What principles would you say the opposing side to you in this debate holds? How would you steelman their main position?

submitted by DistantGlimmer from self.GCdebatesQT

I think queer theory prioritizes inclusion and compassion for people who are different.

They think and social norms only serve to other and hurt those at the margins so they argue to break down all social norms which I suppose would promote in their minds a sort of radical individualism.

They especially seem to focus on definitions of sex as a boundary that oppresses people. They think the material reality of sex either doesn't exist at all beyond a social construct which arbitrarily imposes a binary or they think it is far less important than allowing previously marginalized or ignored people to express themselves as they see fit. They agree with gender critical people that the social constructs connected to our biology oppress people but question the need to have biological categories at all (whereas gender critical people would use these biological categories as the basis of materialist analysis and attempt to abolish the social roles attached to them).

all 24 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

To be honest, I don't even know. It's hard to believe most of them are acting in good faith when open discussion is shut down so forcefully and anyone who questions the rhetoric is viciously attacked.

I suppose their core value is that inclusion is good. And I don't disagree with that. But inclusion doesn't mean erasing biology or disregarding safety concerns. The transgender community is a unique community that has unique needs. They're not identical to the non-trans population.

[–]DistantGlimmer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I agree but I think some of them do have a good faith belief that if we get rid of the categories that cause people to be oppressed than oppression itself will end. I think it is a severe misreading of the nature of oppression but a lot of them are very young and my feeling is that they've been misled by careerist academics and others with more sinister motives.

and then they are told that everyone who is against them is a fascist or a literal Nazi or whatever so they don't have to even listen to our arguments or concerns. It's typical cult control.

It's probably going to end up in like the biggest medical scandal in history with all the kids that are being talked into it.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I can understand the teenagers, but for people who are 25 and above, there's no excuse for this forcefully mandated pretense that sex doesn't exist. Everyone grew up in a world which understood the facts of life. Now grown adults are pretending they don't understand it, that biological sex itself is false, and that of us who insist that sex is real are evil.

It's probably going to end up in like the biggest medical scandal in history with all the kids that are being talked into it.

I agree. Something's brewing right now regarding Mermaids. A whole bunch of celebrities and organizations dropped their support out of the blue.

[–]DistantGlimmer[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I was arguing with a woman online yesterday who didn't seem naive or young but she had convinced herself that sex had all these "parts" to it and when trans people take hormones they actually change their sex because hormones are one of the criteria for sex and then when I told her that was unscientific bullshit she said that I was in a cult and compared me to an anti-vaxer. Like maybe she didn't believe any of it but it sounded so much like she had been brainwashed into cultish thinking herself. You're right it is absolutely ridiculous but I think part of it is these people are just so desperate to be seen as good people and not transphobic that they will desperately try to rationalize it.

Of course the same woman had convinced herself that GC people don't care about safety at all in bathrooms and just want to look at people's genitals so she might have either been a troll or legit insane. Hard to tell.

I heard about Mermaids. They are really evil. I hope they are brought down.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

they actually change their sex because hormones are one of the criteria for sex

Did she tell you why she considered that specific characteristic the one that defines sex? If she acknowledged that sex is made of "parts", why does that specific one define sex but not the others? In other words, why do hormones define sex but not, say, chromosomes, genitals, gonads and gamete productions? Aren' t those parts of sex as well? Why does one person manages to change sex if they have changed their hormones but kept everything else?

[–]DistantGlimmer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It seemed like she was using that cluster-type definition they use for intersex people and some trans people appropriate for themselves. but she seemed to interpret it like a checklist where if you had any one of the opposite sex characteristics you could be considered to have changed sex.

I asked her if she considers women with PCOS to be male but I never got an answer :)

[–]divingrightintowork 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But they agree gender oppresses people and yet they perpetuate it by design / definition?

[–]DistantGlimmer[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They don't see themselves as perpetuating gender stereotypes because they separate gender identity from gender stereotypes. The million-dollar question is always what gender identity actually is and the best I've ever got is it is some kind of feeling that children naturally feel connected to and some people are connected to the opposite one they are supposed to be (for some reason?) but they don't think someone being trans means they have to act out the stereotypes of their preferred gender.

There's also the whole 52 different genders thing which I think is deliberately meant to make gender so ridiculous that people will just stop payiing attention to it at all and the oppressive system will be destabilized. It's kind of a nice theory but I don't see it working out that way in practice but I think that is their aim.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I honestly don’t know at this point.

They espouse that people should be bound by gender norms but viscously most trans women based on looks and call them men in dresses as an insult.

They say they are based in science but the say therapy instead of transition even though there’s never been anything close to a scientific show that it actually works.

They say they support protections for trans people but complain or fight them literally every time they are brought up.

I guess charitably they believe that women are oppressed on the basis of sex and enforcing gender roles on women is wrong, but also that sex is determinative and is the thing that defines is in all interactions and law.

[–]DistantGlimmer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Thanks for answering...

For the record, I've never heard that people aren't discriminated against on the basis of gender expression or that some legal protections for trans and GNC people aren't needed. Many GC people are GNC. I do not see that these protections can't coexist along with needed sex-based protections.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The problem is gnc protections aren’t enough. Trans specific protections are needed. And there is a lot of objection to that.

[–]DistantGlimmer[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Gender identity being recognized in law only helps self-ID fetishists and not actually dysphoric people as it inevitably leads to self-ID and no gatekeeping standards. that is why I oppose any law which protects on the basis of gender identity. Gender identity is also impossible to define legally in any meaningful way and conflicts inherently with sex-based rights.

What protections do you think you need which wouldn't be covered in law by protecting your right to be extremely GNC in terms of dress and not to be penalized for this?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because laws need to be inclusive to be effective. If you protect say “gender nonconformity” in employment but not trans identity then as soon as a trans woman files for a name change or gender change or officially comes out, even if an employer couldn’t fire them before because being gnc was protected, confirmation they were trans allows a loophole to fire them All they have to say is they specifically fired them because they are trans, which isn’t protected and was therefore a legal firing. They could even put forth evidence of tolerating their earlier femininity as to the fact that the firing was specifically about being trans.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Also say arguing that it should ge legal to fire trans people or to exclude them from healthcare because otherwise they would be violating their religious belief That trans people are evil.

And since health care is literally the most important thing to most trans people, that’s a pretty big deal.

[–]DistantGlimmer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We need specificity in language. I don't think it should be legal to fire anyone for a name change or saying they are trans. "Gender change" is something else entirely because that is something I actually do not support but if it is legal you shouldn't be fired for that either.

Obviously I support trans people having the same access to health care as anyone else does.

The issue is with having a protected category that anyone can opt in to based on "feelings" which conflicts with another protected category which is innate from birth. We can write laws that protect people from specific human rights abuses by the religious right and actual transphobes without making something extremely vague undefined and open to abuse like self-id.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t know that we can. Specificity and inclusion need to be the aim because otherwise you leave gaps for bigots to exploit.

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Do you think most GC people are like that?

I have seen unkind comments on the main GC sub along those lines, but it seems to be (hopefully) a minority of people. There is no excuse for demonizing natal males (trans women or non-trans men) who adopt feminine presentation if we're trying to abolish gender. It's a contradiction in terms. Either we want to rid society of enforced gender or we don't. Making it acceptable for those who were born male to experiment freely with femininity is a necessary part of gender abolition.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Maybe not all but I would at least call it majority. When the rubber hits the road. The debate sub has traditionally been less bad but GC main and twitter are absolute anti trans shit storms. Sometimes there’s a veneer of “wear whatever you want” but it’s swiftly followed by calling us “men in dresses” and talking about how masculine we look while simultaneously talking about how it needs to be harder to transition medically.

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's fair. I have seen it myself, although I don't think it's the majority. I get that they're frustrated, but attacking people's appearance is not the way to go. It's cruel, and it also goes against our message.

while simultaneously talking about how it needs to be harder to transition medically.

I've seen people propose crazy age limits like 25. Seriously? I agree with 18, but 25 is full-fledged adulthood. My parents were married for several years with kids by 25. And you can't say people need to wait until adulthood to transition and then complain that they have a masculine appearance. You're perfectly right on that. What we need is to destigmatize trans bodies and trans appearances. It shouldn't be considered freakish to be a natal male on estrogen, or to be a natal male in a dress. I feel like trans women are in a lose-lose situation. If they're too masculine, they're "not trying," but if they're too feminine, they get accused of furthering stereotypes. And the association with fetishists doesn't help matters.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I've seen people propose crazy age limits like 25. Seriously? I agree with 18, but 25 is full-fledged adulthood. My parents were married for several years with kids by 25. And you can't say people need to wait until adulthood to transition and then complain that they have a masculine appearance. You're perfectly right on that. What we need is to destigmatize trans bodies and trans appearances. It shouldn't be considered freakish to be a natal male on estrogen, or to be a natal male in a dress. I feel like trans women are in a lose-lose situation. If they're too masculine, they're "not trying," but if they're too feminine, they get accused of furthering stereotypes. And the association with fetishists doesn't help matters.

I agree with most of that. 25 is crazy. My body was ruined by 18 because I was a gorilla beast but not everyone is so cursed. And I’d love to have less people talk about how gross trans bodies are. And to feel less pressure to be feminine to “prove I am Really trans”

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Well, part of what needs to happen is that trans bodies become accepted so that trans women don't feel like their bodies or voices are ruined. If we lived in a society where it was perfectly fine and normal to have someone with a beard or a deep voice in a dress, it wouldn't be problematic. People wouldn't stare at trans women or become hostile to them. Obviously that doesn't solve the problem of body dysphoria, but it fixes the social side of things.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But it would though. Not just ruined for society but ruined for us. It would make the social part easier but that doesn’t make me hate my voice or my cromagnon features any less.

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I meant socially. It may not be problematic socially, but it still wouldn't help personal body dysphoria.

Although I suspect fewer people would develop crippling body dysphoria in a society that has successfully abolished gender, there may still be a small number who do. I suspect there is a biological propensity for dysphoria in some people. I don't know what causes it, but I think it's likely to have its origins there.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m of a mind to agree at least in part. I don’t think you would see a significant reduction in cases but I do assume a biological cause of dysphoria.