you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

How are GC suppused to get our point across if we are not allowed to talk about trans people?! (I assume you don't like we speak for "trans women" and people with other "gender identities", either, right?) You've said yourself: we have opposite goals, that is why we need to talk. Why are transactivists the only ones allowed to talk about women's rights?

Moreover, I also care about science and public health. That is why I talk (and share articles) about how transgenderism affects these areas.

[–]GenderbenderSex-segregated spaces in public are not a right 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

You can talk about trans people, but that site is using an example of a specific person who most likely does not want his case to be used as an example by transphobes, and has the same opinion on "TERFs" as r/gendercynical. At the very least they could have been respectful by using he and Mr.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That sounds a lot like we can't talk about trans people or if we do it should be in TRA's terms. So, again, how are we supposed to get our point across? And why are transactivists allowed to use terms we disapprove of?

[–]strictly 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

that site is using an example of a specific person who most likely does not want his case to be used as an example by transphobes

J.K. Rowling is an example of specific person who most likely does not want her case to be used as an example by those who call her TERF but trans activists use her as an example of "bigot" anyway. People will be used as examples by the opposing side, that's just how it is.

Besides the blatant misgendering

To misgender the speaker needs to claim a person has a gender identity the person doesn't have, which requires the speaker to use gender identity based definitions for the words involved in the supposed misgendering. This makes it very unlikely that any misgendering happened as would require the speaker to be a genderist, aka not gender critical.

To be an ally to a group, you have to listen to actual members of that group, not impose your own ideas.

You call us bad allies but I don't get why you consider us allies to the current trans activism in the first place. We are on the opposing side so you shouldn't really expect us to act like allies. It would be like me complaining about trans activists being bad allies to GC for not actually listening to us instead of imposing their own ideas, it wouldn't make sense for me to expect trans activists to act like allies. I believe female people, even those who identify as men, should have the same female rights as all other females, but that doesn't make me an ally to current trans activism. It's like how I believe all female people, even the conservative ones against abortion, should have the same right to get abortions should they choose to, and that doesn't make me an anti-abortion ally either.

At the very least they could have been respectful by using he and Mr.

There is no moral duty to lie about trans people just because they like being lied about.

[–]GenderbenderSex-segregated spaces in public are not a right 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

J.K. Rowling is an example of specific person who most likely does not want her case to be used as an example by those who call her TERF but trans activists use her as an example of "bigot" anyway. People will be used as examples by the opposing side, that's just how it is.

J.K. Rowling is a public figure, just like Caitlyn Jenner and Elliot Page. Plus, she chose to make her statements public.

To misgender the speaker needs to claim a person has a gender identity the person doesn't have, which requires the speaker to use gender identity based definitions for the words involved in the supposed misgendering. This makes it very unlikely that any misgendering happened as would require the speaker to be a genderist, aka not gender critical.

You don't have to be a "genderist" to misgender someone.

There is no moral duty to lie about trans people just because they like being lied about.

It's polite and the right thing to do.

[–]strictly 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

she chose to make her statements public

Then you should have no problems with people having opinions about people who made public statements which this female trans person did.

You don't have to be a "genderist" to misgender someone.

You can't lie about someone having a false gender identity unless you first refer to a gender identity which requires the speaker to use gender identity based definitions for the words involved in supposed misgendering. You have to prove that the source consider "she" a pronoun to be used for those with a specific gender identity. It's very unlikely that they would be referring to any type of gender identity with pronouns as they are not genderists thus they can't misgender anyone with pronouns, only missex if they referred to sex.

It's polite and the right thing to do.

Lying goes against my moral principals and I don't care if people who ask me to lie about them consider me impolite for refusing to lie, it wasn't polite of them to expect me to lie in the first place. I am not going to adopt gender-identity based definitions either as that would lead to misgendering people en masse with false gender identities just to benefit a few, it goes against moral conscience. Innocent people shouldn't have suffer being labeled with false gender identities just because some people don't like being their sex.

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

she chose to make her statements public.

Yet she isn't remotely the only person to be labeled a "TERF" for making public statements. Labeling, threatening, and silencing have been routine TRA tactics against any publicly expressed dissent.

Is JKR a permissible target because she's a public figure? If so, what's the TRA rationale for attacking all public expressions of dissent, regardless of the popularity of the dissenter?

"Making her statement public" here is equivalent to "speaking her opinion." If some statements can be expressed while others are extrajudicially punished, the punishment is enacted based on the statement, not the popularity of the person making the statement.

This isn't the targeting of a public figure; it's the suppression of speech in general.