why I’m transphobic critical
**Post update 2nd April 2017. Since this was published, the original post it critiqued by The Arbourist has been changed. His title has changed from “Why I am tran critical” to “Why I am gender critical”. The post content also appears altered although I can’t be sure. I invite Arb to explain in the comments below.**
these tweets by transactivists are the embodiment of male entitlement mixed with the inherent narcissism of identity politics (IP being the polar opposite of effective Feminism) (The Arbourist)
The Arbourist provides a lesson for all of us on the harm of setting up a class of people as ‘the enemy’ and using the internet to trawl for ‘proof’ they are ‘bad’. I should know, I’ve done it often enough myself.
If there is any group of people we instinctively don’t like – maybe because someone who shares their characteristics has harmed us, maybe because we’ve read a few stories we don’t like about them, or maybe because we immerse ourselves in hate-filled information about them – it’s easy to seek out more incriminating titbits to feed our confirmation bias.
Being an atheist and a feminist, I’ve done my fair share of posts criticising Christianity and also the current sexist structures in society – and in doing so I have more than frequently crossed the lines into criticising Christians as a group, and men as a group. And I’m going to hold my hands up and acknowledge this is wrong. We don’t do anyone any favours by painting whole groups of people with any shared characteristics as ‘evil’ or the ‘the enemy’.
So, when it comes to Arb and his other transphobic buddies’ deeply hateful posts about members of the trans community, I’m shocked on several levels:
- there’s always the implication that any words and actions of certain individuals they manage to scrape up represent everyone who falls under the label ‘trans’.
- there’s always the implication that anyone who identifies themselves as trans is wrong about themselves.
- there’s always the implication that identifying as trans is harmful for feminism and society as a whole.
- there’s always a deep, abiding and disturbing sense of hate underpinning every keystroke.
- there is never a sense of acknowledgment that trans people in general are a part of a group of people who have traditionally suffered immensely on the margins of society, and who still face huge levels of discrimination and hate crimes.
For all these reasons, and many more, I’m deeply critical of transphobic rhetoric.
I’d nevertheless like to thank Arb for making it painfully obvious to me where I share these irrational tendencies. I hope I can learn a lesson from his disturbingly discriminatory posts, and never again tar all Christians, men or any other group of people with the same wayward brush.
My own observations of transactivism and radical feminism are that the relationship between the two is distinctly uneasy. To be trans in today’s world is to be vulnerable to the angry narrative of the MGTOW, the radical feminist, and the conservative Christian Right – three groups which often don’t agree, yet manage to come together to offer up harsh condemnation of transgender individuals. It’s a complicated mess.
Do you think it’s radical feminism as a whole? My understanding is that its a fringe, yet vocal, group of radical feminism. I consider myself a radical feminist, yet I can’t understand this hatred, or agree with the theory base of the hatred, in the slightest.
It’s an interesting observation though about these three groups common together in a condemnation pact. Should give each pause for thought, wouldn’t you think? Unless harsh condemnation of marginalised groups is something you enjoy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t necessarily say it’s reflective of radical feminism as a whole, as I try to avoid sweeping statements, so apologies if my comment came across as such. It is generally radical feminists that take an anti-trans approach though (or to put it another way, I haven’t seen this position on display from liberal feminists).
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE GOT IT ALL MESSED UP. ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION BEFORE YOU EVEN BEGIN YOUR ANALYSIS; WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF MORALITY, AND SEXUALITY? WHO DETERMINES WHAT IS AND WHO IS WHAT? THE GOVERNMENT? THE SOCIETY? YOU? GOD? OR THE INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES?
WHEN YOU CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS CORRECTLY, THEN YOU WILL REALIZE THE ERROR IN YOUR JUDGEMENT.
What’s the angle here? Are you saying that God is the final standard-bearer?
WELL, I’VE READ ENOUGH OF YOUR COMMENTS TO KNOW YOUR STAND. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE STANDARD FOR YOUR “EVALUATIONS”. YOU ASSERT THAT CERTAIN GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS ARE MISDIRECTED, AT THE VERY LEAST.
MY QUESTION IS THIS; “WHO DECIDES WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG?”
WHY WOULD YOU SAY “YOU’RE RIGHT AND I’M WRONG”? WHAT IS THE STANDARD, AND WHO IS RIGHT ENTITY TO PROVIDE THAT STANDARD OF MORALITY? WHO IS IN THE BEST POSITION TELL ME I’M WRONG AND YOU’RE RIGHT? AND WHAT QUALIFIED THEM TO ASSUME THAT OFFICE?
SOMEONE ELSE NOT ON THE LIST?
I LOVE YOUR WEBSITE, BY THE WAY.
COOL LAYOUT; IT’S ONE OF THE UNIQUE BLOGS I’VE BEEN TO, SO FAR. I ONLY WISHED YOU HAD WRITTEN MORE FICTION FOR THAT CATEGORY.
Mr. Merveilleux’s ire not withstanding, I think he has a good point that is pointed in the right direction.
Why should any self-respecting homosexual want to share their hard won social gains with a group that is nearly nonexistent?
I mean look!
Gay’s have been fighting the good fight for decades and it’s the trans genders who get to re-potty train the rest of society.
It’s enough to piss off the pope.
I’m not even sure what point you are trying to raise here. Fundamentalists have been trying to hamper the LGBT community as a whole for decades.
Excuse me?!? What? I support trans rights wholeheartedly.
Pass the popcorn, this is about to get interesting! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am so sorreee mon ami!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect in his drunken haze he thought you penned the quote.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In your own words:
“So, when it comes to Arb and his other transphobic buddies’ deeply hateful posts about members of the trans community, I’m shocked on several levels…”
Maybe you should learn to write and leave the drinking to people who know how to do it, like Mr. Merveilleux.
Thanks SOM, I have no idea what you clarified there but I’m still a fan of your work. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the problem is that I once thought The Pink Agentist nee Mr, Merveilleux and The Arbourist were all three, the same person.
Sacre bleu! I can understand Mr. Merveilleux’s ire.
Ah! I see. The Holy Trinity in Blogland.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, one of the easiest things to do in the known universe, is to criticize other people because they act and think in ways we reject or value things that we don’t and at the same time criticize other people for the very same thing. It is a lot harder to admit when you are guilty of doing the same thing. To publicly admit it takes courage and I applaud you for it.
I was listening to a conservative political talk show a few months back when a trans-gendered person called in to weigh in about Trump (She loved him, which was odd) But the host asked her to share her story and talk about her life and it was eye-opening, to say the least. The struggles she had to deal with from every corner of life just to be who she wanted to be was heart breaking. She was a transvestite, I don’t know if that makes a difference, but I feel nothing but compassion for someone who is trapped in the wrong body.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, it’s one of the ironies in the post, clear from the title, that I’m irked by the transphobics. I suspect many of them have had bad experiences from a variety of angles that have coloured their opinions, but their level of vitriol against all things trans is a worry. I find the ones that try to underpin it all with feminist theory to be the most worrying though, really reminds of worst type of discrimination backed up by wonky biblical interpretations.
I agree with you about the rule making, SOM. The compassion I was speaking about is personal, not governmental. I don’t think the laws of the country should require every school, business, and government building to have three types of bathrooms. I think the laws should be left the alone. At the same time, I don’t have a problem with a person dressed up like a man, who has female anatomy, using the men’s room.
Rule making (government) must be based on justice not compassion.
Justice is objective where compassion is completely subjective.
And concerning LGBT issues, compassion means the rest of us bending over, grabbing our ankles and hoping we’ll be treated with respect.
Don’t get carried away though SOM, I’ve started trashing really stupid comments. Ask John Zande if you don’t believe me.
I couldn’t be more serious with the comment you think is “really stupid.”
Each side thinks the other is stupid when emotion, in this case compassion, is substituted for justice.
Transgender bathrooms simply have no place in any sane universe.
And businesses that do not wish to cater to the gay lifestyle are put out of business.
It is important, especially when dealing with points of view you find distasteful or just plain wrong, to deal with what is actually being said. In all seriousness, thank you for quoting my words, but allow me to highlight where the interpretation may be somewhat off.
For the record – Transactivists are not all Trans people, nor does the ideology that some TA’ists promote necessarily reflect the views of all trans people. Critiquing the ideology is necessary though, as many of its tenets conflict with basic feminist concepts, as well as observable facts.
Transactivists represent a small, but vocal segment of the community and as evinced by their tweets. The claims they (TA) make, for example -(a)owning a ‘female’ penis or that a (b)a transwoman can have a penis and be lesbian – do not agree with reality.
I have misgivings when any group makes claims that do not concur with reality. Consider when using religious-belief as the ideology in question:
Should a person as an atheist be expected to capitalize the word ‘god’ when dealing with the religious? The capital G in ‘god’ is an part of the belief system, not capitalizing certain words (the Father, the Holy Spirit etc.) is disrespectful vis a vis the religious world view – should you be compelled to follow the worldview of someone else if you do not agree?
My answer to that is no. I am not obligated to undertake any of the prescriptions or tenets of a worldview I disagree with.
Worldviews should not be sacrosanct and should be able to be scrutinized on the validity of their claims and beliefs.
Disagreeing with trans ideological positions is enough to have a person pejoratively labelled and harassed (not talking about here). Radical feminists, once they are labelled ‘transphobic’, their arguments can be safely ignored. Does it help in understanding radfem objections to trans-ideology, not really, but as you said:
Yet here, it would seem the painting continues:
So again, categorizing and then making generalizations about a certain group is bad thing. Then, a list doing precisely that. 🙂
My concerns with nebulous nature of ‘implications’ aside, if posts like yours opens up the space to discuss the issues, I’m completely for it.
You’re welcome? 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Transactivists represent a small, but vocal segment of the community and as evinced by their tweets”
A transactivist is someone who campaigns on trans issues. If you are referring to a random group of individuals that you have called ‘transactivists’ to suit your agenda, I think you should make it clear that they are not actually the group of people we all know as transactivists. At no point have you referenced them as ‘a small but vocal segment of the community’, and in all the time I’ve been following your posts and your other transphobic blogging friends’ posts, I’ve never seen you reference this. You should really make these things clear when you’re maligning a whole group of already persecuted people by false association.
“So again, categorizing and then making generalizations about a certain group is bad thing. Then, a list doing precisely that.”
The irony is clear for all in the post title and content.
“My concerns with nebulous nature of ‘implications’ aside, if posts like yours opens up the space to discuss the issues, I’m completely for it.”
Please do discuss this. Your long comment doesn’t divulge in public (yet again) what your problem is and doesn’t address or confront any of my actual bullet points. As usual, you skirt around all the issues and make empty, bombastic points like “Worldviews should not be sacrosanct and should be able to be scrutinized on the validity of their claims and beliefs.” Great, state yours so we can see why you’re so keen to spread nasty stories about a tiny group of people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought it would be clear that, when examining issues brought up in public and thus reproducible in digital media that it would be about the people who espouse and campaign for those particular issues.
Never felt the need to as my posts address the problematic nature of trans-ideology and the often harmful effects it has on women.
For instance, when a Transactvist Group known as Gays Against Gentrification demands that a Woman’s Library ban books from its shelves, and has a violent demonstration within the library and then vandalizes said library – I have a problem with that. Do I think that their actions represent the entire trans community of people?
Absolutely not. It isn’t a reasonable conclusion.
But criticism of that particular group (GAG), and ideology that they follow (and thus justify their actions with) is legitimately in bounds.
Bad behaviour by a minority group is still bad behaviour. You can be marginalized and still be wrong. For instance – Believing that you can change your biological sex is a claim that is demonstrably false.
Biological sex is immutable and strong feelings contrary to this fact do not change this fact.
From my original post on this thread:
1. Critiquing the [trans] ideology is necessary though, as many of its tenets conflict with basic feminist concepts, as well as observable facts.
2. I have misgivings when any group makes claims that do not concur with reality.
I’m not really sure how much more clarity I can bring to answering the question ‘what my problem is’.
Is it okay to disagree with trans people and their formulations of sex and gender? Should people be obligated to accept any view as correct if others say so (especially if backed by harassment, de-platforming, and rape/death threats)?
I think the answer is yes.
I will stop ‘spreading nasty stories’ when transactivists stop doing actual, nasty things to women a la the Vancouver’s Women’s Library demonstration and subsequent vandalization of the premises.
Violet, you linked to my post with the intention of illustrating irrational tendencies in blaming groups with a large brush. You stated that you won’t tar christians, men, or any other group of people with a the same wayward brush. So why all the feathers and tar for the radical gender-critical feminists? Finally a sub-group so bad, so terrible, you can make feminism great again by rallying against us? 🙂 Because we’re all evil ‘transphobic’ bigots (see also the religious condemning unbelievers for their heretical notions)?
If disagreeing with and providing critique on the trans worldview is beyond the pale for you, and for you it places me in the category of ‘transphobic’ I’m really okay with that.
Because I know the basis of my critique of trans-ideology is based on the material, biological facts of the situation and the radical feminist conception of gender and class struggle.
I also know that there is nothing inherently wrong with basing criticism of an ideology on any of the aforementioned topics. That being said, happy to play the evil role as long you need it to be VW.
Let me ask you this Arb: is it okay to disagree with lesbians about their formulation of sex and gender? Whether you’re Christian or an atheist, you can see in nature and God’s design, that we have evolved to have separate gender identities and to breed. Believing that you can change such a natural part of our design is demonstrably false.
I can’t begin to tell you all the awful things lesbian activists are up to. Here’s one who killed her lover: http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/lesbian-student-kills-lover-who-wore-sweats/
Here’s one who killed her own daughter:
And here they are rioting, threatening and intimidating people, denying their right to free speech:
Later on, I’m going to trawl through Twitter and make a collection of terrible things that lesbians say and call my post ‘why I am critical of lesbians’.
I know you’ll agree with me because I base my critique of lesbian-ideology on the material, biological facts of the situation and the radical feminist conception of gender and class struggle. Lesbianism is simply an irrational reaction against the patriarchal structures in society that needs to be redressed. Don’t get me started on gay man – so high on the patriarchy they completely dismiss women from their natural sex lives. It’s damaging in the extreme to feminism, and we have to centre women in this struggle, so we can ALL return to being natural women, uncorrupted by the patriarchy.
And now you’ve shown me there is nothing inherently wrong with basing criticism of an ideology on any of the aforementioned topics, I feel more than justified. 😀
But seriously, I’d love to be there when someone holds up the mirror for you. It’s a mystery how people contort these things in their head. Just when I think I understand religion, atheist ‘feminists’ come from flying out of the woodwork with this thoroughly nasty and irrational curve ball.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely. However, it should be stated that lesbians are not actively campaigning to remove protections from another oppressed segment of society. Nor are lesbians attempting to force others to conform to their bizarre conception of gender, nor are lesbians in conflict with observable reality when it comes to biological sex.
One should be careful to distinguish between observable facts – biological sex for instance and social constructs such as gender that change over time. Conflating the two, sex and gender, often results in a great deal of confusion and inaccurate assumptions.
Ah, #notalltrans then. Well then, as the usual response to #notallmen goes – *Enough* trans-individuals have taken actions in public against women (and feminism) to merit critique and response to their actions.
The no-platforming or Germaine Greer and Julie Bindle, the 10 year court-case of a trans-woman attempting to bully his way into a rape-crisis centre – the list of individual instances is long (of course, all just mere data points in your analysis, it begs the question what would a reasonable amount of evidence look like and does such a standard of even exist, given the bias observed here)- is reason enough to take issue with the ideas that transactivists put forward.
Is it wrong to disagree with someone? Is disagreement violence? Apparently it is as the males in the link in the previous comment illustrated – women who disagree with men are targeted for abuse and violence. That is nothing new in society.
So, the hatred seems to be flowing quite uni-directionally, as it always has, and that is men threatening women who dare speak their minds and challenge male-authority.
Actually, your criticism is based on the conflation of sex and gender. Conceptions that most radical feminists are quite familiar with, and thus it would be advantageous for you while attempting to mimic their positions to appreciate what they actually are.
Conversely, there is no mystery to how my views are formulated, rather, it is your position requires rhetorical back-flips to maintain consistency. Observe:
If you support the notion personal gender identity must be recognized then you must also support the notion that trans-racial identities and trans-age identities exist and should be validated.
That looks like this –
1. Men can be women, because they say are.
2. White folk can be black folk because they say they are.
3. Old people can be young because they say they are young.
In other words, the personal subjective feelings of particular individuals trump the physical observable reality of the situation.
I’m actually quite fine with this, until the very instant when people, on the basis of their personal subjective experience, have the expectation that I should go along with their version of reality. I am not obligated to follow any notion/ideology, but this is especially true for ideologies/notions not rooted in material reality.
So, the ‘contortions’ you allege that I possess look like this.
A. Biological sex is an observable, material reality. Men (and by extension women), in whatever guise they choose to present shall be always be male(or female).
B. Members of one identifiable race, cannot become members of a different race because of strong feelings. (Of course, we are all of the same race as we share common ancestry, but the politics of race and racism inherent in society prevent most from acknowledging this particular truth.)
C. Age is also a physical reality, and your feelings cannot change how long you’ve been alive, nor affect the physiological changes that happen over time with our species.
So, it would appear that if any rhetorical contortions are present, they would be with the first, but not the second set of ideas as the second concurs with the factual, material, observable world.
I look forward to your response, especially with regards to any justification for point 1 and yet have it not apply to points 2 and 3. Or, if all three are a go, your thoughts on the importance of clear and concise language as a means to convey accurate, consistent, and reliable information.
“it should be stated that lesbians are not actively campaigning to remove protections from another oppressed segment of society. Nor are lesbians attempting to force others to conform to their bizarre conception of gender, nor are lesbians in conflict with observable reality when it comes to biological sex.”
I can’t believe you’re arguing the point in my ridiculous argument so I have to come back and defend something that’s nonsense. People who do seriously believe this would argue that their religious freedom protections are removed when they are forced to take part in wedding ceremonies, or their children are forced to watch ‘unnatural’ kisses etc. They would further argue that lesbians don’t express gender appropriately – behave and dress like men – and in terms of sex, I was talking about sexual relationships, not biological sex, so you can spare me the lecture on language. The comparison is stark, but your refusal to accept it is rather predictable.
“If you support the notion personal gender identity must be recognized then you must also support the notion that trans-racial identities and trans-age identities exist and should be validated.”
No I don’t. But for the record, I’m happy for people to be people. I don’t put restrictions on how they choose to look or behave because it conflicts with a book I read.
Your first link, is that typical of trans people? It’s so easy to ridicule, isn’t it? We used to do that with all the homosexuals who came out in pubic angrily asking for their rights to be respected, and for the feminists who wanted to be builders, hahahahaha. And somewhere in there, some of them were criminals, some of them had mental health problems (we won’t discuss if the way society treated them contributed to this) which made it even more fun to be angry at their weirdness and inability to fit in with common, decent society that conforms to our pre-written rules.
Do you acknowledge on any level that there’s something akin to religious zeal in your approach to feminism? Does it concern you on any level that your disgust (it is disgust, isn’t it?) with trans people is similar to the disgust some of the Christian right have?
To be honest, I don’t look forward to your response. Your calm presentation of such utterly vile sentiments is really rather disturbing and I’d rather leave you to rot on your own till you come to your senses. I think the only reason I persevere is that you seem to win over people like John Zande and Tildeb, so I’m trying to find the humanity in all this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I take your words at face value and try not to ascertain intent and motivations. So, I responded in all seriousness, as your analogy was flawed on several levels.
Gender is bad deal for most people involved. I’m glad you can see the problematic nature of gender and perhaps see why it might be a good idea not to have a gendered hierarchy in society.
One of the issues that seems to not be on the table is the notion that that behaviour/ideologies not grounded in reality by any size of group, with any status in society, should be regarded very carefully.
Consider Christian Scientists and their belief (an intrinsic part of their identity as Christian Scientists) that ‘spiritual treatment’ can cure diseases –
But, they are just a small group less than 400,000 total, i.e. a minority, in the US – we shouldn’t put restrictions on how they look or behave. We shouldn’t ‘pick on them’ and question their beliefs? Should we ignore the fact that, at the time of writing, they lobbied and then enacted legislation based on their inaccurate perception of reality, and those laws were, in fact, killing children?
“In 1992, the year he turned twelve, Andrew had the slightly gawky look of a boy who is growing fast. He had braces on his teeth (Christian Scientists often accept dental care), and his hair was cut short. His ears stuck out a little. He was big for his age and, his mother says, weighed about 140 pounds.
“Andrew, who had started the seventh grade at Rancho-Starbuck Junior High, began to lose weight and complained of feeling weak. His friends noticed that he had developed a constant cough and that he drank a lot of water. On Sunday, December 20, after Andrew had missed a week of school with what his family called “the flu,” Andrew’s father summoned an ambulance. Andrew was pronounced dead on arrival at St. Jude Medical Center in La Habra.”
“but records that have already been released suggest that Andrew’s case is similar to those of a number of other Christian Science children who have died and continue to die of diabetes, ruptured appendixes, measles, diphtheria, blood poisoning, cancer, and other illnesses that are curable or treatable with modern medicine.
Andrew weighed only about 105 pounds at his death and was severely emaciated. The Orange County coroner’s report listed three causes of death and their duration:
A. Multiple system failure/days
B. Diabetic ketoacidosis/months
C. Diabetes mellitus/months
In other words, Andrew Wantland died of diabetes after months of illness.
“His treatment had consisted of the prayers of his father, his grandmother, and a Christian Science “practitioner,” or Church-appointed healer, Ann McCann. It did not include the insulin and fluids that up until a few hours before his death might have saved his life.”
Why can’t you just stop with all the criticism of their way of life and what they really and truly believe? You have no right to judge what others think and how they live their lives. Think of the people and the damage you are doing to them by criticizing their faulty beliefs.
So, Violet. Can we criticize Christian Scientists for their identity and beliefs? Should we?
How is the decision made for you? Furthermore, which sets of faulty beliefs, in your estimation, merit criticism and which do not? What is your basis for determining which groups should be subject to critique, and which groups should not?
Andrew (if he was still alive) and I would very much like to hear your justification for not criticizing the unfounded beliefs of others.
You and others assume that I have some sort of hate going on toward trans people. I’ll say it again, disagreement does not equal hate.
Some women, and yes they happen to be radical feminists, question some of the tenets of trans-ideology and push back against with what they see is wrong. Some trans claims, that if given any level of critical examination do not hold water, should be brought to light and amended so that they concur with the real world.
Otherwise you get events like this happening –
“Three female inmates at Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth have filed a flurry of complaints, upset over the Bureau of Prisons policy that allows transgender inmates who are still biologically male to be placed in female prisons.
The women claim that they are living in a degrading and dangerous environment by being forced to share showers and bathrooms with the transgender inmates, according to complaints and motions filed in the U.S. District Court’s Northern District.
“The Plaintiffs have been forced to share intimate facilities with men, who allege they are women,” the Feb. 15 complaint states. “These men openly express their sexual desire for the women inmates, at times, in the showers, and bathrooms, while women are naked or partially clothed.
“The men expose themselves, intentionally, for their own sexual gratification, causing the Plaintiffs to suffer disgust, embarrassment, humiliation, stress, degradation, fear and loss of dignity.”
So which is more important, the safety of the women or the feelings of the men?
So, feel free to handwave this (yet another) example of how gender-identity harms women. On what basis, I’m really not sure – minorities should be immune to critique, a ‘no-true-scotsman’ based objection, perhaps an ad hominum as to how horrible my character must be to provide evidence of a minority group, that while following their ideology, is behaving badly?
Again, how many data points are necessary to form the basis of case that maybe, just maybe, some of the current trans-ideology out there isn’t really working well for some women in our society?
“So, Violet. Can we criticize Christian Scientists for their identity and beliefs? Should we?”
Do you think your analogy might be flawed on several levels? At least I was joking in an attempt to draw your attention to parallels in terms of reasoning and impact. You seriously think this is the same? You’re talking about parents indoctrinating a religion into their children, removing them from mainstream society and the advice of professionals. Trans people self-identify and seek the advice of professionals. Do you not trust how the global medical profession is assisting trans people? It’s a relatively new area, numbers are relatively low, but they are intervening in line with all standard practice, and with the full, informed consent of those seeking treatment.
As for your example of how one group of trans women in a prison are behaving, I agree it’s unacceptable. Is this kind of behaviour, in terms of unwanted sexual advances only from trans women and do trans women always behave like this? Here are some stories of both female and male staff sexually harassing women in prisons:
Once again, you’re trawling for stories to feed your confirmation bias. Are you familiar with how that works?
What exactly is ‘trans-ideology’? When I google it you and your ‘trans-critical’ friends come up first, along with Christian sites. Do you think there genuinely is an ideology or do you think transphobic individuals have invented it to make trans people seem really super creepy and sinister? I wonder … Perhaps in reality there are people who are simply more comfortable expressing themselves as another gender and will happily rearrange the anatomy they are born with in an attempt to do this, with the help of a range of qualified professionals. Perhaps you should just leave them to find their own answers and concentrate on things you actually understand, things that affect your personal life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is also a side to the story, where gender non-conforming children are being given hormone therapy and being made trans rather than allowing for their natural homosexual tendencies to come to fruition as many individuals who experience problems with their gender turn out to be homosexual.
The conservative nature of trans-ideology supports the gender binary and all of the negative attributes that come with it.
Little Joey, likes playing with dolls, and rather than being okay with that conservative parents start the conversion of Joey to the ‘correct’ gender his actions are indicating.
Because being homosexual, in their eyes, is much worse a fate than the trans option, despite the fact that many gender therapists rely on alternative fact based diagnosis like the notion that there are female and male brains.
Do children the autonomy to make that decision? Or is it really the parents wishes for a ‘normal’ gender role conforming child?
More on the transing of children.
Maybe not so much with children.
It’s certainly a concern that children are never hijacked by well meaning parents trying to do their best. This is the case with everything in life and not limited to identifying if a child has gender dysphoria. Well meaning parents present terrible food to their children and limit their exercise options, creating an obesity epidemic with horrific health consequences, including life threatening diabetes, for millions of children. Why aren’t you riding that high horse? Well meaning parents push their pre-pubescent children into sports and activities that place value on low body weight and gift their children a lifetime of eating disorders.
However, I’m seriously sceptical that there are many well meaning parents who encourage their children to change their genitals so they can avoid the ‘shame’ of having a gay child. I think this is just another myth prevalent in your circles. I’ve watched documentaries on kids self-identifying as trans and your patronising little caricature of Joey couldn’t be further from the truth. Parents are desperate to avoid this.
Everything you say, Arb, makes me think more and more that you are living in an evil little subculture of hate. I’m actually more prone to being concerned that people could make mistakes about being trans, especially as pre-pubescents and young adults. But the stories you are pedalling are so biased, so absurd and so backed by mindless dogma, that I can’t find a find a grain of truth in them.
Seriously, leave this to the professionals. They might make mistakes along the way, but like with everything else, we will learn how to improve services for trans people. The only thing your involvement brings is fuel for discrimination based on lies, exaggeration and fear.
So the major changes made by the Obama administration to federal school policy just happened in a vacuum?
No organization or cohesive group of ideas is necessary to affect change on the federal level in the United States? Just an amorphous collection of like individuals hanging out, maybe writing a letter or two?
And you still find the notion that trans-ideology not existing plausible?
Perhaps we should leave those Christian Scientists alone, with their way of life and the answers that work for them. Surely nothing bad could come of that.
Thank you for hosting the forum Violet, the conversations are always interesting and it is invaluable to engage with different ideas on contentious topics such as this one.
Til’ next time or ping-back.
The fact that you can only return to your wayward Christian Scientists analogy speaks volumes.
Discussions with the Arbourist are a waste of time because he’s not honest in method. He starts with conclusions/ideological positions and then tries to hammer evidence into place to support it. Exactly the same process as Trump trying to justify a Muslim ban or Evangelicals trying to ban gay teachers. The obvious problem being that starting with a conclusion is in itself a biased position (almost always based in dogma), whereas starting with a question leads us to examine all possibilities on an egalitarian basis.
In a practical sense it’s the difference between asking:
A) Are gay teachers going to harm children?
B) What should we look out for to ensure children are never harmed by any type of teachers?
One question will lead to an answer that protects children, the other will lead to the marginalization of a single class of people- and will do so without adequate evidence.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I know! So why can’t they see it? Even if they have an inkling to thinking that trans people are confused victims of current patriarchal society and nonsense gender roles, why the hate? Why is there no compassion that people are having such struggles? And that’s exactly where you realise there’s nothing in it beyond the basics of ‘hatred’ of something different that doesn’t fit their pre-defined boxes – just like any religion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Psychologically, everyone feels the need to define themselves- in the case of the Arbourist (or Roughseas) they’ve chosen a group identity that’s so important to them, they’re willing to set aside ethical issues just to embrace it.
It may seem extreme, but just look at how many people seem to be terribly bothered by the phrase Black Lives Matter. If I said “cupcakes matter”, do you think people would scream things out at me on the street? No, not cupcakes, what matters is banoffee pie! Banoffee pie matters!
“there’s always a deep, abiding and disturbing sense of hate underpinning every keystroke”
Do you really have such a gift for reading into people’s souls? I’d think a feminist wouldn’t hate the transsexual so much as the threat it poses to feminism.
That assumes a “threat” that hasn’t been established by evidence.
They threaten the feminist monopoly on crazy.
Some are transphobic, just as some people are arachnophobic. Most are self-righteous about that, though I had a colleague who was most apologetic about finding me repellent, perhaps because my employer was on my side. But if someone abuses you in the street, you realise it is phobic. Why else would they bother?
I think that is too simple. I never felt very much when I’ve noticed someone trying to pass for the opposite sex, except perhaps a twinge of pity.
But I reacted angrily to l’affaire Jenner and some of the silly bathroom politics, because the propaganda was designed to make me assent to something self-evidently false.
I imagine the feminists are motivated by something similar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, the propaganda is designed to make people angry and fearful at completely inoffensive people.
I come back to this because it is not merely false. It is a kindly fiction. Some of us, for no reason but that we do, feel far more comfortable expressing ourselves as the opposite sex. If you say, “but you’re not” I don’t have a clever answer but to throw myself on your mercy. I can’t help it.
I am not against tolerating or privately humoring people with such experiences. (And I know words like “pity” or “humoring” must be irritating, but I can’t think of any others.)
The problem is when the rest of us are expected to participate in public lies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much “trans activism” is finding ways of explaining ourselves to ourselves, so we can gain the courage to be ourselves. It threatens no-one.
Sorry to drag this up again, it never ceases to amaze me. I’ve unfollowed a lot them. I should unfollow Arb too, but I want to keep an eye on him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My feminism test for them is, what proportion of their writing is about trans? If more than 10%, they are trans-obsessive not feminist. But I don’t think it does much harm. We go on line and write that a penis is a girl-cock, and they go on line and say trans women are extreme conservative rapists, and both groups keep ourselves amused.
It’s not amusing when there’s a hate problem from some sectors of society. Posting biased information like this in public, and underpinning it all with some kind of faux intellectual evaluation simply feeds the fire. They should know better.
If you want not to be harmed, stop reading. It is practically a complete cure.
It’s not me or you I mean. It’s the hate hoovers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know. It is just that they are harmless. Take The Arbourist. He writes two thousand words and gets 15 views, and most are bored or derisive, for his pastiche of Milo Tiannopoulos, saying extreme things in a humourless way, is so easily seen through. Yet he lives for the moment when someone will comment- he is sure of it! Saying, Oh! Arbourist! Thank you so much for saving us from those Horrible Men!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, along with VW, thank you for the interpretation of my motivations. 🙂
Men have been a scourge on women for centuries. I’m glad you can find the silver-lining and make light of the situation.
I do not make light of the situation. It is just that some bloggers obsess delusionally about trans, and ignore, say, the women murdered by ex partners. If they were feminists they would show a sense of proportion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arb, I just added this at the top of the post: **Post update 2nd April 2017. Since this was published, the original post it critiqued by The Arbourist has been changed. His title has changed from “Why I am tran critical” to “Why I am gender critical”. The post content also appears altered although I can’t be sure. I invite Arb to explain in the comments below.**
I’d be grateful if you could explain exactly what you changed and why, for the continuity of the discussion. Because from here, it looks like you’ve realised that being ‘trans critical’ is discriminatory and unacceptable, and didn’t want to admit it. It looks like you’re shrouding your real thoughts in more acceptable terminology – while still attempting to spread distrust and disgust about trans women (now we’ve clarified you have no problem with trans men.)
Here’s my answer. It is a bit long for a comment.
Pingback: Trans against trans | Clare Flourish