In a fashion hostile
Jolly is taking the war to the phobes again.
That’s a very peculiar argument, or attempt at an argument. There doesn’t have to be any “link of logic” between three claims to preserve them from being bigotry. There can just be three claims that are all true, without being particularly linked to each other. There can be three (or two or five) claims that are linked in some ways and separate in others. There can be a lot of things. Joly’s first two claims are linked, actually, but if they weren’t that wouldn’t make them untrue or proof of bigotry; you need more than that.
Let’s look at them.
Maybe you think trans women shouldn’t compete in women’s sport.
I do; of course I do. Why? Because men have many physical advantages over women.
Or trans women are a danger to cis women.
That’s the wrong way to put it. Trans women are potentially a danger to women for the same reason all men are potentially a danger to women, which is the same as the reason trans women shouldn’t compete in women’s sport. Men are stronger than women. There’s more to it than that – some men like to bully women, some men like to terrorize women, some men like to assault women, some men like to rape women. Men who disguise themselves as women are potentially a threat, yes. That’s not saying all trans women are a threat, it’s saying women have no way of knowing which ones are, so we can’t just assume they’re all safe the way women are (generally) safe.
Or being trans is a mental illness requiring therapy.
Again, wrong way to put it. Thinking you’re the other sex can be a mental illness, or something between mental illness and perfect mental health – in short it may benefit from therapy. It is after all a delusion, in the sense that no one is literally the opposite sex, so why wouldn’t it sometimes benefit from therapy? That, again, is not bigotry. I suppose Jolyon is taking the line that being trans is fabulous and joyful and no one would hesitate to be it for a second if it weren’t for all the bigotry, but that can’t really be right, given the fact that people can still see what their bodies are.
Zero for three.
I suppose if a trans person wished to be a woman, and lived as they are without actually believing they are, then it would not be a delusion, just acting out a fantasy while knowing you were acting out a fantasy. Fantasies can be healthy or unhealthy, depending on how/where/when you act them out, what they are, and whether you believe them or not. Becoming obsessed with a fantasy (or much of anything, actually) is not usually considered healthy, though my therapist insists my obsessive collecting of recipes and my need to write something every day are not unhealthy, they are good ways to channel whatever feelings I have.
But if I dressed as a man, called myself by a man’s name, and cut my hair in a male cut, it would be unhealthy to act that out unless I understood that I am not really a man, I am just pretending. I believe in fantasy as healthy, but not if it consumes you.
It’s such a shamefully dishonest argument though. There was never any systemic proof that black men were a danger to white women. Quite the reverse. Black men never stole women places in sports (not that they had any at that time). Similarly, gay men didn’t get sent to women prisons. The only vaguely comparable example I can think of is a white woman pretending to be a black woman and therefore arguably taking a prominent role that could have been filled by a black person. Except we’re not ‘allowed’ to make that comparison because everyone has agreed that she was wrong to do that. I will give Dolezal some kudos though – she actively campaigned on behalf of black people.
Yes there is. Start out with the premise that transwomen are men and run all 3.
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.
Feminists do not write “again and again on all aspects of trans lives.” That’s not true. Feminists write about the aspects of women’s lives that are affected by trans claims and demands.
Feminists do not write “invariably in a fashion hostile to trans people.” What about “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security.” do you not understand? Feminists are not hostile to (adult) people with gender dysphoria who do things to themselves to mimic being the opposite sex. Do whatever you want to yourself. What feminists are hostile toward are lies, gaslighting, cheating, and threats. Men who want to say they are women are welcome to do so to their hearts’ content, as long as they don’t lie about their actual sex, don’t cheat, don’t bully, and don’t threaten women. Stay in the men’s sports, the men’s bathroom, the men’s locker room. Don’t take positions or prizes set aside for women. Tell the truth.
The point I like to make regarding “trans women are a danger to cis women” is that men commit the vast majority of sexual assaults, and women are the vast majority of victims of sexual assault, and men who identify as women are equally as criminal as any other men, so there is no reason whatsoever to consider those two groups of men separately. Men should not be allowed in these places where women are especially vulnerable; it doesn’t matter a bit how they identify.
I suppose a bit of verbal twisting could have JM claiming feminists don’t want Black men or Hispanic men in the women’s changing room, and that this is somehow racist, ignoring the fact that those two groups are also subcategories of men.
Jo’s analogy, beginning “Black people are a danger to white women….” is obviously a dishonest analogy, an attempt to draw an equivalence between rejection of TWAW with rejection of black people. The game becomes obvious if we modify it to be accurate:
“Black people are not white people. I don’t think white people should have access to the services made available to black people.” Because rejection of TWAW is simply the rejection of the idea that a person can simply declare themselves a particular sex.
@2 ‘I will give Dolezal some kudos though – she actively campaigned on behalf of black people.’ That is a good point–as far as I can determine (though I could be wrong if someone brings a counterexample to my attention) activist TIMs only support things that benefit them specifically; I’ve never seen an example of a TIM activist on behalf of women in general. Which is actually not common among female activists–many if not most support campaigns that benefit women that aren’t them specifically (I have never been pregnant or a mother, have never been in prison, have not been subject to severely traumatising sexual assault, have never been truly poor, am not part of a disadvantaged racial minority, and am not a disadvantaged immigrant, yet have supported campaigns on behalf of all of these groups of women).
@6 Genderpeople inevitably get the privileged/oppressed positions backward when it comes to trans, because in their arithmetic a small subset of well-off professional middle-aged white men are the most oppressed group. Most of us do think it’s reasonable for members of a historically oppressed group to have their own spaces, awards, set-asides, categories, but that reasonableness doesn’t extend to women because women are the most privileged group, apparently.
guest @ 7
There are a few TIMs who have advocated on behalf of women, sometimes coming around to that position after some reflection and reading. Miranda Yardley and Debbie Hayton are two who I think have written intelligently on the topic. Both have received pushback from various corners for their efforts, and Yardley (don’t know about Hayton) has been banned from Twitter. I know there are others, but I don’t think there are many.
Sackbut/guest:
Those are the two most prominent examples I know. Others include Seven Hex, Helen Highwater… I’m sure there are some other fairly well known GC TIMs whose names escape me for the moment. I know two or three on Twitter…. plus some detransitioners. There don’t seem to be many, but that’s about as far from an objective measurement as you can get.
If only it was just themselves that were consumed, that would be an improvement on the current situation. With the recruitment of powerful institutions to police the norms of gender ideology, the ones being “consumed” by it now include the non-compliant. The fantasists have won themselves allies eager to act as their enforcers, who are doing this for their own motives, which they can now cloak in pious concern for the marginalized and oppressed trans folk, while continuing the traditional passtime of oppressing women. How lucky that there’s a social justice movement that costs the powers that be little more than the cost of pronoun tags. As others have pointed out, if major corporations and government institutions are joining in with the rainbow-washing, then you’re doing “revolution” wrong.
Things may be starting to get better (thanks UK feminists!), but I’m afraid that the success of this resistance will take longer to spread to this side of the Atlantic, as I believe that TAs have managed a higher degree of legal entrenchment at the federal level in both Canada and the US. Things will get worse before they get better. In the meantime, the true costs of this fantasy will be borne by actual women and children.