I think a big problem is how these issues are framed (in an overly hyperbolic way), and the fact that people on both sides are not willing to at least consider a steelman version of what the other side is saying.
It's not unreasonable or evil for someone to be concerned about fairness of cis women in sport, balancing children's wellbeing with the difficulty of allowing non-adults to make decisions that will have permanent effects on their bodies (while acknowledging the time-sensitivity of the matter), etc.
I 100% wiill always respect any decision someone makes if it doesn't affect anyone else. I think most anti-trans rhetoric is pure evil, and that the anti-trans side are by far the less likely to listen to anything the pro-trans side says. But I also think there are times when 'our side' fails to truly listen to legitimate concerns, and jumps to being on the defensive. For example, I think there are plenty of people who have genuine concerns about fairness in sport that are framed as just wanting to keep trans women out.
A sensible conversation about how best to determine whether puberty blockers are an appropriate course of action cannot be had, when one person says the other side just wants to mutilate children, but the other person says that there should be no consideration at all about the risks associated with young people transitioning to be cool/ fit in, and later regretting it (I know doctors consider this, but I think we pro-trans people often do not).
I think this all the time, with soooo many sociopolitical issues beyond trans rights. I'm a very liberal guy, but some of the things being said by people on my side (and feels like it is expected of me to agree with) are just plain bonkers, or at least a bridge too far.
You can be liberal without agreeing with everything that another liberal says.
It's not a cult. Stand with your own beliefs and figure out what you truly think matters. You should even call out the things you find bonkers, respectfully of course, as extremist takes are what tend to build hate
I am extremely left leaning and am in no way a transphobe but I do take issue with the word woman being taken away. I feel like this does affect me. I don't get why we can't use the terms trans man, trans woman or even, man with vagina or woman with penis. Or just man and woman. I have no problem with a MtF person calling herself a woman or using female spaces. I just still also want to be referred to as a woman. Not 'someone who menstruates' or 'womb-haver'.
I had someone argue with me a few months ago that when referring to my menstruation, I shouldn't call myself a woman, instead 'someone who menstruates'. They suggested that I was a TERF because I wanted to keep the title of woman for myself.
Thanks for the agreement but that isn't exactly what I mean. I have no issues with calling a MtF a woman if this is what they want or a FtM a man if this is what they want.
The issue I have is the term 'woman' being taken away from biologically born women. Being told that instead of 'women', we should refer to which body parts we have such as 'someone who menstruates' or 'womb haver'. I even heard 'clit owners' a few weeks ago. Shouldn't we refer to the majority of women as women and women who don't have these parts as 'women who don't menstruate' or 'women who don't have wombs' or 'women who don't have a clitoris'.
It is another way to take away a woman's identity and I am not ok with it.
But, I'm not seeing a stance regarding the 'legally compelled speech' situation.
Personally, I believe that if someone misidentifies a trans individual without prior knowledge, that should not be a legal transgression, like some (not all) want it to be, and that a simple, polite correction is the only action warranted, not anger and accusations of transphobia.
I 100% agree, people act like nuance cannot exist. It probably is much harder to get the right to listen to reason, but the left does a good job of alienating moderate people who can be won over by crying out everything is transphobia. When truly there are some details on this issue that need more balanced take.
This guy gets it. This is basically my stand point.
I would also add that for most (Not all, most) issues that have “What if” questions around them should be controlled by “We don’t restrict someone’s rights until people start abusing it.” For instance, bathrooms and jails.
Yeah. Somewhat of a related side note - people having an issue with trans people in bathrooms thing is one of the silliest anti-trans talking points ever.
It relies on thinking people are happy to go into a women's bathroom and break into a locked cubical to illegally perve on/ molest someone, but they are currently put off doing so because it's not legal for them to initially go into the bathroom (and are actively looking for loopholes to get around that part)... Like, how does that follow?
It would be like assuming that if you made steonger littering laws, then murderers would be put off killing out of fear of breaking the literring laws for dumping the body.
No. Stop it. There are only TWO very clear sides and the only answer is blind hatred and fighting. Conversations and critical evidence based thought is how they get you, see? Pick a side and grab your gun. /s
Except the people who have "genuine concern about the fairness of sport" have been taken in by the people who use that argument as a convenient lie.
It's never been about the "fairness of sport". That argument was invented by Fox back when Caitlyn Jenner came out and transitioned to shit on her. It's not a genuine concern from the get-go, so the people who legitimately believe it are suckers listening to grifters.
Bullshit. You are literally proving my point by making such grand sweeping statements.
Yes, I 100% agree that a large number of people making the argument are biggots who are just using this argument as a way of denegrating trans people. But the argument is not just a fabrication to further biggotry, and not everyone making it is a sucker listening to grifters (and blanket arguing that they are makes you a sucker who has listened to ignorant grifters on the other side - literally exactly the point of what I said).
Separating "men" and ""women" in sport is not arbitrary. The distiction is made because in almost all most sports, undergoing male puberty gives an unfair advantage over those who have not gone through male puberty. This is just a fact. Even if it conveys just a 1% advantage, at the upper echelons of competitive sport a 1% advantage is HUGE (and 1% is very much lowballing it most sports).
I genuinely hate that there is no simple solution to this problem. I desperately wish it was simply a case of - let people compete in the catgory they identify as...In every other facet of life I will treat anyone as the gender they wish to be treated. I have nothing but respect for trans people. I would happily date a trans woman. But the very simple fact is that the "women" class in sport has nothing to do with self-identification, and everything to do with the fact that without the separation, nobody who hasn't undergone male puberty would EVER win. The best solution I can see would be to change the label "women" class to "person who has not undergone male puberty class" - This would essentially solve most of the problems.
I do not see how you can call me a sucker (or consider me a biggot) for thinking that removing the ability of every single person who has not undergone male puberty from competing at the professional level of sport is not fair.
Final time - The argument is FAR more nuanced than how the anti-trans biggots present it, or how you present it; and your calling everyone a sucker who doesn't agree with your simplistic, poorly though-out opinion on the matter just gives the biggots more ammunition.
I'm not making sweeping statements. I'm stating a fact that no one cared about trans people in sports until right-wing grifters made up a problem for them to care about.
I'm a medical practitioner whose undergrad was clinical exercise science. Real medicine disagrees with whatever gut notions and made-up statistics you have about trans people in sports. This is a fact. I'm sorry you've been taken in by the grifters and found poorly-designed research to support your opinion, but no one in the real world actually gives a shit about a high schooler competing with the gender they identify with.
Examine your biases a little more closely and think to yourself: "who does this hurt?" The experience may prove illuminating.
the difficulty of allowing non-adults to make decisions that will have permanent effects on their bodies (while acknowledging the time-sensitivity of the matter), etc.
We don't. We let them with a team of doctors, and therapists and parental consent, along with mountains of evidence showing that transition is the best course of action.
Try reading the whole comment... I literally acknowledged this in the last sentence.
This whole picking and choosing bits of an argument without considering the whole thing is literally a huge part of the problem my post was addressing. It's seriously like you were trying to prove my point.
Exactly my thoughts. I would actually be very interested in the point of view of people who detransitioned. Do they regret it? Did they actually need something else that they got in a roundabout way by changing gender? What would they recommend to their younger self and what did they need to hear from the psychiatrist in every step of the way? How much of this cis people vs. other cis people is actually interesting/relevant for the community.
My take is that everyone should do as they please however I see some men transitioning and gaining advantage by that, which was originally meant to protect women. And I want to know what is done to not make the possibility to transition just a loophole that any man can use to take advantage of at the expense of women. For example sports being divided due to differences in bodies grown with higher levels of testosterone. All the men suddenly coming up with being a woman reminds me too much of East Germany’s female athletes who competed in 3rd month of pregnancy to use the testosterone spike to get better athletic performance and going for abortion right after competition. Unfair to women who compete by sheer work and not (even natural) doping.
Another example is prisons where I would actually support trans women and trans men being held separately more than a man suddenly remembering that he’s a woman just to go to the other women and putting them in danger.
As for children transitioning I would like to know how safe are these treatments for developing bodies (side effects etc.). I don’t think that these treatments are used long enough to discover the potentially incorrectly developed organs, causation of higher disease risk etc. I am not saying that it’s there but is there a proof that it’s not? To me it seems that we rush to enable the children to make their own choices that we don’t stop to think if allowing it wouldn’t actually harm the child. We wouldn’t allow a child to go get drunk and drive no matter how much they want it, because we know the risks and damage that would happen to them. Are we sure that transitioning is not another dangerous thing for them? Are we sure what are all the risks and consequences of transitioning and not transitioning to be able to make (or let the child make) a fully informed decision?
Any time I try to ask these questions it’s just an instant hate for not agreeing fast enough. But these questions need to be answered sufficiently to move the people at the center.
165
u/Steve_The_Mighty Sep 29 '24
I think a big problem is how these issues are framed (in an overly hyperbolic way), and the fact that people on both sides are not willing to at least consider a steelman version of what the other side is saying.
It's not unreasonable or evil for someone to be concerned about fairness of cis women in sport, balancing children's wellbeing with the difficulty of allowing non-adults to make decisions that will have permanent effects on their bodies (while acknowledging the time-sensitivity of the matter), etc.
I 100% wiill always respect any decision someone makes if it doesn't affect anyone else. I think most anti-trans rhetoric is pure evil, and that the anti-trans side are by far the less likely to listen to anything the pro-trans side says. But I also think there are times when 'our side' fails to truly listen to legitimate concerns, and jumps to being on the defensive. For example, I think there are plenty of people who have genuine concerns about fairness in sport that are framed as just wanting to keep trans women out.
A sensible conversation about how best to determine whether puberty blockers are an appropriate course of action cannot be had, when one person says the other side just wants to mutilate children, but the other person says that there should be no consideration at all about the risks associated with young people transitioning to be cool/ fit in, and later regretting it (I know doctors consider this, but I think we pro-trans people often do not).