Far more
There it is, there’s the foundational misconception (or just plain lie) that underpins all the opposite-world claims.
Men who identify as or claim to be or say they are women are still men, and this determination to bully us out of even marginalization just underlines how male-entitled they remain.
Especially since the numbers and the data don’t really bear out their claim to be more marginalized. They just glommed on to everything – LGB, who had already done a ton of work for just basic rights. Women, who had already done a ton of work for just basic rights. People of color, who had already done a ton of work for just basic rights.
Now a bunch of mostly middle-class to wealthy, mostly white men grab up all the groups, demanding they be on constant display and centered, even at the expense of other rights, while they utilize all the work without doing any, and demand special rights, rights none of the rest of us have…while getting sympathy from press, from institutions, from celebrities.
I realize they are hated by the religious right, but the hatred of trans by the religious is not more than the hatred of women, of LGB, or of people of color.
The White–>PoC one is much less clear-cut than the others. Not every country is America (though of course White dominance is a thing in many countries), race (unlike sex) is complicated, and “PoC” is such a broad term as to be meaningless out of certain contexts.
I’m not an expert on the religious right, but I expect that while they’re as disgusted as the rest of us by the middle aged men wearing lingerie in public they’re actually in favour of children and teens transitioning to meet the social expectations of the appropriate ‘gender’. I’ve seen more than one religious right parent clearly sighing with relief to discover that their embarrassing effeminate son was really a girl all along.
Re #3
There was one of those supposedly “heartwarming” TV movies about an effeminate boy recently. His homophobic dad gave him hell, but accepted him as a girl, and this was deemed “turning around” rather than reinforcing sex-based stereotypes and working around homophobia.
There are places in the world (Iran is one) where homosexuality is illegal, but it’s OK if one partner “changes sex” to create a “straight” couple on paper.
I do, however, think that the US Religious Right does not consider transition as an acceptable remedy. The Catholic Church has a surprisingly good web page (somewhere, can’t find it at the moment) opposing trans ideology; if you ignore the religious bits, it calls for loving and accepting your own body, it provides basic facts about the problems encountered in medical transition, and it says biological sex is immutable.
I always find it scary when I agree with the Catholic Church more than the secular left, but in this case, I will have to say, yes.
I personally wouldn’t call the Catholic Church part of the US religious right–the religious right like to claim them for the numbers and foot soldiers when opposing abortion rights but they’re happy to tell anyone who will listen that Catholics are going to hell.
Gender Critical feminists and the Religious Right are in agreement on sex.
Transgender activists and the Religious Right are in agreement on gender.
In the first case, the agreement is that there are two sexes — male and female — and this involves the body.
In the second case, the agreement is that gender is an innate, mental characteristic of being man-like or woman-like. The Religious Right insists that God made the two match — or that virtue consists in making them match.
Have any of you seen that cingeworthy documentary about the female-identified little boy that plays the character in that absolutely horribly cringeworthy episode (season?) of The Babysitter’s Club? Family is standard US right-wing Protestant Republican, boy likes pink, mother is terrified that he’ll be gay, she beats him and beats him, but he still likes pink, and cries that he wants to be a girl (because then, like, you know, his mother won’t beat him for liking pink), she goes online and does some googling, and learns about trans, and “realizes” that he’s “actually” a girl, yay, now “she” can be happy and Jesus won’t be upset, and now the mother is a hero, and her little
boygirl can play trans characters on TV.It’s like he didn’t even look at the diagram to which he is responding. If he had, he would realise it neatly undoes his point.
It would help if Wallaert defined his terminology. I notice that he uses ‘transsexual women’ in his tweet: is he making a distinction between transsexual and transgender? If so, what is the difference between the two? Also, is a transsexual woman a woman identifying as a man or a man identifying as a woman?
I often get the impression that trans terminology is deliberately vague (no shit, Sherlock) in part because it makes their arguments hard to pin down: they are always able to claim that a criticism of x is wrong because it is based on the critic’s mistaken definition of x, and they will never clearly define x because by keeping it ill-defined they can play the ‘that’s not what we mean by x’ game indefinitely while getting to claim that there has never been a valid argument against x, just a series of straw-x arguments.
.
What does that remind me of? Yeah, right. Theist definitions of “God”. That should tell you a thing or two.
Unethical appropriation of the DSD phraseology “assigned ____ at birth” allows TAs to heap blame on medical arrogance and ignorance, while minimizing TIM arrogance and willfulness in their invasion of women’s spaces. It’s a deflection technique. “Assigned male at birth” is supposed to distract and excuse “now claims to be adult female” .
YNnB, that goes right along with the idea that it is impossible to tell someone’s sex at birth by any external characteristics. That was a real WTF moment for me. WTF? Then I realized they were using “sex” to mean “gender” and “gender” to mean “personality” or “whatever the hell I want”.
The idea that sex is assigned at birth is just one more fiction of the trans doctrine, a fiction made necessary because the doctrine is aping the tried and tested religion model of starting with the desired conclusion and working backwards to add the proof, and with the embarrassing fact that there is no real supporting evidence for their conclusion hidden behind a wall of sophistry.
I’m reading Abigail Shrier’s book; I’m at the point where she is talking about the California public school curriculum on gender. Apparently they teach young children that, since babies can’t talk and tell people what they are, the doctors make a guess by looking at their bodies. This is scary nonsense, and Shrier doesn’t pull any punches in this section.