Easy for him to say
Peter Tatchell does keep getting this wrong.
I support both trans rights & women's rights. I deplore threats, intimidation & violence. The best way to resolve this issue is by peaceful protest & by rational, evidence-based ideas that show why trans women are not a threat to non-trans women pic.twitter.com/Iy6XYqRZVg
— Peter Tatchell (@PeterTatchell) November 27, 2018
First of all the priority. Trans rights first, women’s rights the also-ran. What the hell. First of all that’s one of the core reasons for this whole conflict: this relentless insistence that trans rights are far more important and urgent than boring old women’s rights. Second, why? Why put trans rights first? Women are half of everyone; trans people are a tiny fraction of everyone. What is it with this constant shrugging weary eye-rolling indifference to women’s rights from people who fancy themselves progressives?
Then there’s calling us “non-trans women.” Fuck right off with that. We’re women. That’s it. We’re not “cis” and we’re no more non-trans than we are non-reptile, non-plaster, non-chocolate, non-asteroid.
And most of all there’s his assuming the conclusion and announcing that “rational, evidence-based ideas” will get us there. There’s his assuming as fact that “trans women are not a threat to non-trans women” and that all there is to do is “show” that.
It’s probably true that most trans women are not a threat to women, but Peter Tatchell can’t possibly know that no trans women can ever be a threat of any kind to women. He can’t know that and we can’t know that and governments can’t know that, so systematically removing all arrangements intended to make women safe from voyeuristic or violent men is not automatically a brilliant plan.
That’s speaking generally, but speaking particularly, there’s also the fact that plenty of trans women are visibly and vocally and publicly a threat to women right now as we watch. Plenty of trans women are working hard to silence women who talk back in the way I’m talking back right here. They got a scalp a couple of days ago when they had Meghan Murphy permanently banned from Twitter. So yes, Peter, some trans women and their “allies” are a threat to women right here and right now.
Speak for yourself. I personally am a chocolate plaster reptile asteroid.
The other issue isn’t just what impact trans-people have on women, it’s what impact trans-“rights” have on women. I put “rights” in quotes, because I believe trans-people do have rights. They have the right to have their humanity recognized and respected, and all other rights that accrue to that status as fully human. They have the right to present as whatever sex they wish, or no sex at all. They have the same rights that I have as a person.
The “right” that is a problem is the one that is also not a right for any other group of people: the right to have everyone else see you as you see yourself. When my mother chose to see me as inferior both as a woman and because I was a woman, I did not have the right to demand she see me otherwise. I had the right to try to change her mind through persuasion or action, but I did not have the right to beat her with a baseball bat when she elected not to see me as I saw myself (and she never did, and I never did. She remained unhit by baseball bats until the day she died, still seeing me as a lesser being than both men – because woman – and women – because scientist). This is the claimed right that is causing all the trouble, and I can’t imagine any evidence that would show that this right exists, and I suspect evidence could definitely show harm to women if that “right” is given to this one group of people.
Tatchell deplores threats and intimidation, huh? He’s changed his tune since becoming a leading light in the 1980s ‘OUT’ campaign when he and his cohorts intimidated public figures who were – or were thought (often mistakenly so) to be gay into publically ‘coming out’ on the threat that if they didn’t, Tatchell and his campaign would and did do it for them.
iknklast, I think most mothers remain unhit by baseball bats until the day they die, but I must say I lol’d at you making that fact explicit with respect to your mother.
And sorry you had to go through that.
I personally embrace the non-reptile label myself.
But seriously, it occurs to me that I somewhat bristle at the “cis” label but never had the least objection to “heterosexual”. Not sure why. Maybe because it describes something affirmatively (attraction to the opposite sex) as opposed to meaning “non-trans”. It seems unnecessary to have a label for feeling like you’re the gender you are. The real-world use of “cis” seems more aggressive, often being coupled with accusations of bigotry.