genderarguments.com archive

cloven hooves The Personal Is Political Gender Critical Resource genderarguments.com archive

Resource genderarguments.com archive

Print Thread

Pages (2): Previous 1 2

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:54 PM

#11

Quote:“Dismissing transgender identities is racist because some indigenous cultures have third-gender roles.”

It’s undeniable that various indigenous cultures have developed gendered social roles extending beyond a binary division of “man” and “woman.” However, transgender activists often interpret these indigenous social practices through a Eurocentric lens in a dishonest attempt to draw misleading parallels with modern transgender theory. For example, it’s common to hear about the central role the winkte played in traditional Lakota culture. But winkte is itself a contraction of the old Lakota word winyanktehca, which means “[He] wants to be a woman” – a way of understanding gender identity that would be extremely problematic to most modern transgender activists! In reality, the majority of these social roles don’t cleanly map onto any conception of gender found in the West today, and transgender activists should stop misrepresenting them to naturalize their fundamentally Eurocentric theory.

It’s also worth pointing out that indigenous cultures disagree with each other about how exactly gender works; the Zapotec traditionally recognized three genders, the Chukchi people traditionally recognized seven, the Bugis people traditionally recognized five, and so on. Is it racist if we don’t affirm all these contradictory frameworks at once? Of course not! As transgender activists recognize, gender is a social construct, and that means its structure will necessarily vary across time and place. It’s entirely possible to affirm the validity of these cultural practices inside their own particular context while also having a distinct analysis of gender as it functions in our society today – and presumably, the majority of those who criticize transgender ideology believe that our gender is, in fact, a binary one.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:27 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:54 PM #11

Quote:“Dismissing transgender identities is racist because some indigenous cultures have third-gender roles.”

It’s undeniable that various indigenous cultures have developed gendered social roles extending beyond a binary division of “man” and “woman.” However, transgender activists often interpret these indigenous social practices through a Eurocentric lens in a dishonest attempt to draw misleading parallels with modern transgender theory. For example, it’s common to hear about the central role the winkte played in traditional Lakota culture. But winkte is itself a contraction of the old Lakota word winyanktehca, which means “[He] wants to be a woman” – a way of understanding gender identity that would be extremely problematic to most modern transgender activists! In reality, the majority of these social roles don’t cleanly map onto any conception of gender found in the West today, and transgender activists should stop misrepresenting them to naturalize their fundamentally Eurocentric theory.

It’s also worth pointing out that indigenous cultures disagree with each other about how exactly gender works; the Zapotec traditionally recognized three genders, the Chukchi people traditionally recognized seven, the Bugis people traditionally recognized five, and so on. Is it racist if we don’t affirm all these contradictory frameworks at once? Of course not! As transgender activists recognize, gender is a social construct, and that means its structure will necessarily vary across time and place. It’s entirely possible to affirm the validity of these cultural practices inside their own particular context while also having a distinct analysis of gender as it functions in our society today – and presumably, the majority of those who criticize transgender ideology believe that our gender is, in fact, a binary one.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:54 PM

#12

Quote:“No one would ever transition just to get a scholarship, win a race, or otherwise gain some unfair advantage over women.”

This objection is responding to a strawman – few, if any, critics of transgender theory believe that men regularly transition exclusively as part of a cynical ploy to access resources or activities normally reserved for women. It seems reasonable to assume that the majority of transgender people sincerely believe the claims they make about their gender and sex, and see access to sex-specific accommodations and activities as a logical consequence of those beliefs rather than the motivation behind them.

However, just because someone sincerely believes they’re entitled to something doesn’t mean their entitlement can’t be irrational, problematic, or harmful. In fact, some of the most destructive behavior in our culture arises precisely because people are acting out of a deep-seated conviction generated by their foundational assumptions about the world – no one considers it particularly comforting to hear that, for example, religious fanatics who want to ban abortion are doing it because they really, truly believe that life begins at conception. Transgender activists who point out that no one would ever transition purely for personal gain are similarly missing the point. A male person’s earnest belief in their right to violate common-sense sex segregation policies and appropriate women’s resources is merely evidence of oblivious entitlement, which is hardly better than naked self-interest. What ultimately matters is the harm these actions bring to women; the internal motivations of those who choose to harm them are ultimately irrelevant.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:28 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:54 PM #12

Quote:“No one would ever transition just to get a scholarship, win a race, or otherwise gain some unfair advantage over women.”

This objection is responding to a strawman – few, if any, critics of transgender theory believe that men regularly transition exclusively as part of a cynical ploy to access resources or activities normally reserved for women. It seems reasonable to assume that the majority of transgender people sincerely believe the claims they make about their gender and sex, and see access to sex-specific accommodations and activities as a logical consequence of those beliefs rather than the motivation behind them.

However, just because someone sincerely believes they’re entitled to something doesn’t mean their entitlement can’t be irrational, problematic, or harmful. In fact, some of the most destructive behavior in our culture arises precisely because people are acting out of a deep-seated conviction generated by their foundational assumptions about the world – no one considers it particularly comforting to hear that, for example, religious fanatics who want to ban abortion are doing it because they really, truly believe that life begins at conception. Transgender activists who point out that no one would ever transition purely for personal gain are similarly missing the point. A male person’s earnest belief in their right to violate common-sense sex segregation policies and appropriate women’s resources is merely evidence of oblivious entitlement, which is hardly better than naked self-interest. What ultimately matters is the harm these actions bring to women; the internal motivations of those who choose to harm them are ultimately irrelevant.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:55 PM

#13

Quote:“Human rights aren’t up for debate!”

This objection is fundamentally misleading. There is, of course, a sense in which it’s true that human rights aren’t up for debate; under most common conceptions, an individual’s rights are not determined by what any other person (or the individual themselves) believes about the world, and rights can’t be abrogated just because we wish they didn’t exist. However, there’s a clear distinction to be made between the actual existence of a particular human right, and the process by which we determine whether or not that right exists – and in that process, debate absolutely does play a central role. After all, how could a society come to any conclusions about what rights do and don’t exist without debate? The only alternative would be divine revelation or personal intuition, neither of which have great track records in the human rights realm.

In other words, transgender activists and others who use this slogan are attempting to conflate a metaphysical claim about rights (that they depend on human opinions for their veracity) with an epistemological claim about rights (that no one can ever challenge another’s assertion about their rights). This becomes obvious when you consider a situation where someone asserts some particularly bizarre right – say, the right to free ice cream on demand. If you responded by saying that, no, they were not allowed to demand such a thing, would My human rights are not up for debate! be a convincing rebuttal? Of course not. You would likely respond by agreeing that human rights are objective, and, from that position, arguing that they did not, in fact, possess the right they claimed. You wouldn’t be “stripping their right to free ice cream away” – you would merely be asserting that they were mistaken about possessing that right to begin with.

Radical feminists and other critics of transgender theory hold a similar position. With very, very few exceptions, no one seriously argues that transgender people ought to have their rights limited, violated, or removed. Instead, they simply argue that some rights transgender people claim – for example, the right to change legal documents in light of one’s self-conception or the right to compel other’s speech – are not, in fact, human rights at all. They may also argue that human beings do possess some rights that the demands of transgender activists violate, like the right to freedom of speech or sex segregation. The answers to these questions can only be answered through reasoned debate; simple assertions will only ever lead to a stalemate in which male priorities often take center stage.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:28 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:55 PM #13

Quote:“Human rights aren’t up for debate!”

This objection is fundamentally misleading. There is, of course, a sense in which it’s true that human rights aren’t up for debate; under most common conceptions, an individual’s rights are not determined by what any other person (or the individual themselves) believes about the world, and rights can’t be abrogated just because we wish they didn’t exist. However, there’s a clear distinction to be made between the actual existence of a particular human right, and the process by which we determine whether or not that right exists – and in that process, debate absolutely does play a central role. After all, how could a society come to any conclusions about what rights do and don’t exist without debate? The only alternative would be divine revelation or personal intuition, neither of which have great track records in the human rights realm.

In other words, transgender activists and others who use this slogan are attempting to conflate a metaphysical claim about rights (that they depend on human opinions for their veracity) with an epistemological claim about rights (that no one can ever challenge another’s assertion about their rights). This becomes obvious when you consider a situation where someone asserts some particularly bizarre right – say, the right to free ice cream on demand. If you responded by saying that, no, they were not allowed to demand such a thing, would My human rights are not up for debate! be a convincing rebuttal? Of course not. You would likely respond by agreeing that human rights are objective, and, from that position, arguing that they did not, in fact, possess the right they claimed. You wouldn’t be “stripping their right to free ice cream away” – you would merely be asserting that they were mistaken about possessing that right to begin with.

Radical feminists and other critics of transgender theory hold a similar position. With very, very few exceptions, no one seriously argues that transgender people ought to have their rights limited, violated, or removed. Instead, they simply argue that some rights transgender people claim – for example, the right to change legal documents in light of one’s self-conception or the right to compel other’s speech – are not, in fact, human rights at all. They may also argue that human beings do possess some rights that the demands of transgender activists violate, like the right to freedom of speech or sex segregation. The answers to these questions can only be answered through reasoned debate; simple assertions will only ever lead to a stalemate in which male priorities often take center stage.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:56 PM

#14

Quote:“The exclusion of trans women from women’s spaces is just like racial segregation during the Jim Crow era.”

This historically illiterate, offensive comparison ignores literally dozens of relevant differences between sex segregation as it exists today and racial segregation as it existed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the United States. But the most obvious one would be this: Male people pose a unique threat to female people that Black people absolutely do not pose to white people. Any cheap comparison between the fears women have about trans-identified males in their spaces and the fears white people have about Black people in their spaces relies on the assumption that Black people are disproportionately dangerous in the way male people are – a hateful and bizarre claim that we should all condemn.

More broadly, feminists and anti-racists both have long realized that not all “segregation” is equal; as Marilyn Fry said, “It is nothing extraordinary for a master to bar his slaves from the manor, but it is a revolutionary act for slaves to bar their master from their hut.” Black people and female people comprise two intersecting social classes that experience abuse and exploitation at the hands of white people and male people, and therefore have the right to exclude their oppressors from particular spaces. This means that female-only spaces where male people are excluded should be compared, not with Jim Crow segregation, but rather with the existence of Black-only spaces where white people are excluded – and such spaces are not only justified, but often essential.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:29 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:56 PM #14

Quote:“The exclusion of trans women from women’s spaces is just like racial segregation during the Jim Crow era.”

This historically illiterate, offensive comparison ignores literally dozens of relevant differences between sex segregation as it exists today and racial segregation as it existed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the United States. But the most obvious one would be this: Male people pose a unique threat to female people that Black people absolutely do not pose to white people. Any cheap comparison between the fears women have about trans-identified males in their spaces and the fears white people have about Black people in their spaces relies on the assumption that Black people are disproportionately dangerous in the way male people are – a hateful and bizarre claim that we should all condemn.

More broadly, feminists and anti-racists both have long realized that not all “segregation” is equal; as Marilyn Fry said, “It is nothing extraordinary for a master to bar his slaves from the manor, but it is a revolutionary act for slaves to bar their master from their hut.” Black people and female people comprise two intersecting social classes that experience abuse and exploitation at the hands of white people and male people, and therefore have the right to exclude their oppressors from particular spaces. This means that female-only spaces where male people are excluded should be compared, not with Jim Crow segregation, but rather with the existence of Black-only spaces where white people are excluded – and such spaces are not only justified, but often essential.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:56 PM

#15

Quote:“Gender-neutral pronouns are no big deal – people have been using the singular they for centuries.”

It’s definitely true that a singular they has been firmly established in English grammar since at least the time of Chaucer. But people who raise this point are misunderstanding the issue. With the exception of a few obnoxious pedants, no one is actually opposed to the use of they and them as singular pronouns in the course of natural, everyday speech. What people are concerned about is the use of these pronouns in a declarative sense – that is, the application of gender neutral terminology as a way of asserting that someone is actually neither male nor female. These two motivations for using they and them are obviously different, and it’s dishonest to pretend objections to one are really objections to the other.

As an analogy, consider the practice of referring to boats as she, which also stretches back for centuries. We all understand that this is simply a linguistic convention; while it may have roots in sailor’s misogynistic attitudes, it was never meant to make any sort of factual claim about a boat being literally female. If someone today did make that bizarre claim (and, as a result, demanded that we refer to his boat with female pronouns), could he defend it by pointing out that sailors in 1800 also called their boats she? Of course not! By the same token, the fact that natural English speech occasionally omits gendered pronouns as a matter of convention has no bearing on whether it’s appropriate for someone to claim they are literally neither male nor female. These are two separate issues, and it’s the latter that concerns so many.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:30 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:56 PM #15

Quote:“Gender-neutral pronouns are no big deal – people have been using the singular they for centuries.”

It’s definitely true that a singular they has been firmly established in English grammar since at least the time of Chaucer. But people who raise this point are misunderstanding the issue. With the exception of a few obnoxious pedants, no one is actually opposed to the use of they and them as singular pronouns in the course of natural, everyday speech. What people are concerned about is the use of these pronouns in a declarative sense – that is, the application of gender neutral terminology as a way of asserting that someone is actually neither male nor female. These two motivations for using they and them are obviously different, and it’s dishonest to pretend objections to one are really objections to the other.

As an analogy, consider the practice of referring to boats as she, which also stretches back for centuries. We all understand that this is simply a linguistic convention; while it may have roots in sailor’s misogynistic attitudes, it was never meant to make any sort of factual claim about a boat being literally female. If someone today did make that bizarre claim (and, as a result, demanded that we refer to his boat with female pronouns), could he defend it by pointing out that sailors in 1800 also called their boats she? Of course not! By the same token, the fact that natural English speech occasionally omits gendered pronouns as a matter of convention has no bearing on whether it’s appropriate for someone to claim they are literally neither male nor female. These are two separate issues, and it’s the latter that concerns so many.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:57 PM

#16

Quote:“You can’t assume that every trans person is dangerous based on the actions of a few.”

This is a common response from transgender activists, obviously designed to paint defenders of sex segregation as irrational bigots. But the vast majority of those who support keeping women’s spaces sex-segregated agree that trans people are not uniquely dangerous. Rather, they simply believe that male people – who, as a class, are indisputably responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes – do not become less dangerous simply because they identify themselves as women. For this reason, it’s both justifiable and rational `to exclude all male people from spaces where incidents of voyeurism, harassment, and abuse are most common, regardless of how they choose to identify.

To better understand this distinction, consider the following question: Do you believe left-handed, elderly, or socialist men should have the right to use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and other intimate spaces? And assuming you answer no, would it be reasonable to accuse you of believing that left-handedness, old age, and socialist politics are uniquely dangerous traits? Of course not! In the same way, it’s unreasonable to claim that women’s fears surrounding trans-identified males are evidence of a unique or irrational transphobic bigotry. Instead, they’re simply the result of justifiable and productive sex-based boundaries being consistently applied.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:30 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:57 PM #16

Quote:“You can’t assume that every trans person is dangerous based on the actions of a few.”

This is a common response from transgender activists, obviously designed to paint defenders of sex segregation as irrational bigots. But the vast majority of those who support keeping women’s spaces sex-segregated agree that trans people are not uniquely dangerous. Rather, they simply believe that male people – who, as a class, are indisputably responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes – do not become less dangerous simply because they identify themselves as women. For this reason, it’s both justifiable and rational `to exclude all male people from spaces where incidents of voyeurism, harassment, and abuse are most common, regardless of how they choose to identify.

To better understand this distinction, consider the following question: Do you believe left-handed, elderly, or socialist men should have the right to use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and other intimate spaces? And assuming you answer no, would it be reasonable to accuse you of believing that left-handedness, old age, and socialist politics are uniquely dangerous traits? Of course not! In the same way, it’s unreasonable to claim that women’s fears surrounding trans-identified males are evidence of a unique or irrational transphobic bigotry. Instead, they’re simply the result of justifiable and productive sex-based boundaries being consistently applied.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Dec 16 2024, 1:58 PM

#17

Quote:“Sex segregation doesn’t help – if a predator wants to assault someone, a sign on the door won’t stop them.”

This objection fundamentally misunderstands the purpose behind sex segregation as a concept. No one believes that marking a space as woman-only forms some sort of magical barrier against male violence. Instead, woman-only spaces allow for potential threats to be identified and dealt with before a crime occurs, rather than afterwards. In a mixed-sex setting, any man can enter an intimate space with women present, and those women will be unable to object; until he actually harasses, assaults, or otherwise abuses them, they have no recourse. In contrast, sex segregation allows for men (who are responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes, especially in intimate spaces) to be removed immediately, before they commit a crime. This alone makes sex segregation a valuable tool in the fight against male violence, and statistics back up its efficacy.

As a comparison, consider the concept of a gun-free zone. Does anyone think that forbidding weapons in malls, schools, or places of worship will discourage a spree killer? Of course not! No one who is set on committing mass murder is worried about a misdemeanor weapons charge. Nonetheless, gun-free zones are still important because they give legal grounds for police or security to remove potentially dangerous people before they open fire. The same is true for sex segregation – it exists to provide women with legal grounds for removing potential threats, not to appeal to a predator’s conscience or fear of breaking the law.

It’s also worth noting that, while the debate around sex segregation often centers around the idea of calculating predators intentionally following women into intimate spaces to abuse them, most sex crimes are actually opportunistic – situations where the perpetrator finds himself alone with a woman and makes a split-second decision to commit an act of violence. So while a sign on the door might not stop a predator from intentionally seeking out victims, it absolutely can prevent opportunistic offenders from encountering vulnerable women they then decide to harm. Sex segregation is perhaps most effective in these situations, which makes objections like the one above even more irrelevant and dishonest.

Edited Dec 16 2024, 2:31 PM by Clover.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 16 2024, 1:58 PM #17

Quote:“Sex segregation doesn’t help – if a predator wants to assault someone, a sign on the door won’t stop them.”

This objection fundamentally misunderstands the purpose behind sex segregation as a concept. No one believes that marking a space as woman-only forms some sort of magical barrier against male violence. Instead, woman-only spaces allow for potential threats to be identified and dealt with before a crime occurs, rather than afterwards. In a mixed-sex setting, any man can enter an intimate space with women present, and those women will be unable to object; until he actually harasses, assaults, or otherwise abuses them, they have no recourse. In contrast, sex segregation allows for men (who are responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes, especially in intimate spaces) to be removed immediately, before they commit a crime. This alone makes sex segregation a valuable tool in the fight against male violence, and statistics back up its efficacy.

As a comparison, consider the concept of a gun-free zone. Does anyone think that forbidding weapons in malls, schools, or places of worship will discourage a spree killer? Of course not! No one who is set on committing mass murder is worried about a misdemeanor weapons charge. Nonetheless, gun-free zones are still important because they give legal grounds for police or security to remove potentially dangerous people before they open fire. The same is true for sex segregation – it exists to provide women with legal grounds for removing potential threats, not to appeal to a predator’s conscience or fear of breaking the law.

It’s also worth noting that, while the debate around sex segregation often centers around the idea of calculating predators intentionally following women into intimate spaces to abuse them, most sex crimes are actually opportunistic – situations where the perpetrator finds himself alone with a woman and makes a split-second decision to commit an act of violence. So while a sign on the door might not stop a predator from intentionally seeking out victims, it absolutely can prevent opportunistic offenders from encountering vulnerable women they then decide to harm. Sex segregation is perhaps most effective in these situations, which makes objections like the one above even more irrelevant and dishonest.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Pages (2): Previous 1 2

Print Thread

Recently Browsing
3 Guest(s)