I understand that you’re coming at this from a reasonable place, but this comment seems unusually hostile in a way your previous comments weren’t. I understand what you’re saying about the role of emotions, but we have to decide as a society that your emotions end where others’ rights begin, otherwise we could go down a very dark path. Racists could easily argue that banning indigenous ppl from white society is valid because they have their own indigenous communities.
My tone was probably a bit harsh because I was getting frustrated with how dogmatic the “trans women are women” crowd is. Yes we should individually treat them as such, the law should also treat them as such, but drawing a legal line that they should be treated as such is a step too far.
The needs to trans people should be accommodated. But the preferences of the more dogmatic trans people should not be respected at any cost, there has to be room for another’s comfort.
I am a trans woman myself so I understand how they feel. We’re an inherently small part of the population and there’s an extreme sense of vulnerability that comes with that. I think you’d understand if you were part of the demographic. I’m sorry that you feel frustrated though, truly, because I know that you mean well.
Once again I understand what you’re saying and acknowledge that you’re not coming at this from a place of malice (at least that’s how I see it). That being said, I’ve never met anyone who actually had some of kind phobia of people assigned male at birth (AMAB), or trans women specifically, in the context that you’re describing. I think it’s a wedge issue that causes people to feel strongly without there really being much rational basis for it, which I think you acknowledged to an extent? We can’t base laws off feelings or extremely rare cases where the person’s true intentions can be challenged. In my experience, the only people who express any kind of fear of AMAB people are activists involved in groups that claim to focus on women’s issues who have an incentive to advocate for transphobia. Sometimes they have financial connections to American evangelical groups, that sorta thing. Rape survivors don’t tend to have that opinion in my experience, although maybe you’ve met some who thought differently, idk. Either way, I have to say from a personal experience that I don’t want my rights taken away based off such weak arguments, and in the case of the US and UK, they rarely stop at segregated spaces, they usually try to remove us completely from public life in an attempt to force us to detransition.
We’ve seen as a result of this court ruling in favour of trans rights that Minns is calling for changes around prisons and sports. Then again in the UK we’re seeing a court ruling against trans rights do the same (although UK Labour, and especially health secretary Wes Streeting, are particularly vile human beings so that might not be a factor).
Based on these two data points, we see trans rights regress when there is a highly publicized court ruling. Keeping matters of trans rights out of the domain of the courts seems like the best way to prevent this from happening.
Enshrining the most important trans rights into law (bathrooms, healthcare, prisons, and general anti-discrimination protections) while leaving issues like gender segregated social activities up to the organizer’s discretion is the best way to protect trans rights.
It’s not so much being invisible as it is avoiding highly publicized debates between “women’s groups” and trans people. There are other, safer, spaces to be visible.
I understand that you’re coming at this from a reasonable place, but this comment seems unusually hostile in a way your previous comments weren’t. I understand what you’re saying about the role of emotions, but we have to decide as a society that your emotions end where others’ rights begin, otherwise we could go down a very dark path. Racists could easily argue that banning indigenous ppl from white society is valid because they have their own indigenous communities.
My tone was probably a bit harsh because I was getting frustrated with how dogmatic the “trans women are women” crowd is. Yes we should individually treat them as such, the law should also treat them as such, but drawing a legal line that they should be treated as such is a step too far.
The needs to trans people should be accommodated. But the preferences of the more dogmatic trans people should not be respected at any cost, there has to be room for another’s comfort.
I am a trans woman myself so I understand how they feel. We’re an inherently small part of the population and there’s an extreme sense of vulnerability that comes with that. I think you’d understand if you were part of the demographic. I’m sorry that you feel frustrated though, truly, because I know that you mean well.
Once again I understand what you’re saying and acknowledge that you’re not coming at this from a place of malice (at least that’s how I see it). That being said, I’ve never met anyone who actually had some of kind phobia of people assigned male at birth (AMAB), or trans women specifically, in the context that you’re describing. I think it’s a wedge issue that causes people to feel strongly without there really being much rational basis for it, which I think you acknowledged to an extent? We can’t base laws off feelings or extremely rare cases where the person’s true intentions can be challenged. In my experience, the only people who express any kind of fear of AMAB people are activists involved in groups that claim to focus on women’s issues who have an incentive to advocate for transphobia. Sometimes they have financial connections to American evangelical groups, that sorta thing. Rape survivors don’t tend to have that opinion in my experience, although maybe you’ve met some who thought differently, idk. Either way, I have to say from a personal experience that I don’t want my rights taken away based off such weak arguments, and in the case of the US and UK, they rarely stop at segregated spaces, they usually try to remove us completely from public life in an attempt to force us to detransition.
We’ve seen as a result of this court ruling in favour of trans rights that Minns is calling for changes around prisons and sports. Then again in the UK we’re seeing a court ruling against trans rights do the same (although UK Labour, and especially health secretary Wes Streeting, are particularly vile human beings so that might not be a factor).
Based on these two data points, we see trans rights regress when there is a highly publicized court ruling. Keeping matters of trans rights out of the domain of the courts seems like the best way to prevent this from happening.
Enshrining the most important trans rights into law (bathrooms, healthcare, prisons, and general anti-discrimination protections) while leaving issues like gender segregated social activities up to the organizer’s discretion is the best way to protect trans rights.
Fair enough, I agree with that. It’s disillusioning that the only way to be safe is to be invisible.
It’s not so much being invisible as it is avoiding highly publicized debates between “women’s groups” and trans people. There are other, safer, spaces to be visible.