The respectful debate
TRANSPHOBIA DEFINITION
Transphobia describes discriminatory or prejudiced language or actions, relating to actual or perceived gender identity, including denying or refusing to accept gender identity.
So there you have it. It’s “transphobia” – which is obviously very wicked indeed – to refuse to accept the new, stupid, dishonest, fantasy-based concept of “gender identity.” We’re not allowed to go on understanding reality on this particular subject, on pain of being accused and convicted of “transphobia.”
We have to agree that men are women if they say they are – always, no matter what, with no exception, no questions allowed – on pain of shunning at best and firing at worst.
We have to accept the new ideology no matter how seriously and energetically we explain that we don’t believe it and can’t believe it, for the simple reason that it’s obviously not true. We can’t not see a man when we do see a man, no matter how thick the makeup is or how frilly the dress is. All we can do is lie, and we’re at a loss to understand why we should be forced to lie about this subject.
“Gender identity?” Wait — gender identity?? What Stonewall defines as “ Often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender is largely culturally determined” that kind of gender identity?
So it’s when someone thinks of themselves as masculine or feminine and behaves accordingly? Males acting like their view of women, women acting the way they think men act. Cultural performances. Well, shoot — OF COURSE I believe in gender identity. Why wouldn’t I? They do it.
I don’t believe in Sex Identity. You have a sex, or maybe are a sex. You can’t identity in or out of it.
They can take gender. I don’t want it — silly stuff.
Can’t have sex.
How many sets of eyes did this drivel pass by before its release? How many drafts and proofs and committee meetings and re-writes and more meetings before it was deemed to be good-to-go? And yet what did I pick up on after a cursory glance through the bullet points?
Wider trans people? For fuck sake, a document defining transphobia that appears to be engaging in body-shaming. Fatphobes have no place in the SNP! I demand the resignations of Mhairi Hunter and every single person responsible for the writing, approval and release lf this shameful document!
Nice of them to finally admit it. Also, it is pretty clear that -phobia has been distorted heavily from its use in homophobia, where it meant ‘prejudice against’ its associated concept; now it just means ‘disagrees with the theoretical underpinnings of’. The use of -phobia is purely for emotional payload.
Oh, I don’t disrespect your gender identity. You can have whatever gender identity you want, and bully for you. I use the pronoun “he” for you, because of your sexual identity, which is male. No disrespect to gender identity, but I identify as a sexed person, not a gendered person, and forcing me to use pronouns that defy sex is sexphobic.
Meanwhile we’ve got our Equality Act being sponsored by one of *my* Senators trying to enshrine this garbage into US law, but at least it’s something that will never pass (even if they chose such a stupid hill to kill the filibuster for since Manchin probably won’t sign on).
Re “accusing [the wider population of] trans people of … wrongdoing committed by a single trans person or group…”
I can’t recall seeing such accusations. What I have seen is the use of anecdotes to bolster a claim that trans-identified males are no less dangerous than the general population of males; such anecdotes are then responded to in one of two ways:
1. “That’s just one incident! It’s not widespread!”
2. “You’re trying to smear the entire population of trans people from the actions of an individual!”
While clearly if no anecdotes were provided, the claim “This never happens” remains unchallenged.
Re “denying or refusing to accept gender identity”
I’m bothered here less because this is part of their definition of “transphobia”, but more because they want “transphobia” to have some sort of weight in policy. Or maybe both.
My personal opinion of Christianity might lend me a label, but I don’t think I act on the basis of that opinion in my non-religious interactions with other people. I presume there can be two labels, one referring to animosity toward the people who practice Christianity, and one toward the practice and beliefs themselves.
I think “transphobia” is a facile merging of both of those types of labels, referring both to the concept of claiming to be of the opposite sex and to the people who make those claims. It is possible, and important, to treat people well even if you disagree with them. But this definition makes the presumption that disagreement is not only the same thing as treating people badly, but constitutes instances of treating people badly. How dare you tell a Christian you don’t believe in their God! How dare you tell a Christian you don’t think their Bible is an inspired work of moral guidance!
So, yeah, as we’ve repeatedly noted here, the trans advocates will tolerate no expression of disagreement with their belief system; cast out for blasphemy. It is a religion.