5 ms·

> Trans people who wanted to assimilate and blend in have by and large been blindsided by the massive increase in scrutiny they've gotten from random people and

> Trans people who wanted to assimilate and blend in have by and large been blindsided by the massive increase in scrutiny they've gotten from random people and increasingly lawmakers in the last few years in much of the western world, because some machinations of internet culture made the right wing start thinking about them a lot all of a sudden in the last decade. The reason they're getting more scrutiny is because of the negative impact of pro-trans ideological policies on women's rights. I can't speak for the US, but in the UK the turning point was a combination of two things: firstly, the right-wing Conservative government announcing that they were going to remove all barriers for anyone to change their "legal sex", with no medical diagnosis required at all. Secondly, press coverage, from news outlets across the political spectrum, of a male rapist incarcerated in a women's prison, who sexually assaulted several female prisoners there. This caused an uprising of women, initially groups of left-wing feminists who most rapidly organised, to push back against this "gender self-id" policy proposal and against men in women's prisons. And then against the whole principle of males identifying themselves as female and being given special privileges because of this. Only later on did right-wing groups take an interest in this as a division against the mainstream political left who were still very much in favour of these policies. Though we've just got a new centre-left Labour government and it seems likely now, based on what they said during the election campaign, that they're going to prioritise protecting single-sex spaces for women over the desires of males who demand to access them. And this is because they've realised that they can't just unilaterally diminish women's rights and expect the electorate to follow along. The increased scrutiny worked.

slg 2y ago
Civil rights are not a zero-sum game. One group of people gaining rights doesn't take away the rights from another group, but that is commonly used as an argument to manipulate people into opposing the expansion of rights without confronting what that opposition really means. We saw it with integration in the US often presented as an infringement on the rights of white people. We saw it with gay marriage when people argued that it was somehow an affront to traditional heterosexual marriage. And now we are seeing it with people claiming that trans people are infringing on women's rights. >Secondly, press coverage, from news outlets across the political spectrum, of a male rapist incarcerated in a women's prison, who sexually assaulted several female prisoners there. This is a good example of what that manipulation looks like in action. I agree that prisoners should have a right to safety despite their crimes. But what should the priority be for someone with this position? It certainly wouldn't be putting more attention on a single case of assault over some 999 other examples of a prisoner getting assaulted[1]. The focus on the one case involving a trans person shows that the motivation isn't actually prisoner safety. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/13/revealed-almost-1000-rapes-in-prisons-in-england-and-wales-since-2010 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/13/revealed-alm...
- granibran 2y ago
  Sometimes they aren't zero-sum. For example, trans-identifying people being protected from employment discrimination. This takes nothing away from anyone else, but makes this group's lives easier. But sometimes they are zero-sum. The right of women and girls to have female-only spaces, for example. If a subset of males are given the right to use such spaces, they cease to be female-only spaces. By doing so, this right is taken away from women and girls. As another example, we can see this principle very starkly in women's and girls' sports competitions. There can only be one winner. If that winner is male, or is a team that includes males, this takes this prize away from female athletes. There are also a limited number of competition spots in most sports. Any of those taken by males denies a female athlete the opportunity to compete. This is a zero-sum game. Regarding prisons, the expectation is that penal authorities work towards the goal of no sexual violence in prisons. Policies that demonstrably make this worse are of course going to be protested. In this case, removing the most important safeguarding measure for inmate housing: segregation by sex. The motivation is actually the safety of women prisoners. It's not an isolated case either, this was the first of many.
  - seethedeaduu 2y ago
    I asked you before but you probably didn't see it. Why do you make a new throwaway for every single thread where you post about the topic?
  - slg 2y ago
    >But sometimes they are zero-sum. The right of women and girls to have female-only spaces, for example. How is this different from a white person wanting a "whites only space"? Because you are seemingly arguing for a right to segregation. I think we are better off reconsidering the root desire and how that should manifest itself in a concrete right. For example, what right do you think the children have in youth sports? Do they have a right to win? Do they have a right to be on a team? Do they have a right to compete? Do they have the right to compete against someone with equal talent? Should it be allowed to force a younger kid to compete against older kids? What about a short kid against tall kids? Should a Muslim fasting for Ramadan have to compete against Christians with no dietary restrictions? Can a white child complain about having to compete against black children? What if only one girl wants to play a specific sport, is it legal to force her to compete on the boys team? What if all the boys are better than her? I just don't know how you answer these questions consistently and end up in a place in which trans athletes are your only fairness concern.

slg 2y ago

Civil rights are not a zero-sum game. One group of people gaining rights doesn't take away the rights from another group, but that is commonly used as an argument to manipulate people into opposing the expansion of rights without confronting what that opposition really means. We saw it with integration in the US often presented as an infringement on the rights of white people. We saw it with gay marriage when people argued that it was somehow an affront to traditional heterosexual marriage. And now we are seeing it with people claiming that trans people are infringing on women's rights. >Secondly, press coverage, from news outlets across the political spectrum, of a male rapist incarcerated in a women's prison, who sexually assaulted several female prisoners there. This is a good example of what that manipulation looks like in action. I agree that prisoners should have a right to safety despite their crimes. But what should the priority be for someone with this position? It certainly wouldn't be putting more attention on a single case of assault over some 999 other examples of a prisoner getting assaulted[1]. The focus on the one case involving a trans person shows that the motivation isn't actually prisoner safety. [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/13/revealed-almost-1000-rapes-in-prisons-in-england-and-wales-since-2010 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/13/revealed-alm...

granibran 2y ago
Sometimes they aren't zero-sum. For example, trans-identifying people being protected from employment discrimination. This takes nothing away from anyone else, but makes this group's lives easier. But sometimes they are zero-sum. The right of women and girls to have female-only spaces, for example. If a subset of males are given the right to use such spaces, they cease to be female-only spaces. By doing so, this right is taken away from women and girls. As another example, we can see this principle very starkly in women's and girls' sports competitions. There can only be one winner. If that winner is male, or is a team that includes males, this takes this prize away from female athletes. There are also a limited number of competition spots in most sports. Any of those taken by males denies a female athlete the opportunity to compete. This is a zero-sum game. Regarding prisons, the expectation is that penal authorities work towards the goal of no sexual violence in prisons. Policies that demonstrably make this worse are of course going to be protested. In this case, removing the most important safeguarding measure for inmate housing: segregation by sex. The motivation is actually the safety of women prisoners. It's not an isolated case either, this was the first of many.
- seethedeaduu 2y ago
  I asked you before but you probably didn't see it. Why do you make a new throwaway for every single thread where you post about the topic?
- slg 2y ago
  >But sometimes they are zero-sum. The right of women and girls to have female-only spaces, for example. How is this different from a white person wanting a "whites only space"? Because you are seemingly arguing for a right to segregation. I think we are better off reconsidering the root desire and how that should manifest itself in a concrete right. For example, what right do you think the children have in youth sports? Do they have a right to win? Do they have a right to be on a team? Do they have a right to compete? Do they have the right to compete against someone with equal talent? Should it be allowed to force a younger kid to compete against older kids? What about a short kid against tall kids? Should a Muslim fasting for Ramadan have to compete against Christians with no dietary restrictions? Can a white child complain about having to compete against black children? What if only one girl wants to play a specific sport, is it legal to force her to compete on the boys team? What if all the boys are better than her? I just don't know how you answer these questions consistently and end up in a place in which trans athletes are your only fairness concern.