These are the same things I've been told all my life. My Dad said if I didn't do them, I would never get a husband. "Everywhere progressives turn, they hear what's expected of a good trans ally [woman]: listen [defer] to trans people [men], educate yourself [self-indoctrinate], amplify trans [men's] voices [be quiet], be kind [don’t be honest], and remember: your intent doesn't matter."
Yes! Sounds like the same old patriarchal edicts, right? "Be quiet. Defer to men." Patriarchy has to be adaptable to have lasted this long in so many different cultures.
While you're summoning up the courage to be honest about this issue, take a moment to see if there aren't OTHER issues that treat your honest inquiries and good-faith analyses the same way.
Excellent. But I’ve found that most people just don’t seem to care. They acknowledge problems but ultimately they don’t think the problems are that widespread or numerous. They wave them away or shrug their shoulders in that “Well, watcha gonna do?” way. For many people, this isn’t on their radar and they can’t be bothered to think about it.
But how can we ask these sorts of questions when doing so will get us "canceled"? I actually counted and found that 1/3 of my friends who have kids in the right age have a "trans" child. They all accept their stated gender unquestioningly and rubber stamp any interventions available. If I questioned any of these things I would be friendless pretty quickly.
Mar 18, 2022·edited Mar 18, 2022Liked by Eliza Mondegreen
I think this is a really important point. How do we even start to bring any of this up when there's so much defensiveness around it? This is why I think it could be helpful to workshop things to say.
Sometimes, brining up an adjacent topic can help create an inroad to a conversation without bringing up defensiveness. Like, California is now requiring stores to have toy aisles that don't market to either sex. If you wanted to start talking with your parent friends, you could bring that up and say something like "Why are certain things marketed only to girls or boys anyway?" Or "What you like to play with and what colors you like doesn't have anything to do with what sex you are." And just see what they say since the idea of trans children is heavily based on sex-stereotyped behavior and interests.
And yet these parents would be the first to agree that girls playing with trucks and boys playing with dolls is perfectly fine. The people I know aren't at all conservative or coming from a place of rigid sex roles. And yet their kids are all "trans" somehow. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, it's tough when it's parents -- I would say even harder than when it's your friends coming out as trans (my age group). I would also say, unlikely to have luck with die-hards. Quite likely to connect with quieter progressives.
Well and I think there's just a ton of pressure on parents, especially moms, to be perfect. They're in this no-win game where they might be hungry for the slightest bit of positive feedback they could get about their parenting. Combine that with the fact that parents may feel a high degree of isolation and they're just hungry for praise and reassurance and extremely defensive about being judged.
That's why I'd love to get together with others somehow and actually workshop ideas. A lot of us just don't bring stuff up out of fear and frustration but I think having a space to talk about this stuff with others who also want to share and contribute ideas could help us make more headway.
The pictoral instructions of how to be a trans ally, read as if they were advice on how to help someone who has a severe physical and mental disability.
That's the manipulative victim-identity. I very recently encountered DARVO as a psychological technique of manipulation/bullying which seems to describe so many interactions with trans people rather well:
Rarely do we have power dynamics spelled out for us so clearly but I thought this might be edifying for some:
"As speech is such a significant part of what makes us human and separates us from animals, having this function restricted or removed can be frustrating and dehumanizing. For this reason, speech restriction may be used to punish, humiliate, or reinforce power roles within a BDSM relationship."
I think that the illogic of transgender ideology becomes apparent when discussing sports records. We all remember the so-called woman who won all that money on Jeopardy, and that people were saying that she set a new record "on behalf of women", which of course she didn't. What will they say when a trans woman runs a four-minute mile (something which a natural woman has not done yet). Will the NY Times and the Washington Post blithely proclaim that a "woman" has "finally" achieved that important milestone? If and when they do, I will send straight-jackets to their editors.
My brother posted this on his Facebook timeline. Here was the comment I entered upon reading it:
"Interesting and very perceptive. If enough progressives were like Ms Green, and enough on the 'other side' were willing to engage in rational discussion also, many or most minds likely would not be changed, but that would be OK. The value would be in calming the roiling waters and having all concerned see each other as more or less decent human beings who just disagree. The degree of combat going on over this (especially) and other hot-button public issues continues to grow more ferocious, making reasoned discourse less and less possible."
I would define myself as a constitutionalist conservative, which may be a red flag to some or many on the left---but it need not be, any more than "progressive" need be a knee-jerk red flag to those to the right of center.
We may never agree on many policy issues and their underlying principles (we all would fervently hope, I imagine, that there are indeed such principles), but why, why, why must this all be treated as if it was deadly combat? This is an old example but a good one, I think. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil were prodigious political foes, but they could talk to one another about issues and actually liked each other. One weeps to recall this and then consider the cesspit-like mess we so often have for discourse in this country.
yes, you can talk about this. Is just that you hoped to get a specific answer and then got angry when it didn't validate your fearmongering about trans people. All of these questions and more are talked about openly in trans circles and with allies. You not liking the answer is another issue that you have to solve for yourself
Not sure what was "wrong", but the more germane question would seem to be exactly what it was that she said. And the most recent thing, was her comments relative to the recent "International Woman's Day" event:
"JK Rowling has been criticised on social media for a tweet about International Women’s Day.
In a thread criticising the Labour Party’s stance on gender and equality, the Harry Potter author wrote: 'Apparently, under a Labour government, today will become We Who Must Not Be Named Day.' ..."
Perfectly reasonable assertion as far as I can see. Although it might have been nice if she had said - maybe she did say - that that allusion was first suggested by Helen Joyce - author, of course, of "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" - in her oldish Quillette article:
There is a trans activist who posts on YouTube named Blaire White. Unlike most trans activists, White agrees with everything you are saying, Eliza. White analyzed the statements that Rowling made and found nothing transphobic about them. I am providing a link, so you can watch her. Please note that White, being a MTF trans person, sometimes over-does the feminine mannerisms, but she is courageous in speaking the truth.
Blaire is definitely one of the more sensible transwomen around. Although there was an interview of her and Candace Owens on The Rubin Report where, from recollection, White seemed rather desperate in insisting on being called a woman:
Bit of a sour note, and her "overdone feminine mannerisms" likewise.
However, I would deprecate the use of "MTF trans person" since no one changes their sex - except maybe to sexless and back to the original. But a big part of the whole problem in the transgender clusterfuck is that too many of the transloonie nutcases - sadly including Wikipedia - insist on using "male" and "female" as genders where there is really only justification for them as sexes - entirely different kettles of fish:
I have read it many times and I still dont see what was transphobic. It would be very beneficial to the conversation to explain why you and others see it differently. Isnt this post all about being able to talk about this?
So why didn't you like "it"? Though the first question to answer is what do you mean by "it". As I just mentioned, it seems related to her "She Who Must Not Be Named" comments, but also to her criticisms of "a law proposed in Scotland":
"Rowling also hit out at Nicola Sturgeon for a law proposed in Scotland that would simplify how trans people’s genders are recognised."
But a major part of the problem is that so many are clueless about the differences between sex and gender, that they are conflating sex - reproductive abilities; male and female - with genders - basically personalities and related stereotypes; masculine and feminine. Do you seriously think that some transwoman changing his clothes and behaviour from masculine to feminine has changed his sex?
As the late Justice Scalia put it:
"Sex is to gender as male is to masculine, and as female is to feminine"
Entirely different kettles of fish - outright fraud to be trying to sweep those profound differences under the carpet. No wonder so many women - "adult human females" which transwomen most certainly don't and won't ever qualify as - are so up-in-arms.
Y'all might want to reflect on a recent British Medical Journal editorial - even if they really don't acknowledge the biological definitions for the sexes which seems the crux of the issue:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
I have another question, why the hell are we quoting Scalia in a discussion regarding feminism (or women's rights for that matter)?
You know the answer to all of those, sex AND gender are both social constructed concepts (by extension all words are, but that's a different subject). We didn't stumble on a freaking stone slab with the definitions for chromosomes, reproduction, etc. We built those concepts over time, and their meanings also changed over time (remember, medieval doctors thought the uterus was a penis turned inwards)
Because of that, I can say that trans women are also "adult human females", and you don't like that answer.
if a word is socially constructed, that doesn't translate to "it doesn't mean anything".
That's like saying that gold doesn't have any value because it's value is assigned by demand rather than being intrinsic.
There's no fixed meaning to "sex" either, but that doesn't equate to being "meaningless". That's just how language (and by extension the societies that are built upon it) develop and work, by creating meaning
"I can say that trans women are also 'adult human females' ..."
Sure you can SAY transwomen [compound word like 'crayfish' which ain't] are women. As you can SAY "2+2=5". But that hardly makes either statement "true" or consistent with other definitions.
And sure, the DEFINITIONS for words are, in fact, socially constructed. But that does not change the FACT that some third of humans are capable of producing ova - who we CALL "females" - and that some third are capable of producing sperm - who we CALL "males" - and that some third are not capable of producing either gamete - who we CALL "sexless" (like tranwomen who cut their nuts off).
Similarly for literally millions of sexually reproducing species; you may wish to look at and think about the standard definitions for the sexes that underline the above:
"Of or denoting the sex that produces [ova or sperm]"
Transactivists don't quite seem to get - clearly don't want to get - that there's some rhyme and reason to how and why we define words the way we do. They're like the rules of the road - you don't get to drive on any side of it you want whenever you want. Likewise for the definitions for male and female - transwomen won't EVER qualify as the latter. You don't get to create your own definitions and simply can NOT expect everyone to play along with your delusions. Suck it up buttercups.
You may wish to try reading an article at Aeon by Paul Griffiths - university of Sydney, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy - who more or less underlines and emphasizes that argument:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from defining each sex by the ability to do one thing: to make eggs or to make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can’t do either. ...."
"you don't get to create your own definitions". Someone clearly hasn't studied regional slang variations. (seriously google up guagua)
again, all the definitions you are using are socially constructed. And your understanding of "biological sex" also works on a binary that asumes that "women" can only be defined by chromomsomes, and that you would be losing something if that changes
I live in a country with Self ID since 2018, my neighboring country has it since 2012, and I have yet to see the "woman erasure" you talk about
"Sex" is biological and is very precisely defined; "gender" is a word originally used in linguistics and, in its role as presently employed in society, it means essentially what someone or some group wants it to mean---which doesn't help communication a whole lot, especially when the field is in constant motion.
We need to be asking the most basic of questions. They distract us by getting us to fight about male puberty, hormone levels etc
“Why are Women’s sports separated from Men’s sports”
That’s it. That’s the question. Make them answer it and don’t let them pirouette off into kindness, sportsmanship, gender soul, etc
These are the same things I've been told all my life. My Dad said if I didn't do them, I would never get a husband. "Everywhere progressives turn, they hear what's expected of a good trans ally [woman]: listen [defer] to trans people [men], educate yourself [self-indoctrinate], amplify trans [men's] voices [be quiet], be kind [don’t be honest], and remember: your intent doesn't matter."
Yes! Sounds like the same old patriarchal edicts, right? "Be quiet. Defer to men." Patriarchy has to be adaptable to have lasted this long in so many different cultures.
"You're responsible for everyone else's feelings"
"And anyway it's none of your business" -- after bombarding you with instructional propaganda.
While you're summoning up the courage to be honest about this issue, take a moment to see if there aren't OTHER issues that treat your honest inquiries and good-faith analyses the same way.
(Hint: There are.)
Excellent. But I’ve found that most people just don’t seem to care. They acknowledge problems but ultimately they don’t think the problems are that widespread or numerous. They wave them away or shrug their shoulders in that “Well, watcha gonna do?” way. For many people, this isn’t on their radar and they can’t be bothered to think about it.
That's interesting... I guess I haven't found that to be the case at all.
But how can we ask these sorts of questions when doing so will get us "canceled"? I actually counted and found that 1/3 of my friends who have kids in the right age have a "trans" child. They all accept their stated gender unquestioningly and rubber stamp any interventions available. If I questioned any of these things I would be friendless pretty quickly.
I think this is a really important point. How do we even start to bring any of this up when there's so much defensiveness around it? This is why I think it could be helpful to workshop things to say.
Sometimes, brining up an adjacent topic can help create an inroad to a conversation without bringing up defensiveness. Like, California is now requiring stores to have toy aisles that don't market to either sex. If you wanted to start talking with your parent friends, you could bring that up and say something like "Why are certain things marketed only to girls or boys anyway?" Or "What you like to play with and what colors you like doesn't have anything to do with what sex you are." And just see what they say since the idea of trans children is heavily based on sex-stereotyped behavior and interests.
And yet these parents would be the first to agree that girls playing with trucks and boys playing with dolls is perfectly fine. The people I know aren't at all conservative or coming from a place of rigid sex roles. And yet their kids are all "trans" somehow. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, it's tough when it's parents -- I would say even harder than when it's your friends coming out as trans (my age group). I would also say, unlikely to have luck with die-hards. Quite likely to connect with quieter progressives.
I agree it's especially tough with parents as there can be a lot of emotion and their own needs tied up in what they're doing.
Parent needs to believe they're doing right to their kid to transition their kid. Affirmative parents probably the most blinded of the lot.
Well and I think there's just a ton of pressure on parents, especially moms, to be perfect. They're in this no-win game where they might be hungry for the slightest bit of positive feedback they could get about their parenting. Combine that with the fact that parents may feel a high degree of isolation and they're just hungry for praise and reassurance and extremely defensive about being judged.
"blinded" right. I wish Leah Accorn's parents were blinded too. She would be alive today
That's why I'd love to get together with others somehow and actually workshop ideas. A lot of us just don't bring stuff up out of fear and frustration but I think having a space to talk about this stuff with others who also want to share and contribute ideas could help us make more headway.
The pictoral instructions of how to be a trans ally, read as if they were advice on how to help someone who has a severe physical and mental disability.
That's the manipulative victim-identity. I very recently encountered DARVO as a psychological technique of manipulation/bullying which seems to describe so many interactions with trans people rather well:
Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim & Offender.
Rarely do we have power dynamics spelled out for us so clearly but I thought this might be edifying for some:
"As speech is such a significant part of what makes us human and separates us from animals, having this function restricted or removed can be frustrating and dehumanizing. For this reason, speech restriction may be used to punish, humiliate, or reinforce power roles within a BDSM relationship."
https://www.kinkly.com/definition/15764/speech-restriction
In that last sentence, I would put a period after power roles as this takes place in any hierarchical system (relationship, group, society).
Point is -- trust your instincts. If something feels off, it probably is.
Bravo.
I think that the illogic of transgender ideology becomes apparent when discussing sports records. We all remember the so-called woman who won all that money on Jeopardy, and that people were saying that she set a new record "on behalf of women", which of course she didn't. What will they say when a trans woman runs a four-minute mile (something which a natural woman has not done yet). Will the NY Times and the Washington Post blithely proclaim that a "woman" has "finally" achieved that important milestone? If and when they do, I will send straight-jackets to their editors.
My brother posted this on his Facebook timeline. Here was the comment I entered upon reading it:
"Interesting and very perceptive. If enough progressives were like Ms Green, and enough on the 'other side' were willing to engage in rational discussion also, many or most minds likely would not be changed, but that would be OK. The value would be in calming the roiling waters and having all concerned see each other as more or less decent human beings who just disagree. The degree of combat going on over this (especially) and other hot-button public issues continues to grow more ferocious, making reasoned discourse less and less possible."
I would define myself as a constitutionalist conservative, which may be a red flag to some or many on the left---but it need not be, any more than "progressive" need be a knee-jerk red flag to those to the right of center.
We may never agree on many policy issues and their underlying principles (we all would fervently hope, I imagine, that there are indeed such principles), but why, why, why must this all be treated as if it was deadly combat? This is an old example but a good one, I think. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil were prodigious political foes, but they could talk to one another about issues and actually liked each other. One weeps to recall this and then consider the cesspit-like mess we so often have for discourse in this country.
yes, you can talk about this. Is just that you hoped to get a specific answer and then got angry when it didn't validate your fearmongering about trans people. All of these questions and more are talked about openly in trans circles and with allies. You not liking the answer is another issue that you have to solve for yourself
So what did JKR specifically say that earned her so much hate and pile on?. To where she was not invited to various Harry Potters events w the actors
you know the answer, and you don't need me to repeat it. Ask why you didn't like it
No please, what specifically did she say? I legit want to know.
Me too. Not trolling. Genuinely: What was wrong with what she specifically said?
Eliza,
"what was wrong with what she specifically said?"
Not sure what was "wrong", but the more germane question would seem to be exactly what it was that she said. And the most recent thing, was her comments relative to the recent "International Woman's Day" event:
"JK Rowling has been criticised on social media for a tweet about International Women’s Day.
In a thread criticising the Labour Party’s stance on gender and equality, the Harry Potter author wrote: 'Apparently, under a Labour government, today will become We Who Must Not Be Named Day.' ..."
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-international-womens-day-b2031198.html
Perfectly reasonable assertion as far as I can see. Although it might have been nice if she had said - maybe she did say - that that allusion was first suggested by Helen Joyce - author, of course, of "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" - in her oldish Quillette article:
https://quillette.com/2020/06/20/she-who-must-not-be-named/
Worth reading by the way, not least for the definition of female which seems the bone of contention or at least of some relevance.
There is a trans activist who posts on YouTube named Blaire White. Unlike most trans activists, White agrees with everything you are saying, Eliza. White analyzed the statements that Rowling made and found nothing transphobic about them. I am providing a link, so you can watch her. Please note that White, being a MTF trans person, sometimes over-does the feminine mannerisms, but she is courageous in speaking the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyzZ3J6IG6s
Blaire is definitely one of the more sensible transwomen around. Although there was an interview of her and Candace Owens on The Rubin Report where, from recollection, White seemed rather desperate in insisting on being called a woman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REHex5e57HI
Bit of a sour note, and her "overdone feminine mannerisms" likewise.
However, I would deprecate the use of "MTF trans person" since no one changes their sex - except maybe to sexless and back to the original. But a big part of the whole problem in the transgender clusterfuck is that too many of the transloonie nutcases - sadly including Wikipedia - insist on using "male" and "female" as genders where there is really only justification for them as sexes - entirely different kettles of fish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female
He won’t answer it. They never ever do
I have read it many times and I still dont see what was transphobic. It would be very beneficial to the conversation to explain why you and others see it differently. Isnt this post all about being able to talk about this?
Javiera,
"Ask why you didn't like it."
So why didn't you like "it"? Though the first question to answer is what do you mean by "it". As I just mentioned, it seems related to her "She Who Must Not Be Named" comments, but also to her criticisms of "a law proposed in Scotland":
"Rowling also hit out at Nicola Sturgeon for a law proposed in Scotland that would simplify how trans people’s genders are recognised."
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/baftas-2022-rebel-wilson-jk-rowling-b2034932.html
But a major part of the problem is that so many are clueless about the differences between sex and gender, that they are conflating sex - reproductive abilities; male and female - with genders - basically personalities and related stereotypes; masculine and feminine. Do you seriously think that some transwoman changing his clothes and behaviour from masculine to feminine has changed his sex?
As the late Justice Scalia put it:
"Sex is to gender as male is to masculine, and as female is to feminine"
Entirely different kettles of fish - outright fraud to be trying to sweep those profound differences under the carpet. No wonder so many women - "adult human females" which transwomen most certainly don't and won't ever qualify as - are so up-in-arms.
Y'all might want to reflect on a recent British Medical Journal editorial - even if they really don't acknowledge the biological definitions for the sexes which seems the crux of the issue:
"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
I have another question, why the hell are we quoting Scalia in a discussion regarding feminism (or women's rights for that matter)?
You know the answer to all of those, sex AND gender are both social constructed concepts (by extension all words are, but that's a different subject). We didn't stumble on a freaking stone slab with the definitions for chromosomes, reproduction, etc. We built those concepts over time, and their meanings also changed over time (remember, medieval doctors thought the uterus was a penis turned inwards)
Because of that, I can say that trans women are also "adult human females", and you don't like that answer.
If words don't mean anything, then yes, transwomen can be women. But then that doesn't mean anything either.
if a word is socially constructed, that doesn't translate to "it doesn't mean anything".
That's like saying that gold doesn't have any value because it's value is assigned by demand rather than being intrinsic.
There's no fixed meaning to "sex" either, but that doesn't equate to being "meaningless". That's just how language (and by extension the societies that are built upon it) develop and work, by creating meaning
Javiera,
"I can say that trans women are also 'adult human females' ..."
Sure you can SAY transwomen [compound word like 'crayfish' which ain't] are women. As you can SAY "2+2=5". But that hardly makes either statement "true" or consistent with other definitions.
And sure, the DEFINITIONS for words are, in fact, socially constructed. But that does not change the FACT that some third of humans are capable of producing ova - who we CALL "females" - and that some third are capable of producing sperm - who we CALL "males" - and that some third are not capable of producing either gamete - who we CALL "sexless" (like tranwomen who cut their nuts off).
Similarly for literally millions of sexually reproducing species; you may wish to look at and think about the standard definitions for the sexes that underline the above:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/male
"Of or denoting the sex that produces [ova or sperm]"
Transactivists don't quite seem to get - clearly don't want to get - that there's some rhyme and reason to how and why we define words the way we do. They're like the rules of the road - you don't get to drive on any side of it you want whenever you want. Likewise for the definitions for male and female - transwomen won't EVER qualify as the latter. You don't get to create your own definitions and simply can NOT expect everyone to play along with your delusions. Suck it up buttercups.
You may wish to try reading an article at Aeon by Paul Griffiths - university of Sydney, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy - who more or less underlines and emphasizes that argument:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from defining each sex by the ability to do one thing: to make eggs or to make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can’t do either. ...."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
"you don't get to create your own definitions". Someone clearly hasn't studied regional slang variations. (seriously google up guagua)
again, all the definitions you are using are socially constructed. And your understanding of "biological sex" also works on a binary that asumes that "women" can only be defined by chromomsomes, and that you would be losing something if that changes
I live in a country with Self ID since 2018, my neighboring country has it since 2012, and I have yet to see the "woman erasure" you talk about
"Sex" is biological and is very precisely defined; "gender" is a word originally used in linguistics and, in its role as presently employed in society, it means essentially what someone or some group wants it to mean---which doesn't help communication a whole lot, especially when the field is in constant motion.