4 ms·

I am not American, and I don't think that "trans people have a right to participate in society" is a political take. The real issue is with people thinking that

I am not American, and I don't think that "trans people have a right to participate in society" is a political take. The real issue is with people thinking that "trans people shouldn't exist" is a valid opinion to hold, and I don't feel particularly bad for them being "silenced". If this view falls in the American left's umbrella, then I'm sorry to say: they're objectively right and fuck the guys who hold anti-human views.

wastle 1y ago
The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex. This gets relabelled by activists for the trans ideological cause with phrases like "the right to participate in society" and even "the right to exist", but these are so far from what is actually being demanded that it's essentially just misinformation and false appeal to emotion.
- thrance 1y ago
  Spaces such as online open-source communities? This is nonsensical, listen to yourself. Your anti-human bias shows and it's actually disturbing. What spaces are you even talking about and why do you think people that look, act, talk and think exactly like their members should be barred from them? > trans ideological cause Got it, demanding human rights apply to trans people is now an "ideological stance". The American Overton window is so far right, it's crazy people can hold such views and think they're being reasonable.
  - wastle 1y ago
    No, typically this issue is focused around spaces like female-only refuges and safe spaces, locker rooms and changing rooms, prisons, sports competitions, and so on. The divisive point being whether males who say they are female should be refused or granted access. That you have chosen to characterise this with wording like "anti-human bias" and "demanding human rights apply" further illustrates my point.
    - kelnos 1y ago
      No, that's not the typical focus of the issue, and repeating that over and over won't make it so.
      - wastle 1y ago
        What do you see it as? In the UK, where I am from, the counter to the trans ideological position tends to be from a feminist-influenced perspective, emphasising women's sex-based rights.
        thrance 1y ago
        Notice how all these so-called TERFs ally themselves with the most anti-feminist crowd, and finally realize it has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Political_alliances_with_conservatives_and_the_far_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Polit...
        u_sama 1y ago
        Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative. TERFS are still feminists. Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.
        thrance 1y ago
        > Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative. Who cares? > TERFS are still feminists. You can't be a feminist and side with the people standing against legal abortions, lesbian marriage, gender equality, equal opportunity, equal pay, equal access to education, etc. Simple as that. The conservative idea of a woman is one of a servile housewife who never leaves the house. No matter how you frame it, these people are anti-feminist, and so are the TERFs that consistently side with them. > Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate. What the hell are you going on about? I would consider the Soviets fascists, but how is that relevant in any way to TERFs not being feminists?
- kelnos 1y ago
  > The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex. And of course that shouldn't matter for an online virtual space. But that's unfortunately not it. There are many many people who believe that being trans isn't real, and that anyone who claims to be trans has a mental illness. In addition to denying trans people access to gendered spaces, they also want to deny them medical care, and do things like aggressively (sometimes even gleefully) call them by a name and pronouns that are painful to hear. (Which would still be reprehensible even if being trans was a mental illness!) And that latter bit is something I have seen happen in online spaces. It's a form of harassment. If the simple "don't be a dick to others"-type CoC is one we can agree on, that's definitely a violation. It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that, and if there's someone who can't even do that basic human thing in a community I manage, then they are not welcome there, regardless of what informs them (often misguided religious beliefs) that they should be hateful like that.
  - wastle 1y ago
    > > The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex. > And of course that shouldn't matter for an online virtual space. Depends on the space. It will matter sometimes. For instance: pregnancy forums, prostate cancer support groups. But I agree this shouldn't be relevant for online spaces used to organise work on software development projects. These, almost always, are not intended as single-sex spaces, nor as venues for discussing people's differing views on this topic. > It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that I think that's more a philosophical stance. Appealing to "basic human decency" seems too subjective, both culturally and personally. There are many perspectives on what this might mean in practice. Unfortunately the pronouns issue is difficult to avoid when communicating in English, because we have separate words to refer to female and male, and for most English speakers it's natural to use these to describe a person's sex. Overriding it because someone prefers (or demands) an opposite sex pronoun, or even some esoteric pronoun outside of the usual closed set, can be difficult even if that's something you've chosen to accede to. It's like a variation of the Stroop test but in everyday speech. There are some reasonable arguments to be made for choosing otherwise too, though I expect you probably would not agree.
u_sama 1y ago
You are most certainly Western, or if not part of the educated and Western brought elites of the Global South. But I most certainly assure you that in the other grand civilizations, the idea you expounded is the standard and just as you feel this idea is the objectively right one, in the other societies with other codes and ethics (Confucian, Vedic/Buddhist, Islamic or non Western Christian), the people living in them have as strong attachment to those ideas as you do. For you the 2 most important values are equality and freedom (deeply liberal values) which are not the same elsewhere. You also have to understand that just as you are imposing your ideas as "objectively right", in the other societies the other side is doing the same. Thus you are making a political take because it is a value judgement on how societies should operate. You might not like it or not but not only is it a value judgement incompatible with most people in the world, but it is also part of a faction inside your own arena (left wing coded Western politics)
- thrance 1y ago
  I am indeed "Western" as you put it, and generally adhere to the description you gave of me. I do recognize my statement is political, although I did not use the word "objectively" lightly and feel like I can justify my position quite solidly. So, while the other side may claim their ideas as "objectively right" too, I am yet to see any reasoning that would give credance to such claims. Here is a succint overview of the reasoning I used to arrive at my current position on trans-identity: Facts (that you should be able to verify easily through e.g. a quick Google Scholar session): 1. Gender dysphoria is real and touches a significant part of the population. It makes those affected by it suffer mentally. 2. Transition is the only known way to cure gender dysphoria, and it does indeed work. 3. People very rarely regret transitioning (<1% of them, less than the rate of people regretting having their children, and most of these "detransitions" come from religious or social pressures). 4. Trans people are no more susceptible to committing crime (sexual or else) than the average person, if not slightly less so (they are, on the other hand, ~4 times as likely to be victims of violent crimes, because of the prejudice and rhetoric targeted at them). Axioms (that I hope we both agree on): 1. Helping people feel better, or at least not hindering them while they try to, is good. 2. Ostracizing people because of something they can't change is bad. Conlusions (that you have to agree with if you accept my axioms and my reasoning): 1. Facts 1, 2 and 3 + Axiom 1 => We should let trans people transition, and whenever possible, even help them to. 2. Fact 4 + Axiom 2 + Conclusion 1 => We should let trans people participate in society as no one gets hurt in doing so, and trans people have to transition for their own good, so it would be unfair to attack them on that basis.

wastle 1y ago

The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex. This gets relabelled by activists for the trans ideological cause with phrases like "the right to participate in society" and even "the right to exist", but these are so far from what is actually being demanded that it's essentially just misinformation and false appeal to emotion.

thrance 1y ago
Spaces such as online open-source communities? This is nonsensical, listen to yourself. Your anti-human bias shows and it's actually disturbing. What spaces are you even talking about and why do you think people that look, act, talk and think exactly like their members should be barred from them? > trans ideological cause Got it, demanding human rights apply to trans people is now an "ideological stance". The American Overton window is so far right, it's crazy people can hold such views and think they're being reasonable.
- wastle 1y ago
  No, typically this issue is focused around spaces like female-only refuges and safe spaces, locker rooms and changing rooms, prisons, sports competitions, and so on. The divisive point being whether males who say they are female should be refused or granted access. That you have chosen to characterise this with wording like "anti-human bias" and "demanding human rights apply" further illustrates my point.
  - kelnos 1y ago
    No, that's not the typical focus of the issue, and repeating that over and over won't make it so.
    - wastle 1y ago
      What do you see it as? In the UK, where I am from, the counter to the trans ideological position tends to be from a feminist-influenced perspective, emphasising women's sex-based rights.
      - thrance 1y ago
        Notice how all these so-called TERFs ally themselves with the most anti-feminist crowd, and finally realize it has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Political_alliances_with_conservatives_and_the_far_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism#Polit...
        u_sama 1y ago
        Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative. TERFS are still feminists. Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate.
        thrance 1y ago
        > Most historical feminists would be labelled TERFs today, just like the most liberal 19th century politicians would be seen as conservative. Who cares? > TERFS are still feminists. You can't be a feminist and side with the people standing against legal abortions, lesbian marriage, gender equality, equal opportunity, equal pay, equal access to education, etc. Simple as that. The conservative idea of a woman is one of a servile housewife who never leaves the house. No matter how you frame it, these people are anti-feminist, and so are the TERFs that consistently side with them. > Communists also allied themselves with fascists during the inter-war period yet you can still consider them as separate. What the hell are you going on about? I would consider the Soviets fascists, but how is that relevant in any way to TERFs not being feminists?
kelnos 1y ago
> The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex. And of course that shouldn't matter for an online virtual space. But that's unfortunately not it. There are many many people who believe that being trans isn't real, and that anyone who claims to be trans has a mental illness. In addition to denying trans people access to gendered spaces, they also want to deny them medical care, and do things like aggressively (sometimes even gleefully) call them by a name and pronouns that are painful to hear. (Which would still be reprehensible even if being trans was a mental illness!) And that latter bit is something I have seen happen in online spaces. It's a form of harassment. If the simple "don't be a dick to others"-type CoC is one we can agree on, that's definitely a violation. It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that, and if there's someone who can't even do that basic human thing in a community I manage, then they are not welcome there, regardless of what informs them (often misguided religious beliefs) that they should be hateful like that.
- wastle 1y ago
  > > The actual divisive issue is whether people who say they are the opposite sex to what they really are should be granted access to spaces that are designated for the sole use of the opposite sex. > And of course that shouldn't matter for an online virtual space. Depends on the space. It will matter sometimes. For instance: pregnancy forums, prostate cancer support groups. But I agree this shouldn't be relevant for online spaces used to organise work on software development projects. These, almost always, are not intended as single-sex spaces, nor as venues for discussing people's differing views on this topic. > It's not a "political stance" to say that people should call others by their preferred name and pronouns. It's just basic human decency to do that I think that's more a philosophical stance. Appealing to "basic human decency" seems too subjective, both culturally and personally. There are many perspectives on what this might mean in practice. Unfortunately the pronouns issue is difficult to avoid when communicating in English, because we have separate words to refer to female and male, and for most English speakers it's natural to use these to describe a person's sex. Overriding it because someone prefers (or demands) an opposite sex pronoun, or even some esoteric pronoun outside of the usual closed set, can be difficult even if that's something you've chosen to accede to. It's like a variation of the Stroop test but in everyday speech. There are some reasonable arguments to be made for choosing otherwise too, though I expect you probably would not agree.

u_sama 1y ago

You are most certainly Western, or if not part of the educated and Western brought elites of the Global South. But I most certainly assure you that in the other grand civilizations, the idea you expounded is the standard and just as you feel this idea is the objectively right one, in the other societies with other codes and ethics (Confucian, Vedic/Buddhist, Islamic or non Western Christian), the people living in them have as strong attachment to those ideas as you do. For you the 2 most important values are equality and freedom (deeply liberal values) which are not the same elsewhere. You also have to understand that just as you are imposing your ideas as "objectively right", in the other societies the other side is doing the same. Thus you are making a political take because it is a value judgement on how societies should operate. You might not like it or not but not only is it a value judgement incompatible with most people in the world, but it is also part of a faction inside your own arena (left wing coded Western politics)

thrance 1y ago
I am indeed "Western" as you put it, and generally adhere to the description you gave of me. I do recognize my statement is political, although I did not use the word "objectively" lightly and feel like I can justify my position quite solidly. So, while the other side may claim their ideas as "objectively right" too, I am yet to see any reasoning that would give credance to such claims. Here is a succint overview of the reasoning I used to arrive at my current position on trans-identity: Facts (that you should be able to verify easily through e.g. a quick Google Scholar session): 1. Gender dysphoria is real and touches a significant part of the population. It makes those affected by it suffer mentally. 2. Transition is the only known way to cure gender dysphoria, and it does indeed work. 3. People very rarely regret transitioning (<1% of them, less than the rate of people regretting having their children, and most of these "detransitions" come from religious or social pressures). 4. Trans people are no more susceptible to committing crime (sexual or else) than the average person, if not slightly less so (they are, on the other hand, ~4 times as likely to be victims of violent crimes, because of the prejudice and rhetoric targeted at them). Axioms (that I hope we both agree on): 1. Helping people feel better, or at least not hindering them while they try to, is good. 2. Ostracizing people because of something they can't change is bad. Conlusions (that you have to agree with if you accept my axioms and my reasoning): 1. Facts 1, 2 and 3 + Axiom 1 => We should let trans people transition, and whenever possible, even help them to. 2. Fact 4 + Axiom 2 + Conclusion 1 => We should let trans people participate in society as no one gets hurt in doing so, and trans people have to transition for their own good, so it would be unfair to attack them on that basis.