3 ms·

The "anti-trans" label is a rejection of false balance, not a particular ideological stance. It's roughly in line with Wikipedia's broader policy of rejecting "

The "anti-trans" label is a rejection of false balance, not a particular ideological stance. It's roughly in line with Wikipedia's broader policy of rejecting "softening" labels that groups use to obscure their positions. Compare, for example, the white supremacists who call themselves "race realists."

implements 4y ago
That’s the stated rationale, but with respect I disagree that it isn’t ideological or slanted. In my experience in the UK people who describe themselves as gender critical are older left-leaning (majority lesbian) women and hold their long held (1970s onwards) beliefs in good faith and from a position of pro-female / pro same sex-attracted rights, and resistance to gender as a useful social construct. They’re not anti-trans by primary motivation - it’s that the logical consequence of what they believe about the nature of sex and gender leads them to believe that “Trans-X aren’t X”. But from an opposing ideological viewpoint this is deemed definitionally transphobic, and the slant becomes evident when it’s asserted that this transphobic sentiment is and must be at the heart of what motivates gender critical beliefs - “They espouse their beliefs as racists espouse ‘race realism’ - as a guise to discriminate against the other”. But in this case it’s simply not true, and denying that citing “false balance” is in itself biased and disingenuous.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > They’re not anti-trans by primary motivation - it’s that the logical consequence of what they believe about the nature of sex and gender leads them to believe that “Trans-X aren’t X”. This reasoning is suspect: most people don't wake up and decide to be "Anti-X" as a "primary" motivation; they're "Anti-X" because it adheres to all kinds of other positions they have, and humans are pattern-matching beings. In other words: most people exhibit prejudice not for its own sake, but for some other sake. This doesn't meaningfully change the fact that it would be correct to label them as prejudiced.
  - implements 4y ago
    It doesn’t follow that beliefs held negative about an opposing group are necessarily prejudiced, though. Atheists aren’t anti-theists, for example - atheists who value empirical rationalism as a true and positive philosophy generate beliefs felt as negative (or even threatening) by devout theists. Nevertheless, it’s not fair to characterise atheists as anti-theists, or primarily motivated by prejudice against theists.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
This is one of the dog whistles I mentioned in an earlier post. Women asking for sex-based rights such as female-only sports. An example of this is the LGB Association in the UK. They're a homosexual rights organization and they talk about sex-based rights. They're currently undergoing a tribunal to strip their charity status depending on in their charitable goals match their actions. Wiki editors have gamed what sources are considered reliable until they're all the ones that condemn this organization and none that support them. The article doesn't actually mention any of their words or stated goals, just what you're supposed to think about them ("anti-trans agenda, etc") and the criticism section is even worse. None of the sources explicitly used for criticism is even criticizing their actual words - just the supposedly hidden meaning. > Wikipedia's broader policy of rejecting "softening" labels that groups use to obscure their positions Pro-Up isn't Anti-Down. There's a big difference between pro-woman and anti-trans and trying to "unsoften" one into the other is trying to put words in people's mouths.

implements 4y ago

That’s the stated rationale, but with respect I disagree that it isn’t ideological or slanted. In my experience in the UK people who describe themselves as gender critical are older left-leaning (majority lesbian) women and hold their long held (1970s onwards) beliefs in good faith and from a position of pro-female / pro same sex-attracted rights, and resistance to gender as a useful social construct. They’re not anti-trans by primary motivation - it’s that the logical consequence of what they believe about the nature of sex and gender leads them to believe that “Trans-X aren’t X”. But from an opposing ideological viewpoint this is deemed definitionally transphobic, and the slant becomes evident when it’s asserted that this transphobic sentiment is and must be at the heart of what motivates gender critical beliefs - “They espouse their beliefs as racists espouse ‘race realism’ - as a guise to discriminate against the other”. But in this case it’s simply not true, and denying that citing “false balance” is in itself biased and disingenuous.

woodruffw 4y ago
> They’re not anti-trans by primary motivation - it’s that the logical consequence of what they believe about the nature of sex and gender leads them to believe that “Trans-X aren’t X”. This reasoning is suspect: most people don't wake up and decide to be "Anti-X" as a "primary" motivation; they're "Anti-X" because it adheres to all kinds of other positions they have, and humans are pattern-matching beings. In other words: most people exhibit prejudice not for its own sake, but for some other sake. This doesn't meaningfully change the fact that it would be correct to label them as prejudiced.
- implements 4y ago
  It doesn’t follow that beliefs held negative about an opposing group are necessarily prejudiced, though. Atheists aren’t anti-theists, for example - atheists who value empirical rationalism as a true and positive philosophy generate beliefs felt as negative (or even threatening) by devout theists. Nevertheless, it’s not fair to characterise atheists as anti-theists, or primarily motivated by prejudice against theists.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

This is one of the dog whistles I mentioned in an earlier post. Women asking for sex-based rights such as female-only sports. An example of this is the LGB Association in the UK. They're a homosexual rights organization and they talk about sex-based rights. They're currently undergoing a tribunal to strip their charity status depending on in their charitable goals match their actions. Wiki editors have gamed what sources are considered reliable until they're all the ones that condemn this organization and none that support them. The article doesn't actually mention any of their words or stated goals, just what you're supposed to think about them ("anti-trans agenda, etc") and the criticism section is even worse. None of the sources explicitly used for criticism is even criticizing their actual words - just the supposedly hidden meaning. > Wikipedia's broader policy of rejecting "softening" labels that groups use to obscure their positions Pro-Up isn't Anti-Down. There's a big difference between pro-woman and anti-trans and trying to "unsoften" one into the other is trying to put words in people's mouths.