Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

trans women are women, and most true liberals would agree

but it seems to me than this outcome is most trans advocates would be happy with?

― soref

It does?

well, all true liberals, even, freedom to transition identity is part of the mainstream liberal canon now

Where are the true liberals

What makes someone a Trve Liberal

in their ivory towers polishing their silver

but it seems to me than this outcome is most trans advocates would be happy with?

― soref

It does?

― all cats are beautiful (silby), Sunday, July 12, 2020 8:57 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

sorry, that should have said 'but it seems to me than this outcome is most trans advocates would NOT be happy with?'

getting ppl to say "trans women are women" seems beside the point, because it's not just about semantics, depending on how you define 'women' it would be consistent to say both that trans women are women and than there should be separate spaces for AFAB people from which AMAB people are excluded because of oppression of AFABs by AMABs, because AFAB ppl are at risk of violence and sexual assault by AMAB ppl, - isn't just just the TERF argument with different semantics?

a lot of liberals are illiberal dickheads

a trve liberal surely believes in free self-expression except where this impinges upon the free expression of others

nobody is hurt by trans women being women, ergo belief in the position is liberal

sorry if this is some oversimplified childish nonsense that could be dashed to bits by a thorough grounding in modern crit theory

Where are the true liberals

― all cats are beautiful (silby)

scotland, i believe

xp ah that’s pretty different then, yes! Personally I am in favor of the complete undermining of the gender system, I wrote a tiny amount of writing about that a while ago, partly copy-pasted from other ilx threads, and informed by tweets of sometime ilxor rev. dollars, cf http://jklol.net/on-ending-gender.html

one thing above all seems clear to me: we need more trans voices on ilx, especially given the genuinely excellent debates and discussions that must occur constantly within 'the trans community' concerning all of these issues

xp to soref that is

well, all true liberals, even, freedom to transition identity is part of the mainstream liberal canon now

― imago, Sunday, July 12, 2020 8:58 PM (four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

why does this apply to gender and not to other aspects of identity? hardly anyone supports the freedom for white people to transition into being black regardless of how liberal they are. I know this is a cliched question to ask, and whenever it's asked the response will be to point out what a cliched question it is, but despite that I've pretty much never seen it answered - why is gender the one aspect of identity where self identification trumps all, unlike every other aspect of identity?

christ, this is bordering on clinical lack of insight here. i don't know how much more clearly i can put this, i don't know what on earth can possibly persuade you to quit dancing around the issue here.

i thought you thought pathologizing debate opponents was bad, perhaps even liberal???

xp idk. oestrogen is easier to administer than melanin?

the real answer is probably that race is grounded in family history, whereas gender is a random accident of birth. but the aesthetic ease of gender transition compared to racial transition probably helps

I've always enjoyed the irony of this meme

https://i.imgur.com/FqIvOEJ.png

considering who those guys are

race isn't just skin colour either, it is coded in all sorts of physical and cultural ways that can't really be so easily overwritten. gender is a piece of cake in comparison

A schism exists between feminist theory, queer theory and trans theory. Eg. gender-based rights vs. sex-based rights when applied to female-only safe spaces like prisons, rape shelters etc; how and when trans people should compete in sex-segregated sports; age of consent for minors to transition; & a couple of other topics

I know this post has been hammered at quite a bit already, but *of course* there are fissures and debates happening on the left; the issue isn’t that debate is over it’s that “liberals” want to debate shit that feels like it’s been channeled in from outside the frame ... the bell curve & terf shit should not be entertained whatsoever, ppl *should* be marginalized from debates for trying to bring that bullshit up the same way they would trying to incorporate witchcraft in a science lab

nobody is hurt by trans women being women, ergo belief in the position is liberal

Except liberals aren't liberals on ILX. They're liberals.

race isn't just skin colour either, it is coded in all sorts of physical and cultural ways that can't really be so easily overwritten. gender is a piece of cake in comparison

― imago, Sunday, July 12, 2020 9:13 PM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

so gender isn't coded in all sorts of physical and cultural ways that can't be easily overwritten?

I think (3) happens a lot in the gender discussion - a lot of people seem keen to announce that either TERFs or trans are freaks lacking all ethics and are insidious and must be stopped. And that's kind of it.

N.B. - if I had to choose which side are the bad freaks, if the only options were to designate either TERFs or trans as bad freaks, I would choose TERFs, duh

Obviously this designation isn't a debate, it doesn't look at the ideas of the bad freaks or where the ideas come from or why someone might hold them etc etc

I feel genuinely kind of tired by discussions where participants only seek to do this kind of designation. Though this doesn't mean I want to hand out some homework question where you all have to write cardamon a 3K word essay in which you engage with the fascinating philosophy of the TERFs or whatever

I have been for a browse of some writing by TERFs and the thread running through all of it was a distrust of the always potentially abusive male, who is projected on to trans people, and a distrust of newspeak and weasel wording, which is what they hear in phrases like e.g. 'Boys can have periods'. Distrust also of institutions as places liable to harbour abusers.

Another thread of course was transphobia, obviously.

The impression I got was that the focus on potential abusers probably gives a clue as to how people get to the point of flying the TERF flag - it looks like you come for the support network (of other female abuse victims), then stay for the transphobia

I don't know if this should have implications for how to proceed, strategically, to a point where trans people get what they need? It does make me view TERFs in a different (not nec better but different) light to straight male homophobes

xp well it isn't easy as such - trans people i follow and support have said it is a hellish and often lengthy process, but it's doable

listen i don’t think gender and race should ever be analogies for each other

find a different way of making your point imo

religion's probably a better analogy

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Geschlecht

slab!

how would the trans/religion analogy operate?

i was making that exact analogy in a super-secret evil chat only the other day

"so much music i like rn is by trans women (interestingly not trans men)
so whatever reality these people are creating, it is aesthetically coherent and productive
i like the term they often use for themselves: 'cryptid'
it implies magic, alchemy, mystery
almost as if they are all priestesses of some unusual religion
for me, trans acceptance is about allowing trans people the room to create their identity, it is almost like religious acceptance"

ppl *should* be marginalized from debates for trying to bring that bullshit up

I've tried to imagine who you envision participating in this 'debate', what is to be concluded, who is to be persuaded to the eventual conclusions, and why it would matter to anyone outside of the small group allowed to take part. otoh, if it is a discussion, not a debate, then it might do some good to discuss these issues with people who don't already agree. at least they'll be exposed to new thinking.

you're probably born with a religion but you can change it whenever you want. changing it may cost you a lot, emotionally or relationally. Changing it might make you feel more like yourself. You may find that what you try doesn't fit. You may find yourself with the zealotry of the recently converted. You might feel strongly about whatever religion you are. You may ascribe to it but not feel strongly about it. You may not have feelings about it at all. You would find it odd to have to choose between a Christian and Muslim bathroom when you aren't Christian or Muslim, but you pick the one that people will expect to find you in to avoid a fight.

^v much agree with this good and liberal post

if rusho is correct and there's a sort of leap of faith that needs to be made for ppl who basically don't understand or can't quite come to grips with the logic of transness because it contradicts [the western canon or whatever descriptor you like] or is simply too far afield from their own lived experience, but also don't want to needlessly come into conflict with an oppressed group, then that to me sounds similar to a religious accommodation in practice if not in theory

that experience gap is definitely real to me. I have a decent # of trans and nb friends and comrades IRL and I do my best to show compassion and respect and etc etc but at the end of the day a major part of their experience is inaccessible to me; on occasion I feel like I can get it, fleetingly, bet then it slips away from me somehow? my hope is that a lack of precise understanding doesn't preclude solidarity, because imo we're a long way from everyone catching up (as I think this thread proves)

capitalism does enough to keep us alienated as it is.

(this is not me saying "hey trans ppl ease up" or whatever, just trying to feel out if only for myself the chasms where they may exist)

if rusho is correct and there's a sort of leap of faith that needs to be made for ppl who basically don't understand or can't quite come to grips with the logic of transness because it contradicts [the western canon or whatever descriptor you like] or is simply too far afield from their own lived experience, but also don't want to needlessly come into conflict with an oppressed group, then that to me sounds similar to a religious accommodation in practice if not in theory

― k*r*n koltrane (Simon H.), Sunday, July 12, 2020 4:42 PM

If the people who don't understand need to take a leap of faith, that sounds more like religious conversion than religious accommodation.

not really? I try not to say "god damn it" at my memere's not because I accept that God is real and I just don't get it for whatever reason, just that God is a fundamental part of my memere's reality. God's realness or non realness isn't relevant to that scenario

what do you do when there's a discussion about how society is ordered and you don't agree with your memere? do you avoid saying anything that would sound like it implies that you don't think her god is real because it would offend her or deny her existence?

agree to disagree cause I love her and she's not writing policy?

eventually memere is gonna show up at a city council meeting and agree to disagree is not going to be an option the council members can always take

the difference being I can imagine conservative catholics coming up with terrible, harmful prescriptions and there are no serious proposals involving making society friendlier to trans ppl that irks me really xp

honestly if memere made it out to a city council meeting it would mean she'd become remarkably spry for her age and I'd just be impressed

Simon I’m not sure if u are grasping the gist of the analogy

no I was taking it somewhere else purely for my own benefit and I'll be off now

not really? I try not to say "god damn it" at my memere's not because I accept that God is real and I just don't get it for whatever reason, just that God is a fundamental part of my memere's reality. God's realness or non realness isn't relevant to that scenario

― k*r*n koltrane (Simon H.), Sunday, July 12, 2020 5:10 PM

It doesn't seem like you've taken any leap of faith in this case. You're just trying to be considerate of someone else who's taken a leap that you haven't.

hey y'all, i took a nap, some quick catching up here, i'm just gonna combine all this in one post

-

"so much music i like rn is by trans women (interestingly not trans men)

― imago"

yeah i have observed this as well and i do think it's unfortunate, i think trans men are often marginalized and relegated to the corners of trans narratives. i recommend the recent netflix doc "disclosure" where a number of trans men, as well as trans women, talk about their particular experiences of erasure and marginalization. i try to do my best to support trans men but since i inevitably come at things from the perspective of being a trans woman i frequently don't do a very good job of it

-

proxy analogies for gender: speaking as a white trans woman, i am totally unequipped to discuss the nuances of race and gender identity. if you're curious about it, i suggest listening to trans poc about their experiences, to the extent they feel comfortable sharing with you.

-

"I've tried to imagine who you envision participating in this 'debate', what is to be concluded, who is to be persuaded to the eventual conclusions, and why it would matter to anyone outside of the small group allowed to take part. otoh, if it is a discussion, not a debate, then it might do some good to discuss these issues with people who don't already agree. at least they'll be exposed to new thinking.

― the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless)"

i am intrigued by the difference you bring up between "discussion" and "debate". the feeling i get from reading your post, and it's just an inkling, is that the sort of "debate" you're talking about is a fundamentally liberal/Enlightenment institution, the sort of thing where issues are decided through the skillful and clever use of rhetoric, where what happens is determined by the person who has the most convincing argument.

i'm not sure i can think of any example whatsoever wherein this is a good idea. why not just determine policy by playing a basketball game against each other? it seems to me to have about as much relevance or bearing.

_discussion_, on the other hand, i feel like is generally healthy - it gives people the opportunity to listen to each other and come to conclusions. discussions, though, shouldn't necessarily be free and open to all. i feel like the best discussions happen internally between people who have skin in the game. i'm not sure i see a value in discussing gender issues in-depth with cis people. i think a far better way of handling it is coming to a collective understanding among ourselves, and then presenting our conclusions as best we can to cis people - who we are, what we want, how to treat us with respect and dignity. if a trans person has a problem with how i present trans experience, i definitely want to be respectful and open and listen to them, but the best place to do that isn't necessarily in a room filled with a bunch of cis people, some of whom might not fully understand the issues, others of whom might have a desire to "teach the controversy".

-

"i thought you thought pathologizing debate opponents was bad, perhaps even liberal???

― j."

j., i feel like you don't really understand how frustrating it is for someone like me to talk to someone like you. there are so so so so so many implicit assumptions that you're bringing to the table. i can no more give impromptu graduate-level seminars on intersectional discourse than you can give impromptu graduate-level seminars on the history of humanist thought. that's why we keep saying "it's not our responsibility to explain things to you", because this is goddamn difficult work and what cis people expect of us is often just not reasonable or fair.

the stuff i've been saying on this thread, if you can learn from it, if anybody can learn from it, i'm super fucking happy, but, and i don't mean any offence by this, i'm not doing it to educate you, i'm not doing it because it's my _responsibility_ to convince you of the validity of my experiences. it's not. it's not the responsibility of any of us. i'm doing it because it's cathartic, i'm doing it because i spend a lot of time working on and processing and controlling some very intense feelings. i'm doing it because lj poked me enough with his pointy rhetoric stick that it started spilling out. i'm doing it because other people on the thread have expressed gratitude and appreciation for what i'm saying. this shit isn't about you. i feel like it's important to treat other people with kindness and respect as much as i can, and honestly, i feel like i'm doing a decent job at fulfilling that responsibility towards you. i'm not going to apologize for the occasional outburst of snark because i'm not sorry, because i don't believe it was wrong of me to do so.

-

"if rusho is correct and there's a sort of leap of faith that needs to be made for ppl who basically don't understand or can't quite come to grips with the logic of transness because it contradicts [the western canon or whatever descriptor you like] or is simply too far afield from their own lived experience, but also don't want to needlessly come into conflict with an oppressed group, then that to me sounds similar to a religious accommodation in practice if not in theory

― k*r*n koltrane (Simon H.)"

i would actively reject your phrasing, since you invoked me directly. i do not think that what i am proposing require a "leap of faith". i believe that cis people can evaluate the utility and reliability of trans narratives from the _outcomes_ they produce, just like i evaluate the utility and reliability of religions from the outcomes they produce. i am not without mysticism, but i find it to be a poor basis for coexistence. i am asking not for faith but for _observation_ and _listening_, and a willing to discard axiomatic beliefs, religious or secular, that do not accord with the evidence. my experience is that a lot of liberals (and of course not _just_ liberals, but that's specifically the remit of what i'm getting at here) are a lot better at talking than they are at listening.

Thanks for your posts in this thread, Kate.