TERF Wars
July 2, 2020 10:54 AM Subscribe
Writing in Medium, Laurie Penny provides a backgrounder on the rise of left wing transphobia in the UK, and its damaging impact both in Britain and internationally.(SLMedium)
Penny points out not only the way it happened, with Second Wave radicals seizing on anti-trans backlash, but also some of the cultural aspects that made the UK particularly vulnerable to this.
Penny points out not only the way it happened, with Second Wave radicals seizing on anti-trans backlash, but also some of the cultural aspects that made the UK particularly vulnerable to this.
For more background reading on TERFs in the UK, there's a good list of articles in this Twitter thread.
posted by xchmp at 11:47 AM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by xchmp at 11:47 AM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
I liked Penny's piece but I thought this VICE article was much more about how TERFs took over mainstream feminism in the UK.
It's really interesting to me because the UK doesn't seem to be any more transphobic overall than, say, the US, but British transphobia does seem to be higher-profile and more normalized in educated, left-of-center circles in the UK than it is here. The urban American liberals I know are baffled by JK Rowling because they saw her as a fellow liberal and they also see trans rights as part of the package of ideas liberals believe in.
posted by lunasol at 12:18 PM on July 2, 2020 [19 favorites]
It's really interesting to me because the UK doesn't seem to be any more transphobic overall than, say, the US, but British transphobia does seem to be higher-profile and more normalized in educated, left-of-center circles in the UK than it is here. The urban American liberals I know are baffled by JK Rowling because they saw her as a fellow liberal and they also see trans rights as part of the package of ideas liberals believe in.
posted by lunasol at 12:18 PM on July 2, 2020 [19 favorites]
I’m not clear on what TERFs (reactionary, conservative gender essentialism) have to do with the left.
posted by thedamnbees at 12:20 PM on July 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by thedamnbees at 12:20 PM on July 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
I’m not clear on what TERFs (reactionary, conservative gender essentialism) have to do with the left.
Well, they came out of radical feminism. I agree with you that they don't really belong on the left but they did spring from some of the more reactionary movements of the left.
posted by lunasol at 12:23 PM on July 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Well, they came out of radical feminism. I agree with you that they don't really belong on the left but they did spring from some of the more reactionary movements of the left.
posted by lunasol at 12:23 PM on July 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Thank you for this, NoxAeternum, and also to you, lunasol, for your link.
I haven't read either yet but am planning to, because I just don't get TERF thinking, at all.
Thanks for sharing some useful background info.
posted by kristi at 12:29 PM on July 2, 2020
I haven't read either yet but am planning to, because I just don't get TERF thinking, at all.
Thanks for sharing some useful background info.
posted by kristi at 12:29 PM on July 2, 2020
they came out of radical feminism. I agree with you that they don't really belong on the left but they did spring from some of the more reactionary movements of the left.
Sometimes the left/spectrum is more of a circle - when Mussolini came to power, no one was sure which side of the parliament he would sit on, since his fascist movement drew on both far right and far left elements. Sometimes radicalism takes you places that betrays where you supposedly started from.
I can see what she means by some of the connections to the so-radical-it-became-hateful feminism of the 70s and 80s, where hatred of patriarchy (totally reasonable) morphed into hatred of all people assigned male at birth (not at all reasonable). I remember noping out of some of the radical feminist science fiction from that time because it seemed like it couldn't talk about the humanity of women without dismissing the humanity of men - including, through their own gender essentialism, dismissing the identities of women and non-binary people who are amab.
I never understood how gender essentialism could ever fit into the struggle for gender equality and freedom for people to live their lives outside of the roles that they were assigned at birth. But the fact is that some feminists did embrace the strawmen that they were accused of: believing that afab people weren't just equal, but were inherently better than amab people - and that's what they wrote into their fiction.
I really like this quote from Penny: "It is not transphobic to acknowledge that trans women have a different political experience of womanhood than cis women, just as white women have a different political experience of womanhood than black women, just as rich women have a different political experience of womanhood than poor women. There is, in fact, no universal experience of womanhood, no essential feminine principle — the insistence that such a sketchy concept exists is normally predicated not just on transphobia but on latent racism and classism."
posted by jb at 12:50 PM on July 2, 2020 [30 favorites]
Sometimes the left/spectrum is more of a circle - when Mussolini came to power, no one was sure which side of the parliament he would sit on, since his fascist movement drew on both far right and far left elements. Sometimes radicalism takes you places that betrays where you supposedly started from.
I can see what she means by some of the connections to the so-radical-it-became-hateful feminism of the 70s and 80s, where hatred of patriarchy (totally reasonable) morphed into hatred of all people assigned male at birth (not at all reasonable). I remember noping out of some of the radical feminist science fiction from that time because it seemed like it couldn't talk about the humanity of women without dismissing the humanity of men - including, through their own gender essentialism, dismissing the identities of women and non-binary people who are amab.
I never understood how gender essentialism could ever fit into the struggle for gender equality and freedom for people to live their lives outside of the roles that they were assigned at birth. But the fact is that some feminists did embrace the strawmen that they were accused of: believing that afab people weren't just equal, but were inherently better than amab people - and that's what they wrote into their fiction.
I really like this quote from Penny: "It is not transphobic to acknowledge that trans women have a different political experience of womanhood than cis women, just as white women have a different political experience of womanhood than black women, just as rich women have a different political experience of womanhood than poor women. There is, in fact, no universal experience of womanhood, no essential feminine principle — the insistence that such a sketchy concept exists is normally predicated not just on transphobia but on latent racism and classism."
posted by jb at 12:50 PM on July 2, 2020 [30 favorites]
It's got some shared DNA with religious transphobia, which is why they can partner up. It starts in biological determinism: men are *this way* and women are *that way* and there is no way to change those essential natures, which are determined by birth sex/God (depending on your flavor). TERFism goes on to say that the way men are is inherently predatory and exploitative and therefore anything men do to women is evil, no matter what the participants think of it. The TERF line about "protecting women" is thus predicated on the idea that a trans woman is "really" a man and that her presence in women's spaces is actually "men" "corrupting" or "imposing" on women and thus is the patriarchy. From there you get bathroom panic, rants about how lesbians having sex with trans women is actually rape, refusal to allow changes to legal gender lest having a driver's license that doesn't trigger dysphoria somehow enables a trans woman to assault people, refusal to accept transmasculine or nonbinary people as anything other than deluded "women" who are victimized and fearful of the patriarchy and seeking to escape it, etc.
posted by Scattercat at 12:54 PM on July 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
posted by Scattercat at 12:54 PM on July 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
I really like this quote from Penny: "It is not transphobic to acknowledge that trans women have a different political experience of womanhood than cis women, just as white women have a different political experience of womanhood than black women, just as rich women have a different political experience of womanhood than poor women. There is, in fact, no universal experience of womanhood, no essential feminine principle — the insistence that such a sketchy concept exists is normally predicated not just on transphobia but on latent racism and classism."
And this, in my opinion, is in part why the US rejected TERFs while the UK didn't - the growth of intersectionality with the birth of the Third Wave made the idea of "there is no one feminine experience" a cornerstone of feminism in the US, and as a result TERFs quickly became out of step with feminism as a whole because of their essentialist worldview. It seems that intersectionality didn't play as big a role in the development of feminism in the UK, allowing radical feminists subscribing to essentialism to remain in the fold, so to speak.
By that logic, there is no universal experience of experience of latina women, of immigrant women, or indigenous women. It's almost as if the author is claiming - all women are different? News at 11:00.
Except that essentialists argue the opposite - that "being a woman" is a certain, defined experience - hence the fights within feminism over intersectionality that were a hallmark of the transition between the Second and Third Waves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:09 PM on July 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
And this, in my opinion, is in part why the US rejected TERFs while the UK didn't - the growth of intersectionality with the birth of the Third Wave made the idea of "there is no one feminine experience" a cornerstone of feminism in the US, and as a result TERFs quickly became out of step with feminism as a whole because of their essentialist worldview. It seems that intersectionality didn't play as big a role in the development of feminism in the UK, allowing radical feminists subscribing to essentialism to remain in the fold, so to speak.
By that logic, there is no universal experience of experience of latina women, of immigrant women, or indigenous women. It's almost as if the author is claiming - all women are different? News at 11:00.
Except that essentialists argue the opposite - that "being a woman" is a certain, defined experience - hence the fights within feminism over intersectionality that were a hallmark of the transition between the Second and Third Waves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:09 PM on July 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
I think one of the most effective strategies terdom has is that it gets people talking in theoretical terms, i.e. with these questions about its relation to late-20th century radical feminism, its history in gender essentialism. I do not think an archaeology quite that far back is useful though (and manages to leave out all the pushback against essentialism that was already going on back then), because what's important isn't the theoretical underpinning of terfdom. The reason people are attracted to terf ideas isn't because they've been reading a lot of 40-year-old fem theory. I think they're attracted because of the weaponization of shared trauma, and Penny does get into this in a way I appreciate. As she says, "I’ve spoken to cis women involved in that side of the debate who have lost everything that mattered to them over years of austerity, cuts to services and welfare, who have been ground down by male violence," and those women are then given a target for their frustration and trauma, by posing this image of a woman in the most fragile possible situation (for example, the domestic abuse shelter), in peril.
It's a powerful image for someone prone to transphobia, and it is used again and again to recruit members, people who have no background or understanding of radical feminist theory, people who are only interested in being told who to hate so that they can feel justified in hating someone. It is deeply emotional propaganda, and not amenable to rational argument (although god knows one tries).
posted by mittens at 1:25 PM on July 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
It's a powerful image for someone prone to transphobia, and it is used again and again to recruit members, people who have no background or understanding of radical feminist theory, people who are only interested in being told who to hate so that they can feel justified in hating someone. It is deeply emotional propaganda, and not amenable to rational argument (although god knows one tries).
posted by mittens at 1:25 PM on July 2, 2020 [20 favorites]
It starts in biological determinism: men are *this way* and women are *that way* and there is no way to change those essential natures, which are determined by birth sex/God (depending on your flavor). TERFism goes on to say that the way men are is inherently predatory and exploitative and therefore anything men do to women is evil, no matter what the participants think of it.
GC feminists see male as a biological sex and female as a biological sex. They don't say men or women act one way or the other, but that female oppression is rooted in sex. For example, girls are bought and sold into sex trafficking because of their sex, not because they identify as female or have female gender presentation. Biological women are the ones taking the burden of pregnancy, its effects on the body and career, etc.
They also believe that a girl is raised by her parents and society differently than a boy because of her observed sex at birth. Liberal feminists could agree with this. There is no innate connection between a sex and the gender roles foisted one that sex from birth, it's what society does and it's arbitrary.
Unlike a religious conservative, no GC feminist is going to say what a man or a woman should look like, what role they should take on, or what their sexuality should be.
JK Rowling's first transphobic tweet was one agreeing with someone that biological sex is real. Maybe sex is not a perfect binary, but it's not more or less so among trans people than cis. And no matter who you are, you can say one of your bio parents was bio male, and one was bio female. There's really no ambiguity there.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:57 PM on July 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
GC feminists see male as a biological sex and female as a biological sex. They don't say men or women act one way or the other, but that female oppression is rooted in sex. For example, girls are bought and sold into sex trafficking because of their sex, not because they identify as female or have female gender presentation. Biological women are the ones taking the burden of pregnancy, its effects on the body and career, etc.
They also believe that a girl is raised by her parents and society differently than a boy because of her observed sex at birth. Liberal feminists could agree with this. There is no innate connection between a sex and the gender roles foisted one that sex from birth, it's what society does and it's arbitrary.
Unlike a religious conservative, no GC feminist is going to say what a man or a woman should look like, what role they should take on, or what their sexuality should be.
JK Rowling's first transphobic tweet was one agreeing with someone that biological sex is real. Maybe sex is not a perfect binary, but it's not more or less so among trans people than cis. And no matter who you are, you can say one of your bio parents was bio male, and one was bio female. There's really no ambiguity there.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:57 PM on July 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
Unlike a religious conservative, no GC feminist is going to say what a man or a woman should look like, what role they should take on, or what their sexuality should be,
Yeah, totally. The people who want butch-looking women to be harassed when they go to use public restrooms aren't going to say what a man or woman should look like.
Ahahahahahahahaha.
Got to say, this stuff is not generally very funny - what with the hate and the harassment and the suicide rates and the transphobic murder and all that. But that was funny.
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:16 PM on July 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
Yeah, totally. The people who want butch-looking women to be harassed when they go to use public restrooms aren't going to say what a man or woman should look like.
Ahahahahahahahaha.
Got to say, this stuff is not generally very funny - what with the hate and the harassment and the suicide rates and the transphobic murder and all that. But that was funny.
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:16 PM on July 2, 2020 [12 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. FirstMateKate, this isn’t the first time you’ve dug in on an argument adjacent to trans rights stuff in a way that feels like it’s deprioritizing the main subject. Whatever the intent, it’s an ongoing problem in practice and we need you to avoid discussions about this stuff in the future.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:18 PM on July 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:18 PM on July 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
From the FPP: Whenever I’m sharing war stories with American progressives, one of the first things they tend to ask is why there are so many prominent British transphobes, and why respectable left-wing publications like the Guardian publish their writing on the subject so often.
June 27, 2020 tweet, @shonfaye: Happy Pride. There has been no articles written by a British trans writer in The Guardian for ten months despite over 100 articles about trans issues in that time [...] To be fair Nicky Bandini is trans and I don’t want to erase her. So I’ll be extremely accurate and say that when you search the articles tagged “transgender” none of them are written by British trans people since last September
August 15, 2019: The Guardian Newspaper Has Lost Two Trans Employees Over Its Reporting On Trans Issues (Buzzfeed)
August 16, 2019: From one trans sportswriter to another, Nicky Bandini, watch your back! Nicky Bandini came out as transgender in The Guardian, a newspaper with a history of questionable coverage. (OutSports.com)
March 3, 2020 (updated April 3) Trans Woman Announces Resignation From The Guardian In Packed Staff Meeting Amid Transphobia Row (Huffington Post UK)
& from Nov. 2, 2018: Why we take issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK (Guardian Opinion) A recent editorial on the Gender Recognition Act in the UK was met with dismay by Guardian US journalists who believe it advanced transphobic viewpoints that are driving attacks on trans rights in America
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:29 PM on July 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
June 27, 2020 tweet, @shonfaye: Happy Pride. There has been no articles written by a British trans writer in The Guardian for ten months despite over 100 articles about trans issues in that time [...] To be fair Nicky Bandini is trans and I don’t want to erase her. So I’ll be extremely accurate and say that when you search the articles tagged “transgender” none of them are written by British trans people since last September
August 15, 2019: The Guardian Newspaper Has Lost Two Trans Employees Over Its Reporting On Trans Issues (Buzzfeed)
August 16, 2019: From one trans sportswriter to another, Nicky Bandini, watch your back! Nicky Bandini came out as transgender in The Guardian, a newspaper with a history of questionable coverage. (OutSports.com)
March 3, 2020 (updated April 3) Trans Woman Announces Resignation From The Guardian In Packed Staff Meeting Amid Transphobia Row (Huffington Post UK)
& from Nov. 2, 2018: Why we take issue with the Guardian’s stance on trans rights in the UK (Guardian Opinion) A recent editorial on the Gender Recognition Act in the UK was met with dismay by Guardian US journalists who believe it advanced transphobic viewpoints that are driving attacks on trans rights in America
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:29 PM on July 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
In the UK, anti-trans prejudice is mainstream, and one doesn't have to be a 8chan reader to share it. (See also: Mumsnet, the Times, and so on.) It's partly the British tradition of prurient, disapproving humour about sex and sexual difference, though weaponised by the toxic media environment led by the right-wing press.
Mind you, they said the same things about gays in the 80s, and things have improved there.
posted by acb at 4:02 PM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Mind you, they said the same things about gays in the 80s, and things have improved there.
posted by acb at 4:02 PM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
For a video form discussion of TERF's you can view the always fun ContraPoints also.
posted by dopeypanda at 4:19 PM on July 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by dopeypanda at 4:19 PM on July 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
It also doesn't take much, in personal terms, to feel a sense of hurt and alienation then transfer that to all trans women.
In my wee baby feminist days I spent a lot of time on the ms forums. One particular radfem trans woman was...deeply unpleasant. "If you don't use your uterus you don't deserve to be a woman" and "if you have male friends you're an idiot waiting to be victimised" and "you aren't good enough to be a woman because you aren't nice/pretty/soft/femme" and "if you aren't attracted to me then you aren't really queer" kind of unpleasant. It took me a lot of time and reading and being friends with trans people to undo the weird essentialism she directed at me about being a non-gender conforming cis woman during my late teens when I was questioning a lot of this and was in an emotionally abusive relationship and mostly closeted and trying to find a community. A friend of mine from that time got it worse - she transitioned then detransitioned trying to deal with her nonconformity by the standards of that poster and her peers. She never really made friends with any trans people once she stopped contact with them and has become a major league TERF after a few years of trying to deal with the questioning of her gender presentation, choices to be married to a man, and sexual weirdness from trans and cis women in that clique. Her pre-existing conditions made her susceptible to them, and to TERFs.
Add to that the excessive prioritisation of crimes and made up bullshit about trans women facilitated by social media, and after a while every post from her about gender, women, children, or sex, included something like that. It didn't help to have certain cases championed for trans women's rights that were...questionable in many ways. And these cases (actual predators, bad faith actors) became the stand in for all trans women. It was horrifying to watch, and I was utterly powerless to contradict the outlier cases and because of my friend's experience with that clique, also impossible to shift the rhetoric that this was representative, rather than a serious outlier. To her it was an obvious extension from how they treated her to how all trans women are to what the scope of trans rights are.
It feels like UK feminism was that, at a larger scale. Specific issues and cases became emblematic of the "transgender issue" and nobody wanted to address the unique elements of the negative cases, and so pointing out the very real danger of a specific case became a TERF identifier, and a pointless exercise in legislating outlier cases for trans people and allies. And most of those cases were easy enough to point to as outlier, but TERFs use them representatively and highlight moral outrages, making the extremely rare incidents something to constantly return to with gotcha arguments. Ones that lean heavily on well documented fears (child safety, sexual violence) and highlight specific cases that have little to nothing to do with the reality of being transgender.
Perpetual focus on anecdotes, extreme outliers and often bad actors within trans spaces, allows for TERFs to target already scared or already victimised women. I was probably close to being one of them, except my research and academic leanings undermined a lot of their rhetoric - I could identify the PR style, the gish gallop, the media frenzy they were aiming for, even as they were pressing on some emotional wounds. It probably helped that they used a lot of the same rhetoric the woman from the ms forums did, that I am performing womanhood wrong, that men are innately violent predators, even if their end results were different, it was the same gender essentialist nonsense. I am aware now how much of my initial experience of trans issues was affected by transmedicalism, gatekeeping, and the historical elements of transgender issues through specific periods of history. I didn't then, and had no frame of reference beyond what that specific group of posters claimed to be the "reality" of being trans. I hate that I fell for it. I hate that it affected me for so long. I hate that it made me less understanding and compassionate for so long, and left nasty little memories that crop up from time to time.
posted by geek anachronism at 4:25 PM on July 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
In my wee baby feminist days I spent a lot of time on the ms forums. One particular radfem trans woman was...deeply unpleasant. "If you don't use your uterus you don't deserve to be a woman" and "if you have male friends you're an idiot waiting to be victimised" and "you aren't good enough to be a woman because you aren't nice/pretty/soft/femme" and "if you aren't attracted to me then you aren't really queer" kind of unpleasant. It took me a lot of time and reading and being friends with trans people to undo the weird essentialism she directed at me about being a non-gender conforming cis woman during my late teens when I was questioning a lot of this and was in an emotionally abusive relationship and mostly closeted and trying to find a community. A friend of mine from that time got it worse - she transitioned then detransitioned trying to deal with her nonconformity by the standards of that poster and her peers. She never really made friends with any trans people once she stopped contact with them and has become a major league TERF after a few years of trying to deal with the questioning of her gender presentation, choices to be married to a man, and sexual weirdness from trans and cis women in that clique. Her pre-existing conditions made her susceptible to them, and to TERFs.
Add to that the excessive prioritisation of crimes and made up bullshit about trans women facilitated by social media, and after a while every post from her about gender, women, children, or sex, included something like that. It didn't help to have certain cases championed for trans women's rights that were...questionable in many ways. And these cases (actual predators, bad faith actors) became the stand in for all trans women. It was horrifying to watch, and I was utterly powerless to contradict the outlier cases and because of my friend's experience with that clique, also impossible to shift the rhetoric that this was representative, rather than a serious outlier. To her it was an obvious extension from how they treated her to how all trans women are to what the scope of trans rights are.
It feels like UK feminism was that, at a larger scale. Specific issues and cases became emblematic of the "transgender issue" and nobody wanted to address the unique elements of the negative cases, and so pointing out the very real danger of a specific case became a TERF identifier, and a pointless exercise in legislating outlier cases for trans people and allies. And most of those cases were easy enough to point to as outlier, but TERFs use them representatively and highlight moral outrages, making the extremely rare incidents something to constantly return to with gotcha arguments. Ones that lean heavily on well documented fears (child safety, sexual violence) and highlight specific cases that have little to nothing to do with the reality of being transgender.
Perpetual focus on anecdotes, extreme outliers and often bad actors within trans spaces, allows for TERFs to target already scared or already victimised women. I was probably close to being one of them, except my research and academic leanings undermined a lot of their rhetoric - I could identify the PR style, the gish gallop, the media frenzy they were aiming for, even as they were pressing on some emotional wounds. It probably helped that they used a lot of the same rhetoric the woman from the ms forums did, that I am performing womanhood wrong, that men are innately violent predators, even if their end results were different, it was the same gender essentialist nonsense. I am aware now how much of my initial experience of trans issues was affected by transmedicalism, gatekeeping, and the historical elements of transgender issues through specific periods of history. I didn't then, and had no frame of reference beyond what that specific group of posters claimed to be the "reality" of being trans. I hate that I fell for it. I hate that it affected me for so long. I hate that it made me less understanding and compassionate for so long, and left nasty little memories that crop up from time to time.
posted by geek anachronism at 4:25 PM on July 2, 2020 [15 favorites]
A little more seriously: JK Rowling's first transphobic tweet was one agreeing with someone that biological sex is real.
This is actually quite an important point - this is not what someone said, and the way that it is not what someone said is instructive.
J K Rowling was criticised for supporting Maya Forstater. She said in her tweet.
Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
This is a pretty iffy tweet in a bunch of ways - it suggests that being trans is about dress, naming and sexual taste rather than selfhood, and used language connoting whim rather than need. It implies trans people will have to find someone "who'll have you" - ie someone who will tolerate them. It's mean, basically, behind a veneer of laissez-faire liberalism.
(Agree or disagree with her position, but I think we can agree that the impression that Rowling is aiming to give here - that she is not that bothered by trans people - is not really supported by subsequent events.)
But, probably most importantly, its one statement of an arguable fact - that women are being forced out of their jobs for stating that sex is real - is entirely inaccurate when compared against the case that inspired it. Whether this popular assertion is in any given case known to be inaccurate by the person repeating it is generally unknowable, but in a world where Google exists it's relatively easy to take a closer look at it.
There's plenty of analysis of the Forstater tribunal. This is a decent, short summary. In essence, Maya Forstater was so voluble about her belief that trans women were men that her coworkers raised concerns. Her response was:
Her contract expired and was not renewed. She then took her former employer to court, arguing that her belief that trans women were not women, and its expression, was a philosophical belief protected by the Equalities Act, and she had therefore been discriminated against if it played a part in her not being offered a new contract.
Beliefs are held to pass the standard of protected philosophical beliefs if they fulfill a defined set of tests in UK law:
(i) the belief must be genuinely held;
(ii) it must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the
present state of information available;
(iii) it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life
and behaviour
(iv) it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and
importance; and
(v) it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be
incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental
rights of others.
Forstater's belief passed the first three easily - it was sincerely held, it was not likely to change in the face of new information, and it was about important stuff. The fourth is a low bar - it needs to be explainable in an intelligible fashion - which it cleared. However the presiding judge found that it did not fulfil the fifth condition and was therefore not a protected belief, saying:
"Biological sex is real, and is binary, and tallies always with the legal sex someone is assigned at birth" is a bit more complicated, and the binary part in particular is not necessarily where the science is settling, but a lot of people will hold some version of this belief, and will describe trans people as "biologically X" to give a sense of natural order to the legal assignation of sex.
"All men are male and all women are female, these conditions are immutable, and I therefore reserve the right to misgender trans women when I see fit" starts raising some questions about respectful work environments.
"Further, my belief that trans women are men, and that trans women being recognised as women is a danger to women and children, is a protected belief that my workplace must accommodate" is... I mean, it's bold, and who knows what will happen on appeal, but it's a long way from "sex is real", a simple statement that pretty much everyone will agree with in some way - including trans people, who are generally pretty clued in on discussions of sex and gender.
This is a very good example of the kind of rhetorical decay that prevents good-faith discussion, and indeed the limits (or benefits) of Twitter, where correcting that statement is going to be painful and have diminishing returns.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:19 PM on July 2, 2020 [52 favorites]
This is actually quite an important point - this is not what someone said, and the way that it is not what someone said is instructive.
J K Rowling was criticised for supporting Maya Forstater. She said in her tweet.
Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
This is a pretty iffy tweet in a bunch of ways - it suggests that being trans is about dress, naming and sexual taste rather than selfhood, and used language connoting whim rather than need. It implies trans people will have to find someone "who'll have you" - ie someone who will tolerate them. It's mean, basically, behind a veneer of laissez-faire liberalism.
(Agree or disagree with her position, but I think we can agree that the impression that Rowling is aiming to give here - that she is not that bothered by trans people - is not really supported by subsequent events.)
But, probably most importantly, its one statement of an arguable fact - that women are being forced out of their jobs for stating that sex is real - is entirely inaccurate when compared against the case that inspired it. Whether this popular assertion is in any given case known to be inaccurate by the person repeating it is generally unknowable, but in a world where Google exists it's relatively easy to take a closer look at it.
There's plenty of analysis of the Forstater tribunal. This is a decent, short summary. In essence, Maya Forstater was so voluble about her belief that trans women were men that her coworkers raised concerns. Her response was:
I have been told that it is offensive to say "transwomen are men" or thatThat position was later restated as:
women means "adult human female". However since these statement are
true I will continue to say them. Yes the definition of females excludes
males (but includes women who do not conform with gendered norms).
Policy debates where facts are viewed as offensive are dangerous. I
would of course respect anyone’s self-definition of their gender identity in
any social and professional context; I have no desire or intention to be
rude to people.
I reserve the right to use the pronouns “he” and “him” to refer to male(This comes from the decision in the employment tribunal, which can be read in its entirety here. It's actually an interesting read in its entirety.)
people. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy, no
one has the right to compel others to make statements they do not
believe. I think it is important that people are able to refer to the sex of
other people accurately and without hesitation, shame or censure. This is
important for children to be able to speak up about anything that makes
them feel uncomfortable, and for adults to be able to risk assess the
difference between a single sex and mixed sex situation.”
Her contract expired and was not renewed. She then took her former employer to court, arguing that her belief that trans women were not women, and its expression, was a philosophical belief protected by the Equalities Act, and she had therefore been discriminated against if it played a part in her not being offered a new contract.
Beliefs are held to pass the standard of protected philosophical beliefs if they fulfill a defined set of tests in UK law:
(i) the belief must be genuinely held;
(ii) it must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the
present state of information available;
(iii) it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life
and behaviour
(iv) it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and
importance; and
(v) it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be
incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental
rights of others.
Forstater's belief passed the first three easily - it was sincerely held, it was not likely to change in the face of new information, and it was about important stuff. The fourth is a low bar - it needs to be explainable in an intelligible fashion - which it cleared. However the presiding judge found that it did not fulfil the fifth condition and was therefore not a protected belief, saying:
I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is"Sex is real" is such an uncontroversial statement that it's definitely what I would say if I wanted to make it sound like irrational leftist were forcing women out of their jobs for holding a commonsense position.
absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she
will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates
their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or
offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic
society.
"Biological sex is real, and is binary, and tallies always with the legal sex someone is assigned at birth" is a bit more complicated, and the binary part in particular is not necessarily where the science is settling, but a lot of people will hold some version of this belief, and will describe trans people as "biologically X" to give a sense of natural order to the legal assignation of sex.
"All men are male and all women are female, these conditions are immutable, and I therefore reserve the right to misgender trans women when I see fit" starts raising some questions about respectful work environments.
"Further, my belief that trans women are men, and that trans women being recognised as women is a danger to women and children, is a protected belief that my workplace must accommodate" is... I mean, it's bold, and who knows what will happen on appeal, but it's a long way from "sex is real", a simple statement that pretty much everyone will agree with in some way - including trans people, who are generally pretty clued in on discussions of sex and gender.
This is a very good example of the kind of rhetorical decay that prevents good-faith discussion, and indeed the limits (or benefits) of Twitter, where correcting that statement is going to be painful and have diminishing returns.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:19 PM on July 2, 2020 [52 favorites]
Is J.K. Rowling Transphobic? A Trans Woman Investigates (Katelyn Burns, them, March 28, 2018) The most insulting thing about J.K. Rowling's transphobia is how mundane it is.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:49 PM on July 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:49 PM on July 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Biological sex is simply a two pole model used to measure folks. It’s as essential as saying German is THE biological language humans are hardwired to speak and that all other languages are made up.
Biological sex is a social construct, one that is currently expressed colloquially as a limited two pole “biological imperative” which is at best evopsych Street slang and worst transgender genocide.
posted by nikaspark at 6:08 PM on July 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
Biological sex is a social construct, one that is currently expressed colloquially as a limited two pole “biological imperative” which is at best evopsych Street slang and worst transgender genocide.
posted by nikaspark at 6:08 PM on July 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
Biological sex is not a social construct, though. Its implications are a social construct.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 6:47 PM on July 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 6:47 PM on July 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
It’s the precision of measurement that matters, there is no universal intent to a species, only possibilities and variations that can be measured with finer and coarser rulers, no one unit of measure being more or less objective than the other, it’s how we employ what we need to measure that matters.
And if the unit of measure causes harm, then use a better unit.
posted by nikaspark at 6:52 PM on July 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
And if the unit of measure causes harm, then use a better unit.
posted by nikaspark at 6:52 PM on July 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
biological sex is more complex than just a male/female binary (and where do you even define 'biological sex'? in the gonads? in the brain? in the hormones?)
to the extent that biological sex is reduced to male/female, that is a social construct
please do not tell people who clearly exist in the world that because they do not fit some arbitrary measure they do not exist
posted by kokaku at 6:54 PM on July 2, 2020 [13 favorites]
to the extent that biological sex is reduced to male/female, that is a social construct
please do not tell people who clearly exist in the world that because they do not fit some arbitrary measure they do not exist
posted by kokaku at 6:54 PM on July 2, 2020 [13 favorites]
able bodied cis people have been taught that they are the manifest destiny of the species since they were children, it’s a hard concept to undo, kokaku, I have care for the challenge I have laid down with my words and how that lands on cis people, because I have experienced my whole understanding of what I thought was the world as I knew it dissolving into nothing and having to refashion myself with a greater understanding of what it means to “be biological”.
So I don’t fault people when they bristle at my statement that “biological sex” as most people understand it is a harmful social construct.
posted by nikaspark at 7:02 PM on July 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
So I don’t fault people when they bristle at my statement that “biological sex” as most people understand it is a harmful social construct.
posted by nikaspark at 7:02 PM on July 2, 2020 [10 favorites]
Mod note: Pruitt-Igoe, be aware you're using rhetoric that might sound like common sense but in fact is often used by anti-trans activists specifically to deny transgender people rights. Now's the time to stop doing that if you want to stay at Metafilter.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:02 PM on July 2, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:02 PM on July 2, 2020 [14 favorites]
the thing i've never quite been able to figure out is why terfism is such a big deal in the u.k. and sort of marginal in the u.s. like how did this happen? it can't just be the right-wing press, because the folks in the u.s. right-wing press are just as nasty and cisnormative as the folks in the u.k. right-wing press (and sometimes they're the same folks). is it just that by chance the mind-virus got out in a couple of u.k.-influential Internet spaces (mumsnet?) earlier than it did in the u.s.?
i have a conspiracy theory. typically when people talk about rowling they're like "j.k rowling is in the u.k. feminist sphere, the u.k. feminist sphere is terfy, and therefore rowling became terfy." what if instead of rowling being influenced by her context, rowling is herself influencing her context? something like "j.k. rowling is richer than elizabeth herself, j.k. rowling is a terf, and she is low-key funding terfism in the u.k."
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 8:35 PM on July 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
i have a conspiracy theory. typically when people talk about rowling they're like "j.k rowling is in the u.k. feminist sphere, the u.k. feminist sphere is terfy, and therefore rowling became terfy." what if instead of rowling being influenced by her context, rowling is herself influencing her context? something like "j.k. rowling is richer than elizabeth herself, j.k. rowling is a terf, and she is low-key funding terfism in the u.k."
posted by Reclusive Novelist Thomas Pynchon at 8:35 PM on July 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
is it just that by chance the mind-virus got out in a couple of u.k.-influential Internet spaces (mumsnet?) earlier than it did in the u.s.?
As I said before, my thought is that the Third Wave introduced intersectionality as a core tenet of feminism in the US, which did a lot to undermine essentialist arguments. There's also the very "clubby" nature of British society, where knowing the right people can open doors - an advantage that the established Second Wave radfems had over the neophyte trans activists.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:49 PM on July 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
As I said before, my thought is that the Third Wave introduced intersectionality as a core tenet of feminism in the US, which did a lot to undermine essentialist arguments. There's also the very "clubby" nature of British society, where knowing the right people can open doors - an advantage that the established Second Wave radfems had over the neophyte trans activists.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:49 PM on July 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
trans only exists because cis people think being cis is the default and that trans people are something else (not real).
Here’s to hoping someday we live in a better world.
posted by nikaspark at 10:28 PM on July 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
Here’s to hoping someday we live in a better world.
posted by nikaspark at 10:28 PM on July 2, 2020 [11 favorites]
As an example, my child has two parents, but they are respectively cis male and trans male. He will not, in fact, agree with the statement that he has one male and one female parent (when he is old enough to be posting on Internet forums with strangers.)
Biological sex is not a binary and is not rigid, even in the most cis of hetero people. Sex is formed via a long process during gestation and is the result of dozens of factors that can affect the density and composition of the hormone bath in the uterus, let alone the thousands of genetic factors that impact it. And that's just the purely nuts-and-bolts physical side of things and leaves aside entirely the cultural and personal psychological sides.
posted by Scattercat at 11:09 PM on July 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
Biological sex is not a binary and is not rigid, even in the most cis of hetero people. Sex is formed via a long process during gestation and is the result of dozens of factors that can affect the density and composition of the hormone bath in the uterus, let alone the thousands of genetic factors that impact it. And that's just the purely nuts-and-bolts physical side of things and leaves aside entirely the cultural and personal psychological sides.
posted by Scattercat at 11:09 PM on July 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
I think one of the most effective strategies terdom has is that it gets people talking in theoretical terms
Indeed. It's one thing to sit back in the easy chairs of the senior common room with a good brandy and discuss the theoretical merits of one position or another but that is a privilege that only exists for cis people.
My point of view is that theory is cool and all, but if you hold a view that means my friends are deprived of dignity and happiness, then you are my enemy.
posted by atrazine at 2:19 AM on July 3, 2020 [9 favorites]
Indeed. It's one thing to sit back in the easy chairs of the senior common room with a good brandy and discuss the theoretical merits of one position or another but that is a privilege that only exists for cis people.
My point of view is that theory is cool and all, but if you hold a view that means my friends are deprived of dignity and happiness, then you are my enemy.
posted by atrazine at 2:19 AM on July 3, 2020 [9 favorites]
refusal to accept transmasculine or nonbinary people as anything other than deluded "women" who are victimized and fearful of the patriarchy
There's also a gross side flavour of this cropping up on Twitter lately with specific pearl-clutching suggesting that "deluded" young autistic people are being conned into gender non-conformity. This rhetoric seems to completely elide the fact that people on the spectrum are more likely to be GNC anyway (from my own experience, because gender is yet another baffling social construct that I find almost impossible to ground in my own reality and thus can't really pretend to play along with in the way that cis/neurotypical people often seem to want or expect me to). Fascinating that people who claim to hate patriarchy so much have no problem doubling down with paternalism as soon as it serves their own agenda.
posted by terretu at 2:38 AM on July 3, 2020 [15 favorites]
There's also a gross side flavour of this cropping up on Twitter lately with specific pearl-clutching suggesting that "deluded" young autistic people are being conned into gender non-conformity. This rhetoric seems to completely elide the fact that people on the spectrum are more likely to be GNC anyway (from my own experience, because gender is yet another baffling social construct that I find almost impossible to ground in my own reality and thus can't really pretend to play along with in the way that cis/neurotypical people often seem to want or expect me to). Fascinating that people who claim to hate patriarchy so much have no problem doubling down with paternalism as soon as it serves their own agenda.
posted by terretu at 2:38 AM on July 3, 2020 [15 favorites]
I used to follow Graham Linehan on Twitter mainly because I am such a huge fan of Father Ted. But, wow, he just went completely wild on this issue and I had to unfollow him. Eventually his twitter account was suspended. It was baffling and disappointing.
People can go back and forth on what Rowling has said but again what is most disconcerting to me is that here is Rowling with an enormously powerful and influential platform. She can choose which battles to engage in and bring that power to bear. She could have, as an example, brought attention to the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, climate change or any number of things going on.
But she decided that, no, the biggest threat to humanity apparently is people not totally adhering to the rules as she understands them when it comes to sex and gender. She decided to bring her power down to bear down upon an already vulnerable population. It is not only baffling to me but also more than a bit frightening.
posted by vacapinta at 2:46 AM on July 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
People can go back and forth on what Rowling has said but again what is most disconcerting to me is that here is Rowling with an enormously powerful and influential platform. She can choose which battles to engage in and bring that power to bear. She could have, as an example, brought attention to the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, climate change or any number of things going on.
But she decided that, no, the biggest threat to humanity apparently is people not totally adhering to the rules as she understands them when it comes to sex and gender. She decided to bring her power down to bear down upon an already vulnerable population. It is not only baffling to me but also more than a bit frightening.
posted by vacapinta at 2:46 AM on July 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
Biological sex is not a social construct, though.
It is a theoretical construct that has historically had a lot of explanatory power which has caused people to take it more seriously than they should. If humans ceased to exist, biological sex would cease to exist in the same way that any of our other taxonomical systems would cease to exist. It is as real as star classes, as real as cloud types. Which is to say it's a system of classifications invented by humans that seems to have quite a lot of explanatory power, the clustering of "male" and "female" traits is pretty strong and using those categories can explain a lot of human variation but that doesn't mean that we should get high on our own taxonomic supply and start to believe that those categories are somehow as real as the people they imperfectly describe.
Since these systems aren't real, we can change them when their explanatory power no longer justifies their use and we can decide when we do and do not use them. As we understand more about the mechanisms that drive underlying human variation, we can be less reliant on our taxonomical crutches.
Humans used to be very keen on all kinds of taxonomic systems that we now reject as no longer informative, I don't describe stars using the Secchi or Draper systems. When those systems are applied to human beings, they always need to be kept under careful observation. Like a fission reactor or a useful but dangerous dog, they may have uses but they cannot be wholly trusted.
Taking a theoretical construct and privileging the integrity of that system over the dignity and individual identity of actual human beings is to put the human soul on the breaking wheel of karyotype Corbusierism.
posted by atrazine at 2:51 AM on July 3, 2020 [44 favorites]
It is a theoretical construct that has historically had a lot of explanatory power which has caused people to take it more seriously than they should. If humans ceased to exist, biological sex would cease to exist in the same way that any of our other taxonomical systems would cease to exist. It is as real as star classes, as real as cloud types. Which is to say it's a system of classifications invented by humans that seems to have quite a lot of explanatory power, the clustering of "male" and "female" traits is pretty strong and using those categories can explain a lot of human variation but that doesn't mean that we should get high on our own taxonomic supply and start to believe that those categories are somehow as real as the people they imperfectly describe.
Since these systems aren't real, we can change them when their explanatory power no longer justifies their use and we can decide when we do and do not use them. As we understand more about the mechanisms that drive underlying human variation, we can be less reliant on our taxonomical crutches.
Humans used to be very keen on all kinds of taxonomic systems that we now reject as no longer informative, I don't describe stars using the Secchi or Draper systems. When those systems are applied to human beings, they always need to be kept under careful observation. Like a fission reactor or a useful but dangerous dog, they may have uses but they cannot be wholly trusted.
Taking a theoretical construct and privileging the integrity of that system over the dignity and individual identity of actual human beings is to put the human soul on the breaking wheel of karyotype Corbusierism.
posted by atrazine at 2:51 AM on July 3, 2020 [44 favorites]
I think one of the most effective strategies terdom has is that it gets people talking in theoretical terms
So mittens was talking about sociology and history, and currently this thread has a derail on biology, but it’s still super-theoretical. If you are cis, maybe don’t do that? There are trans members pushing back, and I support them, but maybe we could talk about UK Feminism and TERFery rather than the construction of biological gender essentialism, which is always a step away from “do trans people really exist?” There may be threads where this would be a fruitful discussion, but I don’t think this is one of them.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:07 AM on July 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
So mittens was talking about sociology and history, and currently this thread has a derail on biology, but it’s still super-theoretical. If you are cis, maybe don’t do that? There are trans members pushing back, and I support them, but maybe we could talk about UK Feminism and TERFery rather than the construction of biological gender essentialism, which is always a step away from “do trans people really exist?” There may be threads where this would be a fruitful discussion, but I don’t think this is one of them.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:07 AM on July 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
I'm sick of being discussed like I'm some kind of academic topic
Me too. 😔
posted by Lauren Ipsum at 3:30 AM on July 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
Me too. 😔
posted by Lauren Ipsum at 3:30 AM on July 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
I've heard the conspiracy about Rowling funding TERF stuff elsewhere, but it seems unlikely. Her public Twitter/blog journey is very typical of someone disappearing down one of these rabbit-holes, from the initial comments and retweets up to the essay of dipshittery. If she *has* been secretly funding TERF groups in the UK all this time, she's an excellent actor who has been playing an extremely long game with the sole apparent purpose of severely disappointing some of her fans very, very slowly. It's not like it would be illegal for her to have just straight-up paid those groups to begin with, and it would be weird to simultaneously be a big enough TERF to do that while also wanting to present as a normal friendly liberal who only slowly becomes ensnared by TERF ideology. Not to mention the weirdness of being aware of what someone getting engulfed by a cult looks like from the outside well enough to fake it while also already having been in the cult for some time.
posted by Scattercat at 4:43 AM on July 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by Scattercat at 4:43 AM on July 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
I used to follow Graham Linehan on Twitter mainly because I am such a huge fan of Father Ted. But, wow, he just went completely wild on this issue and I had to unfollow him.
The difference between JKR and Linehan/@glinner is the difference between unexamined racism and putting burning crosses in people's gardens. Glinner had a habit of siccing thousands of people on random trans people. Both are horrific, but glinner was also an unreformed bully and operated with genuine focused malice against people with much less power than him.
It was a happy day when even Mumsnet wasn't that sympathetic that he got banned from Twitter.
posted by jaduncan at 5:15 AM on July 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
The difference between JKR and Linehan/@glinner is the difference between unexamined racism and putting burning crosses in people's gardens. Glinner had a habit of siccing thousands of people on random trans people. Both are horrific, but glinner was also an unreformed bully and operated with genuine focused malice against people with much less power than him.
It was a happy day when even Mumsnet wasn't that sympathetic that he got banned from Twitter.
posted by jaduncan at 5:15 AM on July 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
anem0ne quoted kathleen stock: Mis-sexing is unfortunate byproduct of mostly accurate predictive heuristic...
Because I am kinda dumb and take people at their word, thinking they mean exactly what they say, these kind of statements always do a number on me, and I always think aha, now if I explain why this is logically wrong, the whole edifice will fall and the world will be free. Which is not actually how things work. But I have been thinking about Stock's thread all night, and it's like one of those quantum physics puzzles with the half-silvered mirrors and single photons and stuff. You have your gender-detector in the form of a cis woman in a dressing room. A stranger walks through the door. The cis woman must, with limited information and time, decide whether to challenge the stranger's presence.
The challenge cannot involve listening to the stranger's self-identification, since that is assumed to have no truth value. The challenge cannot involve a chromosomal test or a view of the stranger's body. The challenger cannot ask biographical questions to determine how the stranger was brought up, what toys they were given as a child, what colors they were forced to wear, what traumas the stranger has suffered. Any government-provided identification would be held suspect, since in Stock's view the government has made a dangerous misstep in gender ID.
So the challenger in Stock's scenario can only use her eyes, and her "mostly accurate predictive heuristic," i.e. her sense of how women dress, how they stand, how they look. In other words, the shallowest possible view of gender, gender-as-presentation. The challenger, according to Stock's own admission, will occasionally mis-sex cis women with this heuristic, and if mis-sexing based on appearance is a possibility, it's easy to imagine cases where the challenger will also allow some number of trans women in.
And this is where I twist myself into knots because I want to say, see? your method doesn't actually work! your entire premise is flawed! you do not, even in your own terms, have a way to identify the gender of a person! And then at this point in the conversation whoever I'm talking to will say something horrible and devastating (along the lines of "you will never understand our trauma!") and I'll be left gaping and gasping like a fish. Because, what it will always come down to is, "We know better than you. We have our secret ways of knowing." Which is horribly unfair, because it sounded like there was going to be a conversation with logic and instead, no, it's just sneering hatred clad in the appearance of logic. It's amazing how much space these people can take up in your head, even when you don't want them there.
posted by mittens at 5:29 AM on July 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
Because I am kinda dumb and take people at their word, thinking they mean exactly what they say, these kind of statements always do a number on me, and I always think aha, now if I explain why this is logically wrong, the whole edifice will fall and the world will be free. Which is not actually how things work. But I have been thinking about Stock's thread all night, and it's like one of those quantum physics puzzles with the half-silvered mirrors and single photons and stuff. You have your gender-detector in the form of a cis woman in a dressing room. A stranger walks through the door. The cis woman must, with limited information and time, decide whether to challenge the stranger's presence.
The challenge cannot involve listening to the stranger's self-identification, since that is assumed to have no truth value. The challenge cannot involve a chromosomal test or a view of the stranger's body. The challenger cannot ask biographical questions to determine how the stranger was brought up, what toys they were given as a child, what colors they were forced to wear, what traumas the stranger has suffered. Any government-provided identification would be held suspect, since in Stock's view the government has made a dangerous misstep in gender ID.
So the challenger in Stock's scenario can only use her eyes, and her "mostly accurate predictive heuristic," i.e. her sense of how women dress, how they stand, how they look. In other words, the shallowest possible view of gender, gender-as-presentation. The challenger, according to Stock's own admission, will occasionally mis-sex cis women with this heuristic, and if mis-sexing based on appearance is a possibility, it's easy to imagine cases where the challenger will also allow some number of trans women in.
And this is where I twist myself into knots because I want to say, see? your method doesn't actually work! your entire premise is flawed! you do not, even in your own terms, have a way to identify the gender of a person! And then at this point in the conversation whoever I'm talking to will say something horrible and devastating (along the lines of "you will never understand our trauma!") and I'll be left gaping and gasping like a fish. Because, what it will always come down to is, "We know better than you. We have our secret ways of knowing." Which is horribly unfair, because it sounded like there was going to be a conversation with logic and instead, no, it's just sneering hatred clad in the appearance of logic. It's amazing how much space these people can take up in your head, even when you don't want them there.
posted by mittens at 5:29 AM on July 3, 2020 [10 favorites]
This is why my preferred argument is "Fuck off, TERF"
posted by fullerine at 5:50 AM on July 3, 2020 [15 favorites]
posted by fullerine at 5:50 AM on July 3, 2020 [15 favorites]
trans only exists because cis people think being cis is the default and that trans people are something else (not real).
Please understand that I am saying this as a genderqueer/non-binary person: we will always exist as a minority. Just like being gay or bi+ will always be a minority, because most people seem to be born attracted to the opposite sex, the majority of people are born with a gender identity that aligns with their assigned sex at birth. Their experiences of gender will always be different from those of binary trans people - which are themselves different from non-binary people - and we all have different needs. Recognising these categories helps us recognize each other's needs, whether that's medical transition for those who need that, pronoun acknowledgement for people, etc.
My ideal world isn't one in which trans doesn't exist as a category (because that would mean that trans people aren't recognized, our differences aren't accepted but ignored), but where it isn't a big deal, where if your kid starts to express the feeling that they aren't the gender they were assigned at birth, you accept and affirm that. But just like coming out as bi/gay will always happen (bc 90+% of the population is straight), coming out as trans or nb will always happen and it will be still a different experience from feeling like the cis majority. Maybe there will be a day when parents won't gender their children until they can talk - but I think that since 95+% of people are cis, humans will always fall into a heuristic, just like we assume most people are right handed, but don't react badly when it turns out our kid is left-handed.
That's why I liked the quote from Penny I quoted above: it acknowledges that there are serious differences between the trans and cis experiences of womanhood - both are equally women, but have had different paths to their womanhood - and the trans path has its unique challenges that need to be supported - as does the relatively privileged cis path. Women don't need to erase their differences to acknowledge each other as women.
posted by jb at 6:44 AM on July 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Please understand that I am saying this as a genderqueer/non-binary person: we will always exist as a minority. Just like being gay or bi+ will always be a minority, because most people seem to be born attracted to the opposite sex, the majority of people are born with a gender identity that aligns with their assigned sex at birth. Their experiences of gender will always be different from those of binary trans people - which are themselves different from non-binary people - and we all have different needs. Recognising these categories helps us recognize each other's needs, whether that's medical transition for those who need that, pronoun acknowledgement for people, etc.
My ideal world isn't one in which trans doesn't exist as a category (because that would mean that trans people aren't recognized, our differences aren't accepted but ignored), but where it isn't a big deal, where if your kid starts to express the feeling that they aren't the gender they were assigned at birth, you accept and affirm that. But just like coming out as bi/gay will always happen (bc 90+% of the population is straight), coming out as trans or nb will always happen and it will be still a different experience from feeling like the cis majority. Maybe there will be a day when parents won't gender their children until they can talk - but I think that since 95+% of people are cis, humans will always fall into a heuristic, just like we assume most people are right handed, but don't react badly when it turns out our kid is left-handed.
That's why I liked the quote from Penny I quoted above: it acknowledges that there are serious differences between the trans and cis experiences of womanhood - both are equally women, but have had different paths to their womanhood - and the trans path has its unique challenges that need to be supported - as does the relatively privileged cis path. Women don't need to erase their differences to acknowledge each other as women.
posted by jb at 6:44 AM on July 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
no, it's just sneering hatred clad in the appearance of logic.
It is, and with movable goalposts. The mistake is to assume mutual good faith argument. Transphobic/*ist arguments tend to work backwards from the conclusion that the hated group is worthy of hate and that the role of argument is not to determine proof but to make sure the hated group is excluded.
posted by jaduncan at 6:52 AM on July 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
It is, and with movable goalposts. The mistake is to assume mutual good faith argument. Transphobic/*ist arguments tend to work backwards from the conclusion that the hated group is worthy of hate and that the role of argument is not to determine proof but to make sure the hated group is excluded.
posted by jaduncan at 6:52 AM on July 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Or, more simply, they aren't an argument but an attempted justification.
posted by jaduncan at 7:09 AM on July 3, 2020
posted by jaduncan at 7:09 AM on July 3, 2020
we will always exist as a minority
I accepted that of our fate a long time ago, you do not need to apologize for stating the truth.
posted by nikaspark at 7:42 AM on July 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
I accepted that of our fate a long time ago, you do not need to apologize for stating the truth.
posted by nikaspark at 7:42 AM on July 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
Because I am kinda dumb and take people at their word,
Applying Sartre's observations about antisemitism to trans politics, TERFs and their allies don't observe trans people and become transphobic, nor do their observations and analyses of the world as it exists lead them to transphobia. Rather, they begin from a position of transphobia and adjust their perceptions of the world to support their bigotry. Arguing against their patently untrue fears and prejudices doesn't work, because those fears and prejudices are baked into their worldview. Furthermore, publicly debating TERFs, like publicly debating white nationalists is worse than useless because they don't want a debate, they want a platform.
So, rather than trying to debate them, we should work on denying TERFs platforms, undercutting their support among the "undecided," making it politically and economically unadvantageous to support them, and so on. Essentially, Liberalism is as weak toward TERFism as it is toward fascism.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:43 AM on July 3, 2020 [19 favorites]
Applying Sartre's observations about antisemitism to trans politics, TERFs and their allies don't observe trans people and become transphobic, nor do their observations and analyses of the world as it exists lead them to transphobia. Rather, they begin from a position of transphobia and adjust their perceptions of the world to support their bigotry. Arguing against their patently untrue fears and prejudices doesn't work, because those fears and prejudices are baked into their worldview. Furthermore, publicly debating TERFs, like publicly debating white nationalists is worse than useless because they don't want a debate, they want a platform.
So, rather than trying to debate them, we should work on denying TERFs platforms, undercutting their support among the "undecided," making it politically and economically unadvantageous to support them, and so on. Essentially, Liberalism is as weak toward TERFism as it is toward fascism.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:43 AM on July 3, 2020 [19 favorites]
Women don't need to erase their differences to acknowledge each other as women
JB, I’m a non-binary person as well, my comment was not meant to erase differences, I can’t really put the effort into a comment on metafilter to truly convey what I’m trying to say as it probably needs to be a book instead, but please trust me when I say that my comment was not advocating for erasure of any kind.
posted by nikaspark at 7:48 AM on July 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
JB, I’m a non-binary person as well, my comment was not meant to erase differences, I can’t really put the effort into a comment on metafilter to truly convey what I’m trying to say as it probably needs to be a book instead, but please trust me when I say that my comment was not advocating for erasure of any kind.
posted by nikaspark at 7:48 AM on July 3, 2020 [5 favorites]
Arguing against their patently untrue fears and prejudices doesn't work, because those fears and prejudices are baked into their worldview. Furthermore, publicly debating TERFs, like publicly debating white nationalists is worse than useless because they don't want a debate, they want a platform.
I would add, by having this "discussion" here, the only thing that we are meaningfully accomplishing is giving anti-trans viewpoints more of a platform. I run into these people and their views dozens of times a day, and I am tired. I don't care whether you or anyone else thinks I am "really" a woman. I am what I am. I just want you all to shut up about the subject and give me one damn place on the internet where I don't have to look at this trash. This thread shouldn't exist.
posted by Lauren Ipsum at 8:03 AM on July 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
I would add, by having this "discussion" here, the only thing that we are meaningfully accomplishing is giving anti-trans viewpoints more of a platform. I run into these people and their views dozens of times a day, and I am tired. I don't care whether you or anyone else thinks I am "really" a woman. I am what I am. I just want you all to shut up about the subject and give me one damn place on the internet where I don't have to look at this trash. This thread shouldn't exist.
posted by Lauren Ipsum at 8:03 AM on July 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments and replies deleted here. seesom, persisting to derail with TERF-adjacent arguments is harmful and that is not okay. Avoid inserting yourself into discussions about trans people going forward. Lastly, folks, please read the community guidelines and refrain from delving into abstractions about trans people and transphobia, and keep in mind that you are doing so at the expense of trans community members.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 8:06 AM on July 3, 2020 [14 favorites]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 8:06 AM on July 3, 2020 [14 favorites]
the thing i've never quite been able to figure out is why terfism is such a big deal in the u.k. and sort of marginal in the u.s. like how did this happen?
As I said before, my thought is that the Third Wave introduced intersectionality as a core tenet of feminism in the US,
I feel like anem0ne touched on this in one of their earlier comments: " in the united states, where anti-trans activism is largely linked with the conservative/religious right".
Without digging too deep or derailing, I think the rise in political and cultural power of the religious right with and during the Reagan administration had a profound effect on the US - in this case, regarding moderate-to-leftist political and cultural alliances - that doesn't really have an exact corollary in the UK.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:14 AM on July 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
As I said before, my thought is that the Third Wave introduced intersectionality as a core tenet of feminism in the US,
I feel like anem0ne touched on this in one of their earlier comments: " in the united states, where anti-trans activism is largely linked with the conservative/religious right".
Without digging too deep or derailing, I think the rise in political and cultural power of the religious right with and during the Reagan administration had a profound effect on the US - in this case, regarding moderate-to-leftist political and cultural alliances - that doesn't really have an exact corollary in the UK.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:14 AM on July 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
nikaspark: my apologies, I didn't mean to imply you were. I was thinking through some of the parts of Penny's essay where she was talking about natal sex (not a binary, but still real) - and how our natal sex does affect our experiences as women (or for a passing afab like myself, someone perceived as a woman by most people, even if I don't feel like one). I'm sorry for using your quote in a way you didn't intend it to mean.
I think natal sex will continue to matter to people, particularly when it is at odds with their gender identity - but of course, it should have no bearing on people's rights to inhabit the gender(s) they are. Recognition of natal sex means also recognising that some people need active support (e.g. puberty delay for trans children) to live their gender as they identify, and that support should be universal.
It also affects how society treats us - I feel like I have a much easier time as an afab nb person than if I were amab. So much transphobia is aimed at trans women and other trans/nb amab people, actually any non-gender conforming amab person - all linked to misogyny (except for some TERFs, where it is linked to misandry so strong they refuse the womanhood of a woman who was assigned male at birth).
For me, recognising natal sex means recognising my relative privilege and safety as a genderqueer afab person, compared to my friends who are trans women or nb amab people. It's one of the funny effects of patriarchy/misogyny: my natal sex protects me (somewhat) because my gender presentation is seen as non-conforming but less threatening (because I am "trading up" as a sexist would put it - and, of course, I am not suggesting that trans men or afab nb people don't face discrimination, just that we face relatively less discrimination than trans women or amab nb people).
posted by jb at 9:09 AM on July 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
I think natal sex will continue to matter to people, particularly when it is at odds with their gender identity - but of course, it should have no bearing on people's rights to inhabit the gender(s) they are. Recognition of natal sex means also recognising that some people need active support (e.g. puberty delay for trans children) to live their gender as they identify, and that support should be universal.
It also affects how society treats us - I feel like I have a much easier time as an afab nb person than if I were amab. So much transphobia is aimed at trans women and other trans/nb amab people, actually any non-gender conforming amab person - all linked to misogyny (except for some TERFs, where it is linked to misandry so strong they refuse the womanhood of a woman who was assigned male at birth).
For me, recognising natal sex means recognising my relative privilege and safety as a genderqueer afab person, compared to my friends who are trans women or nb amab people. It's one of the funny effects of patriarchy/misogyny: my natal sex protects me (somewhat) because my gender presentation is seen as non-conforming but less threatening (because I am "trading up" as a sexist would put it - and, of course, I am not suggesting that trans men or afab nb people don't face discrimination, just that we face relatively less discrimination than trans women or amab nb people).
posted by jb at 9:09 AM on July 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted and a reply left.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 9:14 AM on July 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 9:14 AM on July 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
Yes, I agree JB, and as far as natal sex is concerned I look forward to the future where that is as malleable for trans bodies as HRT is today. In short, I look to a future where how we are born is less important than who we are allowed to become and how we are able to use scientific advances to reduce harm and help everyone lead fuller and more complete lives.
posted by nikaspark at 9:22 AM on July 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by nikaspark at 9:22 AM on July 3, 2020 [7 favorites]
The Glinner thing was absolutely astonishing, mainly because a) a lot of actual GC feminists began to distance themselves from him, despite him being a prominent advocate for them (appearing on Newsnight etc) b) it got to the point where he went from calling people who disagreed with him 'beards' or 'handmaidens' and actually started calling them groomers. I've been following it for a while on a different forum, and the consensus seems to be that he is not a very well person at all, and unfortunately that bled into extremely hateful activity.
One of those he labelled a 'groomer' was Grace Lavery, because she teaches an undergraduate class on sexuality and mentioned that for some students, taking the class at home was not ideal because ideas were discussed that might not be ones they want their parents to hear. GL saw this, retweeted it to half a million followers as an example of 'grooming', and many of them piled onto her suggesting she was 'transing children'. It is important to note that Grace and her husband have been working hard, at great personal cost, to expose a child abuser affliated with her family's church. She said she intended to take legal action, and I hope she does, because UK law does not at all take kindly to people throwing around defamatory statements.
It will be interesting to see what happens now such a public voice has been effectively deplatformed. One hopes, in any case, that therapy will be sought.
posted by mippy at 9:23 AM on July 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
One of those he labelled a 'groomer' was Grace Lavery, because she teaches an undergraduate class on sexuality and mentioned that for some students, taking the class at home was not ideal because ideas were discussed that might not be ones they want their parents to hear. GL saw this, retweeted it to half a million followers as an example of 'grooming', and many of them piled onto her suggesting she was 'transing children'. It is important to note that Grace and her husband have been working hard, at great personal cost, to expose a child abuser affliated with her family's church. She said she intended to take legal action, and I hope she does, because UK law does not at all take kindly to people throwing around defamatory statements.
It will be interesting to see what happens now such a public voice has been effectively deplatformed. One hopes, in any case, that therapy will be sought.
posted by mippy at 9:23 AM on July 3, 2020 [8 favorites]
(Just so everyone knows, I recognize how natal sex influences our world today, and I look build enduring and meaningful personal relationships with people for whom that has become unimportant, in that we are able to recognize HOW that has affected us in our unique ways, but in that we work together collaboratively to move beyond that as best as we are able)
posted by nikaspark at 9:26 AM on July 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by nikaspark at 9:26 AM on July 3, 2020 [3 favorites]
So, rather than trying to debate them, we should work on denying TERFs platforms, undercutting their support among the "undecided," making it politically and economically unadvantageous to support them, and so on.
Yep, the only answer is to say "we don't put someone's humanity up for debate, so if you can't accept it, there's the door."
This is why I have little sympathy for Scott Alexander shutting down Slate Star Codex - while he's tried to make the argument that he's being unfairly doxxed, his complaint seems to be that if his current and future patients can find out he's the sort of person to create a safe space for people to debate their humanity, they may very well rethink being his patients.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:48 PM on July 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
Yep, the only answer is to say "we don't put someone's humanity up for debate, so if you can't accept it, there's the door."
This is why I have little sympathy for Scott Alexander shutting down Slate Star Codex - while he's tried to make the argument that he's being unfairly doxxed, his complaint seems to be that if his current and future patients can find out he's the sort of person to create a safe space for people to debate their humanity, they may very well rethink being his patients.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:48 PM on July 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
Natal sex is relevant in terms of the way we socially enforce and create gender and how that influences everything from physicality to speech development. It's also relevant because trans children are subject to that enforcement in a way that forces them into conflicts with caregivers and society - the assigned male child being treated as male is as much defined and affected by what is gendered female, but her lived experience is a constant source of conflict.
Like lots of butch women, I had periods as a teenager where I de-feminised myself (binding my chest in particular) and there is a temptation to point out that gender non-conformity as "you would have been assumed trans if it happened now" except as a mother, I'm watching my daughter and her friends go through similar attempts to signify and perform gender according to their own wishes. The child who has had a buzzcut and extremely short hair since grade two, who wears the "boys uniform" and dresses as male characters, who is bisexual, has no uncertainty about her gender as a girl. She has role models (including me) who are gender non-conformity women. She has a home life that supports her dressing and acting as she wishes. She has friends who go to the mat to support and defend her. I envy her sometimes - my mother never enforced gender conformity but the rest of it? Has made that little girl's experience so much better and more supportive. The notion that we should protect these butch little girls from the big bad scary trans agenda is one that problematises gender non-conformity - it is Daughter's of Bilitis style aggression against those of us who don't fit an essentialist model, but who also rejects those for whom it is an early part of transition.
The TERF talking point about children who are gender non-conforming and who do not transition is nothing to do with those children and their safety. There is no push to make these children trans. There is a push to enforce binary gender roles on those children - either pushing them to "behave properly" or to problematise the potential trans-ness as an outsider force.
I remember reading about a young kid who was assigned male and loved girly things. The parents were shocked when the child asserted a female gender because "we always categorised gender properly" as if that, in and of itself, doesn't create that conflict for a child with gender non-conforming traits and interests. Protecting and helping gender creative children means reducing that conflict - it doesn't mean they will or will not be trans, it simply creates a space for them to be able to explore and experience without the enforcement of gender roles creating conflict.
After my teen years and my above experience with radfems, I went femme for over a decade. I can pull it off real nice. It smoothed a lot of social conflicts. But it created a conflict and tension that hurt me, a lot. Allowing myself to be as butch and masc-of-centre as I wish erased that tension. It created social conflicts (the school pick up, separating from my partner, general treatment socially) but those are a lot easier to deal with now. I'm not trans, however I can empathise a lot with the ways in which tensions and difficulties shift when you transition. And that there is an absolute internal difference between being gender creative or non-conforming, and being transgender.
posted by geek anachronism at 3:28 PM on July 3, 2020 [16 favorites]
Like lots of butch women, I had periods as a teenager where I de-feminised myself (binding my chest in particular) and there is a temptation to point out that gender non-conformity as "you would have been assumed trans if it happened now" except as a mother, I'm watching my daughter and her friends go through similar attempts to signify and perform gender according to their own wishes. The child who has had a buzzcut and extremely short hair since grade two, who wears the "boys uniform" and dresses as male characters, who is bisexual, has no uncertainty about her gender as a girl. She has role models (including me) who are gender non-conformity women. She has a home life that supports her dressing and acting as she wishes. She has friends who go to the mat to support and defend her. I envy her sometimes - my mother never enforced gender conformity but the rest of it? Has made that little girl's experience so much better and more supportive. The notion that we should protect these butch little girls from the big bad scary trans agenda is one that problematises gender non-conformity - it is Daughter's of Bilitis style aggression against those of us who don't fit an essentialist model, but who also rejects those for whom it is an early part of transition.
The TERF talking point about children who are gender non-conforming and who do not transition is nothing to do with those children and their safety. There is no push to make these children trans. There is a push to enforce binary gender roles on those children - either pushing them to "behave properly" or to problematise the potential trans-ness as an outsider force.
I remember reading about a young kid who was assigned male and loved girly things. The parents were shocked when the child asserted a female gender because "we always categorised gender properly" as if that, in and of itself, doesn't create that conflict for a child with gender non-conforming traits and interests. Protecting and helping gender creative children means reducing that conflict - it doesn't mean they will or will not be trans, it simply creates a space for them to be able to explore and experience without the enforcement of gender roles creating conflict.
After my teen years and my above experience with radfems, I went femme for over a decade. I can pull it off real nice. It smoothed a lot of social conflicts. But it created a conflict and tension that hurt me, a lot. Allowing myself to be as butch and masc-of-centre as I wish erased that tension. It created social conflicts (the school pick up, separating from my partner, general treatment socially) but those are a lot easier to deal with now. I'm not trans, however I can empathise a lot with the ways in which tensions and difficulties shift when you transition. And that there is an absolute internal difference between being gender creative or non-conforming, and being transgender.
posted by geek anachronism at 3:28 PM on July 3, 2020 [16 favorites]
After I had GRS I had this epiphany that if I’d been born AFAB I’d be the exact same person I am today with less body dysphoria and that was a liberating realization.
The person I am being a hard femme non-binary woman.
So I guess my thoughts are that our similarities are far more congruent than our differences compel us to believe.
posted by nikaspark at 11:57 PM on July 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
The person I am being a hard femme non-binary woman.
So I guess my thoughts are that our similarities are far more congruent than our differences compel us to believe.
posted by nikaspark at 11:57 PM on July 3, 2020 [2 favorites]
On my Facebook feed, a French woman who spent a lot of time in Canada and who posts a lot of what I would consider leftist things (especially about sexism and Israel/Palestine) posted a French article defending JK Rowling a few weeks ago. That article used the word ‘lynchage’ - yep - lynching - which afaik is an entirely and recently imported-from-America word in French, to describe the ‘attacks’ on JK Rowling. This was just as almost every day we were getting news about another Black person found dead from hanging and the police calling it suicide.
I think there are some major major differences if not blind spots in European leftism.
I went off her post about how horrific and shocking the term ‘lynchage’ was and how it compounded transphobia with racism. She didn’t not respond to me but she did delete the post. She had since posted more TERFy articles but without that language. So I think she was able to hear that part of the critique on some level at least.
I don’t think this is quite a failure of intersectionality (though maybe?) as a huge blind spot. It reminds me of what I think of as French secularism (which I also saw in Quebec) - about religious head/hair/body coverings in public and for example, that’s for me do not at all work with my understanding of feminism and in fact of liberalism.
posted by Salamandrous at 7:21 AM on July 5, 2020
I think there are some major major differences if not blind spots in European leftism.
I went off her post about how horrific and shocking the term ‘lynchage’ was and how it compounded transphobia with racism. She didn’t not respond to me but she did delete the post. She had since posted more TERFy articles but without that language. So I think she was able to hear that part of the critique on some level at least.
I don’t think this is quite a failure of intersectionality (though maybe?) as a huge blind spot. It reminds me of what I think of as French secularism (which I also saw in Quebec) - about religious head/hair/body coverings in public and for example, that’s for me do not at all work with my understanding of feminism and in fact of liberalism.
posted by Salamandrous at 7:21 AM on July 5, 2020
« Older 🍉 When one has tasted watermelon, he knows what... | huzzah! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mittens at 11:37 AM on July 2, 2020 [4 favorites]