https://youtu.be/uU7nzwbJ-Hk?t=41
Here is a good example:
> "I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and opens trans people up to violence"
This is a US senator and a Berkeley law professor talking in court.
Here is a good example:
> "I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and opens trans people up to violence"
This is a US senator and a Berkeley law professor talking in court.
Fundamentally we keep having this conversation in humanity.
"This is wrong (homophobic, transphobic, racist, classist, casteist)"
"No it isn't!"
And over and over and over again. And we look back and think how could it have been possible that we were SO discriminatory in the past, but SO enlightened now, and yet we repeat the same mistakes again.
And you have some feminists that exclude trans women. And you have some black people perpetuating homophobia.
15 years ago we were having EXACTLY the same discourse about gay marriage as we do today about trans rights.
It's exhausting how much some humans are committed to making the lives of other humans on this planet shitty. Fuck, let people live their lives. We all only get one.
I think this is greatly simplifying the concerns that people have in transitioning minors, the statistically anomalous rise in minors that identify as trans [1], and the safety of puberty blockers. For example, see the data that guided the recent Swedish health board decisions to mostly stop puberty blockers. I'm pointing out "minors", because it's all I see in serious discussions. These discussions, and even Sweden's decision, is labeled transphobic. It's trivial to find news article with the title "Sweden is killing trans people".
The word "minor" appears to be the wedge driving the trans division, where those that don't support know that minors aren't good with permanent decision, and those that do support it know that the permanent decision needs to be made as early as possible. I don't think the wedge will be removed without hard science proving safety, which natures statement can only impede.
As some evidence that 15 years ago was better for LGB than it is now for T:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dramatic_television_se...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transgender_characters...
1.
Doubled since 2017: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/10/science/transgender-teena...
5x in 13-17 vs 65 years old: https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/06/10/study-300000-yout...
But, I'm nobody, looking at numbers I probably don't understand. The problem here is that Nature is saying that these numbers should be considered, but potentially discarded, depending on the conclusion they make.
No "trans woman" is ever a woman. They're men, males. You're trying to take women's rights from females by denying them a way to uniquely identify themselves.
This right here is why "trans rights", as activists choose to define it, can never happen. If you can take the words woman and female, Germany could redefine Jew and China can redefine Uighur, and everyone could identify as black-descendant-of-slavery to access scholarships.
Rights are not a zero-sum game or some kind of exhaustible resource; I have no idea what you're getting at with this.
I challenge your contention that "a way to uniquely identify themselves" is a right of biological women or other groups. Never heard of any such right; it sounds totally made up.
---
The meaning of words is what all people agree on. In the US, marriage used to mean a legally recognized union between a man and a woman of the same race. Otherwise it was miscegenation, or sodomy. Then as times changed, they added a qualifier: "mixed marriage" or "mixed-race marriage". Same thing happened in the last decade with gay marriage. In both cases, it eventually just turned back into marriage again.
You disagree that trans women are women. Fine. Activists are trying to make the case that they are; that womanhood encompasses more than being biologically female, and same for manhood. A lot of people agree.
---
You say that everyone could identify as black-descendant-of-slavery to access scholarships. I say you are making a laughable category error. (Did people start marrying their dogs after Obergefell was decided? They did not.)
The reason someone identifies as something other than their birth gender isn't well-understood, but it is fair to say that hormones and the development of the brain play a significant role in the way people think and behave. Hormones have strong ties to sex and gender. They have very, very little to do with race. Category error.
If non-black people started identifying as black to claim their piece of a societal debt to the ancestors of slaves, they would be (and have been[1]) ridiculed. Most people don't try this, because the vast majority of society agrees that is not acceptable.
And yet you've heard of a right for males to claim female's sex-based rights?
> Rights are not a zero-sum game or some kind of exhaustible resource;
Actually they are. Women have a right to sex-segregated spaces for example, and that doesn't work if they can't claim exclusive use of sex-based identifiers. Women can't have exclusively-women's prisons if men can call themselves women.
> You disagree that trans women are women. Fine. Activists are trying to make the case that they are; that womanhood encompasses more than being biologically female, and same for manhood. A lot of people agree.
You can volunteer to share your spaces however you like, but you can't make that decision for others no matter how many people you claim agree.
Also, you're being disingenuous. Transwomen claim to be female these days - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Levine - which is clearly untrue even to people who might believe in gender identities.
> You say that everyone could identify as black-descendant-of-slavery to access scholarships. I say you are making a laughable category error.
But then you reference Rachel, who did exactly that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
Thanks to the modern intentional acceptance of appropriation and colonization other Dolezals aren't being rejected, leading some to simultaneously claim racial and sexual benefits belonging to others. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Benaway
See, for example, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders. Both entirely meaningless if men can self-identify as women.
I don't know the context, or how sane the claim is. But I don't think it's an example of what GP said.
Claims that an action can cause violence are ultimately claims that the action causes violence.