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

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.

Ugh, can't believe I screwed up the hidden text formatting there. Really sorry.

ryan john butcher was responding to someone who was talking about people being called "transphobic for not accepting lesbians with penises or men with vaginas." which is a gigantic stretch to conflate with the "trans people want cis people to be obliged to have sex with them" position, especially since "trans women cannot call themselves lesbians", "lesbians cannot have penises" etc. are quite common transphobe positions.

veronica ivy is indeed the single trans person of some prominence from the bbc article who directly said "genital preferences are transphobic" and i don't really agree with her overall position, the broader point about how preferences are shaped by society is fine but it seems pretty clear that not everyone's sexuality works that way. but her being wrong about that is just her being wrong about that & not evidence of anyone trying to coerce cis people into having sex with them.

"Minority position" just means less than half of people hold it. Doesn't mean it's not important.

it's not even close to half. you haven't at all demonstrated it is important, even with your caveat about rare things being able to be important. you can dig up goofy fringe positions from all sorts of minorities if you really want to cause a moral panic, the media's been doing it forever. looking forward to the moral panics about people saying "everyone is a little bisexual" next.

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

trans people are capable of having those conversations on our own and top-down interventions into this very dumb discourse like that would do nothing helpful & only probably attract more attention from transphobes "oh so you admit there is a problem with TRANS WOMEN FORCING PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM" etc. stonewall and pinknews are hardly the heads of the trans community.

come on lol

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.

Just want clarify that I was responding to imago’s “basically never happens” post here, where, based on his follow-up post, “basically never happens” should be taken to mean “happens very rarely.” I suggest people read his post with that in mind.

Absolutely bizarre understanding of Stonewall and pink news in that post. Why on earth would trans people take their definition of what is and isn't transphobic from an organisation that, despite taking it's name from a political event that trans people were crucial to, refused to campaign on their behalf for most of the period of its existence. The answer is they don't, these things are supposed to work the other way around as UFO points out, the organisation learns from the communities it represents, even in the case of mainstream, liberal organisations like Stonewall.

But yes there will always be some element of truth to moral panics and some fringe extreme and or attention seeking positions - a situation further heightened by the algorithm's appetite for delicious controversy to generate engagement. what a moral panic does is to connect those dots, exaggerate them, persevere with every fatuous debunked story without missing a beat, elevate the testimonies of bad actors, invite a conspiracy of dupes and grifters to superheat to boiling point a few weird isolated incidents (some YouTuber said 'genital preferences' are transphobic (actually more nuanced than that but ok) and a workshop for trans people about difficulties dating and being trans happened ten years ago and we can wildly speculate about its content) are represented in a hysterical and distorted way with the result of calling for action from the group who are targeted by it and ultimately putting the burden of proof on them to find ways to show that they are not in fact degenerates and predators. Anyone who has been targeted by this bullshit also knows that it is never-ending, those that come for you like this will only be further emboldened and will call for more and repeated action of this kind where you are forced again and again to repudiate any political assertions in the name of distancing yourself from zealous smear campaigns and complying. This "I'm not trying to force cis lesbians to have sex with me" t shirt has people asking a lot of questions, essentially. That's the goal of these talking points, to provoke and mischaracterise and ultimately insinuate nastier stuff with ever diminishing burdens of proof for the wild claims but more increasingly stringent ones on the embattled targets. You can quite clearly see all these principles at work in the BBC article that began this discussion.

Really striking to me how explicit most of the sources in the BBC article are about thinking trans women are men and considering "transgenderism" a menace in and of itself. Not just Lily Cade either. Impossible to view it as anything as in anything but bad faith no matter where you fall down on this genital discussion.

CW


Feel like I should address ufo’s comment on the Ryan John Butcher tweet, because I was definitely willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that, but this exchange, further down in the thread, made me feel that my interpretation is correct:

you seem to have a really strange obsession with other people’s genitals

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

why are we supposed to care about these tweets

i don’t read any kind of malice or sexual pressure in them, just maybe an unwillingness to deal with a fuckin weirdo who brings up trans boogeypeople in the replies to a fuckin unrelated tweet. that’s the full context. i would be as annoyed