TERFs, gender, sex, etc.

1356713

Comments

  • Also perseverance. If someone transitions to female, and years later, they are happy with it, am I going to express skepticism?
  • Also perseverance. If someone transitions to female, and years later, they are happy with it, am I going to express skepticism?

    I guess it sort-of depends what that means.

    For better or worse, I'm more likely to believe someone who has been through a lot of surgery than someone who doesn't appear to have made any changes at all.
  • I understand that. ‘Sex is real, it just isn’t binary’ takes away the power of their bullshit.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Sex is real. It just isn’t binary.

    Yes, but the transphobes are using the phrase as short-hand for "sex is real and trans is a delusion".

    I think that hits the nail on the head. And it's weird. Some feminists having fought all their lives against the delusions of male superiority, and some homosexuals having also fought against the arguments that same-sex attraction must also be some kind of delusion, yet nevertheless seem to find themselves believing that trans is a delusion.

    Why pathologise these differences? I don't see how they don't see the connection.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Sex is real. It just isn’t binary.

    Yes, but the transphobes are using the phrase as short-hand for "sex is real and trans is a delusion".

    I think that hits the nail on the head. And it's weird. Some feminists having fought all their lives against the delusions of male superiority, and some homosexuals having also fought against the arguments that same-sex attraction must also be some kind of delusion, yet nevertheless seem to find themselves believing that trans is a delusion.

    Why pathologise these differences? I don't see how they don't see the connection.
    It is simply how humans work. What I am is normal, there should be no question about that doesn't translate to seeing anything else as normal. Black communities should be the most LGBT friendly, instead some are among the least. Racism was a feature of American feminism, I would argue that it still is. Or, at best, it mirrors the racist demographics of America when it should be better. The acronym LGBTQ+ has more unity than the people it represents.
    People suck.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Sex is real. It just isn’t binary.

    Yes, but the transphobes are using the phrase as short-hand for "sex is real and trans is a delusion".

    I think that hits the nail on the head. And it's weird. Some feminists having fought all their lives against the delusions of male superiority, and some homosexuals having also fought against the arguments that same-sex attraction must also be some kind of delusion, yet nevertheless seem to find themselves believing that trans is a delusion.

    Why pathologise these differences? I don't see how they don't see the connection.

    It is very unreflective. I agree with lb's post. I also wonder if good old-fashioned British empiricism is lurking here, and the idea that the physical is real, and mental life is illusory. It's said that US feminism is less transphobic, but I don't really know. In fact, the emphasis on sex gets rid of gender, never mind trans.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Blahblah wrote: »

    For better or worse, I'm more likely to believe someone who has been through a lot of surgery than someone who doesn't appear to have made any changes at all.

    I might have used this as a yardstick too, but here the surgery is rarely available. The current government has a target of at least 3 operations for transwomen and 1 for transmen every 2 years.

    OK, so people who can afford it can go overseas, but that discriminates against people who don't have the money.

    There was a pregnant person in Dunedin standing for council elections who identified as male. I admit that I was and am confused about this, but then does a random stranger whom I will probably never meet owe me an explanation?

    It may be naieve (sp) of me, but my first reaction is to treat people as they wish to be treated, using the terminology they choose. I may make mistakes, but they come out of ignorance that is willing to be enlightened, ( but gently please). I have also sought out reading material, but that doesn't always help in a particular situation
  • Huia wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »

    For better or worse, I'm more likely to believe someone who has been through a lot of surgery than someone who doesn't appear to have made any changes at all.

    I might have used this as a yardstick too, but here the surgery is rarely available.
    Not every trans person wants surgery.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I understand that. ‘Sex is real, it just isn’t binary’ takes away the power of their bullshit.

    JK Rowling said the first half of that sentence, and the internet lost its collective mind.

    Frankly I doubt many people have the attention span to wait for the second half of the sentence.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I think J K Rowling is a clever, creative, person and it ought to be possible to have a decent conversation with her about her beliefs re trans. My betting is that her understanding is more nuanced than it appears.

    Twitter dog piling is simply an updated version of the exclusionary practice of 'panning' by which means people were driven out of towns and villages to the sound of pots and pans being banged together. No dialogue you see. Just anger and noise. And jumping on bandwagons.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I understand that. ‘Sex is real, it just isn’t binary’ takes away the power of their bullshit.

    JK Rowling said the first half of that sentence, and the internet lost its collective mind.

    Frankly I doubt many people have the attention span to wait for the second half of the sentence.
    Quite possibly. People are stupid.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I think J K Rowling is a clever, creative, person and it ought to be possible to have a decent conversation with her about her beliefs re trans. My betting is that her understanding is more nuanced than it appears.
    I doubt it is. It would be easy to correct if it were, and she didn't.

  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    The question posed by Barnabus62 of 'why not share?' and 'not making the connections' has a troubled history in feminism because of all the dubious associations with idealised utopian thinking about 'women' or dystopian  'man-hating' fantasies. Since 1973, trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) have opposed sharing restrooms using the same arguments.

    When I think back to feminist literature of the 1970s and '80s, radical feminist objections overlap with lesbian separatism, and again we are looking at essentialist sexualised or biologically determined positions and the insistence that only cis-women born as biological females have the right to safe spaces policed by women and kept for the exclusive use of women. What struck me looking back at 1980s separatist  'achievements' is how the proliferation of women-only bookshops, womyn-only music festivals, women's centres, shelters for battered women staffed by women and only allowing in male children under the age of five years, restaurants for women, women's hockey facilities and softball leagues, women-run rape crisis and counselling centres, lesbian separatist bars and social spaces, women-only land trusts and communities, women-only restrooms and  ablution facilities came to be uncritically accepted as positive and 'the new normal'. In some ways, these exclusionary spaces and movements echoed the pre-existing policies of men-only clubs, sports or military associations, bathhouses, recreational facilities, men's religious orders or monasteries. They had as rigid and narrow a focus and a similar aproach to biological gender and, often, heterosexism.

    The rad-fem separatist principle was clear enough: sharing spaces or privileges was not an option, not with heterosexual men, gay men, male children, or at times heterosexual women, or trans people.  Lesbian and radical feminist women demanded separation from men and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities that were male-defined, male-dominated, and operating for the benefit of males. As a cultural movement, separatism was successful in claiming spaces for (mostly white bourgeois) women to feel safe from male harassment or competition, but racism, class divisions, disabilities and intersectionality within feminism went unaddressed. As did the question of defining 'womanhood' and interrogating the utopian notions of women-only single gender spaces as automatically  'safer' or more accessible to poorer or differently abled women.

    Even as rape crisis centres and shelters for battered women challenged male sexual and 'domestic' violence,  intimate partner violence in LGBTQ couples and communities was often ignored. In my experience volunteering with women's organisations, this is still the case and the resistance to 'sharing' supposedly safe spaces such as restrooms is grounded in idealised thinking about  'women' as being ontologically different -- non-violent -- and therefore ethically superior to trans or male persons.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I think J K Rowling is a clever, creative, person and it ought to be possible to have a decent conversation with her about her beliefs re trans. My betting is that her understanding is more nuanced than it appears.
    I doubt it is. It would be easy to correct if it were, and she didn't.

    That presupposes she has an obligation to "correct" it.

    And that is a curious choice of verb. Is there anything wrong with the statement "sex is real"? I don't understand it to be your position that it's wrong given that you yourself said it. Merely that it's not a complete statement of the exhausting complexity of how sex and gender identity work.

    This is what's mystifying about the internet (well, actually "mystifying" might not be the best choice because I do understand it).... this is what's so utterly stupid about the internet. It expects a tweet that is primarily about whether or not someone ought to lose their job to include a complete dissertation on transgenderism.

    Frankly that's placing a ridiculous burden. What ought to be corrected is people's completely unrealistic expectations.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Twitter dog piling is simply an updated version of the exclusionary practice of 'panning' by which means people were driven out of towns and villages to the sound of pots and pans being banged together. No dialogue you see. Just anger and noise. And jumping on bandwagons.

    I don't know if you're a podcast listener at all, but one that I listen to had an extremely interesting episode about this behaviour and why it happens (and why the internet amplifies it so readily).

    https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767186846/screaming-into-the-void-how-outrage-is-hijacking-our-culture-and-our-minds

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    orfeo wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I think J K Rowling is a clever, creative, person and it ought to be possible to have a decent conversation with her about her beliefs re trans. My betting is that her understanding is more nuanced than it appears.
    I doubt it is. It would be easy to correct if it were, and she didn't.

    That presupposes she has an obligation to "correct" it.

    And that is a curious choice of verb. Is there anything wrong with the statement "sex is real"? I don't understand it to be your position that it's wrong given that you yourself said it. Merely that it's not a complete statement of the exhausting complexity of how sex and gender identity work.

    This is what's mystifying about the internet (well, actually "mystifying" might not be the best choice because I do understand it).... this is what's so utterly stupid about the internet. It expects a tweet that is primarily about whether or not someone ought to lose their job to include a complete dissertation on transgenderism.

    Frankly that's placing a ridiculous burden. What ought to be corrected is people's completely unrealistic expectations.

    My understanding of the actual case, is that the woman in question wasn’t fired, she just didn’t have her contract renewed. In the context of having been asked by her employer to add a disclaimer to her twitter bio after complaints from coworkers to management. She tweeted on the subject 150 times in one week.

    (Her blog.)
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Well if that's what in fact happened to her, fair enough. I note that the tweet does say "forced out of her job" rather than fired.

    Nevertheless I don't think that's the part of the tweet that has people up in arms.
  • J K Rowling didn't say "sex is real". She said: "But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?"

    The woman in question was in fact forced out of her job for saying men can't turn into women.

    I think the equation of the statements "men can't turn into women" with "sex is real" is what people are objecting to.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited December 2019
    It would take a lot to make me despair of the value of serious dialogue. On issues of sex and gender I believe that the majority of people would be willing to engage in serious dialogue. Dogpiling doesn't help.

    (ETA - orfeo's link is well worth looking at).
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    J K Rowling didn't say "sex is real". She said: "But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?"

    The woman in question was in fact forced out of her job for saying men can't turn into women.

    I think the equation of the statements "men can't turn into women" with "sex is real" is what people are objecting to.

    Yes, that's the issue. JK is distorting the case. I think Forstater was asking that her views should be described as an intellectual point of view that should be granted the status of a protected characteristic. The judge demurred, but inevitably on the internet this gets reduced to "sex is real".

    Ironically, Forstater seemed to be claiming under the Equality Act, however, she chose to ignore the protection afforded trans people, under that Act.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It would take a lot to make me despair of the value of serious dialogue. On issues of sex and gender I believe that the majority of people would be willing to engage in serious dialogue. Dogpiling doesn't help.

    (ETA - orfeo's link is well worth looking at).

    In general I agree. But in this particular case, I think Rowling is indulging in a degree of disingenuousness that is also not conducive to good debate - like people who say "defending traditional marriage" when they mean "gays can't get married".

    If she'd said "People shouldn't be sacked for asserting that men can't become women", or even "People shouldn't be sacked for expressing a controversial opinion on an issue where the Government has launched a consultation asking for opinions", I'd have more sympathy.
  • Disingenuous is the word that came to my mind. Also dishonest. Surely, she knows that it will spark heated debate, which of course, she keeps out of. It's also sad to read of people who are disappointed in her.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    One part of serious dialogue is not to impute disingenuosness. It can be tested.
  • I am still chewing over the biological slant of some feminists. Since Forstater is in the news, I turn to her blog, "women are people with female bodies". Of course, this disinherits trans women, so we get the various corollaries, trans women are men, I don't want a penis in my changing room, and so on.

    It's difficult to follow through all the arguments, but this seems to obliterate gender itself, well, at least, gender identity.

    I have taken gender identity to involve biological factors, but also cultural, psychological, and so on. Thus, being or feeling male is not homogeneous. Actually, I don't know what feeling male means, partly because it's vague.

    So I suppose "male = penis" has the virtue of simplicity and lashings of British empiricism, or really, Anglo-American. However, it's unsatifactory to me.

    We seem to have gone full circle from the rejection of biology, hence women are not breeders, (2nd wave feminism), to its readmittance.

    If you step back from the fray, it's an amazing debate, as it tackles the issues of what a person is, what value experience has, the role of behaviourism, psychology, and so on. Am I what you say I am? Or what I experience?

  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    One part of serious dialogue is not to impute disingenuosness. It can be tested.

    And another part of serious dialogue is not to attempt it on Twitter...

    I suspect that otherwise reasonable people (possibly including Rowling herself) sometimes wander into these debates without quite understanding what they’re getting into. There is some seriously nasty anti-transgender ideology underlying some of these debates which is not necessarily going to be obvious to the average cisgender person on the street.

  • Various articles around imputing racism and transphobia to Rowling's thrillers, the Strike series, written, amusingly under a male name. I don't know them very well, so I don't know if this is a confusion of author and characters. Some of the disappointment sounds like this, Harry Potter is about equality and fairness, and now you have ruined it! That's not me talking.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I think J K Rowling is a clever, creative, person and it ought to be possible to have a decent conversation with her about her beliefs re trans. My betting is that her understanding is more nuanced than it appears.
    I doubt it is. It would be easy to correct if it were, and she didn't.

    That presupposes she has an obligation to "correct" it.
    No, it doesn't. It means she can easily explain if what she meant was not what is being inferred. It is her choice to do so, just as it is the reader's choice to follow the very logical tracks to the reasonably assumed depot of transphobia.
    orfeo wrote: »
    And that is a curious choice of verb. Is there anything wrong with the statement "sex is real"? I don't understand it to be your position that it's wrong given that you yourself said it. Merely that it's not a complete statement of the exhausting complexity of how sex and gender identity work.
    Is there anything wrong a person saying they are proud to be white? Is there anything inherently wrong with "defending traditional marriage"? Or are they merely not "complete statements"?
    Those have contexts as does "sex is real". I said it, but added context. And I said it on a thread where my POV has been outlined, so it would be fairly obvious where I stand.


  • Well it struck me, if transphobia is to be a protected characteristic, (I have the right to say that trans women are men, cos sex is real), why not racism, I have the right to say, proud to be white?
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It would take a lot to make me despair of the value of serious dialogue. On issues of sex and gender I believe that the majority of people would be willing to engage in serious dialogue. Dogpiling doesn't help.

    (ETA - orfeo's link is well worth looking at).
    I didn't listen to the contained media.
    Outrage can be a problem and the internet is an amplifier. But that doesn't then mean that outrage is always inappropriate or OTT.
    And pointing out the implications of a statement isn't inherently outrage. Nor is being disappointed in a person for their position.
    Rowling has used her platform as a tool of social and political commentary. It is completely fair and normal to criticise the missteps as it is to applaud the positive ones.
    She has built a social media fanbase by defending vulnerable communities from ignorant attack. It is only completely and totally normal to point out a failing of the same towards another community.
  • Well it struck me, if transphobia is to be a protected characteristic, (I have the right to say that trans women are men, cos sex is real), why not racism, I have the right to say, proud to be white?
    You do have the right to say it. And we have the right to criticise it.
  • Isn't it healthy for everyone to be proud of who they are? As long as that doesn't spill over into disdain for those who are different.
  • I wonder if the issue is that it's a kind of dog-whistle? Like "all lives matter"? Not inherently wrong, when shorn of all context.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I wonder if the issue is that it's a kind of dog-whistle? Like "all lives matter"? Not inherently wrong, when shorn of all context.

    I think there are dog whistles flying around. Sex is real is one of them, unless amplified. But the notorious one was "woman = adult female human being" projected onto side of a building. Of course, then there is the disingenuous cry, but it's correct, isn't it?
  • Isn't it healthy for everyone to be proud of who they are? As long as that doesn't spill over into disdain for those who are different.
    That is the problem.
    Black pride is a response to society telling black people they are inferior. It is saying "We have naught to be ashamed of."
    White pride is telling other people they are inferior for not being white.
    People should not be ashamed of what they are, but expressions of pride are not equal.

  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    One part of serious dialogue is not to impute disingenuosness. It can be tested.

    I agree I am being judgemental, and I do try to adopt the maxim of "assume good faith" - but in this instance I can't see a good-faith reason why Rowling would assert someone lost their job for saying "sex is real", when in fact she lost it for saying "men can't become women".

    There is a valid conversation to be had in asking whether Forstater *ought* to have lost her job, but the start of that conversation should be an accurate account of what happened.
  • Are sex and gender being used as synonyms here? I thought one was biological and the other psychological. And the issue was one of equality of humans rights for all amidst our diversity.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    One part of serious dialogue is not to impute disingenuosness. It can be tested.

    I agree I am being judgemental, and I do try to adopt the maxim of "assume good faith" - but in this instance I can't see a good-faith reason why Rowling would assert someone lost their job for saying "sex is real", when in fact she lost it for saying "men can't become women".

    There is a valid conversation to be had in asking whether Forstater *ought* to have lost her job, but the start of that conversation should be an accurate account of what happened.

    And also, she didn’t - in the conventional sense - lose her job.
  • Are sex and gender being used as synonyms here? I thought one was biological and the other psychological. And the issue was one of equality of humans rights for all amidst our diversity.
    Sex is biological. It isn’t binary.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Are sex and gender being used as synonyms here? I thought one was biological and the other psychological. And the issue was one of equality of humans rights for all amidst our diversity.
    Sex is biological. It isn’t binary.
    Yes. Sex is a bimodal distributiom. It's binary for most, which causes great difficulty because binary means conventionally either one or the other, which doesn't do the exceptional justice. As previously discussed above. Mode meaning statistically most common. The modes for sex are male and female as we conventionally define them. Within human diversity we have some who are in between somewhere, and some who may be nowhere between the modes. This means "intersex" if I have it correctly.

    Felt identification, social behaviour, psychological identity may have someone's gender not match their biology. The relationship between biology and the psychology of this isn't clear at all, and there may be multiple explanations, not all is true for all who identify as transgender. There's also the social definition of health and disorder involved. Which adds to the diversity.
  • Read, or re-read, the links josephine and I posted regarding biological sex.
  • Are sex and gender being used as synonyms here?.

    They are deliberately confused by the anti-Trans side.

  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    KarlLB wrote: »
    They are deliberately confused by the anti-Trans side.

    I think it's more accurate to say that the anti-Trans side claim that they are the same thing. Most of the anti-Trans people claim that Trans just doesn't exist, because there's no such thing as gender that exists separate from sex. As a consequence of this, they think that trans people are confused and delusional, and treat a "man's claim to be a woman" the same way they would treat a man's claim to be a wombat.

    I don't understand how they square this claim with the fact that trans people all report rather similar ways of looking at themselves - but apparently their belief that they are right is stronger than any possible data.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It would take a lot to make me despair of the value of serious dialogue. On issues of sex and gender I believe that the majority of people would be willing to engage in serious dialogue. Dogpiling doesn't help.

    (ETA - orfeo's link is well worth looking at).
    I didn't listen to the contained media.
    Outrage can be a problem and the internet is an amplifier. But that doesn't then mean that outrage is always inappropriate or OTT.

    Well it would be worth listening to the contained media before attempting to comment on it.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited December 2019
    For one thing, it's not criticism of JKR that I have a problem with. It's people behaving as if one single comment is worth burning an entire career over.

    Because what social media does (which, lilbuddha, you might understand more if you'd listened to the podcast) is encourage the most extreme reactions to be the ones that circulate the most widely. It's the snappy, short, un-nuanced ones that get the most likes.

    Not that I expect JKR herself to care that much. Back in the day, right wing conservative folks who declared they were going to burn their books were told she already had the money from them buying the books. Left wing folks laughed and applauded and circulated the snappy comeback tweet. So I guess people who declare now that they're getting rid of her books from their lives because she's supposedly transphobic would get much the same response.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    They are deliberately confused by the anti-Trans side.

    I think it's more accurate to say that the anti-Trans side claim that they are the same thing. Most of the anti-Trans people claim that Trans just doesn't exist, because there's no such thing as gender that exists separate from sex. As a consequence of this, they think that trans people are confused and delusional, and treat a "man's claim to be a woman" the same way they would treat a man's claim to be a wombat.

    I don't understand how they square this claim with the fact that trans people all report rather similar ways of looking at themselves - but apparently their belief that they are right is stronger than any possible data.

    I think you're right. Gender disappears for some anti-trans people, or consists of unsavoury stereotypes.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It would take a lot to make me despair of the value of serious dialogue. On issues of sex and gender I believe that the majority of people would be willing to engage in serious dialogue. Dogpiling doesn't help.

    (ETA - orfeo's link is well worth looking at).
    I didn't listen to the contained media.
    Outrage can be a problem and the internet is an amplifier. But that doesn't then mean that outrage is always inappropriate or OTT.

    Well it would be worth listening to the contained media before attempting to comment on it.
    I'm not commenting on it. I am commenting on the implication that the reactions to JKR are inappropriate.

  • If you think being trans means "a man turning into a woman" then you have already defined yourself as against what real trains people say about themselves. Anything you say after that will presumably be predicated on this falsehood, and will come across as anti-trans. And if you bat your eyes and say you never meant to be anti-trans, it will come across as disingenuous. In fact a person who frames it that way hasn't really tried to listen to trans people, and is in fact anti-trans.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    For one thing, it's not criticism of JKR that I have a problem with. It's people behaving as if one single comment is worth burning an entire career over.

    Because what social media does (which, lilbuddha, you might understand more if you'd listened to the podcast) is encourage the most extreme reactions to be the ones that circulate the most widely. It's the snappy, short, un-nuanced ones that get the most likes.
    I know how social media works, which is one reason I participate in it so minimally.
    Not being a teen,* I do not own any of her books. I've watched the films, but mightn't view new ones because of this (apparent) stand.
    As far as comments on twitter, etc., I'd wager there are those supporting her in this without asking for a more nuanced or complete statement. Why are they not just as bad?
    The Occam's Razor Detective Agency would conclude that, thus far, the transphoboic interpretation most likely one.

    *That is the target market.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    This is a text-based bulletin board. If people choose to link to radio programmes or YouTube videos or whatever as an optional extra then that's fine, but there is no expectation that other posters should invest their scarce time in consuming lengthy audio/video media that one poster happens to think is great. If it's making a good argument then please do summarise that in text with appropriate quotes for discussion. Please don't post 42 minute radio documentaries and then attack people who don't invest their time in your choice of listening.

    Thanks
    Louise
    Epiphanies Host

  • mousethief wrote: »
    If you think being trans means "a man turning into a woman" then you have already defined yourself as against what real trains people say about themselves. Anything you say after that will presumably be predicated on this falsehood, and will come across as anti-trans. And if you bat your eyes and say you never meant to be anti-trans, it will come across as disingenuous. In fact a person who frames it that way hasn't really tried to listen to trans people, and is in fact anti-trans.

    Yes, this is a common clue to transphobic attitudes. Good point about not listening also.
Sign In or Register to comment.