5 ms·

> if you’re not trans you may not understand transphobia very well but it’s similar to white people saying they don’t think something is racist This is just a

> if you’re not trans you may not understand transphobia very well but it’s similar to white people saying they don’t think something is racist This is just a terrible, terrible argument, that leads to a continual ratcheting up and broadening of the definition of "transphobia". Transphobia should mean only "fear or hatred of trans people". What it comes to mean, however: questioning self-identification, questioning trans women in women's sports, questioning trans women in women's spaces, questioning the use of puberty blockers in young children, among others. With these now defined as transphobia, it is no longer necessary to acknowledge any principled, genuine objections or concerns there, because even raising these topics is transphobic (or TERF) by definition. The sad thing here is, a frank discussion might indeed allow trans women and bio women to come to some accommodation, but insisting that some people are the only ones who can define certain words like transphobia elides those conversations. No. Words matter and words belong to us all, not only to those who decide they want to determine the bounds of debate. I say all this with huge, massive respect to the gender warriors out there. I promise, these tactics win skirmishes but will lose the war.

thomasfedb 4y ago
Would be reasonable to expand that to "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against trans people". Hate is a pretty high bar perhaps? The etymology of the -isms and the -phobias is unfortunate. But the <group of people>-phobias are not really about fear.
- rendall 4y ago
  I agree that expansion is reasonable.
- renox 4y ago
  Discrimination is a fuzzy word.. Is-it discrimination to forbid trans-women to participate in the same sports category as bio-women?
  - thomasfedb 4y ago
    A blanket ban would be I think. Having a blanket ban demonstrates that you are judging transgender people on their transgender status alone, rather than making an evidence-based assessment of whether a particular athlete has an unfair advantage. The International Olympic Committee, for example, has a framework for precisely this (you can read it here, it's pretty easy going: https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/News/2021/11/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/News/2021/11/I... ) and I think it demonstrates really well that they've put a good amount of thought into being fair. I think you'd have a hard time saying that the IOC framework is discrimination.
    - foogazi 4y ago
      > A blanket ban would be I think. There is a blanket ban on men participating in women’s sports - is that discrimination ?
    - skelpie_6000 4y ago
      > Having a blanket ban demonstrates that you are judging transgender people on their transgender status alone, No, by their sex - just like everyone else.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Discrimination is a fuzzy word.. No, it's not. > Is-it discrimination to forbid trans-women to participate in the same sports category as bio-women? It is absolutely discrimination to discriminate between cisgender and transgender competitors. Whether it is acceptable discrimination is a value question, whether it is legal or permissible discrimination depends on the relevant law and rule framework, but it is unmistakably discrimination.
    - rendall 4y ago
      So, by this use of this word, it is discrimination to prevent (non trans) male athletes from competing in female sports.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
> > if you’re not trans you may not understand transphobia very well but it’s similar to white people saying they don’t think something is racist > This is just a terrible, terrible argument, that leads to a continual ratcheting up and broadening of the definition of "transphobia". I don’t follow. While people not understanding racism is a very real phenomenon caused by the fact that white people in the USA are the dominant group and considered “raceless” and the “default” while non white people get all kinds of subtle discrimination regularly. It makes sense that non white people would be better judges of racism than many white people. Why would this not also make sense for trans people?
- foogazi 4y ago
  > It makes sense that non white people would be better judges of racism than many white people. I don’t get this Racism is a clearly defined concept - from Oxford dictionary: 1. prejudice, discrimination or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular ethnic group 2. the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another. Why do you think some races are better than others at judging racism ?
  - rendall 4y ago
    I have had black friends point out incidents of anti-Black racism to me that I definitely hadn't seen before, but I have as often had black friends perceive racism where definitely none existed, and black friends who did not see it where it definitely did. It happens enough, that I think only people who don't have much interaction with different races and classes would believe that only black people can tell what racism is. People have all degrees of sensitivity, empathy, perceptivity and hair-trigger paranoia; sometimes in the same person.
resoluteteeth 4y ago
> This is just a terrible, terrible argument, that leads to a continual ratcheting up and broadening of the definition of "transphobia". > Transphobia should mean only "fear or hatred of trans people". > What it comes to mean, however: questioning self-identification, questioning trans women in women's sports, questioning trans women in women's spaces, questioning the use of puberty blockers in young children, among others. With these now defined as transphobia, it is no longer necessary to acknowledge any principled, genuine objections or concerns there, because even raising these topics is transphobic (or TERF) by definition. The sad thing here is, a frank discussion might indeed allow trans women and bio women to come to some accommodation, but insisting that some people are the only ones who can define certain words like transphobia elides those conversations. > No. Words matter and words belong to us all, not only to those who decide If you're opposing transgender people's attempts to secure rights that they are attempting to secure, why should you not be labelled as "transphobic" just because you personally feel that they might be able to get some more limited set if rights that you, as a cis person, are willing to give them? It's like complaining that people are calling you "racist" for supporting segregation even though you personally feel that segregation is best for black people and therefore you aren't opposing equal rights.
- grrraal 4y ago
- rendall 4y ago
  > rights that you, as a cis person, are willing to give them? The problem with these particular "rights" is that they are not actually rights, but impositions on the rights of others. It's disingenuous to compare being trans to race or being gay. Race and orientation is an immutable characteristic of the person. As yet, gender dysmorphia is recognized as a mental illness, which requires therapy, hormones and surgery to accommodate or treat. Arguments about these particular trans rights can also apply to, for example, the rights of schizophrenics to have their delusions indulged by everyone else. With self-identification, the problem of "rights" becomes even more intractable, because unlike race or orientation, one can just declare oneself "trans" and thereby gain access to, say, physically weaker athletic opponents. Or to more vulnerable sexual prey, in the case of prisons.

thomasfedb 4y ago

Would be reasonable to expand that to "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against trans people". Hate is a pretty high bar perhaps? The etymology of the -isms and the -phobias is unfortunate. But the <group of people>-phobias are not really about fear.

rendall 4y ago
I agree that expansion is reasonable.
renox 4y ago
Discrimination is a fuzzy word.. Is-it discrimination to forbid trans-women to participate in the same sports category as bio-women?
- thomasfedb 4y ago
  A blanket ban would be I think. Having a blanket ban demonstrates that you are judging transgender people on their transgender status alone, rather than making an evidence-based assessment of whether a particular athlete has an unfair advantage. The International Olympic Committee, for example, has a framework for precisely this (you can read it here, it's pretty easy going: https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/News/2021/11/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/News/2021/11/I... ) and I think it demonstrates really well that they've put a good amount of thought into being fair. I think you'd have a hard time saying that the IOC framework is discrimination.
  - foogazi 4y ago
    > A blanket ban would be I think. There is a blanket ban on men participating in women’s sports - is that discrimination ?
  - skelpie_6000 4y ago
    > Having a blanket ban demonstrates that you are judging transgender people on their transgender status alone, No, by their sex - just like everyone else.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Discrimination is a fuzzy word.. No, it's not. > Is-it discrimination to forbid trans-women to participate in the same sports category as bio-women? It is absolutely discrimination to discriminate between cisgender and transgender competitors. Whether it is acceptable discrimination is a value question, whether it is legal or permissible discrimination depends on the relevant law and rule framework, but it is unmistakably discrimination.
  - rendall 4y ago
    So, by this use of this word, it is discrimination to prevent (non trans) male athletes from competing in female sports.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

> > if you’re not trans you may not understand transphobia very well but it’s similar to white people saying they don’t think something is racist > This is just a terrible, terrible argument, that leads to a continual ratcheting up and broadening of the definition of "transphobia". I don’t follow. While people not understanding racism is a very real phenomenon caused by the fact that white people in the USA are the dominant group and considered “raceless” and the “default” while non white people get all kinds of subtle discrimination regularly. It makes sense that non white people would be better judges of racism than many white people. Why would this not also make sense for trans people?

foogazi 4y ago
> It makes sense that non white people would be better judges of racism than many white people. I don’t get this Racism is a clearly defined concept - from Oxford dictionary: 1. prejudice, discrimination or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular ethnic group 2. the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another. Why do you think some races are better than others at judging racism ?
- rendall 4y ago
  I have had black friends point out incidents of anti-Black racism to me that I definitely hadn't seen before, but I have as often had black friends perceive racism where definitely none existed, and black friends who did not see it where it definitely did. It happens enough, that I think only people who don't have much interaction with different races and classes would believe that only black people can tell what racism is. People have all degrees of sensitivity, empathy, perceptivity and hair-trigger paranoia; sometimes in the same person.

resoluteteeth 4y ago

> This is just a terrible, terrible argument, that leads to a continual ratcheting up and broadening of the definition of "transphobia". > Transphobia should mean only "fear or hatred of trans people". > What it comes to mean, however: questioning self-identification, questioning trans women in women's sports, questioning trans women in women's spaces, questioning the use of puberty blockers in young children, among others. With these now defined as transphobia, it is no longer necessary to acknowledge any principled, genuine objections or concerns there, because even raising these topics is transphobic (or TERF) by definition. The sad thing here is, a frank discussion might indeed allow trans women and bio women to come to some accommodation, but insisting that some people are the only ones who can define certain words like transphobia elides those conversations. > No. Words matter and words belong to us all, not only to those who decide If you're opposing transgender people's attempts to secure rights that they are attempting to secure, why should you not be labelled as "transphobic" just because you personally feel that they might be able to get some more limited set if rights that you, as a cis person, are willing to give them? It's like complaining that people are calling you "racist" for supporting segregation even though you personally feel that segregation is best for black people and therefore you aren't opposing equal rights.

grrraal 4y ago
rendall 4y ago
> rights that you, as a cis person, are willing to give them? The problem with these particular "rights" is that they are not actually rights, but impositions on the rights of others. It's disingenuous to compare being trans to race or being gay. Race and orientation is an immutable characteristic of the person. As yet, gender dysmorphia is recognized as a mental illness, which requires therapy, hormones and surgery to accommodate or treat. Arguments about these particular trans rights can also apply to, for example, the rights of schizophrenics to have their delusions indulged by everyone else. With self-identification, the problem of "rights" becomes even more intractable, because unlike race or orientation, one can just declare oneself "trans" and thereby gain access to, say, physically weaker athletic opponents. Or to more vulnerable sexual prey, in the case of prisons.