is not that you have different opinions about the definition of a woman, the absurdity is your implication that acknowledging the womanhood of trans women is tantamount to saying that their experiences are completely identical to cisgender, AFAB women, or that it's destroying some kind of sacred bond. That position is absurd because cisgender, AFAB women do not have identical experiences with each other.
You wrote:
> If it means "there is no distinction between biological women and trans women," that seems wrong to me and to the vast majority of people.
That would be an absurd thing for anyone to claim about any attribute of womanhood, and nobody is doing so.
In fact we are being asked this. Which is why trans women are competing with biological women in sports. How is that not dispensing with the category of "biological women"?
You don't seem to realize it but your entire argument is based on undermining the category of "biological women" by showing that it isn't "real". You've typed a lot of words attempting to do that.
> I disagree that trans women mean that these political/philosophical goals can't be achieved. To me, this is just gatekeeping, I don't see a real motivating need for this kind of exclusion. Trans women do not have an agenda to take away women's rights, many of these people are feminists themselves.
All categories are "gatekeeping". To say X is X and not Y is "gatekeeping". This is why "gatekeeping" is such a dumb term.
> The absurdity is not that you have different opinions about the definition of a woman, the absurdity is your implication that acknowledging the womanhood of trans women is tantamount to saying that their experiences are completely identical to cisgender, AFAB women, or that it's destroying some kind of sacred bond. That position is absurd because cisgender, AFAB women do not have identical experiences with each other.
I don't define everything by "experiences" so this is all gibberish to me. But, again, we are being asked to deny the distinction between biological women and trans women. This is very explicit. You're choosing to ignore it because it's inconvenient to your argument.
No one, literally no one, is saying that AFAB and cisgender women do not exist.
> your entire argument is based on undermining the category of "biological women" by showing that it isn't "real".
If your criteria for the category of "biological women" is dependent on having a strict bright line distinction between AFAB/cisgender women and everyone else, then yeah, I am trying to get rid of that bright line, because the bright line doesn't exist and has never existed at any point in history, and it's silly and unscientific to say it exists.
However, if your criteria for "biological women" is not dependent on some kind of mythological bright line, then no, I am not trying to undermine anyone or anything. I'll say it again, no one is claiming that AFAB/cisgender women do not exist as a category, and no one is claiming that they do not have unique experiences within that category. No one wants to get rid of the category of cisgender women.
> In fact we are being asked this. Which is why trans women are competing with biological women in sports. How is that not dispensing with the category of "biological women"?
This is too large of a topic to get into right here and would be too long of an aside, but I do not see strong evidence that trans women are destroying the competitiveness of women's sports, I do see strong evidence that the blowback against trans women risks harming AFAB/cisgender women who naturally have unconventional levels of testosterone or unconventional body types. I'm also a little bit thrown by the idea that forcing trans men to play in women's sports is going to somehow be an improvement over what you're worried about.
This harm to non-conforming cisgender women is not only isolated to sports, by the way. A side-effect of transgender bathroom bills is often an increase in harassment towards masculine cisgender women who face harassment when they use bathrooms that match their birth sex. A general increase in acceptance of gender fluidity and gender expression has been (as far as I can tell) largely beneficial to cisgender non-conforming women.
> I don't define everything by "experiences" so this is all gibberish to me. But, again, we are being asked to deny the distinction between biological women and trans women.
Arbitrary distinctions between women are less important than distinctions that affect their experiences and their fight for their rights. So if your position is that women should abandon shared experiences and solidarity over gender rights in favor of arbitrary biological distinctions, then guilty as charged, I am undermining that effort. Because it's an unhelpful effort that ought to be undermined.
However, outside of the TERF world, I do think that most women consider shared experiences and solidarity with other women to be important, and to be a part of their gender identity.
I don't think anyone is asserting that, at least not the way you say. You're sort of responding to a perceived strawman with another strawman.
What gender critical folks are saying is that the more radical arm of trans-activism (particularly the powerful Self-ID movement) looks at biological sex as superfluous and arbitrary, and thus any spaces, programs, or resources that have been reserved for women up to this point must be made available to men if they so much as declare themselves to be female. Any requirements to "commit" to a transition, in terms of time or physical/hormonal adjustment are attacked as transphobic.
And then there's the language policing that the self-ID'ers want to enact, wherein, for example, biological women would be referred to as "menstruators", and transphobic phrases such as "breastfeeding" would be prohibited.
And in fact, breastfeeding itself is under attack in some TRA circles as an inherently anti-trans behavior, because obviously it cannot be part of the "shared experience" of women and transwomen.
I know there's a lot of space in between the extremes for people who truly were "born in the wrong body" as Mermaids says, but I think it's understandable that many honest and well-intentioned folks perceive the more radical TRA stuff as a misogynistic male colonisation of femininity.
> biological women would be referred to as "menstruators"
> transphobic phrases such as "breastfeeding" would be prohibited.
> breastfeeding itself is under attack in some TRA circles
If you say there's a group of people out there who think this way I can't technically prove to you that group doesn't exist, but I have never personally met a trans person who would agree with those statements. At most, I have seen "menstruators" used as a shorthand for "women who menstruate" specifically in conversations about menstruation, which does not seem to me to be a particularly problematic use of the word.
I'll take you at your word that these people exist and are bothering you, and for whatever it's worth you have my permission/support if you ignore them. But I don't think it's accurate or fair to extrapolate from those people to make statements about what trans activists and trans people themselves believe overall. I am not trying to say that the experiences of cisgender woman are superfluous, and including trans women in feminine spaces or being conscientious of their experiences is not an attempt to erase anyone, it's an attempt to be inclusive.
I'm reminded of Hark, A Vagrant's Straw Feminists comic[0]. There's a pretty big difference between what the majority of trans community members are saying -- "Not all women breastfeed" (which is trivially true, even among cisgender groups of women) -- and "Breastfeeding is transphobic", which is nonsensical. While I totally understand why someone might look at straw trans-rights arguments and worry that this means trans people are "erasing" them, it is still important to understand that trans people by and large are not saying those things, it is a mischaracterization of the overall group.
If you let radicals define how you approach every social movements and how you characterize the people involved in that movement, then there are very few social movements that you won't begin to see as problematic, feminism included.
[0]: http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341
How on earth did being black make it on that list?! Wtf
I think it's important in feminist circles to understand that the Black community can be affected by sexism in ways that white women might not experience.
You can say the same about things like income. The sexism that a professional in an office job experiences can occasionally differ in subtle ways from the sexism that a blue-collar worker experiences. Not to say one is better or worse, just the way that inequality manifests is often contextually dependent.
No, but I do understand that the way society treats Black women is often different than the way society treats white women, and I understand that being a white woman does not automatically give someone complete insight into the struggles that Black women face.
The supposed fear that people believe there is some magic change to your chromosomes the second you chose to identify with a gender is patently absurd. There is obviously no real support for such an idea—it is a straw-man that no one reading the phrase "trans women are women" in good faith and taking even a second to look into what trans people are saying would assume was the intent.
Even to the extent that there is a debate to be had about trans identity and how gender/sex works, it's really hard to have that debate when one side is terrified that their rights are being taken away. For trans people, this debate has immediate consequences.
It's kind of frustrating to me that people don't see this. People are mad about not being able to have academic debates about trans identity as if it's unreasonable for the trans community to be prioritizing their own rights instead of the intellectual curiosity of university professors.
2020-2021 has seen one of the largest jumps in anti-trans legislation since... I don't even know when, since before I was born. So yeah, everyone who cares about this issue is on edge about TERFs, because TERFs don't want to have a friendly academic debate, they want to pass legislation blocking affirmative care, policing bathrooms and sports, and generally erasing trans people from society. I'm annoyed when I see people online acting like the trans community is the reason that these topics are politically fraught. They're politically fraught because TERFs and anti-trans politicians are using them as a front to take people's rights away.
If that problem got fixed, if trans people weren't under attack, if a lot of the questioning wasn't tied up in bigotry, then conversations online about gender wouldn't be so tense. It's wild to try and blame the trans community for prioritizing self-preservation.
I cannot help but have some empathy for women -- who might have very good reason to be fearful of men -- who are uncomfortable having this person in female-safe spaces. That is 100% independent of the intentions or actual danger posed by this trans woman I know, which is as close to zero as I can imagine.
With that being said, defying cultural norms is a good thing but you can't force me to accept your reality. I have to option to have a difference in opinion than you. If i accidentally say sir, instead of mrs you can't cancel me because of it.
I don't claim to be a moral precept but what i do offer you A peace treaty. You can live your life in a way that is pleasing to you but you cannot force other people to accept your beliefs no matter how much scientific or cultural backing it may have. if the local womens book club doesn't want a dude who 'Claims' to be a women in their book club but can obviously still see he's a man, that's okay. It's not discrimination, it's difference in opinion and that is okay.
edit: Deleted a paragraph discussing sports. I think it mainly took away from my argument rather than helped it.
Enforced group-think is going to be the death of these universities.
How?
Noam Chomsky of all people (!), and a bunch of other staunchly centre-left luminaries had to take out a full page ad in Harper's to make the point. [2]
How far would an ugly trend have to exhibit itself in order for these fairly respectable and otherwise mild mannered people to not only 1) notice but 2) act and then 3) make a big show out of it in a worldwide signal?
They tried to cancel Stephen Pinker [2] for postulating that the problem of Law Enforcement in the USA is a generally overbearing justice system, not necessarily specific to one race, although conceding that's a problem. For that utterly reasonable statement, they tried to remove his Chair and participation a bunch of groups. He was fine, but 'they came for him' and were he to have been less prominent, 'they' would have won.
It's intellectual cowardice and social bullying by angry people. My belief is that it's not even ideological at the end of the day, rather, it's the petty expression of power by those who've never had it before and who were transgressed themselves at some earlier point in their lives.
[1] https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/506314-jk-...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/us/steven-pinker-harvard....
It's revolutionary 'Reign of Terror' stuff around ostracizing the impure (i.e. Trumpers destroying Romneys, Rubios), not academic disagreement.
all the other games in town are doing the same thing, and if a new one popped up to replace it, who would they get to run it?
I've been working at universities for a couple decades now and have never experienced "enforced group-think".
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/rabble-rouser/201811...
> students and faculty are wary of speaking their minds
If you're worried about disapproval of others, being an academic is the wrong industry for you. If academic freedom and the first amendment aren't enough to protect your speech, you'd really be in trouble working in any other industry.
Now if you're going to claim that in society at large you have to use restraint when talking, and that you'll be attacked by people of all political views, I'd probably agree. That's pretty different from what you wrote.
Easy to see why governments would prefer the public believe the real threat to university research was a handful of students picketing the intentionally provocative...
They also claim that gender is more important than sex. When they, for example, address someone as "Dear Mr. Smith", they must be referring to their sex then. Which means they mean something like:
- "Dear Smith, who has XY chromosomes"
- "Dear Smith, who has a natural grown penis"
- "Dear Smith, who has a penis that works well enough that I consider them a man
- "Dear Smith, who can grow a beard"
- "Dear Smith, whose shoulder width is typical for a human male"
All of these are either bafflingly irrelevant, fucked up or inaccurate. So how exactly is one's sex relevant to anyone except their doctors and partners?
> In February, when Donna Hughes, a professor of women\u2019s studies at Rhode Island University, published an article critical of gender ideology, petitions sprouted calling for her to be fired.
The article, which the Economist didn't bother to link to:
https://4w.pub/fantasy-worlds-on-the-political-right-and-lef...
It's more of a pamphlet filled with lies, sexism and conspiracy theories. I think academic freedom is too important to fire her over this, but I understand the petitions.
> In February Holly Lawford-Smith, a professor of philosophy at the University of Melbourne, launched a website which invited women to describe their experiences of sharing female-only spaces with trans women. It is not a research project and its reports are unverified. Most describe a feeling of discomfort rather than any form of physical assault.
So? I'm sure some women feel uncomfortable around black women. Or lesbians. Someone feeling uncomfortable around people of a given group is a common cause of discrimination and bigotry.
> If Maya Forstater, a British researcher who lost her job because of her gender-critical views
No, Mr. Forstater lost his job not because of his views but because "It is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment".[1]
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50858919
Correct gendering/identification is not something you have to earn. I still write J.K. Rowling's name out like that because it's how she goes by even though I wouldn't waste spit on her in hell.
Because she makes a rational, temperate argument that you do not like, you "wouldn't waste spit on her in hell."
Which of you is the more hateful?
So no. I don't believe the kind words she uses to paper over the harmful misinformation she spreads out of her confirmation shopping cart.
If one person says they feel unsafe, should they be asked to leave instead of the newcomer, with whom the majority are ambivalent?
Basically what I’m getting at is what’s the algebra / game theory of creating safe spaces based on tolerance and intolerance?
everyone is free to act, but still a problem presents itself. what's the more just option for person a according to ethics and morals? that's the core of the conundrum, the right to associate and disassociate impacts other people freedoms, as such is the nature of interpersonal relations; of course individual have their individual freedom, but should A act on C prejudice, or in other word should C demand limits on A freedom (i.e. cancel culture)
mind you, the issue is about C own personal perceived feeling of unsafeness, not on B having done anything against C.
Or to put it more quantitatively: how many words uttered by real transgender people have been published on British media, and how many words of these brutally silenced "gender-criticals"?
You put "debate" in quotes like it's somehow a dirty word, which is shocking and depressing to me. I DO care about what real transgender people have to say, and to be honest, especially on college campuses in the US, it is very easy to see they have a voice and are able to speak there opinion.
I have no idea whether this academic's opinion is one I agree with. Primarily because she wasn't allowed to speak.
The university ground is one of the very few places where real transgender people, along with other socially marginalised groups, are generally allowed to speak, and allowed to speak for themselves. They are particularly visible on campus, precisely because they are effectly not allowed to speak in other places. Such as The Economist and other print media.
And yes, certain "debates" are quite dirty. Debates are not neutral fields of free intellectual inquiry, but potent manifestation of prevailing epistemological injustices. It is shocking and depressing, that certain people must again and again defend their own existence in "debates" premised on a claim to the absurdity of their condition. It is shocking and depressing, that sincere experiences of trans people are not taken, but rather must be put under the forensic lens of "debate" to be constantly challenged and invalidated. These "debates" are dirty constructs, serving as a powerful mechanism of collective gaslighting.
1. https://www.newsweek.com/trans-air-force-officer-trump-ban-1...
2. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/opinion/transgender...
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/trangende...
And your last paragraph about claiming people are debating about forcing certain people to, as you put it, "again and again defend their own existence", is what I find so frustrating, because this is absolutely NOT what is going on in this instance. Yes, there are a tons of examples where this DOES happen, but lumping all honest debate about difficult problems (say, how does one determine if someone is eligible to compete in women's-only sports) as "defending your own existence" is just silencing all views that don't 100% agree with you.
I think it is more similar to race-blind versus race-conscious policies - along with gender-blind versus gernder-concious.
Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics.
I think the answer is in the middle but clearly there has been a move in the last five years to say that gender inherently effects your worldview/characteristics while simultaneously saying that men/women should have equal outcomes in all fields. Its not internally consistent.
This is something I think a lot of people misunderstand about [id]-consciousness. Is it better to assume that you as an individual have biases that align/oppose with overarching biases in our society, or is it better to assume that you alone, or society at large, are bias-free? Can we address inequality by treating everybody the same in this moment and ignoring the historical context they exist in, or do observed biases need to be compensated for in some manner?
This is different than whether the gating on biological sex makes sense.
(Note I don't mean strictly mechanical stuff like peeing your name into the snow, I'm talking about things like teachers "not wasting time on helping girls understand math"[1] - because I suspect that teachers not helping girls with math is probably more causal to fewer women in math than their vaginas.
[1] I've personally heard math teachers say this, and heard stories of others saying it too.)
However, what happens if this is completely eliminated and there are still discrepancies in grades, degrees, income? Many would say then that the subject matter is tilted towards men or women and needs to be reformed. Those who argue that position are arguing for gender conscious policy. Which is definitely not the same as gender neutral policy (which was the most popular 15 years ago when I was in school - but things seem to be shifting towards more conscious policy)
We seem to be finding ourselves lacking the etiquette to deal with this situation. Can you do this in the workplace, yes, with the right people and relationships. Can you treat trans people like this, yes, with the right people and relationships.
If ribbing someone causes them to get offended, you leave them alone or it is just bullying. If they come back at you, it's a game, a fun game that builds relationships with the right people.
This is a key element missing from the discussion. In some contexts being purposefully disrespectful is a good thing.
This also means you need to operate in an environment where it's okay to make a mistake, apologise and move on. You have to be able to read the person's response to attempt any of this. You cannot do that over text, so it can't be used online.
> Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports?
I assume they're dating.
My point in asking about those edge cases is to say that it's not an excuse for the wide-ranging ways we torment trans people as a society.
> > Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports?
> I assume they're dating.
Then the time to rise a stink and become loudly anti-trans is surely when the law starts to mandate[1] you dating them, or at the earliest, when it's starting to look as if the law is about to do so... But not before, right?
[1]: Hnyuk, hnyuk.
Edit: as pointed out below, gender roles are something we've made up, but preferences and behavior themselves (which we're calling gender) are not. Still separate from sex.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money
It's as if there were two concepts, "race" and "grace", and you could be "biologically" white but "identify" as black, or "height" and "gheight", and you could be "factually" 180cm tall but "identify" as 165cm.
(This is why trans-exclusionary feminists exist, because the existence of trans people nullifies their belief that gender is 100% a social construct.)
I have problems on this front though, I'm pan myself and gender seems really insanely trivial to me - I do understand that my experience is not the common one though.
Huh? How does that logically follow? (Hint: It doesn't.)
Feels more like it's the other way around, that the existence of gender dysphoria proves that gender is a social (and psychological?) construct: If gender were always the same as biological sex, there would be no feeling of conflict between them. That some people do feel such a conflict shows that they are not always the same. Therefore they cannot both be purely biologically determined.
Maybe it would be easier for you to grok if you thought of it not as “gender conflicting with itself”, but think of it as — privately rename it to — “sex-gender dysphoria”?
> (This is why trans-exclusionary feminists exist, because the existence of trans people nullifies their belief that gender is 100% a social construct.)
On the contrary, that seems to be exactly what the TERFs don’t believe. They should just come out and admit that “if gender is a social construct, then we’re ‘feminists’ not in terms of female- gendered people but only in terms of people of female sex.” Which, since feminism is about the role of females in society, i.e. very much a social issue, would show them up as pretty damn silly... But that’s their problem.
The last sentence does not logically follow from the other two. Lots of physical/neurological properties are correlated in the vast majority of people (e.g. biological sex/the sex you're attracted to, age/cognitive ability); the fact that they’re occasionally inconsistent in some people has no bearing on whether they’re biologically determined.
By your logic, sexual orientation is also a social construct. Most males are attracted to females, and vice versa. Using your words, “if the sex you’re attracted to were always consistent with biological sex, there would be no feeling of conflict between them. That some people do feel such a conflict shows that they are not always consistent. Therefore they cannot both be purely biologically determined.” How does that logically follow? (Hint: it doesn’t)
> privately rename it to — “sex-gender dysphoria”?
That’s exactly my point: trans people have the body of sex A, but the brain that people with a sex B body typically have. Just as gay people have the body of sex A and the brain wired to be attracted to sex A, which is again something that sex B people typically have.
>They should just come out and admit that “if gender is a social construct, then we’re ‘feminists’ not in terms of female- gendered people but only in terms of people of female sex.”
Feminism is about achieving equality between genders by advocating for women, who have typically been marginalized in society. If gender is 100% a social construct, then there should be zero difference between the brains of men and women, which makes it a lot easier to argue that they should occupy identical roles in society and thus be truly equal. The fact that trans people provide strong evidence that male (gender) and female (gender) brains are fundamentally different scares some people (i.e. TERFs), and their solution is to dismiss trans people rather than realize that different genders can still be treated equally by society even if their brains are wired differently.
> Feminism is about achieving equality between genders by advocating for women, who have typically been marginalized in society.
No, that's my point: For "TERFs", feminism is apparently not about achieving equality between genders, but about achieving equality between sexes.
As for the rest... I'm not up to going through it all in detail, but on the whole it feels like about the same level of misunderstanding.
If gender is distinct from sex, then can you explain the qualifying characteristics of a "gender"?
What is the definition of "woman"? What is the definition of "man"?
Wearing high heels isn't related to being a woman intrinsically, and you don't have to be a woman to wear high heels.
The way I see it, either:
- ‘gender’ is a synonym for ‘sex’
- ‘gender’ is being misused as a synonym ‘gender roles’, which are defined by one’s sex.
If that’s not correct, then what is the actual correct definition of gender?
- man/woman
- male/female
- masculine/feminine
There is a concept of grammatical gender, where words can be masculine or feminine (or neuter in some cases, and there are other systems as well with different words). You don't talk about man words or male words, it's masculine. So, I tend to think of gender as masculine or feminine. That covers most people (although not all: nonbinary, gender fluid, genderqueer, etc. are all real).
I tend to think of sex as male or female. At least for human beings, that covers most people (not all, intersex is a real thing, and there are other unusual but 'natural' configurations as well)
So one way to look at this - which again, is probably not exactly correct, but it's how I think - male/masculine and female/feminine are what we've traditionally thought of as man and woman. But, I think it's pretty clear now that we need to account for the other combinations, i.e. male/feminine and female/masculine. That's where cis- and trans- come in: male/masculine is a cis male, female/masculine is a trans male, both are subsets in the set of all men. Same with women.
We've got nonbinary, genderqueer, etc. as well. I don't really understand the latter, but the former is pretty easy to explain: imagine being told you had to be masculine or feminine, and your response was "No, I don't. I prefer or reject some of each."
Overall, to me, gender is about what you like and how you behave, while sex is more biology (i.e., what's in your pants). It's easier to understand the arguments if you completely separate gender from sex, and don't make assumptions about one based on the other. In fact, I think the assumptions - e.g. gender roles - are the entire problem, and if people would just stop with that, a lot of things would get better.
Sure, “Gender” = “What gender role(s?) a person plays” is one way to put the social definition of gender. (Seems pretty succinct and workable, so you can drop the “misused”.)
Here's where you go wrong, though: Gender, in terms of what gender roles people play, is not always determined purely by biological sex.
There, no need to be confused any more. HTH!
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a feminine man or a masculine woman, people can behave however they wish regardless of biology. But the most feminine man on the planet is still a man and saying so shouldn't turn you into a pariah, it's true after all.
Imagine we came up with 'Gender' like terms for other physical characteristics, it seems to me like the logic quickly breaks down when you think about it-
Gender is to Sex as ____ is to Race as ____ is to Age as ____ is to Height as ____ is to Weight as ____ is to Eye Color etc.
Your analogies don’t apply because, with the exception of age (mental age vs. physical age), there is no mental analog to race, height, eye color, etc.
I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
Why? What specifically makes transrace/race-identity any less valid of a concept than transgender/gender-identity? You say there is no mental analog to race but there's just as much proof of that as there is for gender identity. I've always loved african-american music and culture, I use black slang a lot, I felt like I didn't fit in with my white peers growing up- maybe I identify as black and will designate myself as such on my job/college applications going forward. Who are you to tell me my race-identity isn't valid? Maybe I'm just hardwired that way.
>I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term
Because there aren’t any (or infinitesimally few) people who believe from a very young age that their “race identity” doesn’t match their genetically defined race. Gender dysphoria is rare but not infinitesimally so (~1% of the population), and it usually first emerges in childhood.
> If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term
Sorry, I was a bit sloppy with my language. I should have written “there is nothing grossly physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people.” Colloquially, we don’t generally consider neurology to be physiological, since we don’t yet have the technology to identify subtle differences in neural topology. Doesn’t mean that neurological phenomena aren’t hardwired, and thus “physiological” on a microscopic level we aren’t yet able to detect. As an extreme example, mental retardation is certainly hardwired, even though there’s often nothing grossly physiological (i.e. detectable physical brain abnormalities) that causes it.
I suspect that as science and medicine advance, we will identify the neural wiring patterns that determine one’s sexuality and gender identity (assuming we are allowed to study such things), at which point we can actually point to a definitively physiological determinant of both.
That's exactly the point. If someone's "gender identity" doesn't refer any observable characteristic other than their "gender identity", then the entire concept is circularly defined and therefore meaningless. It's like if I were to say my biological height is 5'7" but my "height identity" is 6'3". What meaning does "height identity" have and why should anyone take a concept like this seriously?
The left and center has decided it is not a joke to call someone who had a penis at birth a her, nobody will laugh at you why are you resisting being courteous?
You're a male that feels like a female, well ok, why do I need to care again?
And if you really feel that your gender is being intruded upon by trans people then i encourage you to find something more meaningful and unique to attach your identity to, because your manhood feeling threatened is not a respectable reason to deny trans people their identity.
I was going to ask you the same!
(Please don't say XY chromosomes, you don't do a genetic test on everyone you meet.)
A her is someone who was born with a vagina.
The very, very few people who don't fit clearly into either of these categories (intersex) are exceptions and can be handled on a case-by-case basis.
They are immutable because their reproductive role is immutable. A her can never impregnate. A him can never gestate.
(Either can choose not to perform their particular ability, or lose the ability to do so, but that doesn't change the meaning of these words.)
If a car is broken down, is it no longer a car?
Does it become an airplane?
As for him gestating I encourage you to read more Sci-Fi.
I have a friend who was named at birth after their absentee parent and really dislikes ever being called by that name. It is important and polite to use names that people personally prefer within reason.
And this is what the debate is really about: authoritarian vs libertarian political attitudes. I’m certainly ready to have that debate, but it would require the “woke left” [0] to abandon the moral high-ground.
[0] There’s surely a better term to use, but I can’t think of it right now.
Yes, I understand. But, much of the opposition you're seeing isn't because people are "against trans people". It's because they're opposed solving the problem of intolerance through authoritarian methods.
The proposed protections for trans people are in response to real acts of violence that are not in line with laws like the 14th Amendment which promotes equality for all people.
And let's remember that these laws to protect trans people are only being proposed. Many laws on the books are against trans people. What you're reacting to is social pressure to treat trans people with respect, not authoritarian legal pressure. If anyone is feeling authoritarian legal pressure it's trans people.
Of course not. I'm perhaps being an asshole, but authoritarianism is a concept applied to policymaking, not manners. It roughly translates to the belief that institutions should have more power over individuals. Calling people the wrong name, no matter how mean-spirited, is expressing no such belief.
The point is that certain things -- bad though they may be -- are not to be legislated. You may disagree with this premise, and you may even be correct, and that would definitionally make you lean towards authoritarianism.
To reiterate, many people -- myself included -- agree with you that it is unkind to call trans people the wrong name. Where you seem to disagree with us is that we find the prospect of things like compelled speech to be terrifying and fundamentally at odds with the principles of liberal government.
In fact, I could just as well retort that you are currently positioning yourself as an authority on becoming a authority, which is just as ludicrous, and just as irrelevant to the question at hand.
Again, this kind of conflation of ideas and Jesuit argumentation is precisely why CRT is opposed by a great many liberals.
When the presumption of ill intent (and not e.g. confusion or ignorance) is automatic, there’s not much left to discuss.
It’s worth remembering that cis children (and adults) are misgendered too, including for reasons as banal as unorthodox appearance or unusual names.
The purpose of these compelled speech laws is to deal with repeated discriminatory or repeated bullying behaviour. Not to give everyone a tool to denounce strangers and get them into trouble with the law .
Do you have any suggestions how what laws freithen you can be adjusted to make you more comfortable with them while allowing for harsher punishments for bullying/discriminatory due to them being a class worth protecting more?
Where we seem to disagree is on the question of whether government, employers or other institutional powers have the power to silence those who don't see it our way. If we do indeed disagree, then by definition you lean towards authoritarian politics. You are willing to go further than I in restricting freedom of expression to defend trans people. You may even be right, but that makes you more authoritarian than me.
Why does this matter? Because it's the actual subject of debate. I want trans people to be treated with respect too, but my political opinion is that authoritarianism is the wrong way to achieve this outcome.
I think you will find that many people who reject identity politics / CRT / etc don't actually hate trans people. They fear authoritarian mobs and the governments they elect.
(Apologies for the multiple stealth-edits. It sometimes takes me a few tries to articulate my thoughts.)
But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means. It's better in the US than it is in the UK, which in turn is much better than Saudi Arabia. The Gender Critical folks want more authoritarianism. They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people.
Not at all, I promise.
If you reread, you'll surely notice the qualifier "seems". I used it precisely because I can't be sure what you actually think, and can therefore only talk about surface-level appearances. Please be assured that I am doing my best to interpret your comments charitably, and assuming the best of your character :)
>But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means.
I believe you are confusing authoritarianism with something else. Authoritarianism is roughly the idea that institutions (government, businesses, etc.) should exert more control over individuals. The presence of inequities don't qualify as authoritarianism on their own, and neither does outright discrimination. To illustrate: discriminating against a group doesn't imply that government should have more control over individuals. It's definitely bad, but it's something else.
I would urge you not to conflate the two, as this is precisely what prevents the majority of liberals from adhering to CRT et al.
>They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people.
I don't know if you're talking about the US, the UK or Saudi Arabia here, but in the US and UK -- two countries in which I have, incidentally, lived for quite some time -- this is not what the majority of CRT-critics want. The majority are attached to liberal values, and are concerned that the confusion of ideas that permeates CRT discourse (of which your earlier conflation is an example) lead its proponents to the conclusion that authoritarian measures are desirable.
Sorry, no. I'm not sure how many "seems" you've inserted since my first reading, but those two sentences are what I characterize as putting assumptions on me. You continue to respond to things I haven't said, so I'll stop trying. Have a nice day.
I can’t shake the feeling that you’re storming off to avoid having an actual conversation. Hopefully I’m wrong about that too.
After I pointed out that your assumptions were wrong (rendering, I don't know how much of, that comment nothingburger), you edited your post a bunch and act like I'm the weirdo for not liking what you've put in my mouth. After hedging a pile of ungenerous assumptions with "seems" (on the basis of a statement we appear to agree upon), you're now having so much trouble refraining from ungenerous assumptions that you continue to voice them behind another hedge. Does this help you understand why I'm not interested in further conversation?
Isn't it the default case that employers can set rules about how employees speak to each other? Do you see anything wrong with an employer saying "you must make a good-faith effort to call people by their preferred name and pronouns"?
I don't care what gender someone calls themselves, and as a nice person I'll try to remember and use it, so long as they don't attempt to get me fired if I get it wrong.
Conflating these two things is precisely why there's a backlash against CRT et al. from otherwise left-leaning individuals.
You're hitting the nail in the head that the problem is with the anti-trans person making a stink about it. That is where the real burden is, and that is who is to blame for the toxic work environment. The bully is the problem, not their target.
Imagine a Mr. Jones who does not agree with the basic premise of gender theory, and believes — say — that transgendered folk are suffering from a mental illness. Mr. Jones has a transgendered colleague with whom he is generally cordial, though not particularly warm. One day, said colleague learns about Mr. Jones opinion, and decides she will assert herself and “call out” Mr. Jones if she is ever offended by his behavior or speech.
One day, Mr. Jones refers passingly to this colleague as ‘he’. For the sake of argument, let us assume this was not meant to be disrespectful, but that this utterance is instead the result of being distracted, and that the colleague has some masculine features. In other words, it was uttered unthinkingly — an honest mistake.
Offended, Mr. Jones’ colleague confronts him publicly and berates him for his behavior. She demands to be called ‘she’, proceeds to shame him on social media, and demands a public apology.
Mr. Jones feels this is an unfair and disproportionate response. Moreover, he now believes her demands to be retaliatory. He firmly but politely refuses. The conflict is referred to HR, and Mr. Jones is ordered to use his colleague’s preferred pronoun. Mr. Jones’ ethics preclude compelled speech. He refuses and is fired.
My questions for you are simple:
1. Do you think it is appropriate that Mr. Jones be fired?
2. Should the law hold him accountable?
3. Should Mr. Jones’ colleague be able to sue her employer if Mr. Jones is not fired?
4. Should she be able to sue Mr. Jones?
The fact that I’ve depicted Mr. Jones as cordial and well-intentioned (despite holding a potentially distasteful opinion) and his colleague as bellicose and vengeful is no accident. This situation will necessarily arise, unless you somehow believe people can’t both be kind and disagree with you on gender-theory.
At any rate, you will find that many (most?) people object to CRT and the likes because they worry that it gives spiteful people the means to dispose of unsavory (though not necessarily bad) people like Mr. Jones. From there, they worry that they might be next. I submit that this should worry all of us, even you.
2. Your simplistic theories about how people ought to be should go out the window when you meet and interact with a real person who is different from you. Think of it as avoiding making a bad impression on someone who has just as valid a reason to be who they are. Yeah, maybe this is new and uncomfortable for you, but that is how meeting anyone is.
But I am talking about honest mistakes. I am worried that people such as yourself are incapable or unwilling to distinguish them from actual bona fide harassment.
>Nobody is putting cisgendered people in jail for a slip of the tongue.
People are already being fired and cancelled for such things. This is precisely why we're having this debate.
Sure. Not for originally misspeaking, but for intentionally harassing her afterwards.
> 2. Should the law hold him accountable?
Of course, just like the above.
> 3. Should Mr. Jones’ colleague be able to sue her employer if Mr. Jones is not fired?
This one's hard to say -- but only in the exact same way all “how responsible is an employer for the actions of an employee?” matters are. Which has nothing to do with whether the employee in your example was in the wrong, because he obviously was.
> 4. Should she be able to sue Mr. Jones?
Of course.
All in all: What a hilariously silly, contrived, and wrong-headed example. How could you not notice, while typing it in, that all it shows is how ludicrously wrong your position is?
The point in this example is that the harasser-harassee relationship is exactly reversed.
It's revealing that you find the act of using the wrong pronoun to be harassment, but public shaming at the workplace and on social media to be acceptable.
I see we fundamentally disagree, which is fine. I do hope, however, that you can see why many of us disagree with you, and don't want your sociological theories enshrined into law.
And I'm sorry to disagree even on this, but no, it is not "fine": What you are disagreeing with aren't any "sociological theories" I am trying to get "enshrined into law", but with logic and reality.
This is precisely why many people — myself included — are terrified at the prospect of laws of company policies that attempt to regulate such speech.
There is? What is it?
In a couple of child comments you agree with some other commenter that it's “very subtle”... I'd argue that of course it is; most non-existent things are. Before rejoicing in your sophisticated ability to detect oh-so-subtle differences, please make sure there is something to detect in the first place. One of the best ways to make sure one has got something right is to explain it to others. So: What difference?
Do you think previously male transgender women should be permitted to enter women's athletic competition?
Do you think it is trans-phobic to say you wouldn't date someone who was transgender?
Do you think misgendering a transgender individual should be a "hatecrime"?
Not the OP, but what a smug reply. This is not mathematics, you are not the professor, and it would be only fair if you started with your own description of said difference, as you see it. You cannot expect that everyone sees it in the same way, can you?
If you honestly believe that respecting a trans person's pronouns is similar to calling them "Your majesty" and bowing to them, then tell me and I will patiently explain to you the lessons you missed as a child in basic human decency.
Do it, go ahead. Just do not avoid the topic anymore by acting as if it were unspeakable.
The point I was making is that giving someone a nickname they don't like is completely different from not calling someone a nickname they prefer.
Regarding nicknames, I do sometimes interact with people that have nicknames that I'm not comfortable with or the thought of using that name for them doesn't seem respectful. For example, I took a two week class that was taught by former astronaut Sherwood "Woody" Spring. His peers all called him Woody but it seemed too personal for the teach-student relationship we were in and I defaulted to calling him Mr. Spring. He didn't mind that. I suspect the majority of people that go by nicknames don't really mind when people call them by their given name or a formal version of their name.
Generally I think nicknames are just a bad analogy for gender, so we shouldn't use the comparison at all.
Please explain it to me because it seems awfully bigoted to perpetuate this myth that trans people are such a burden that we can't possibly treat them like how we treat each other.
You don't have the right to compel speech in other people in any way. You don't even have the right to make people call you by your birth name. Some jurisdictions like NYC have laws against malicious miss-naming by an employer or landlord, but even that only applies if they essentially make it a harassment campaign.
Like, "compel speech"? Really? You were going to use a pronoun anyways. It's just such a simple ask for the sake of politeness but you frame it as "compel speech"? This idea that it's such a burden is obviously contrived.
I assume you will call me by my preferred nickname.
But... I have a name like David Goldsmith - common first name, two common syllable last name. People call me Dave, David, Davy, Goldsmith, and this one Indian coworker of mine always seems to call me Goldsith, which I think is cool because star wars, but also like wtf dude, you're missing the same letter every time.
The point is though, I don't really care what people call me. People call me a dozen different things nowadays. The last time I got bothered about what somebody was calling me, I was 12 and it was "Davy dumbsmith".
This is really the best solution, to the extent possible. On the internet no one knows you're a dog, as the saying goes.
It honestly feels extremely regressive.
(I know a lot of people "come out" as various things in a mere bid for attention... I'll leave that issue aside.)
If I knew someone casually for a while who never talked about his/her sexuality, but one day they said "I never said this before, but I'm a heterosexual", I'd certainly feel awkward about it. Why did he/she say that to me?
To take it further, why phrase it "I am ..." instead of "I have ... desires"? If the latter sounds awkward, why is the former any less awkward?
Also, parents and relative reacting badly on finding out ypu are gay are not exactly unheard of. There are also plenty of accepting parents, sure. But as heterosexual, they already assume you are one and you dont have to guess whether it will be breaker for them or not.
Also, yes it is weird that sexuality and identity are intertwined, but that is not something that is new and it is something that is tied to all sexualities, including heterosexuals.
> To take it further, why phrase it "I am ..." instead of "I have ... desires"? If the latter sounds awkward, why is the former any less awkward?
I wish we could do that too, but if I told that to people now I'm gay and a freak. Society won't care one way or the other, because queerness is political now. You're either with "them" or against "us", and never the two shall meet.
That's just my view on it though. I'm only 1 (one) gay person out of millions, so take my anecdata with a grain of salt.
That is an uncommonly insightful and empathetic characterization.
Though I also approve of the intention of GP to understand the situation from their parents' perspective.
It can also have the effect of making a relationship more close...sharing something intimate with someone can strengthen a friendship (or, obviously, break it in some cases).
All of society is structured around your identity. Like the fish, you can't even see the water because you have always been in it. I'm unlikely to help you see the water, but let me at least try.
If you meet a friend, he might comment he saw a movie with his new girlfriend. He shows you a photo on his phone and you say she's really cute and nice catch. He asks if you want to grab a beer later. You say you have to pick up your wife from the airport later and pick up the kids from their school.
All of this, the girlfriend, the comment she's cute, the wife the kids, they are your life. It is who you are. If someone asks what you are doing later, it's all you have to say, because that's what you do. It is your identity.
I have a partner. We have lived together for 14 years. In order to tell you anything about myself, I have to tell you about him too. It is my life. It is what I do. This is who I am.
Coming out is something you do with each and every new person you meet. I am not rubbing your face in my sexuality. I'm just talking about me. If I tell you I went out for lunch, but avoid telling you with who, that is in the closet. If I tell you it was with my boyfriend, that is out of the closet.
So yup, done hiding here, and not going to start again because some people might be clueless or treat me as less.
Edit: nice, downvotes. Did I make you feel silly for listening to taking points from bigots?
It's distressing the degree to which people want to blame others for their identities while regarding their own as some kind of fundamental default of nature. It's only "identity politics" when it's somebody else's identity.
Edit: to the people down voting my mother-in-law, she is a kind and caring woman!
Many children have been disowned by their parents because they fell in love with someone from the wrong family. There is no shortage of thousand year old stories and plays describing this exact situation. So, the idea that "Like the fish, you can't even see the water because you have always been in it." doesn't really resonate with me. That doesn't mean our society is free from discrimination and unfair treatment, but painting people with a broad brush serves to alienate those who might be your allies, and is ironically the very thing you are advocating against.
To me it's pretty clear the person I was responding to had zero frame of reference to what discrimination feels like, which is why I said so. I really don't know how to get that through to a person with words alone. I think there needs to be a parallel experience to build on.
It's no broad brush to say that a person who thinks sexual orientation has no bearing on identity must be squarely within the favored majority.
I sympathize with you here, I really do: but making such broad assumptions is a bad way to foster real, productive conversations. Identity and queerness are deeply personal topics with all sorts of nuance and interplay between them. I appreciate that you're living your truth, but coming off with this "scorched earth" rhetoric isn't going to win you any fans.
> It's only weird to you because you are almost certainly straight, cis and male. Let me explain.
I don't think that's a fair assessment, and it's certainly not a true generalization. I'm not cis, but I completely understand how weird the concept of "coming out" is. Nobody wants to put you back in the closet, we just want to discuss how much the current paradigm surrounding sexuality sucks.
I agree that "coming out" takes some explanation. You're going to have an easier time explaining it to some people than others. A shared experience certainly helps! Otherwise you're left trying to explain what blue looks like to someone who's never seen it.
Why does the current paradigm suck? There is unprecedented LGBT acceptance, and that does not suck. There are no sucky paradigms around jeans vs. khakis because there isn't a cohort of people who would prefer if khakis were banned in public.
From great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparent post:
> This was ironically one of the things that was hardest about coming out as gay, for me. Nobody ever treated me the same way again. I was either uncomfortably praised or silently judged, with practically no in-between. Suffice to say, my sexuality is on a need-to-know basis, now.
Maybe read it after applying the principle of charity, without assuming the writer is angrily banging on the keyboard, and instead is being thoughtful and trying to teach?
I wasn't thinking as much about normal conversations - "I was at lunch with my boyfriend", etc. It's one thing to say that, it's quite another to make statements to people about what sort of sex you want to have -- that's what I find awkward.
I guess the takeaway is that sex is pretty central to civilization and society, as it's a prerequisite to and determinant of family structure. It really is part of our identity.
Directly coming out to you, when they are comfortable and emotionally prepared for it, is a way to avoid a traumatic reaction during normal conversation.
Beyond that, when you've been forced to repress some part of yourself due to social expectations, it can be a big relief to be able to specifically tell people about that part of you, rather than just letting it come up obliquely during conversation when you happen to refer to a same-sex partner.
That's because the dominant mode of society in _most_ cultures involves a heterosexual identity; it's just so deeply embedded in culture that most people can't tell. For the longest time, it was (and still is in many cultures) socially acceptable for men to ogle women. Why? Because there was a tacit understanding that part of being a man meant being hypersexual, and because all men are attracted to women (in this trope), ogling women is just part of "being a man". This ties a man's behavior and identity with his sexuality.
Because the choice is either to hide important aspects of yourself, or else come out, whether that's explicitly by saying something, or implicitly by your actions.
In my case, if I didn't explicitly come out as nonbinary / trans, the change in my wardrobe and appearance was going to "out" myself regardless. It seemed healthier and emotionally safer to be upfront about it with the people I know.
In your example, a person doesn't have to "come out" as heterosexual, they can just introduce their spouse, or mention who they are dating. Maybe in an ideal world that would be the case for everyone, but it's not today.
> Why did he/she say that to me?
Isn't this just the process of getting to know someone? As you get to know someone, you share more information about yourself. I think it's a pretty normal desire for people you spend time around to understand you, and part of that is understanding the way you relate to other people.
I definitely agree on this point, and what I find fascinating is that in my (albeit very limited) knowledge of French, instead of saying a phrase like "I am hungry", you say "j'ai faim", which has the literal translation of "I have hunger".
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/french-word-for-9a6e76...
"When are you going to find a good girl to marry?"
"Mom, I'm gay".
For example.
This is probably a sign of my advancing age, I'm probably a prude by today's standards, but I simply don't find these subjects for semi-public or even public discussion with strangers.
If I would meet some stranger or some person in a work setting their sexuality would not be on my list of things I would be interested in, either we don't know each other that well or we have at best a working relationship, a job to get done, and to move the subject to sexuality would be - according to me - inappropriate.
As much as we'd like to believe we have no biases, we do. Straight is the societal default. People who are not straight and just want to answer a question about their dinner run the risk of a bad reaction if the person they're talking to just happens to be homophobic.
Someone might prefer to get that reaction in a controlled setting, when they've emotionally prepared themselves for it, not during the course of answering a routine question about dinner. So that's why someone you're just starting to get to know might prefer to specifically tell you that they're gay, rather than waiting for it to just come up as an incidental fact during conversation.
This isn't about them assuming that you specifically care about their sexuality. It's about them being able to determine if you are a person with whom is safe to share details about their life... innocuous details that a straight person would take for granted as being safe to share.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean there isn't any bigotry and associated violence against gays, lesbians, trans people etc. I wished that were true, alas here too we have our share of people who simply won't recognize reality. But I'm fairly sure that the people who are at risk of such violence here have their own ways of ensuring the chances of encountering people who are prone to acting on their bigotry in non-safe settings are reduced to a minimum, it's out in public where the risk is largest, and that increases as you get away from the larger population centers.
The bigger issue in 'coming out' here is to deal with such people in a family setting, that's where bigotry can and still does cause significant hardship.
I often wonder where this misconception originated: why do people think that "cis" is an acronym? What do they think it stands for? It's just a prefix; the antonym of "trans."
(And don't get me started on "Oh-bee-gee-why-en", often capitalised as "OB-GYN" in writing... Sheesh, what an idiotic spelling of "gynecologist"!)
Ideal solution, because the people who don't care also don't care to know. And those who do care definitely don't need to know.
I am of the somewhat progressive-unpopular opinion that some people have an unhealthy interest in how they label themselves and how others perceive them, and in the attempts to be supportive the popular opinion is doing more harm than good. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against anyone with a certain genotype or phenotype having any particular interest in whom they love, how they dress, their hobbies, behaviors, etc. as long as they don’t put hurts on other people. I do have doubts about the amount of “identifying” people do with their preferences though. It can be a subtle point that is hard to make just right without getting pitchforks raised, I’m never sure i’ve done it right.
So their opinions aren't up for discussion. If you disagree with them, they feel offended and personally attacked.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
> The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions.
When two ethical principles are in conflict, one has to take an even harder look at the formal ethics to either choose between the principles or to synthesize a newer, more informed principle.
Typically something like that ends up in the court of law, but academic philosophy and scientific ethics researchers often contribute meaningful avenues of avoiding the need for the application of justice to redress harms by providing legislatures with more clear ethical principles upon which to build their legal frameworks for justice.
To be sure, I think people's opinions about things (and any sense of identity they have in those opinions) are sacred and inviolate as far as social structure and society are concerned. It's morally and civilly wrong to treat people badly on the basis of their opinions.
I was just pointing out how some people take it so far that one can't even have a thoughtful discussion with them in which one is taking up a contrary position without them feeling offended (and perhaps even angry/combative). Some people even try to shut down contrarians. To such people I'd say: calm down and discuss your point of view civilly. The truth is strong enough to stand on its own without your non-discursive help.
Similar to how the Capitol Riots could be construed as a social engineering failure of conservative political forces.
Suddenly we've got people so incapable of existing in an environment where there is gasp some disagreement, that folks go around saying that not being supportive of somebody's opinions and preferences is a violation of human rights.
That isn't explicitly what you are saying, but you are also very much not leaving room for that.
People have largely lost the ability to disagree, and to differentiate between somebody who disagrees with them and somebody who thinks their opinions and preferences shouldn't exist... and at the same time we have lots of people all over the spectrum who really do think only their way of thinking is acceptable and nobody who thinks differently should exist.
It is unacceptable and more pointedly, unsustainable from all sides. You can't have a society survive where people only think one way of thinking can survive.
> Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law
That could very likely be a result of the traumatic oppression that much of the world subsists within.
I've noticed this too, it's not only gender ideology but racial ideology and more. Seems to be form of ideological "pilot-induced oscillation"[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-induced_oscillation
"[Pilot-induced oscillation] occurs when the pilot of an aircraft inadvertently commands an often increasing series of corrections in opposite directions, each an attempt to cover the aircraft's reaction to the previous input with an over correction in the opposite direction" (in this case the "pilot" is "society")
In the beginning the radical idea is a basic kind of equality where some kind of person shouldn't be disadvantaged for some characteristic.
There is then a growth phase where many people join and small specific victories turn into general victories.
There is then a shrinking phase where people leave the movement or lose zeal as general victories are had.
The movement keeps much of its ideology capital and with the more moderate people losing interest, the median ideology moves towards special privileges for hyper-specific characteristics defended by a very real "the problem still exists".
The end stage is a movement that tries to conflate its extreme views as being equally as beyond question and equally morally right as the views during the growth phase, and you get conflict when people have a hard time sorting out the complexities of which is right and which is too far... and you get the backlash where the basic right is threatened by the connection with the extreme views... and so it goes.
The 21st century is the century of complexity, the basic problems are often solved and the complex ones need more nuance than the basic ones took... and the struggle is getting this point across that things aren't as simple as they were before.
While in tech i’ve been gently exploring the idea of freaking out my thoughts into something publishable.
Sometimes HN is an exercise in attempting to communicate how i think and getting feedback.
At least when it comes to America - there are some very deeply entrenched societal issues that we'd need to resolve to achieve anything near equality including generations of depriving wealth accumulation in communities (i.e. Native Americans).
Is it really fair to say we've come nowhere since the 70s?
Nonetheless, sophisticated social engineering attempts or clandestine social research are certainly within the realm of discovering by a quick search of the news.
There is, for example, a fairly famous author (Ayaan Hirsi Ali), who is a Somali ex-Muslim, and she says she was having really hard time from the Dutch left when she lived there. Her ideas simply did not fit the preconceived concept of an African immigrant.
* self labeling
* others labeling you
* how others are labeled
any of the three can become unhealthy when overdone, and different people have different amounts of interest in the three. They each have a set of problems associated with them.
I wouldn't go out of my way to say any one in particular is more of an issue. (i.e. they're all issues in different ways)
How does this story go if they hadn't been obsessed with their identity as Muslims or if they had gone to the local mosque to ask about Islam instead of seeking out radical Muslims online?
Lots of them just "work" of doing nothing but protesting, so once they get something they wanted, they have to move to the next thing.
For example, they start by making changes to the language so, instead of being "los" (male) or "las" (female) they started to say "les" (does not exists in spanish) as they say it is more inclusive (nor male nor female).
But it is not that they say "los", "las", and "les", they want you to say "les". So first it was an "innocent" thing, and now they are trying to pass laws and indoctrinate everyone, included kids from any age, 6 years old or less.
For example, thief's use their own words and it is not considered part of Spanish for example.
They started with gender ideology and then started to escalate. And it is not more inclusive if you force me to leave my believes. If you want to be called "les", and you ask nice, I will probably have no problem. Now, if you want me to embrace that "les" is more inclusive because you just say so and you force me to do it, is not part of Spanish.
A similar thing happened with abortion. First they started saying it has to be legal, then that it had to be free, and then that if you are a doctor and you don't agree with abortion you have to do it anyway (they force you to do it by law).
Tried to guess which country you were referring to but couldn't find concrete info after a bit of googling.
I don't think the comparison between using more inclusive language to refer to people, and you being forced to abandon your beliefs, makes much sense. Putting aside potential issues with beliefs and their effect on a person's treatment of those around them, no one is forcing you to stop believing whatever it is you believe.
Potentially limited may be how you treat or talk to people, but that is a separate limit than what you are allowed to believe, since once it becomes words or actions, now it's not just in your head but out in reality and potentially affecting others.
MY MISTAKE: apparently the law does allow a doctor to say no for his believes. I cannot edit the previous post.
Again, so this people today say that you have to say "les", what prevents me from saying I am not filling included, I want everybody to start saying "lus" or "chimichangas" for that matter? The problem for me is that they force you to behave however they want you to behave.
There are plenty of other words (including adjectives) that you can use as honorifics - you've got Little John (and Lil Jon), Short Bob and Tall Bob.
I think it's fair to move away from Mr. and Mrs. being as prominent as they are.
One of the two nouns is an appositive, but it's never been too clear to me which is which in English grammar. In my native tongue it definitely doesn't seem to be the case that Mr. modifies Smith, as our equivalent to Mr. is a common noun that is used to refer to any male human.
There is a real gap in the archaic forms of Romance languages when it comes to the level of gender sophistication that was in the even more archaic Latin.
Modern languages are evolving rapidly and it is entirely within the realm of reasonableness to expect that humanity will tend towards meta-evolving it’s own languages.
But I am not well read in linguistics and suspect that Noam Chomsky has already written a book on this topic.
No, s/he doesn't because is talking nonsense: conscientious objectors rights/persons are protected in Argentina by its Constitution and plenty of case law.
Re: Abortion: Doctors can (and have) very much deny to perform or "facilitate" abortions on moral or religious grounds but by law ("Ley del Aborto") they also have the legal obligation to refer the woman/patient WITHOUT delay of any kind to another doctor or another hospital (mostly public ones) to have the procedure.
Just no need to be smartass about "nonsense". I read it somewhere and I don't follow all the news all the time.
Anyone can, of course, use any weird construction they want, it is just not correct Czech.
But he post of the other member was about that languages naturally evolve, which is true, but this is forced and unatural.
How is this different than any other term that was coined?
> didn't catch, they then moved to "todxs", didn't catch, then they said "todes", and because people don't naturally use it. They even use it wrongly all the time
This sounds like natural evolution to me. People try different terms until one sticks.
> But more importantly, unnatural because if you have to impose it and call me names for not using it, you are doing it wrong.
Why? You're calling their use of language "wrong". Can't they do the same?
This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages.
> This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages.
Counterexample: The German Rechtschreibreform of 1996 was mainly retracted after a decade of popular resistance. Seems even languages that are ostensibly “regulated by a central authority” in the end follow the will of those who use the language.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1...
I meant counterexample in the sense of "language that does at least ostensibly have a central authority (the Duden) still in the end having to bow to the will of the language-using public". English isn't a counterexample of that, since it doesn't even remotely claim to be governed by any central authority.
> ...languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant
"Primarily" is not the same as "only". You haven't heard a word I've said, have you? And yet here we are, talking to each other...
Trying to indoctrinate kids to use a non-gender specific term? It seems like using the term indoctrinate seems a tad strong.
In general they are "militants" of the Peronist party.
There are videos and books for kids that shows Peron, Evita, and more recently our current Vice President as heroes and such.
https://i.imgur.com/zgVUcjS.jpg There it literally says: Peron is the leader, everybody loves Peron, everybody sings long live Peron!, long live the leader! hurrah!
https://i.imgur.com/gkqespa.jpg This one is about Evita, Peron's wife: Evita loves the kids. The boys and girls love Eva. Long live Evita! Hurrah! Hurrah!
This two are pages of books for kids of elementary school from 60 something years ago.
However, you can still see in school:
https://i.imgur.com/MJuFrQx.jpg This one shows Cristina Kirchner, our current VP, in a book that tries to "leftiside" the kids.
https://i.imgur.com/YIgEDja.jpg that is the results, kids with the "La Campora" a militant group from peronism.
https://i.imgur.com/Ei2VWG0.jpg And there again.
It is what has brought Argentina to is knees.
You seem to accuse them of having an agenda, as if this is a bad thing on its own, but it's clear you too have an agenda of your own. But while theirs, misguided or not, is based on acceptance, what's yours based on?
By proxy, I might advocate that income inequality is too high, and that some form of wealth redistribution should be considered. You might say that, therefore, I ought to donate my entire salary to charities. Someone might do that, as a radical stand against capitalism, and I would support that. However, I would also support someone that is trying to seek better wages under the current system, even if they do support wealth redistribution on the wider political scale--in context, it's understandable.
Translating that back to the original space, it seems that you advocate that someone that might today identify as a trans woman might instead identify as a man (or person) with phenotypically female presentation, due to medical treatment, and with a significant number of traditionally feminine attributes, as 'personal characteristics shouldn't matter'. This would place them in the vanguard of challenging gender dynamics. I think that's admirable of people that choose to do that. I understand that many other trans folk want to challenge the status quo less severely, and identifying as their gender allows them increased safety, sanity, and happiness within the confines of the current world.
Yep, and the problem is that this is obviously a principal that is not going to be impartially implied, but instead that deference towards personal identity is going to be parceled out based on tribal lines - look how common it is for many on the left to argue that black conservatives are "not really black" (or maybe they're black, but not Black?)
The battle for trans rights is intertwined much more tightly with a battle for control of language - extending to affirmative demands that others deeply change their normal language to avoid giving unintentional offense - than any other civil rights push I can think of, and I wonder if this will become more commonplace in the future.
You're certainly right that this is an inflammatory topic with strong political and ideological overlap, and as the guidelines explain, we don't want flamewar here, and we don't want ideological or political battle. The site exists for intellectual curiosity, and those things aren't compatible. There's a great deal of established moderation practice around this, if anyone wants to read past explanations:
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
That doesn't automatically make a story like this off topic for HN. It depends on whether there's enough new information in a story to support a substantive discussion. In this case, the topic is not just "gender ideology", it's ongoing developments at universities and in the discourse at large. All of these are significant and interesting phenomena. For that reason I turned the flags off on this submission. That's also established moderation practice (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). It requires a judgment call, of course, and we don't always make the right calls—but not making any would be an even worse call.
Of course it's commenters' responsibility to stick to the side guidelines if posting in such a thread. That means curious, thoughtful conversation and respect toward other commenters (and other people generally). Flamewar, flamebait, snark, name-calling, personal attacks and so on are not ok. People sometimes think that just because a topic is inflammatory it means they get carte blanche to spew what they will (e.g. "if you don't want me to post like this then you shouldn't allow this thread in the first place"). I call that argument "the topic made me do it", and not only is it false, the opposite is true: commenters here are under a greater obligation in cases like this, as the site guidelines make clear: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
I think that's the problem with a topic like this on HN. There will be little learning going on, with many statements made with certainty by individuals that have never studied any of these concepts in any detail. The level of dismissal in the comments is itself a reason to pull the plug.
I've written extensively about this: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... Some good threads to start with might be https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902490.
If anyone has a question that hasn't been answered there, I'd like to know what it is, and if you know a better way for HN to relate to political topics while fulfilling its mandate of curiosity, I'd really like to know what it is. Just please familiarize yourself with the past material first, because if it's something simple like "just ban politics" or "just allow everything", I've answered many times already why it won't work.
This has advantages and disadvantages, as with all such design choices, but it's good to be conscious of what one's design actually is, since otherwise one might end up fucking with the DNA, which doesn't seem like a great idea.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=silo%20by%3Adang&dateRange=all...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098
This is the first time I've "heard" you curse.
I don't know, it was just a little jarring. Not in a bad way. Just... different, I guess. Well done.
I was going to link you to https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... but it looks like most of those are quoting other people.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=4&prefix=true&que...
Understandable.
That said, HN is the watering hole for people with multiple political approaches on a fairly wide spectrum.
I think debate between these people is best facilitated by prompts and articles which raise multiple nuanced questions. And I think we do have useful debates at this point.
What isn't useful is something like an overt manifesto for one or another "side" on this political spectrum. And HN generally avoids such things.
But there's a kind of article, like this one imo, that is more or less a manifesto - an article that stake out a position and only give apparent gestures at balance. These have the same low-quality potential as manifestos. In important questions, it's unfortunate have a lot of uninformed posts even when they aren't flame bait.
In the case of the present article, I don't think readers of the article will come away with any greater understanding of "Gender Theory" and what gives rise to it and so it's not really a generator of good quality discussion even when people are not shouting at each.
Edit: Another thing I should add is that in the case of article that are effectively manifestos, upvotes and downvotes are going to gravitate to being just around the popularity of various positions and that too lowers the quality of discussion.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
n.b. "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
I'm pretty close to no longer visiting here.
There was a great deal of Trump discussion here, too. Such perceptions are prone to sample bias.
Supporting evidence: I've gotta keep tabs on which places I shouldn't travel to in my own country where I was born and raised because people keep trying to make it illegal to use the bathroom safely [1] after getting scared by conversations such as the ones I've seen in this thread.
[1] - https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/-bathroom-bill-legis...
I know that was a bit off-topic but I guess what I’m trying to say is, it’s okay to create distance between you and the things that bring you down. I’ve found so much interesting content through Hacker News and it would be a shame to throw that away just because the politics here don’t always align with my own.
Nigger are you retarded
There are, of course, some pretty reptitive comment threads, but you can collapse those and generally find more interesting discussion somewhere (don't forget there are often multiple pages of comments.)
Fwiw, current college student. My school isn't particularly "woke" beyond having a LGBT support center, but that strikes me as common decency rather than wokeness.
People like me are very much liberal, left leaning, and dislike fascism. But as of now, it feels like freedom of speech is more of "freedom to speak about only certain things." Simply because so many people are kowtowing to these zealots. Of course you're going to get more vocal people opposed to this line of thinking. It's the exact same thing left leaning people like myself got away from in our psychotic religious upbringings. Only for us to see the exact same thing on the left, but with even more drastic and unfair measures.
And on two occassions, it seemed as if somebody was so vindictive as to visit my comment history and downvote tens of older comments from threads that were a few days old. At least I cannot explain the unexpected loss of precisely 1 karma point from multiple comments in multiple threads at once.
I wonder how such people look into the mirror without feeling even a slight pang of doubt about themselves.
Either way, I've been finding a lot of what's being said here today as interesting and mentally engaging on some level.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Yes, gender ideology is pretty political (should it be?). But learning about it can obviously gratify one's intellectual curiosity if they're approaching it in good faith. So I don't think you're necessarily able to just make a blanket statement like "this isn't appropriate."
As for having much to lose, if you feel alienated by a good faith intellectual discussion -- regardless of topic -- that's your problem. This sort of thing is discussed daily in liberal arts programs across the US and in most of the world. You have to be able to discuss and learn about topics, even divisive ones, without losing your shit.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: And it looks like in the period of time it took me to type this half a dozen other people said the same thing.
I just really want people in this thread to learn about emotional labor and to consider what they’re asking of marginalized people when they want to “discuss” the validity of their needs.
I'm a trans individual. I celebrate this and all the healing and personal growth that's come from coming to terms with this fact and so does mostly everyone I've ever been close with, and I live far outside the 'liberal bubble' of SV/etc. I am comfortable with having discussions and educating, but merely existing and advocating for one's own safety and happiness seems to be enough to start debates, even here. I don't want to have a 'culture war' or participate in a 'gender agenda', but as an adult human who wishes (i'd argue that it's somewhat of an obligation) to have an active role in civil society I must also advocate for myself and people like me.
I urge people to listen more if they haven't been through it themselves. I know there's a lot of information out there about trans individuals that has inspired a lot of confusion and concern. It can be a confusing topic! Trans people tend to know a lot about it by necessity but seem to be listened to the least when the topic comes up. I personally think there's more intellectual curiosity to be had in the meta-conversation around why this discourse is the way it is given the fact that we have plenty of testimony, data and research to indicate the talking points being wheeled into the discussion are mostly facile and misconstrued to stoke fears, much like we did already over homosexuality?
When I entered this discussion, the top comment on the article was talking about how trans people freak out when you just bring up the issue of one trans women in sports and try to “have a discussion”.
And it’s just like… I cannot leave that as the top comment and not say something. I mean, I could leave it, but I have to decide which is more upsetting - saying nothing or trying to engage and being shot down. We deserve better than that as the top comment on a thread about us.
Really glad dang stepped in and remoderated some comments.
To which I can only respond: "so?".
There are a decent number of folks in my circles who are gender-nonconforming. I'll bet, sans decades-plus of social pressure, there are more in your kids' classes. What's the problem with asking? And why does asking make you characterize the effect upon higher education as "big"?
How is it "bigger" than a prof or a TA asking if I want to be called Edward, Ed, or Ted?
Why are there so many gatekeeping people around that want to prevent discussions on topics that they aren't interested in?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So the next time one of my co-workers suggests we should do more to be inclusive when our software asks a user if they are male/female, I should tell them that gender has nothing to do with software development?
Trans people are a tiny minority that is only now coming into the public consciousness. We're going to have to work through a lot of ignorant discussions and bad faith actors to get to a healthier place.
The trend in universities fighting for free speech and free inquiry is welcome and necessary. I have been concerned that things were going in the other direction when I saw the phrase "academic transphobia" appear, which was being used to de-platform certain people or stop certain research (see https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stonewall-and-the-silenc... or https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/university-of-melbourne...). Apart from the linked Economist article, another related recent positive news is that Open University launched a "Gender Critical Academic Research Network" (https://thecritic.co.uk/the-new-network-for-gender-critical-...).
PS: if you support free speech in academia, check out FIRE (https://www.thefire.org/). Since the ACLU is less focused on free speech issues these days (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-disinte...), FIRE has become the new defender of basic civil liberties.
It’s a real struggle, and by belittling or ignoring it we can only make it worse. It’s time to listen, respect and embrace.
In this society, there is no gender inequality. Ian's own "A Few Notes on the Culture" essay http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm states it best:
A society in which it is so easy to change sex will rapidly find out if it is treating one gender better than the other; within the population, over time, there will gradually be greater and greater numbers of the sex it is more rewarding to be, and so pressure for change - within society rather than the individuals - will presumably therefore build up until some form of sexual equality and hence numerical parity is established.
Until our science invents this, this is a great thought experiment to conduct.
If we ever get to the point of this level of technology, then the notion of 'gender' would be completely arcane.
People would be 'growing' wings, tails, horns, extra limbs, extra large brains, fur, hoofs, cross breeding with animals, creating new species in petrie dishes.
The 'regular humans' in that culture would be viewed like we view Amish people or Mennonites.
That point being, that you can actually change your presentation of gender with relative ease. Norah Vincent did it (dressed as and pretended to be a man) for a year and wrote the book Self Made Man about her experience. The fact that the majority of people never change their presentation of gender and those who do change their presentation tend to feel strongly about it, says that there's more complexity to the choice of how to dress or style your hair than an economic cost/benefit analysis. The fact is, people want to be their gender even while claiming that their gender is treated poorly, and in the case of trans people, choosing to present in a way that is obviously treated poorly. If the hypothesis that people will gravitate to the gender presentation which is treated most positively were true, few people would choose to be the gender that gets spit on in the grocery store (happened to a trans friend of mine).
As much as I would like it to be different, I wouldn't trust the human race with this capability.
Will definitely read, thanks.
We need, on social media, to learn how to deal more effectively with excessively loud, but not very numerous, activists. As some previous articles noted, trolling gets more clicks than facts. This empowers extremists, from Q-Anon on to trans activists.
This would mean throwing out a lot of the more epheremeral complaints "I feel unsafe if there is a man in the bathroom." Why? Let's fix that part, then. Because there are going to be scary women too.
I don't know. I don't have a really good answer I feel comfortable with. I do think a significant part of the problem, however, is not ideological, it is technological. It's way, way too easy to pile on with very little effort.
Do you recognize that there are actual reasons that a woman might not want to go into a bathroom with 5 men in it?
To build gender-specific bathrooms because of that generalization of men is hypocritical of the entire gender discrimination movement. Reverse discrimination.
:)
It's easier to see if you replace "men" (currently a non-favoured demographic) by e.g. "black" (currently a favoured demographic).
> Do you recognize that there are actual reasons that a white person might not want to go into a bathroom with 5 black people in it?
Rape was a legitimate tactic for females to pass their genes along too, because if your male kid inherits rapist tendencies he’s more likely to procreate. So female brains really evolved in such a way that they want to be raped, and that’s why seductive clothing and rape kinks exist.
The point being: evolutionary biology is great for rationalizing just about any theory and therefore isn’t really a solid foundation for making conclusions about large swathes of the population.
Putting forward an argument like this doesn’t add much except for more male self hate. I don’t think you should have no problem “admitting” this.
Any way, every step we take towards admitting the biological differences that exist between men and women, is a step towards a more healthy society. Getting so angry over this is unhealthy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion_among_animals
> admitting the biological differences that exist between men and women, is a step towards a more healthy society.
Asserting to 50% of the population that they are, by nature, literal rapists, when the vast majority will never commit anything even close to such a crime, is not a sign of a healthy society.
That’s not the assertion here at all. The assertion is that men are more likely to commit rape, and that women have a _valid_ fear of this happening because of purely biological phenomena.
Calling a man a rapist, and telling him he is more likely to commit rape than a female is, are two completely different things. The healthy society I was referring to does not find anyone guilty of a crime they never committed, but acknowledges the fact that certain crimes are committed more often because of biological reasons.
Why not? You never argued this before.
> "Men are more likely rapists than women are" is simply a statistical fact that you are going have to come to terms with.
If you can't be bothered to explain the above, maybe you want to tell me instead: did you oppose the firing of James Damore due to his memo in which he argued "statistical facts that people are going have to come to terms with"?
They are assholes of course, but that shit is pretty common. I would even claim that anyone that says otherwise probably never did more than 4 pub rounds. Or went to a public school.
Men are more violent than women by 2 orders of magnitude. And, unlike your example, there is no doubt its physiological in nature
We have testicles and therefore are frothing with testosterone. And it's not unique to humans; farmers castrate bulls to make them docile in an ox team.
Natives are more violent than Asians by a full order of magnitude, too. Should Asians demand separate restrooms from Natives?
> And, unlike your example, there is no doubt its physiological in nature
No doubt all of it is physiological? Because... testosterone?
While, if data points towards some race being more violent, then it’s a mere “I don’t think so”?
I think such a big claim needs a better explanation.
Five drunk guys at the urinal? Heck, there's reason enough to avoid that just because they're liable to piss all over your shoes.
The reason we humans can get through life is by discriminating, in the sense of distinguishing, classes of people. This is NOT prejudice but is sensible. After all, there is a difference between discrimination and prejudice.
Please consider this: "Honey, stay here. Don't play with those 5 men at the end of the block." Are all strangers bad? Are all men bad? Are older people bad? Are all people at the end of the block bad? No, of course not. But, we need to remain sensible to circumstances and sensitive to people's situations.
I'm male. My relationships with women improved dramatically once I realised just how safety-conscious women need to be on a regular basis, at a level that men don't experience at all.
But sure, men are the real victims.
You realize having a woman's bathroom was a thing many early feminist groups fought for right?
There was a brief moment a few years ago when the government here (limey Britian) said people would be allowed to pick their gender without involving doctors/bureaucrats. I liked the idea, it's equality on steroids. Long queue for the ladies? Identify as a man for 5 minutes! Accidently go to the gym at 7 on a Wednesday? Be a girl for 90 minutes so you can work out!
Link for when the policy was dropped
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/22/uk-governmen...
I like this.
I’ve already identified to my employer that I’m partially Black even though, to the best of my knowledge, I’m not.
They can’t deny it and it only benefits them (they can increase their ratios of minority employers which is public data).
I can choose to identify as black if I like.
What is the benefit for you? Is it trolling?
I generally answer the ethnicity question randomly. This is because:
* I don't like be lumped into "white British"
* the whole question is rude imho (why does the gym need to know my race and sexuality!?)
* services I use shouldn't shouldn't lose "points" because of my colour/religion/sexuality/shoe-size
Quite a lot of people on Earth believe in reincarnation and would find such a situation entirely possible. The question is, is a Western country obliged to respect a religious argument like this?
Maybe yes. After all, race is said to be a social construct. Why not add reincarnation into the mix.
E.g.:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Economic_Empowerment
But I hate identifying so at work because I don't want to be "the gay guy". I don't want to be promoted early to boost the company stats. I don't want people thinking I was promoted for that reason either.
I don't know why anyone would want those things. I'm gay, but I'm here because I'm good at my job and I work hard. I'm taking your bonus, but not using my genitals, using my impressive mathematical skills!
I am very happy to just be dumped into the same pool as everyone else (metaphorically and for swimming)
/rant
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Because men (biological males if we're being pedantic) are statistically overwhelmingly more likely to commit rape and other forms of sexual assault (and other violent crimes) and to be horny creepy perverted sex pests in general. Add to that the fact that men are much more physically strong than women (a ~5th percentile male is about as strong as a ~95th percentile female) and the options a woman has to defend themselves against such a creep are severely limited.
But if you insist on creating a New Soviet Woman that isn't afraid of men, be my guest. Just do it far away from me in a different country, please.
For example, what if people in certain socioeconomic groups are more likely to commit rape? Or people of certain ethnicities?
Would it make sense to require them to use separate bathrooms? Or is it only ok to slice and dice the stats based on certain characteristics? To me it's kind of a scary idea— just because a certain demographic is more likely to commit a crime doesn't mean we should make life difficult for all members of that demographic. Even if their facilities are, in theory, separate but equal.
On average females take twice as long males in the bathroom. Sometimes some events have a disproportionate ratio of male/females. Both are evidence that having the same number of stalls for each of the two genders is wrong - even before talk about more than two genders.
Because if you're not saying that, I don't see how this is a counter argument.
[1] https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion_among_animals
Did you just say that if statistics show that black Americans commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than whites, controlling for income, you would be in favor of racially segregated restrooms?
I personally find the idea of segregated restrooms to be incredibly offensive, no matter what the cause of this graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_Homicide_Offending_Ra...
Looks like the homicide offender rate for blacks is 5X-8X for whites, depending on year. It isn't broken down by income but from my cursory knowledge of the statistics, that's not going to make the effect go away.
We could explore the root causes of this but I really don't think they matter. Segregated restrooms have no place in a civilized society, full stop.
As an aside, there are also plenty of species where females eat the males after mating. The problem with evolutionary arguments is that there's plenty of examples to choose from to advance any claim you'd like to make. We aren't those species.
> It isn't broken down by income but from my cursory knowledge of the statistics, that's not going to make the effect go away.
That is a huge assumption to make. In every study ever done on the matter, there are huge correlations between crime and income. Massive. Enough to explain the chart you showed. I really don’t want this to become footnote fight over statistics, but crime is definitely correlated with income, and black people make much less money on average in the US.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Do you think you could agree with that?