Trans rights a question of reasonableness and common sense
There is no absolute human right to erase gendered thought and language on a widespread basis
Expand
I sense that there is a real danger for transgender people that ideological activism by a tiny minority may lose them the goodwill and empathy of the great majority.
Michael McDowell
I have nothing but complete empathy for any person who finds themselves having to confront a deep-seated conviction that their ostensible physical sex does not correspond with their gender. That self-understanding or conviction is not a matter of sexual orientation – conveniently divided by some into heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual. Orientation or attraction varies among people with gender dysphoria as much as it does with all other people.
Moreover, I also accept that many trans people endure a great deal of profoundly painful rejection and/or suspicion from those who neither understand nor empathise in any way with their situation. They naturally see such rejection as a form of discrimination and, moreover, an unjust discrimination that infringes their human rights.
And that is where things become complex. Current thinking favours elimination of all forms of discrimination on the ground that it necessarily involves inequality.
But that raises the question as to whether society or the Irish Constitution is bound by anti-discriminatory principles to regard everyone for all purposes simply as a human citizen with an innate human right to self-identify as male, female, fluid, transgender, or, indeed, non-gendered.
I incline to the view that for the vast majority of citizens, distinction based on ostensible physical sex is very important in many but not all aspects of our social existence. Sex cannot simply be wished away as a concept or as a social reality. The growth of women’s equality as a strong anti-discriminatory movement in the last hundred years demonstrates that distinction between ostensible physical sex is hugely important. While legal and economic inequality for women is being tackled with varying degrees of success, the demands from within the trans community for the large-scale dismantling of distinction based on ostensible physical sex is not necessarily a common cause with feminism.
Take, for instance, sport. In some, but not all, areas of competitive sport, women wish to compete separately from men. This is not a relic of outdated ideology but is based on an obvious truth – that men are physically more likely to win than women in sports like running, rugby, all kinds of football, swimming, wrestling, boxing and many others.
To require people with objectively male physiques to compete against other such people and people with objectively female physiques to compete with other such people is only fair if that is the way that the great majority of competitors want. Achieving such objective athletic fairness and justice, I think, trumps any sense of injustice that a person born with a male body and identifying as a woman may feel if excluded from competing in an all-women’s event.
Does that mean that we prohibit gender self-identification for all purposes? I don’t think so. If a person I previously assumed was male tells me that he wants to be dealt with as she or her, perhaps good manners and empathy requires me to do that. Those who wish to signal their preferred mode of address should be free to do so.
But it does not, in my opinion, mean that we all must adopt gender-neutral language such as “chest-feeding”, “men with wombs”, “people who menstruate” and the like, in order to spare the feelings of some of those with gender dysphoria.
In the end it is a question of reasonableness and common sense. I think that the great majority of people would happily legislate to ensure that identity documents can easily be changed to accommodate the genuine wishes of people with dysphoria. By the same token, many people may not want to end gender-based changing rooms and bathroom facilities in all cases or to legally require further such facilities for transgender people.
For the great, great majority, gender-based language, thought, concepts and social convention are really part of what we are – just as central to our personalities as the identity-convictions of trans people are to them. It isn’t a question of thoughtlessness.
That trans people experience rejection as a consequence of our civilisation’s social recognition and distinctions of sex and gender does not confer on them an absolute human right to erase gendered thought and language on a widespread basis.
While anyone can cite statistics, studies tend to suggest that adult dysphoria is very rare, and much rarer in people born women than men.
I sense that there is a real danger for transgender people that ideological activism by a tiny minority may lose them the goodwill and empathy of the great majority. That would be a pity.
Michael McDowell is a barrister and a former minister for justice
I just get a handle on the terminology and it changes.
It does, doesn't it? The only terminology that seems to stay the same are the slurs like terf and cis. but I think, in this case, it's trans woman; no doubt I'll be swiftly corrected if I'm mistaken .
Is that a transwoman or transman?
I just get a handle on the terminology and it changes.
Trans as Female, I think Doodledog
What's a TaF?
Yes, but Chewbacca, we do give respect in all those circumstances as do many LGBT people.
Who doesn’t give women the respect they deserve, yet clamour for respect for themselves.
Yes, you guessed! It’s some TaF, who don’t even respect the wishes of the majority of their own and certainly don’t respect females!
I will happily "respect" the TR ideology when, for every reference I see of "cervix havers", I also see prostate havers. For every "people who menstruate", there are "ejaculators". When we have a comparable male distortion of the female vocabulary, then it will be fair and respectful.
Respect goes two ways. If we want it, we have to give it.
Oh I so agree with that! How about:
Respect that a woman who has been raped and violated by a biological male may need a biologically male free space in which to heal, gather her strength and discuss her ordeal with other females.
Respect that a physically or mentally disabled female doesn't want to be undressed, washed, toileted and have her intimate personal care carried out by a biological male.
Respect that a female, who has been battered almost to death by a biological male, probably won't feel too comfortable sharing her refuge with a biological male.
Respect that a female patient might prefer to be examined by another biological female.
Respect that, in many cultures, females cannot be in a state of undress where there are biological males and so, by their prescence, they can't swim, take part in sports, try on clothes in shops.
You're quite right: respect is a 2 way street.
Dead gendering is something people who can't respect someone else's choices they make for themselves.
(Not sure that makes sense, but you said it so I’ll use it to explain . . .
If you don’t accept DD’s definition, then what some TaF are doing could equally be described as dead womaning as those TaF are definitely people who can't respect female rights.
PS. Does anyone who defines themselves as an ally of transpeople have any opinion on my oft-repeated question about the difference between a man identifying as female and white people identifying as black? Would that mean that White People Are Black People - No Debate, or is there a difference between sex and race that makes one impossible and not the other?
GagaJo
*Shocking grammar! Sorry.*
Dead gendering is something people do, when they're not respectful of the choices others make for themself.
Ok. There are other definitions, but if you use that one, how can you also say that if the GC require an adjective, 'trans' and 'cis' are currently the ones in use. and S/he said, I don't like that adjective, insult, say what I like, ad infinitum. and not be guilty of rank hypocrisy? Using 'cis' is not respectful of my decisions, nor of those of others on this thread, yet when we ask for it not to be used we are accused of filibustering.
The word 'deadgendering' suggests that someone can be 'reborn' in another gender, which is something I do not believe can happen, not least because gender just doesn't work that way, and sex cannot be changed. I can use the word, in the same way that I can use 'transubstantiation', or 'muggle' if the conversation demands it, but it is not something I can believe in, any more than not believing that bread and wine can become flesh and blood means that I don't respect Roman Catholics (I married one), or that I can't enter into the spirit of a discussion of wizardry with children without believing in a secret race of people with magical powers.
With respect, therefore, I suggest that 'deadgendering is a niche word used by transpeople who believe that their old self died when they began to identify as the opposite sex, rather than something other people can do to them.
Shocking grammar! Sorry.
Dead gendering is something people do, when they're not respectful of the choices others make for themself.
Chewbacca
Mollygo dead gendering is one of those new words/phrases that we have now. Like no debate and cancel culture and terf and cis.
They're used to "other" people, particularly women.
Dead gendering is something people who can't respect someone else's choices they make for themselves.
It takes nothing away from the person being rude. It's just disrespectful and rude.
Respect goes two ways. If we want it, we have to give it.
It is only since the aggressive tactics of Stonewall and the TRAs that opposition has been voiced.
Good post Rosie51.
That's something that is ignored by those here who continue to insist that transwomen are women.
The situation has now changed hugely and the pretence is being carried much too far, with serious consequences in all sorts of areas.
Here's a link to the Australian situation:
www.sbs.com.au/news/article/bill-shorten-intervenes-to-replace-birth-parent-with-mother-on-medicare-form/x4oq6alup
In the UK, it has been determined in court that 'mother' means a female person who has given birth hence Freddy McConnell was not allowed to register as her child's father.
Whatever Freddy's preference the fact is that words have to mean things and Freddy is a mother.
www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/16/trans-man-loses-uk-legal-battle-to-register-as-his-childs-father
I would also like a debate. I answer questions to the best of my ability, and do so politely and respectfully.
I would therefore appreciate the same courtesy in return, but whenever I ask a question it is ignored.
I would still like to know what the difference is between a man ‘identifying’ as a woman and a white person ‘identifying’ as black.
There are more gender-critical voices on these threads, and I (and, I am sure, other) am aware of that. If people don’t gaslight, or get aggressive and snide, they are treated with the respect they deserve. The fact that ‘we’ don’t agree wit TWAW however, is unlikely to change, and I will continue to point out gaslighting when I see it.
GagaJo I think you're one of the people that has said many times that transwomen have always been amongst us, and that is true. They were not invisible, we saw them very occasionally in our toilets and on the street but chose to ignore them as a kindness and because they were being as discreet as possible. It is only since the aggressive tactics of Stonewall and the TRAs that opposition has been voiced. In the past there would have been no idea of a rapist having to be addressed as she by his victim, nor would he have been committed to a female prison. Transwomen were not housed on female hospital wards, nor would they have been allowed in women's refuges or other female only areas. A women's swim session would only have had females there. Transwomen did not attempt to compete in women's sports, or take positions and awards reserved for women to supposedly level the playing field. The biggest inroad though is the capture of our language. Little by little the words women have always used for ourselves are being eroded, replaced by clumsy phrases. We are only permitted to use women unopposed when we are including biological males. The definition of woman is adult human female, that cannot include males no matter how much they wish it did. Even female is under appropriation by some. Emily Bridges in a TV interview claimed they didn't want special treatment, just to be treated like the other females. Emily Bridges is male, happily competing in male cycle racing a month before their first women's race. Emily will never be female, DNA cannot be changed. If female is taken away what do we have left? Language is our communication, words have to have defined meanings or they're useless as a means of communicating.
The sadness is the vast majority of transpeople want nothing to do with these misogynistic campaigners, they just want to live their lives quietly, but they will reap the fallout they don't deserve.
I am absolutely happy for people with different opinions to post here. It would be rather stupid if I wasnt as this is the internet. I can disagree with those opinions obviously as that is the nature of debate.
DD, but it isn't a debate or conversation. The GC only want opinions that agree with them. It's why mainly only GC post here. Because they don't want the hostile fire that goes along with it.
These posts literally drown out opposing voices.
Medical forms aren't for me, I don't keep them.
Even my medical notes from pregnancy weren't mine, I had to give then back. So I copied the information I wanted to keep and remember.
If I go in for an operation the form might say "is there any possibility you might be pregnant"
It might say that regardless of my personal circumstances or age
It might also say that for a man needing the same operation..
I don't know about anyone else but I detest filling out forms and unless we are going to have several different types of form and some sort of pre form or questionnaire to determine which of those forms is applicable to us...
Then it seems a sensible approach to me
And not really anything to do with banning a word at all
The person who gives birth is not always the mother and may not wish to be referred to that way. Surrogates as one example.
The person who gives birth is always female. Why should 99% of mothers have to be described as birth givers when they'd prefer to be described as mother even on generic forms? Of course this is a strategy for which Stonewall has been exposed. Their 'advice' to their champions has stated that non gendered (sexed) language should be employed, with the explicit reference to women and mothers being replaced by these clumsy phrases.
That doesn't ban the word "mother" though. It is just a box on a form that is generic to many situations.
Is that really what you think VS that a mother (giving birth) is reduced to a generic tick in a box?
VioletSky
No Mollygo I don't understand
Is the word mother banned or not?
Where is it banned?
It reminds me of when I was told I could bring a birthing partner to hospital with me... I just said I would bring the father. Others may bring a friend or a family member
I see that you are deliberately addressing those who respond to my posts and ignoring mine ?, but as I am polite and respectful I will respond anyway. The word is not being used in the hospital(s) referred to in the article. It is a short and clear post, so you can see that for yourself.
A birthing partner is one who accompanies the labouring mother. It is not the mother herself, so no confusion there either, unless you are determined to twist things until you find it.
The person who gives birth is not always the mother and may not wish to be referred to that way. Surrogates as one example.
That doesn't ban the word "mother" though. It is just a box on a form that is generic to many situations.
Many forms are generic
So he refers to himself as Dad, logically it would follow that he still believes the words "mother" or "father" or "mum" or "dad" still matter and it is fine for everyone to use them...
So not banned at all
It reminds me of when I was told I could bring a birthing partner to hospital with me... I just said I would bring the father. Others may bring a friend or a family member and that is an entirely reasonable use of words, because a birthing partner is just that, someone of either sex who supports the mother while she gives birth.
I was wondering where anyone has banned the word "mother"?
Those hospitals in the Australian trial that had been forcing women to sign their name in the box marked birthing parent rather than mother. The tweeter referred to doesn't have a problem with that, he supports it and thinks it makes it inclusive of LGBTQ++ yet he uses the word dad in his twitter bio. Why not sperm donator or non-birthing parent?
Mother has always been the term used for a female who gives birth to a child. In the UK it continues to be the term recorded on a birth certificate. It is this attempted elimination of the words that have always been used to denote females that is causing huge upset. The more the general public are waking up to these absurdities the greater the backlash is becoming. Who gets to decide what words are to be used? At the moment it seems a tiny minority are calling the shots. Why are women never consulted on these changes? Nobody in authority has, as far as I'm aware, ever canvassed general opinion on these changes. Are there any examples of male words being 'neutralised'?
Incidentally on the subject of inclusiveness and making everyone visible and valued, how many have noticed the huge publicity, banners, bunting etc celebrating July being "Disability Pride Month"? I haven't noticed it being celebrated in any supermarkets, banks, corporate advertising, newspapers etc but maybe I missed it.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
