Round and round we go
Installment seven billion something of the same old circular circle.
It’s actually not a clear message from Nicola at all. It’s the same old run-around.
There must be no transphobia!!!
But what are you defining as transphobia?
Trans people must have rights!!!
But nobody disagrees with that so what are you –
There must be no transphobia!!!
Yes, we have differences of opinion on gender recognition reform. We should debate them openly and respectfully. But no debate can be a cover for transphobia.
Yes but what is transphobia? Where are you drawing the border between openly debating the meaning of gender recognition and its reform, and transphobia? Please spell it out.
Trans people have as much right as any of us to be safe, secure, and valued for who they are. Transphobia is wrong and
Wait wait wait! Stop right there! You’re implying that we think trans people do not have as much right as any of us to be safe and secure! That’s an outrageous accusation. We’re not a bunch of Marjorie Taylor Greenes, we’re lefties and feminists, as you must know. We’re not advocating for anyone to be unsafe and insecure.
The issue is this “valued for who they are” bit, and you need to explain that rather than dashing on to tell us yet again that transphobiaiswrong.
It’s not actually true that there’s a core human right to be “valued for who [you, we, they] are.” There’s not even a core human right to be “valued.” That’s asking too much, which statements about human rights need to avoid, lest the whole idea become a joke.
And then there’s the “for who they are” bit, which is confused and confusing, because the whole meaning of “trans” negates the “who they are” aspect. We’re supposed to “value” trans people for who they are not, and there are situations and circumstances that can make that impossible and/or undesirable.
The unstated dogma underlying that silly formula is that we’re required to agree that trans people are, in every sense, who they say they are. The reason we can’t agree to that mandate is that sometimes it makes a difference. It makes a difference if a trans woman or girl gets an award or a scholarship or a job or an athletic prize that was meant for a woman or girl – an actual, literal, physical women or girl, as opposed to an actual literal physical man or boy who identifies as a woman or girl.
That’s it, that’s the issue. It has nothing to do with valuing or with phobia, it has everything to do with protecting the rights of women and girls.
It would be nice if women like Nicola Sturgeon and Jo Grady could take this on board.
I’m sure many people do disagree with that, and what the TRAs are doing is lumping us together with those people.
Not everybody can do human rights.
It’s actually a problem: the concept of human rights is not all rainbows and unicorns and wishful thinking. It’s a hard legal concept, first devised by philosophers of the Enlightenment maybe, but later conceptualised and continually updated by actual lawyers who knew what they were doing (and what ‘universal’ actually meant). ‘Universal’ because any right an individual possesses necessarily infringes on and limits the rights of other people. You cannot have the right to live without taking the right to murder off the table.
Taken to its logical conclusion the phrase “Trans rights are human rights” is devoid of sense. It’s one of those feel-good slogans that appear nice and unthreatening at first but whose unstated goal is the closing of any discussion on the matter (File this with “Israel’s right to exist”). Obviously, trans people should have, and have in law, human rights. Nobody discuss that. But human rights that are particular, exclusive to them are not universal any more and automatically reduce everybody else’s rights and freedom.
Well, not everybody: the burden will mostly be shifted onto the shoulders of women and girls, as usual…
I think the attempt to change “sex” to “gender” is going to run into serious problems when challenged in the courts because of this very problem: the failure to clearly define terms. Could they come up with a legal definition of “gender” which distinguishes it from “sex” but doesn’t fall into sex stereotyping? What about non circular definitions of “woman” and “man?” I’ve read some of the laws which try to ban “conversion therapy” for both sexual orientation and gender identity — and what the latter means is anyone’s guess.
The vagueness about what constitutes “transphobia “ is certainly not helped by the fact that people seem to think denying that you’re a transphobe is prima facie evidence that yes, you are a transphobe because they all say that.
Yes, but extremely few of the people who post here, if any.
Nicola Sturgeon is in a lot of trouble at the moment, because of an inquiry how the Scottish government handled the sexual assault allegations against the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, who was cleared of the charges in court. It’s a very murky story, and shows bad mismanagement on her part, or downright conspiracy (which I find very hard to believe though plenty do). The Scottish government has been obstructing this inquiry in any way they can.
Sturgeon likes to appear as the progressive wing of the party and so adopted the transgender cause, which had cross-party support. The trans activists got posts on the National Executive Committee of the Scottish National Party. However there has been more and more disquiet about the transgender issue, and how it ties in with a new Hate Crime bill, which the Gender Critical feminists say will make it impossible to discuss women’s issues vis-a-vis transgender “rights”. There’s a clause in the bill about “stirring up hatred” -vague and stupid and could mean any discussion about eg biology could be classed as that.
So an opposing wing has grown, the most prominent voice being Joanna Cherry, who is a lesbian and a feminist and also a strong supporter on the ultra Nationalist wing whereas Sturgeon is more of a gradualist. Cherry is a contender for grabbing the leadership if Sturgeon resigns. The trans activists lost their posts on the National Executive Committee and quite a few have resigned from the party. They are accused of not being interested in Scottish independence, but of being entryists pushing the transgender issue. Those on the Cherry wing say it’s a bit rich of Sturgeon to complain of “transphobia” and not mention the kind of vile abuse chucked at her lesbian, feminist colleague. The two of them hate each other.
It’s all very complicated and murky, not to mention virulent. For an anti-SNPer like me it’s a pleasure to watch them fighting like rats in a sack, though I doubt if it will upset the majority the SNP will gain at the next election to Holyrood.
On other issues Sturgeon is great at making resounding statements which are not followed up by actual policies or budgets.
I remember about that new Hate Crime bill and the clause about “stirring up hatred,” from writing a post some time back about the guy who came up with that clause and the many many questions it prompted.
[…] a comment by KBPlayer on Round and round we […]
Conflation of feminism with far right religious bigotry. Thanks, Sturgeon.
From these tweet in the OP:
Hmm, words from the trans-positive side like ‘I’ll slit your fucking throat and fuck your newly made neck pussy’, for example?
At this point “transphobia” means anybody who upsets a trans person in any way or refuses to instantly give that trans person all their time/attention/money/sexual access/whatever on demand. Naturally when the anybody is a real woman, the charge of “transphobia” is leveled much quicker than if the anybody is a real man. Funny how they know men from women so well when it matters to them.
If anybody is a glutton for word salad and more yapping about “transphobia” the crew at PZ Myer’s site is really going off the rails on this one.