3 ms·

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 gen

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.

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.