Gosh, Nick. I don’t know, maybe lead with this: “… make it clear that there should be no discrimination against a trans person because their appearance does not match what we expect for someone of their birth sex.”
The VAST majority of transgender people are not “activists” seeking exceptional treatment or gunning for anyone’s job because “thought crimes.”
I know but the problem is that a few are and they have wrecked people's lives. As I argue in the long read, they have done huge damage to the trans cause as much as anything else
The number of transgender peoples’ lives being ruined in this ideological crossfire far outweighs the number of academics and journalists whose lives have been ruined by activists. The tone you have adopted in your writing (and your continued circling around to this topic) smacks of kicking a powerless minority of people while they are down. Have you not made your point?
I don't think we should turn this into a competition of how many lives have been ruined on either side (and I doubt there are verified numbers for lives ruined on either side) - lives ruined is an endpoint to be avoided.
There's an argument that most of the damage done to trans people's rights has been done by those extreme activists (many/most of whom may not even be trans) who violently shut down debate over the last decade or so.
Define both sides, please. Transgender people vs which people? And if this is about extreme activists (many/most of whom may not even be transgender) v. journalists & academics, why the constant relation of transgender people to these extreme activists?
Lives continue to be ruined. It is wrong to ruin someone’s life for their speech or writing. It is wrong to ruin someone’s life for being transgender. Transgender people do not ruin people’s lives. Extreme activists do.
The point is made. The violent and/or tortious harm that has been done to journalists and academics by extreme activists must be dealt with according to the law. The problem remains: what does our society owe to transgender people? How do we incorporate them into society with respect, dignity, and kindness?
I was taking your definition of the two sides - trans people and academics/journalists/others. It sounds as though we agree that they are both victims of extremism.
I did not, and have never, stated that transgender people are in an adversarial relationship with “academics/journalists/others.”
“The number of transgender peoples’ lives being ruined in this ideological crossfire far outweighs the number of academics and journalists whose lives have been ruined by activists.”
This statement states that two groups have been caught in an ideological crossfire. It does not state that the two groups are firing at each other.
"The taboos around discussing biological sex remain extraordinarily strong on the left. The slogan 'trans women are women' may not be true—as sporting associations and courts around the world are increasingly recognising—but as propaganda, it is brilliant."
I find it very interesting that women who identify as men (whether through medical intervention or just declaring it) are apparently not demanding access to male sports, prisons, showers, etc. We only hear about men (former or not) demanding the "right" to force themselves into women's spaces. It seems fashionable to pretend that "woman" cannot be defined, but I have not heard of anyone claiming that no one really knows what a man is. I think it is not unreasonable to view the current trans movement as a backlash against feminism and women's rights.
NC: "The trans campaign, by contrast, is not asking for equal rights. It is 'asking for exemptions from rules that apply to everyone.' For that reason, he says, it is doomed to fail."
ICYMI, you may wish to consider this from a post in The Critic by Helen Joyce who argues, quite reasonably, that the recent UK Supreme Court ruling basically endorses and mandates such exemptions for "biological women":
HJ: The Supreme Court has spoken, it’s the country’s apex court and, unless and until a new law is passed, its word is quite literally law. If you put up a sign saying “men only” or “women only” — you commit sex discrimination, in other words — you can only do so under the “single sex exceptions” in the Equality Act, and it’s now clear that those refer to biological sex.
Those “protected classes” -- as the US styles them -- seem to be saying that there are to be exceptions to those no-discrimination, equal rights laws. Somewhat ironic that so many earlier feminists were beating down the doors of “men only” clubs and organizations, but later waves are now apparently championing “women only” versions.
The issue seems to boil down into the question of whose rights qualify as trump -- so to speak -- and which groups are larger and have stronger claims to being based on more "immutable" traits.
NC: “That is a fair point and my phrasing was clumsy.”
No problemo 🙂. Pretty much everyone is in the same boat because of inconsistent, contradictory, and incoherent definitions for both “sex” and “gender”. As a famous Canadian humourist, Stephen Leacock, once put it, though I expect in a different context, “everyone is riding madly off in all directions”. Something else in the same vein – from out here in the colonies ... 🙂 – Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on first (?)”:
The Naughty Nineties; Who’s on First? — Abbott and Costello; Universal Pictures:
The whole issue of transgenderism is such a clusterfuck, such a clown show, that it really needs a Pope or a Swift to do justice to it: Rape of the Lock (Part Deux), and a Lilliputian Civil War over egg (ova) cracking protocols.
But as something of a line in the sand, a definitional point of reference or touchstone, you might consider this rather brilliant analogy from the late great US Justice Anton Scalia:
AS: The word "gender" has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine to male.
Apropos of which is something of a case in point: your suggestion that “The slogan “trans women are women” may not be true ...” is, by standard biological definitions and by Scalia’s analogy, flatly false, is an oxymoron, is a contradiction in terms. By definition, “women” are “adult human females”, and transwomen – compound word like “crayfish” which ain’t – are, in fact, adult human males, at least if they still have their nuts attached, and are sexless eunuchs if they don’t. Which is why the developing consensus is that “transwomen” – compound word – are simply males with feminine traits, with some sort of “feminine gender identity” which is clearly a different kettle of fish from actually being females.
Apropos of such bastardization and corruption of language – Orwell would have had a field day -- you may wish to take a gander at my open letters to a trio of “journalists” at the NY Times, and to one at Slate magazine.:
Of particular note is the too common use of phrases like “transgender girls” and “transgender female athletes” in the two Times articles, and the view, in the Slate article, that humans can “transition from one sex to another”.
Again, those “transgender girls” and “transgender female athletes” are, in point of fact, actual males, people with testicles, not ovaries, both of which are pretty much the sine qua non for “males” and “females”, respectively. And there’s absolutely no way, on gawd’s green earth, that any male is ever going to “transition” to a female – at least, he would have to replace his testicles with ovaries, a medical impossibility.
there should be no discrimination against a trans person because their appearance does not match what we expect for someone of their birth sex
This I think merely shifts the argument somewhere else, rather than compromising. After all, what constitutes discrimination against trans people? Many trans people might say it was discriminatory to ban them from the spaces congruent with the gender they feel is theirs.
Gosh, Nick. I don’t know, maybe lead with this: “… make it clear that there should be no discrimination against a trans person because their appearance does not match what we expect for someone of their birth sex.”
The VAST majority of transgender people are not “activists” seeking exceptional treatment or gunning for anyone’s job because “thought crimes.”
I know but the problem is that a few are and they have wrecked people's lives. As I argue in the long read, they have done huge damage to the trans cause as much as anything else
The number of transgender peoples’ lives being ruined in this ideological crossfire far outweighs the number of academics and journalists whose lives have been ruined by activists. The tone you have adopted in your writing (and your continued circling around to this topic) smacks of kicking a powerless minority of people while they are down. Have you not made your point?
I don't think we should turn this into a competition of how many lives have been ruined on either side (and I doubt there are verified numbers for lives ruined on either side) - lives ruined is an endpoint to be avoided.
There's an argument that most of the damage done to trans people's rights has been done by those extreme activists (many/most of whom may not even be trans) who violently shut down debate over the last decade or so.
Couldn't agree more
Define both sides, please. Transgender people vs which people? And if this is about extreme activists (many/most of whom may not even be transgender) v. journalists & academics, why the constant relation of transgender people to these extreme activists?
Lives continue to be ruined. It is wrong to ruin someone’s life for their speech or writing. It is wrong to ruin someone’s life for being transgender. Transgender people do not ruin people’s lives. Extreme activists do.
The point is made. The violent and/or tortious harm that has been done to journalists and academics by extreme activists must be dealt with according to the law. The problem remains: what does our society owe to transgender people? How do we incorporate them into society with respect, dignity, and kindness?
I was taking your definition of the two sides - trans people and academics/journalists/others. It sounds as though we agree that they are both victims of extremism.
I did not, and have never, stated that transgender people are in an adversarial relationship with “academics/journalists/others.”
“The number of transgender peoples’ lives being ruined in this ideological crossfire far outweighs the number of academics and journalists whose lives have been ruined by activists.”
This statement states that two groups have been caught in an ideological crossfire. It does not state that the two groups are firing at each other.
Apologies. I misread your initial comment. As I say, I think we agree that there are innocent people who are the victims of extreme ideologies.
"The taboos around discussing biological sex remain extraordinarily strong on the left. The slogan 'trans women are women' may not be true—as sporting associations and courts around the world are increasingly recognising—but as propaganda, it is brilliant."
I find it very interesting that women who identify as men (whether through medical intervention or just declaring it) are apparently not demanding access to male sports, prisons, showers, etc. We only hear about men (former or not) demanding the "right" to force themselves into women's spaces. It seems fashionable to pretend that "woman" cannot be defined, but I have not heard of anyone claiming that no one really knows what a man is. I think it is not unreasonable to view the current trans movement as a backlash against feminism and women's rights.
NC: "The trans campaign, by contrast, is not asking for equal rights. It is 'asking for exemptions from rules that apply to everyone.' For that reason, he says, it is doomed to fail."
ICYMI, you may wish to consider this from a post in The Critic by Helen Joyce who argues, quite reasonably, that the recent UK Supreme Court ruling basically endorses and mandates such exemptions for "biological women":
HJ: The Supreme Court has spoken, it’s the country’s apex court and, unless and until a new law is passed, its word is quite literally law. If you put up a sign saying “men only” or “women only” — you commit sex discrimination, in other words — you can only do so under the “single sex exceptions” in the Equality Act, and it’s now clear that those refer to biological sex.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-five-stages-of-victory/
Those “protected classes” -- as the US styles them -- seem to be saying that there are to be exceptions to those no-discrimination, equal rights laws. Somewhat ironic that so many earlier feminists were beating down the doors of “men only” clubs and organizations, but later waves are now apparently championing “women only” versions.
The issue seems to boil down into the question of whose rights qualify as trump -- so to speak -- and which groups are larger and have stronger claims to being based on more "immutable" traits.
That is a fair point and my phrasing was clumsy
NC: “That is a fair point and my phrasing was clumsy.”
No problemo 🙂. Pretty much everyone is in the same boat because of inconsistent, contradictory, and incoherent definitions for both “sex” and “gender”. As a famous Canadian humourist, Stephen Leacock, once put it, though I expect in a different context, “everyone is riding madly off in all directions”. Something else in the same vein – from out here in the colonies ... 🙂 – Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on first (?)”:
The Naughty Nineties; Who’s on First? — Abbott and Costello; Universal Pictures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYOUFGfK4bU
The whole issue of transgenderism is such a clusterfuck, such a clown show, that it really needs a Pope or a Swift to do justice to it: Rape of the Lock (Part Deux), and a Lilliputian Civil War over egg (ova) cracking protocols.
But as something of a line in the sand, a definitional point of reference or touchstone, you might consider this rather brilliant analogy from the late great US Justice Anton Scalia:
AS: The word "gender" has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine to male.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
Apropos of which is something of a case in point: your suggestion that “The slogan “trans women are women” may not be true ...” is, by standard biological definitions and by Scalia’s analogy, flatly false, is an oxymoron, is a contradiction in terms. By definition, “women” are “adult human females”, and transwomen – compound word like “crayfish” which ain’t – are, in fact, adult human males, at least if they still have their nuts attached, and are sexless eunuchs if they don’t. Which is why the developing consensus is that “transwomen” – compound word – are simply males with feminine traits, with some sort of “feminine gender identity” which is clearly a different kettle of fish from actually being females.
Apropos of such bastardization and corruption of language – Orwell would have had a field day -- you may wish to take a gander at my open letters to a trio of “journalists” at the NY Times, and to one at Slate magazine.:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/open-letters-ideological-capture
Of particular note is the too common use of phrases like “transgender girls” and “transgender female athletes” in the two Times articles, and the view, in the Slate article, that humans can “transition from one sex to another”.
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/open-letters-ideological-capture
Again, those “transgender girls” and “transgender female athletes” are, in point of fact, actual males, people with testicles, not ovaries, both of which are pretty much the sine qua non for “males” and “females”, respectively. And there’s absolutely no way, on gawd’s green earth, that any male is ever going to “transition” to a female – at least, he would have to replace his testicles with ovaries, a medical impossibility.
there should be no discrimination against a trans person because their appearance does not match what we expect for someone of their birth sex
This I think merely shifts the argument somewhere else, rather than compromising. After all, what constitutes discrimination against trans people? Many trans people might say it was discriminatory to ban them from the spaces congruent with the gender they feel is theirs.