But why would you discuss someone's medical suffering by leading with a topic on trans elite sports, which focuses on an extreme niche and elite phenomena?
There’s this thing with marginalized communities where people outside of the communities “just want to have a discussion” but the stakes of that conversation are way too high for marginalized people. Trans people’s existence is not for you to challenge or debate. The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions. It’s not really something that’s there for you to “discuss”.
People might not like "having their identity being debated" but people also don't like having their opportunities taken away or being forced into situations they don't feel comfortable in or ones that threaten their safety.
I think the best thing for you to do in situations like this is quietly listen to the counter points being given to you and gently and wholesomely get your hands off of the people and their lives that you are reaching for. It's really not something you are entitled to have or control.
> People don’t like their identity being debated.
But this is reframing. I'm not debating that someone is trans or should be treated with respect or anything like that.
> Bringing up trans women in sports as a talking point would be pretty upsetting to most trans women as it is likely to feel like you’re invalidating their personal experience of being trans.
Ok? Feelings might be hurt. Feelings are subjective. That's not an argument. It's also pretty upsetting for the women who are now competing at a biological disadvantage. Particularly in combat sports where there's potentially dier consequences for losing. What about their feelings?
> Trans people’s existence is not for you to challenge or debate.
Again... That's not what I'm challenging or debating at all. I'll be honest, I fucking hate this debate switcheroo. I'm not challenging someone's existence. Listen to what I'm actually saying. This is so annoying to me.
> The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions
No, it isn't. Not when it affects more than just the marginalized community. If their actions affect others (e.g. women) then it's not primarily up to just them to figure out what they want to do.
Again, this is nothing to do with hate or bigotry. I'm not "debating their existence". I literally don't know how much clearer I can be here.
Sorry, I can't respond anymore since my account has been rate limited.
You can ignore their feelings but that’s the problem. You don’t care that it’s upsetting. To you it’s just some abstract intellectual thing to discuss but to them it could be a source of trauma and pain. I don’t think you’re appreciating what you’re asking a trans person to do when you bring up topics that relate to trauma they’ve experienced.
Indeed. Though I'm honestly not sure if it's "9/10 trans people" or just the gender ideology crowd. Regardless, having strong feelings doesn't win the debate. I can give platitudes all day about how sympathetic I am to people with gender dysmorphia or any other difficulties in life, but when it comes to debating issues, we need to be more dispassionate as my original point and the point of the Economist article is that these topics are nuanced and shutting down the conversation as "hate speech" is not productive at all.
> You can ignore their feelings but that’s the problem. You don’t care that it’s upsetting.
No, in my view, this type of comment is the problem. You're assuming I don't care at all just because I disagree. Please just take my comments at face value. I said in my original comment I have sympathy for trans people.
> To you it’s just some abstract intellectual thing to discuss but to them it could be a source of trauma and pain
Take the women in mixed martial arts. To them, it's a source of actual, physical pain.
You’re presuming that there’s a debate here that you’re part of. I don’t see why you think that. No one owes you an explanation for their needs. No one owes you debate.
I wrote a comment describing how I think these differences should be resolved without forcing marginalized people to endlessly participate in “debate” about the legitimacy of their needs:
I have actually read White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo and for the most part vehemently disagree but to be honest I don’t want to comment so much on it right now as I’m afraid my account will be rate limited again...
But listen, as I said before, I understand being trans must be hard. But that’s simply not good enough. You don’t get everything you want just because it’s hard for you. You don’t (necessarily) decide if you can compete with biological women on a level playing field. That’s really the realm of science, not feelings. Also, is it really that traumatic if trans women have to compete with men as opposed to women if they want to compete in certain sports? Not to sound callus, but given there’s biological reasons for it, I honestly don’t think it’s that offensive? It's reality. And, again, it’s not denying their existence and bigotry and hatred, etc. It’s just a question of science and what’s fair: There’s a reason we separate men and women in certain sports.
Let’s even stick to combat sports as my original, extreme example, to find some common ground. Do you agree trans women shouldn’t be the only ones deciding if they’re allowed to fight biological women? Do you at least think women, and scientists, and combat experts should get a say in that debate? Do you agree they shouldn’t fight them at all? Or do you think us even talking about it is too traumatic (or at least inappropriate) for trans people to listen to? Honestly, if it's the latter, I don't see us finding any common ground at all, and that's what my OP and The Economist article was talking about.
The same thing happened with the "debate" about gays in the military. Bigots brought up the problem of shared showers in the military even though most gym showers are individual stalls. Still, this was used actually used as a rational to keep a ban on gay people, not recognize gay marriage (which means less pay for gay people in the military) and more.
Now we have proposals to ban trans people from public facilities, outlaw medical procedures for trans people and defund any publicly funded trans-related medical drug. And what is fueling this "discussion"?: bullshit stories about trans women assaulting people in bathrooms and sports being dominated by trans athletes (both of which are demonstrably false).
Presumably the "high stakes" are that they might fall out with the majority population, right? In that case why not do all you can to engage productively with them? There was a time when civil rights activists wished for good faith participation.
> The best thing to do in situations like this is to let the marginalized people figure out what they need and then quietly listen to their conclusions.
There are a couple of problems here.
The first is that "their conclusions" are often the conclusions of certain activists and not the marginalized people in question (e.g., "defund the police"). I find this to be the most repulsive kind of rhetoric, because it exploits marginalized groups to the harm of everyone else and to the exclusive benefit of the activist and their ideological comrades.
The second is that it dehumanizes everyone else: others are to simply keep quiet and listen to the marginalized group's needs; to acquiesce. We are all (aspirationally, at least) equal participants in a free society, and we need to find something that works for all of us. Debate is how we do that, even if the topic hits closer to home for some than others.