Something new about the Trans rights movement

How pervasive and how extensive is this problem? If it's rare, then we should let society sort it out case by case. Not that you said the contrary.

 

I don't disagree, but I confess that I suspect that some of these people are playing games, others mere transvestites, and others are just confused. I'm not going to make a blanket, advance commitment to call every person by the gender they claim. Sue me.

Society makes reasonable demands on us all in order to keep things running peacefully.

 

Pervasive enough. Most work places have dress codes that would prevent MtF transgenders from dressing in "women's" clothing. Some have rules that even prevent FtM's from presenting as men. And the discrimination is not limited to work places. And the impact isn't limited to transgender people. There have been several incidents where cis women have been stopped and harrased for trying to go into the women's restroom, because the person didn't think they looked woman enough.

Transvestites/Cross Dressers/Drag Queens don't typically claim to be a gender opposite their sex. They just dress that way. And yes there can be confusion, which is why someone who suspects that they are transgender should get professional therapy with someone who is familiar with the condition and can determine if they are or not, and then guide them further. The idea should be to make sure those who are actually transgender transition to the point that GD is no longer a problem, and to prevent transitioning of a surgical nature for those who are not actually transgender. As to playing games, that is the extremely rare case.

 

A backlash against gender ideology is starting in universities | The Economist

"Hours before Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology at Britain’s Open University, was due to give a talk at Essex University about placing transgender women in women’s prisons, students threatened to barricade the hall. They complained that Ms Phoenix was a “transphobe” likely to engage in “hate speech”. A flyer with an image of a gun and text reading “shut the **** up, terf” (trans-exclusionary radical feminist, a slur) was circulating. The university told Ms Phoenix it was postponing the event. Then the sociology department asked her for a copy of her talk. Days later it told her it had voted to rescind its invitation, and would issue no more. Ms Phoenix says she was “absolutely furious and deeply upset” about both the damage to her reputation and to academic freedom."

"In some cases, academics who have objected to “gender ideology”—the view that gender identity should trump biology—have been removed from professional posts. In April Callie Burt, an associate professor at Georgia State University, was fired from the editorial board of Feminist Criminology. She was told her presence might deter others from submitting manuscripts. The problem appears to have been her criticism of the conflation of sex and gender identity in proposed anti-discrimination legislation. Last June Kathleen Lowrey, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Alberta, was removed as the chair of an undergraduate programme after students complained they felt unsafe. She says she reckons gender-critical posters on her office door were to blame."

"Yet the most worrying effect is likely to be invisible. An unknown number of university employees avoid expressing their opinion for fear it will damage their career or turn them into pariahs."

Orwellian. Biology and free speech are under attack.

 

Yes. It appears to be a new form of religion. Claims presented as facts without any evidence. Shunning and maligning non-believers. Acting against free speech and equating speech to violence. And all in the name of progressivism and liberalism. Crybullying used as a powerful and aggressive weapon.

Much of it isn't liberal. It is anti-liberal. And unless actual liberals find the backbone to stand against it, it will empower the far right instead of the left, as it will make the left look more and more unreasonable.

Real liberals fight for the right of actual Nazis to speak, so they can be revealed and known to all and opposed. This new illiberal woke movement instead calls everyone who doesn't agree with them Nazis, says it's ok to punch them, and seeks to silence rather than counter them.

And it isnt just "a few college kids". It has infested business and government. And it needs to be called out by liberals for what it is so it doesn't destroy them.

All that said, racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia remain real problems, and the woke stuff unfortunately encourage rather than discourage or put an end to these problems.

It is a major flaw in society when claiming on behalf of other people to be offended can silence people and be used as a weapon of aggression.

 

double post. please delete.

 

[QUOTE="Jolly Penguin, post: 1072727742, member: 87798"]Claims presented as facts without any evidence.[/QUOTE]

What "claims" are being "presented as facts" that lack "any evidence"

Needless to say the response will be CRICKETS again!

 

A black person cant change that he’s black. We as society have to acknowledge that and have decided as a society that such a person is fully entitled to have equal rights. We can see the colour of their skin and know it as a fact.

A transgender person can choose to present themselves as a different gender other than what they were assigned at birth but there is no real way of knowing if this person “truly is transgender” or if they chose to present as transgender to fulfil a social niche, if they started questioning their gender because someone at school told them to when they were at a vulnerable age or if they are being encouraged to by social media.I have no doubt that the older a person gets and the more entrenched in the Trans lifestyle they get the more difficult or even impossible it would be to separate from it.

In other words there is no “science” that can prove or disprove if someone is transgender.
There are a host of other conditions that can accompany the decision to present a different gender than the birth assigned ones.
As a society we have been making this decision that the only evidence we need is just the verbal confirmation from people who may be affected by one of those various disorders and we have also committed to not treating those disorders or digging deeper into why a person wants to present as a gender other than what is assigned.

I believe that it is another example of a group of people who are actively engaged in confirming their own bias being surrounded by a professional community that is terrified of being sued or otherwise held responsible if that person ends up killing themselves over it.
I do hesitate to think of it as a “liberal” movement.


All that being said, everyone deserves to be treated with care and respect and should have all the same opportunities as others regardless of how they present their gender.

 

You are under a mistaken impression, or are talking about something different than, "Trans rights." Just as equal rights for women-- though we never did approve the E.R.A., so, theoretically-- did not compel anyone to start calling women, "Ms.," or the other moments, to start using any of the approved terms for homosexuals, or call blacks, "African Americans," nor does the legal point of this spear have to do with anything other than non-discrimination, as in one's pay, or in their rights, as citizens. Laws cannot regulate how people think or feel; those things are beyond the reach of law, & in fact are part of our freedom of speech/expression, which one cannot have, w/out freedom of thought. So, you do not have to, "accept," a black person as equal-- but you have to give him equal pay as a white employee, doing the same work, at the same level. And most, aren't forced, typically, to "accept," two gay men as married; but if you work at a hospital, for example, you have to give the same-sex spouse the same medical authority, & visiting rights.

You seem to be asking about the social campaign for acceptance, which is something very different, something unofficial, but which shows up, to greater or lesser degrees, adjacent to these fights for legal equality, in the contemporaneous culture.

 

And it's this which is a 'theocratic' overreach. No better than medievalesque religious imperative.

 

Since this is something that plays out in everyday society, I don't know to what, mis-termed "theocracy," you refer, unless you are objecting to some particular church's message or practices.

 

In Canada there is a proposed bill which some claim would compel people to refer to other people by their chosen gender pronouns or be found in violation of the transgender person’s human rights.

I don’t agree with codifying that specific pronouns must be used. It would be too specific and could easily be abused.

“I told the defendant that my gender is 3 . 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 3 5 8 9 7 9 3 2 3 8 4 6 2 6 4 3 3 8 3 but he consistently refused to call me that.”

It makes more sense to have a general protection against harassment and discrimination than to get that specific.

It seems silly that a person might claim Pi to the 27th decimal as their gender but I have heard of similar stuff. I was told one person thought of their gender as “the sun”.

 

I'm objecting to the demand for social acceptance. That's an ideological position, and is the sort of thing generally associated with religions.

 

But the, "-cracy," part of theocracy, indicates an institutional authority (as in democracy, etc.). Ideology is most often an individual belief. When there is a structure, enforcing the ideology, it is categorized by the nature of the power structure (e.g., Communism, is a governmental ideology). "Theo-" is used for religious doctrine/power, which does not apply here, at all. You are talking about social pressures, and cultural norms. So it is with your fellow Americans, whom you have the complaint of, "over-reach." I already know, however, that you will blame this all on one political party, though that is not a fact-based conclusion.

 

I very clearly added quotation marks to the term 'theocracy'.

Meantime, I'm not American.

 

@Jolly Penguin

I just want to make completely clear that, in my post #159, I was not trying to suggest that any of the mentioned groups did not deserve to be thought of, as well, respectfully, and as equal, without any prejudicial bias. I was merely discriminating between the public acceptance of a group by the wider society, and their legal acceptance (the latter of which, in all of your comparative cases, was always prefaced by the former).

 

The quotation marks don't clarify your meaning, though. If you had already made some analogy or allusion to the MSM Church, for example, then it would make sense to refer to their constant messaging, or editorial bent, as "theocracy." But just putting quotes around a word that you are using loosely, does not tell anyone what you are, "really," talking about. Even a non-American should understand that.

 

No, that's not what I was asking. The trans rights movement demands that you address people by their preferred pronouns and regard them by identities they wish to be regarded as.

There was little denial that people saying they are black, are indeed black (Rachel Dolezol being the exception). There was some minimal (mostly on the religious far right) denial that gay people are actually gay, but for the most part it wasn't in question. But with trans people, there is plenty of questioning that a human with a penis is a woman because she feels like a woman and wants you to regard her as a woman. Their identity is in question, unlike the black or gay person, where it was not about what their identity is, but that they should have equal rights under that identity.

Trans movement is almost entirely about identity and not about rights to equal pay or to freedom from slavery or segregation etc.

So there is something fundamentally different here.

If a person who I would presume male tells me she is female, am I morally obligated to regard her as female, call her she, allow her to compete on women's sports, etc? And if ther is such a moral obligation, isn't it quite different from what black and gay rights movements are about?

 

Not to mention we are being asked to change language. It is considered wrong to refer to someone as “he” until that person tells you they are a he. Some people want to be called Zay/zem instead of they/them, or they/them instead of he/she or it or whatever.

Your 12 year old just comes home from school one day and says they are a zay/zem and has changed their name to Zero or Suzy or whatever and the school has already been calling zem zat for months. All without anyone every questioning why or what’s next.

And if they pass a law saying you have to use these pronouns then what?

Your literally cannot influence your child to do anything but just watch as a Tumblr app has more influence over who that kid is than you do. By law.

 

No, you are not morally obligated.

It's all just narcissism after all. It's more immoral to feed that particular monster, than it is to ignore it.

 

The one certainty with Progressives and their First World Problems obsession, is that they never think any of it through. They don't actually care whether it ends badly for the people they tell themselves they're 'helping' - they care only about making the right noises today.

 

You didn't need go through your argument all over again: I understood it fine, the first time. I was saying that, just like there was a civil rights movement for blacks, an equal rights movement for women, and a gay rights movement, which you mentioned in your OP, there is now (actually has been) a trans rights movement. I thought my comparing them would have made my meaning lucid, in my original post, but I'll try it again, more slowly.

The demands of the Civil Rights movement, had to do with segregation, and unequal treatment in all segments of society, from housing, to employment, to banking, to education. One of the demands of the Civil Rights movement was that blacks should not need sit at the back of the bus (literally, as well as figuratively). One of the demands of the Civil Rights movement was NOT that white people stop using the "N- word." Certainly, many blacks did not care to be addressed that way, but the movement was directed at those who controlled business or government policy, in order to get them to change that policy, those rules, those laws. This does not apply to ideas such as showing a person respect, in the way one addresses them, because there is no authority that can do anything about that. It is something that can only be changed on an individual basis, unlike the rules of a bus company, or some government policy, regulation, or law, the changing of which would then have broad-reaching effects. Do you understand the difference? I'm not saying that blacks did not want respect, and some may have openly called for it-- but that was aside from the Civil Rights Movement, proper.

Likewise, the Women's Rights movement. There had been a Women's movement, earlier in the century, for the right to vote (not for the right to vote, and to be called "ma'am."). The later movement was about discrimination in the workplace, about laws governing their bodies (abortion), and the like. Again, while naturally, Women's Libbers did not want to be called, "bitches"-- in fact some would object if you termed a group of them, "you girls"-- nevertheless this was not part of the "Womens' Rights Movement." Nowhere in the Equal Rights Amendment, is there anything about how women would like to be addressed. Yet, they kept it no secret, that they preferred the female equivalent to Mr., i.e., Ms., rather than Miss and Mrs. So this information was public knowledge, & played itself out in the society at large. But it was not, formally, part of the Womens' Movement, which was ALL about RIGHTS. The way one addresses your gender, falls outside of that category.

One more example, before I retry my point. Gays did not like being called homos, or queers (back then) or all manner of other deprecatory terms. But the Gay & Lesbian Rights Movement, had no stated objective, of which I am aware, to change the vocabulary for identifying them. Not that they might not have had opinions, even voiced opinions, on this-- but it could not really be called part of the Gay rights movement. They were more interested in not being arrested by police, just for gathering. And not being beaten by police; and humiliated in jail; and terrorized, by police. And being fired from their jobs for being gay. And being barred from government service, for being gay. And, later on, for not being allowed to marry their partner, because they were gay. Notice, that all these things they fought against, were discriminatory laws & practices. Hence, the demands of the Gay Right Movement, were for changes in laws and government policies, so that they had the same rights as a straight person. No person, has a government warranted "right," to be addressed in a certain manner of their choosing. That doesn't mean that, if you are a man, you probably prefer to be addressed as "mister," not "miss." Or at least not as, "hey jackass!" But the government has nothing to do with that. That is all about culture, and social norms. So, while gay & lesbian people, by & large, wanted to be accepted by society (which would naturally lead to the extending of some of the social graces), nonetheless, that was not one of the demands of the Gay Rights Movement which was, as with Equal Rights for Women, and Civil Rights for Minorities, all about changing laws & official policies, to prevent discrimination in the workplace, in housing, in the eyes of the law, and so forth. You see the pattern, yes? All groups may have objected to the words used to refer to them, but this was not part of the primary goals of any of these movements.

I see no reason to think of it any differently, with transsexuals. They are, after all, a minority part of the same, alternative-sexual community as the rest of the LGBTQ folks, though have not yet been as accepted by mainstream society, or in law. So this is what their "Trans Rights Movement," is all about: receiving all the same rights and protections, under the law, as anyone else. While, I know, some will ask to be referred to by a particular personal pronoun, this is no different, than modern, liberated women, who don't like being referred to as, "girls," or lesbians who do not wish to be called, "lesbos," or, "dikes." Or black men who do not appreciate being referred to as, "boy."

These ALL represent personal interactions, for each individual to navigate for themself. Even in cases in which society has drawn an opinion as to what is proper, and what is not, no one is going to "compel," you, at least no one in the government, to abide by what is considered standard politeness. There will be no fine against you, for being a rude S.O.B. There may be a punch in the mouth, or some other physical consequence, but-- as with your choice whether or not to accept conventional thinking on the matter-- this reaction, if you do not, will be an individual decision of the person who feels that you are disrespecting him or her. It should go w/out saying that, legally, that person will be in the wrong, if they resort to violence, just because they feel you are being an @-hole.

The only difference between the transgendered, and any other person or group that objects to being called some particular term, is that the jury of public opinion is still out, on this one. But even if it eventually comes back with a ruling you disagree with, there will be nothing compelling you to follow accepted social practice, other than feeling the disapproving gaze of society, IOW, peer-pressure.

Just to hit, once more, on my main point: though the transgendered may express a preference as to what they would like to be called, by others, this is not properly part of the "Trans RIGHTS" Movement-- which is focused, like all the others, on LAW-- because there is no legal "RIGHT," involved with the gender of one's pronoun. It is merely part of their interaction, with society.

 

If transgenders didn't overdo the part, it probably wouldn't even be a problem in most circumstances.
Just personal observation but I've noticed that trans persons seem to really go overboard in their dress. It's not "just a little a feminine" or gender-neutral.

 

You really worry about some ridiculous things. No law is going to be passed, dictating what pronoun a person, in open society, must use towards another. How do I know this? Is there a law against using the word n!gger? How about against calling a woman a cun+? Or against calling a lesbian a dyke? Or against calling a Jew a K!ke? All these are highly inappropriate, & will give the impression to most that you are crude & without class. But nobody is regulating your social grace. It's called freedom of speech. And so it is laughable, that anyone would, for a moment, fear legal intercession, here. This is strictly a matter for the court of public opinion. At this point, I don't think there is a coalesced standard view, within society, on pronouns for transgendered people. But even once there is, you need not accept it, if you don't mind being, "politically incorrect," though that is kind of a misnomer, because it would be cultural convention that you would be breaking. This works either way, BTW. If the society decides that the appropriate thing to do is stick with the traditional pronoun for whatever one's birth sex, one could still humor a person, who wanted to be called Zay/Zem, if one wasn't concerned with what others might think about it.

 

No, I don't think you did.

But the vast majority of it's campaigning isnt for equal rights. That's what makes it different. It isn't mostly about trans people being paid less than cis people for the same work. It isn't mostly about putting trans people in chains and enslaving them. It isn't about telling trans people they can't marry each other. Extremely few people would deny them any of that.

While there are some asshats who harass people for being different, which includes trans people as victims of this, I have seen no data to suggest that this aggression is any more common than aggression or discrimination running the other direction there, with trans men who are "misgendered" lashing out at those who don't agree they are women.

But the point in my OP was that the vast majority of what we hear from the trans rights people is not about them wanting equal rights, or about them being attacked for being trans, paid differently, forced to sit at the back of a bus. No. The vast majority of it is about them demanding their identity be recognized other than as society would otherwise recognize it.

And that goes well beyond words they want you to use. They want to be recognized as the other gender, and have all the gender segregated rights that comes with being the other gender. They want to use the other gender's bathrooms, compete on other gender's sports teams, etc.

It would be a non-issue if our society wasn't gender segregated (as I would prefer) but it is, so this issue comes up. Women want women's only gyms and other safe spaces away from men? Men can say they are trans and demand to be treated as women and enter those spaces.

That's the point of my OP in this thread. There is something fundamentally different going on here this time around.

And what do you think they are lacking under the law? Don't they already have all the same rights and protections as everyone else? As I wrote above, that's not what this movement is about. This movement is about them wanting rights they wouldn't have if we don't accept they are what they claim to be, but what society doesn't see them as being.

Nobody told black people they aren't black so shouldn't have the rights of black people. Nobody told gays they aren't gay so shouldn't have the rights of gay people. Their fight was for equal rights for black people and for gay people as white people and straight people already had.

When a person with a penis, deep voice and a beard, who society regards as a man, says she is a woman, so we should let her compete in combat sports against other women, and beat up those other women, that's not somebody asking for equal rights.

It is fundamentally different. One is about slurs, insults and displays of disrespect. The trans one is about asking you to regard them as a different identity.

The black man of old asking not to be called the N word would just be about being respectful. You are right that it doesn't touch on rights in law, etc.

The same dark skinned black man demanding he is white and asking us to regard him as white, and give him rights white people had but black people didn't have, instead of asking us to treat black and white people equally, would have been something entirely different, and very much does touch on rights etc.