Smuggling
Notice how the assumptions are smuggled in.
It’s the “(But note the oddity of having 3 cis people talking abt trans rights!)” interjection that I’m talking about. What oddity? What’s odd about it? What, even, is it? What does it mean? The first assumption that’s smuggled in via that interjection is that there is a meaningful category called “cis” people. There isn’t. “Everybody who is not trans” is too large and sloppy a category to be meaningful.
The second, and worse, assumption that’s smuggled in is that it’s wrong or unjust or dubious for “cis” people to talk about “trans rights” in the same way it would be for white people to talk about black people’s rights, or men to talk about women’s rights. Mind you, that can’t always be wrong or unjust, because there are situations where the white people or men are trying to correct precisely the exclusion that’s the issue – they can’t include the excluded people in the talk because of the exclusion. If it were a rule that they could never have that talk then the exclusion would just continue. But setting that aside, and assuming for the sake of argument that dominant people shouldn’t be making the rules for subordinated people without including the subordinated people in the discussion – do “cis” people and “trans” people fit that pattern? I say no, not least because that positions men who “identify as” women as subordinate to women, which means we can’t have feminism any more.
But I also say no much more broadly, because I think this whole business of pretending there’s a pattern of
oppressor and oppressed
and that as
men and women
white and black
rich and poor
bosses and workers
lesbians/gays and straights
etcetera
so is
cis and trans.
No. We haven’t agreed to that, and it’s neither accurate nor helpful, and it shouldn’t be smuggled in.
Of course “cis” people get to discuss the implications of what are called “trans rights” without much clear definition. The whole idea is about 5 minutes old and hasn’t even been properly discussed yet, so no, we don’t need to start pretending that “cis” people have to include trans people whenever they discuss what “trans rights” may be and whether they make any sense and above all to what extent they demolish women’s rights.
Though to be fair, the definition of “trans” is also large, sloppy, and meaningless too, so there’s that.
If you don’t accept being characterized as “cis”, then there is no reason at all to self-exclude from any such conversation, and nothing to aplogize for. Labeling and pigeon-holing are unidirectional in this particular power relationship. Only one side is expected to performatively grovel like this and, funnily, it’s not the one that is “the most oppressed and marginalized.”
BEFORE we can talk about rights, we have to figure out the whole gender/ sex issue, including the status of gender identity. The presence of transgender people here is irrelevant (and possibly counterproductive) because these questions aren’t resolved by confident assertions about internal awareness and plaintive personal stories about how sad they get when they can’t use the bathroom they want. Yes, we know. That data is included in the description of gender identity. Their reports of being women are no more significant to determining that scientific and philosophical question than people who report experiencing God is significant on the existence of God. They’re too emotionally involved to be objective.
Try to explain this, however, and they’re horrified. It’s like Opposite World.
Another objection to the assumption is that they complain when we are talking about women’s rights, about feminism, because of their claim about TWAW. So anytime we discuss feminism, we are in effect discussing them. This means, as OB said, we can’t have feminism anymore. I suspect that may be a feature, not a bug.