Trans Politics, Trans Activism, also 'rolling is this transphobic?' thread

i dont know who momus is and never heard him mentioned in the time i've posted here which is way too long. but as edifying as it would be to have some cis ppl debating what is and isn't transphobic, i think you might do well to reflect that your 'arguments' have been recognised instantly by everyone else on the thread as talking points from transphobia internet (in any case, ones rebutted before you even posted by nicole) and nobody is particularly interested in being drawn into your "i dont even see gender! who's the *real* transphobe?!" nonsense, random interloper with barely developed backstory. Please do better at mangling yr bullshit into something less instantly identifiable as the same old.

I hear you, Brad, so I'm including a content warning here: continued discussion related to the BBC article follows.

These are the people you are aligning yourself with.

I can't help who does and doesn't agree with me. People with many different viewpoints feel the same way I do. If Donald Trump says the world is round, should we all say it's flat?

Conflating "social pressure to not be a bigot" with "individual pressure to sleep with someone" is textbook moral panic and completely vile.

In this case, what is being described as bigotry is not being sexually attracted to certain people, which does put pressure on individuals to sleep with people they aren't attracted to to prove (to themselves and to the community they're a part of) they aren't bigots.

Why are you assuming all trans women have penises??

I'm not assuming that at all, but most do, and we're talking about sexual preferences for certain genitalia here.

no one is saying the preferences have to change upon reflection.

Yes they are; people are saying the preferences have to change if the person doesn't want to be transphobic and be accused of transphobia.

there surely are some trans people who do indeed have extreme unnuanced 'if you have any genital preferences you are transphobic' positions but that's very much a minority position, not at all reasonable, and no one here is arguing for it

It's a minority position, but that doesn't mean it isn't significant and that many people don't hold it and express it, including prominent people within the LGBT community. Which is to say that it does still have the power to do harm.

Meanwhile, how many prominent people in the LGBT community are doing anything to counteract its effects, e.g. saying explicitly that genital preferences AREN'T transphobic? Even in this discussion, you're the only person who's come out and said that people who hold these positions are being unreasonable. In the Feminist Theory thread, everybody was instructed to FP the person who said these people are irrational and wrong. I remember seeing this and thinking it was bad, but I didn't speak up then.

I've repeatedly noted that no one here is arguing for it, and that it's something other people are doing, elsewhere. That said, in the time since you posted, map has said "'genital preferences' are really fucking idiotic," which, of course, isn't the same as saying they're transphobic, but it is derogatory of something certain people have no control over, and honestly it feels like bullying behavior when it's being said to a gay man who has just said that he has a genital preference. And yet no one else here has called it out as such.

This is true of all other preferences too! Ethnicity, body shape, whatever.

As I said, it isn't true of preference for/against certain ethnicities. Research has shown that this preference corresponds with a person's broader racism. So it follows that to the extent that racism can be unlearned, such sexual preferences can be changed. As far as I know, there isn't any research that has had any similar implications for preferences for/against certain genitals.

Consider transphobia as a societal force that impacts us all to some degree or other, as opposed to "specific bigotry from bad bad people", and I think you might start to understand what ppl are saying in the examples you cited?

It sounds like you're arguing that a certain level of transphobia is acceptable (in the sense that it can't be changed, which must be accepted), and that this is what people who say genital preferences are transphobic think. Do you have any evidence to back that up? I think most people who accuse people of transphobia do think of it as something done by bad people. In any case, you have to know that when people with genital preferences hear people say "genital preferences are transphobic," they aren't going to interpret it as "genital preferences are transphobic, but if there's nothing you can do about them, I'm not negatively judging you." They're going to assume you're calling them bad people, because you're saying they are constantly engaging in transphobia, simply by having those preferences.

Side note: I've been on ILX a long time -- since before 2008, actually, because I lurked for a while before I ever posted anything. I don't post a lot, and when I do it's mainly on ILM, but I love ILX and I think it's full of really smart, good-hearted people. My views typically line up with those of most people here, but this is one area where we disagree.

If Donald Trump says the world is round, should we all say it's flat?

oh trust me, his view on that is much more *nuanced*

xp whining/handwringing/concern-trolling about the punching-up (and any associated collateral damage) while claiming you aren't part of the punching-down is an extremely bad look FYI

"oh my god some straights might get their feelings hurt, these trans maniacs have really gone too far" RMDE

oh and let's not forget the hurt feelings of the mysterious gay poster who appeared yesterday

it's going to be so obvious in 20 years to everyone what the right side of this argument was, the problem is that it's hurting people right now

― Tracer Hand

It sounds like you're arguing that a certain level of transphobia is acceptable (in the sense that it can't be changed, which must be accepted)

vtc this is an extremely bad faith reading of what Daniel wrote

if someone calls something is a societal force that means they believe it's 'acceptable'? really this is just insultingly dim sophistry

when map said "'genital preferences' are really idiotic" i would be extremely surprised to learn that they meant anything apart from this discourse around them is idiotic. certainly your interpretation is bizarre - do you really think they were suggesting the only way to avoid being an idiot (or worse) is to grit one's teeth and find a way to get turned on by all sexual organs without fear or favour? surely not? it's silly. if you want to participate in this board, engage with the people actually on it and take a minute to actually read what they're saying. if you want to argue with other people elsewhere don't let us stop you but why don't you go to those places where they are

Meanwhile, how many prominent people in the LGBT community are doing anything to counteract its effects, e.g. saying explicitly that genital preferences AREN'T transphobic?

you can go outside and hold a sign saying "genital preferences aren't transphobic", instead of doing this. because no one wants to argue with you about what you have admitted is a minority opinion, held by how many people with any sort of power? it is a mystery. is being called a transphobe online better or worse than the actual, material effects of "trans people are trying to force me to prefer their genitals" articles appearing in the mainstream UK press every day? the world will never know.

also next time use the hidden tag instead of making a huge wall of shit with a tiny apology on top

UK discourse around trans people is the main thing that makes me feel good I'll never live there again

i dont know who momus is and never heard him mentioned in the time i've posted here which is way too long. but as edifying as it would be to have some cis ppl debating what is and isn't transphobic, i think you might do well to reflect that your 'arguments' have been recognised instantly by everyone else on the thread as talking points from transphobia internet (in any case, ones rebutted before you even posted by nicole) and nobody is particularly interested in being drawn into your "i dont even see gender! who's the *real* transphobe?!" nonsense, random interloper with barely developed backstory. Please do better at mangling yr bullshit into something less instantly identifiable as the same old.

― plax (ico), Monday, November 1, 2021 11:18 PM

I don't see how nicole's points rebut mine because I agree with nicole. As I said above, it is towards the blanket statements found among social media and some posts in this thread ( i e "genital preferences' are really idiotic") that is problematic. To suggest I don't see gender, when I have spent so much of my life in a place where gender differences are often extreme and forced, is absurd and not based on what I have said.

you can find clumsy unnuanced blanket statements on all sorts of political positions on social media but the main reason this particular position has gotten so much attention is because transphobes have found use in weaponising it as an anti-trans propaganda tool. like i very much understand the issues people have with how it comes across, why people get so defensive in response, and have agreed that it's not at all a helpful lens to discuss the issues it's trying to. i lived through tumblr, i've seen so much worse clumsy trans discourse than this but this is what's gotten the attention.

i haven't seen any evidence that the most bad faith unnuanced reading of the 'genital preferences are transphobic' position is at all the one many people actually hold though. like being charitable i would expect most trans people taking that line to be clumsily trying to make a point about how sexual preferences are shaped by a transphobic society. a minority probably would defend 'if you have any genital preferences you are personally a transphobe' (& i agree that's unreasonable) but it's still a stretch to take that to mean 'trans people want people who aren't attracted to them to have sex with them out of obligation'. again i understand how it can be interpreted that way though and i agree it's a totally unhelpful phrase.

even how many prominent people in the trans community are actually saying 'genital preferences are transphobic' (regardless of what they mean if pushed to clarify)? a few minor figures on twitter? this thing has become really overblown because again, it's become very useful as an anti-trans propaganda tool. i'd strongly advise people to please go find better things to do than get mad because some minority of a minority have made clumsy & dumb political statements on twitter.

By August 10th 2020 it was revealed by GC activist Suzy Ireson on her Facebook that she had been posting these stickers up on the Torquay sea front where they had been found by other gender critical activists who pulled them down believing them to be real. pic.twitter.com/46vt7F8xF8

— Mallory Moore (@Chican3ry) October 27, 2021

fwiw here's an example of transphobes admitting to being the ones putting up stickers with 'genital preferences are transphobic' as an intentional false flag.

what is being described as bigotry is not being sexually attracted to certain people

- has anyone *actually* personally called you transphobic because you're not sexually attracted to certain people?
- was the person who called you a bigot someone you otherwise respected?
- have you suffered personal or physical or professional consequences?

because otherwise i get the sense that this is rhetorical for you, in which case i would suggest chilling out until it actually has anything to do with you

i mean it's possible that people will criticize your comedy show and it's possible that you will get flag posted off this site, but there are no gangs of trans thugs coming for you

If you're worried about being forced to have sex with a trans person it might be worth examining why you are worried about a non-existent threat involving a minority group routinely the target of moral panics. As things stand, nobody is saying that being attracted to any specific person is transphobic, however when you arrive spouting terminologies ('genital preference') with no anchor in anything except anti-trans culture war stuff (maybe you think that the phrase is an artifact of gay liberation, it isn't) it makes people less inclined from the get-go to engage in some how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin dialogues about what is and isn't transphobia, particularly with those who seem primarily motivated by the right to be able to publicly express 'preferences' that luridly draw attention to intimate parts of other people's bodies in a deeply othering way. Why aren't more lgbt leaders affirming the legitimate concerns of anti-trans hate groups quoted in BBC articles? Its a mystery! Similarly its a mystery why the offence taken by (my count) three (3) gay men on this thread to being invoked as being at-odds with trans people (through this reductive and rude framing) is so easily ignored, yet conversely the anxieties and worries of new poster kafka keba (interests: borges, specific genitals) are to be treated to delicately in order not to be accused of "bullying behaviour." I'm not that old but im old enough to remember very similar rhetorical devices used to disseminate exactly the same kind of subliminal nastiness about gay men so forgive me if my reaction to their deployment here is with a similar disgust as I have for all your reactionary forebears. Try not to keep dragging your squalid bullshit in here.

It's a minority position, but that doesn't mean it isn't significant and that many people don't hold it and express it, including prominent people within the LGBT community.

a) that is kind of what minority position means?
b) "doesn't mean many people don't hold it and express it, including prominent people within the LGBT community" - this seems to be saying that in an infinite multiverse, there might be one where prominent people within the LGBT community hold and express it, which is a rather weak claim?
c) If it's this universe, good, we're getting somewhere - name names. If they're prominent, that should be pretty easy, right?

Research has shown that this preference corresponds with a person's broader racism.

"Research" is doing a whole lot of work for you there; seems to me there's been a few studies with very small sample sizes and I don't think you can seriously put that forth as enough to make it an accepted scientific fact.

It sounds like you're arguing that a certain level of transphobia is acceptable (in the sense that it can't be changed, which must be accepted), and that this is what people who say genital preferences are transphobic think. Do you have any evidence to back that up? I think most people who accuse people of transphobia do think of it as something done by bad people. In any case, you have to know that when people with genital preferences hear people say "genital preferences are transphobic," they aren't going to interpret it as "genital preferences are transphobic, but if there's nothing you can do about them, I'm not negatively judging you." They're going to assume you're calling them bad people, because you're saying they are constantly engaging in transphobia, simply by having those preferences.

This is exactly the kind of frustration that is felt whenever an oppressed group talks about any kind of systemic inequality; it is not ABOUT the individual behaviours of members outside that group, and discussing it in abstract, systemic terms is not about doing an evaluation of the moral value of specific individuals. If they indeed choose to interpret it that way, well, that's on them.

with no anchor in anything except anti-trans culture war stuff

going to anticipate the rebuttal from those just asking questions and point out that it's not totally invented by the transphobes, 'genital preferences are transphobic' as a phrase did originate from trans community discourse & there's just enough of a grain of truth there that it hasn't totally disappeared (+ the defensive reaction to it gets proponents of it defensive back) but it's really not a widely held position. it's a messy conversation trans communities have been having for ages and most of us are pretty sick of that particular framing, especially now that transphobes are very prominently weaponising it as propaganda.

even the fucking bbc article could only find a single trans person of minor prominence who directly said 'genital preferences are transphobic', and she still offered more nuance beyond that phrase.

also the BBC article made no effort whatsoever to distinguish between trans women and ppl with penises, which you'd think the defenders here would be up in arms about

"going to anticipate the rebuttal from those just asking questions and point out that it's not totally invented by the transphobes, 'genital preferences are transphobic' as a phrase did originate from trans community discourse & there's just enough of a grain of truth there that it hasn't totally disappeared" yes agreed, a key feature of moral panics and culture war bullshit is that there is always just enough of a grain of truth to amplify and develop into the various insinuations that have attached to this discourse and been disseminated by the question askers

As things stand, nobody is saying that being attracted to any specific person is transphobic, however when you arrive spouting terminologies ('genital preference') with no anchor in anything except anti-trans culture war stuff (maybe you think that the phrase is an artifact of gay liberation, it isn't) it makes people less inclined from the get-go to engage in some how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin dialogues about what is and isn't transphobia, particularly with those who seem primarily motivated by the right to be able to publicly express 'preferences' that luridly draw attention to intimate parts of other people's bodies in a deeply othering way.

this is well-put and what i meant by "genital preferences are idiotic." you are attracted to someone. the first thing on your check-off list is not to reach in and feel their genitals? unless it is, i guess, in which case you're a weird asshole.

and i would also clarify that it isn't that "genitals don't matter," it's that "sexual pleasure does not conform to some notion of genital-a vs genital-b". if that's your mindset, then you aren't a very good lover to begin with and tbh everyone, cis or trans, is better off without your services!

yah only the dreariest and least sexy gays come out with this genital preference bullshit

The last two posts are why I can't take the arguments against what I've said seriously!

then leave

While I'm no fan of a pile-on and some of the dismissive language towards the doubtless well-meaning VTC and k_k doesn't sit right with me, I feel it's worth saying that the emotive force of imposing penises on women who prefer vaginas (which is the whole strawtrans nonsense the BBC are trying to push) is somewhat greater than the emotive force of imposing vaginas on men who prefer penises, and so your (k_k's) own preferences are not so relevant.

What I will say is that if women who prefer vaginas are being pressured by their social groups to have sex with people who have penises (of any gender), on pain of being accused of bigotry or being ostracised, then of course this is coercion of a sort. The trouble is that this basically never happens, and the vast majority of trans women would abhor the thought of it, so the BBC is essentially constructing a demon.

ufo's excellent posts are very much worth rereading if any confusion persists.

tl;dr: genital preferences matter but more to women, no need to pile on, also never post to ILE

why do all these people keep insisting on having sex with me

i've told them a million times

neither vtc or kk are 'well meaning' they are trolls peddling really foul 'legitimate concerns'. and "I feel it's worth saying that the emotive force of imposing penises on women who prefer vaginas is somewhat greater than the emotive force of imposing vaginas on men who prefer penises" is a really stupid thing to say.

The last two posts are why I can't take the arguments against what I've said seriously!

― kafka_keba, Tuesday, 2 November 2021 11:52 (twenty-four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yes youve destroyed us all with facts and logic now stop posting here

the emotive force of getting struck by lightning is huge, definitely deserves long articles about the pros and cons based on a survey of 80 people who are worried about getting struck by it

look you all laugh but i can't even walk down the street without trans women trying to force me into bed, take me seriously

The emotive force of being struck by lightning IS huge, but it basically never happens. It's a good analogy! The BBC (and The Times etc) are basically going around on a cloudy day screaming LIGHTNING

its true that trans womens bodies are more stigmatised and subject to more prurient discussion in our culture but the only victims of that are trans women

i really want to see this movie - Little Girl (2020)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akSaVMmOZgc

it was only playing for like a week at the Institut Francais in West London which is crazy to me

Ahhh Tracer my heart

i know!!

I've also felt a little bad trying to read this thread and learn because I don't think vtc and kk are necessarily trying to troll (malicious intent), is it not more likely they're susceptible to misleading data, faulty reasoning, fallacies etc? That being said I do otherwise appreciate the insightful posts here.

I understand the concern but it's important to remember that, whether held in earnest or with malicious intent, these views are the latest talking point the UK media establishment has glommed on to in order to make trans people as marginalised and vilified as possible.

And when they come so fluently from a new poster who has literally one previous post, that's an awful lot of good faith to ask of people sick of this nonsense

Well, I guess that's the distinction... have they been mislead or are they here to mislead? I'm here to learn and I would hope they would be willing to do so as well.

Massive T/W!

while you were having the conversation above, here's what a woman quoted in the BBC article was posting online

Cade is very explicitly calling for trans women to be murdered pic.twitter.com/wHf5QQhRWi

— SANDWORM (@christapeterso) November 2, 2021

That is vile vile stuff.

I don't understand what most of those accusations are even about, although I suspect a Q-ish propaganda machine has been ginning up lurid accusations that aren't being covered in the US in the same way.

Jesus.

Well, I guess that's the distinction... have they been mislead or are they here to mislead? I'm here to learn and I would hope they would be willing to do so as well.

― Evan, Tuesday, November 2, 2021 11:40 AM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Everyone at one point has been mislead about trans realities. That’s why we live in a transphobic world, piling on and weaponising someone’s sexuality against itself is not going to help anyone be better people.

Also let’s stop assuming people are perfectly aware of UK transphobic points. Some people are not from the UK, others would rather not deal with that sort of stuff.

i mean i only ever hear of this being brought up when it’s a cudgel to hit trans ppl with, i think it’s easy to be aware of the social dynamics of a talking point even if you’re not from transphobe island

Also let’s stop assuming people are perfectly aware of UK transphobic points. Some people are not from the UK, others would rather not deal with that sort of stuff.

― Van Horn Street, Tuesday, 2 November 2021 18:02 (twenty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Yes absolutely, although anyone who has read this thread has now been introduced to this particular line in its most conventional iteration by our new genital preferring concern havers

I don't really have much to add to this conversation beyond support to people who are just trying to live their lives.

I don't know if that's the best way to express that but I want to respect how people identify and refer to them in the manner they prefer, mostly because that feels like Being Polite 101 and it's baffling to me that that isn't everyone's baseline

I apologize for not putting my last post in hidden text. I honestly forgot that was an option. I tried to add many line breaks after the content warning, but apparently ILX doesn't allow that.

CW: more discussion related to the BBC article

whining/handwringing/concern-trolling about the punching-up (and any associated collateral damage)

Emphasis mine. I'm not going to respond to this here; just wanted to let it stand on its own.

that is kind of what minority position means?

"Minority position" just means less than half of people hold it. Doesn't mean it's not important. Here are a couple of people who are part of this minority:

Ryan John Butcher, head of news at PinkNews:

my friend, that’s literally the dictionary definition of transphobia

— ryan john butcher (@ryanjohnbutcher) May 22, 2020

Dr. Veronica Ivy, first transgender world track cycling champion, published in NBC News, Vice, and The Economist, featured on CNN:

You: "I like dick"

Girl with dick says 'Hey, wanna date?'
"Oh...no...I only like dick on guys"

Guy responds to date ad: 'Sup girl'
...guy has a vagina
"Oh, sorry, I only like guys with dicks"

Both cases trans people are left in the cold. 'Genital preferences' are transphobic.

— Dr. Veronica Ivy (@SportIsARight) September 30, 2019

And as far as how often these kinds of things are happening, even if something happens very rarely, that doesn't mean it isn't important either. (For what it's worth, re: Tracer's comment above, there are tons of articles about people getting struck by lightning. The Guardian had a long piece about lightning strike survivors earlier this year.)

One good thing that could happen at this point would be for PinkNews and Stonewall to publish guidance saying genital preferences aren't transphobic and no one should say they are, whether in publicly visible discussions or (especially) on a personal level as a means of shaming someone into having sex. PN and Stonewall wouldn't even have to say that this HAS happened; all they would have to say is "DON'T do this," which shouldn't be controversial. And, of course, this guidance should be directed at everyone, not just trans people. If they wanted, they could even frame it as "The BBC article was a bad article. It goes without saying that genital preferences aren't transphobic..." etc. This is a solution that seeks to answer ufo's concerns about this conversation inside and outside of trans communities, as well as minimize "collateral damage."

I'll stop posting on this thread now.