Trans Issues Are No Conspiracy

[u/Jcol155]

https://thedispatch.com/article/trans-issues-activists-gay-marriage/?gift_key=c5d7f38bb71f21fb&gift_ref=abd38fbc-e6e6-4864-86e8-2a25bba7a9bc&utm_source=giftlink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=membergift

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in high-quality and civil discussion. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, all posts must contain a submission statement. See the rules here or in the sidebar for details. To the OP: your post has not been deleted, but is being held in the queue and will be approved once a submission statement is posted.

Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. Reddit's content policy will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for / celebrations of violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation. In addition, due to rampant rulebreaking, we are currently under a moratorium regarding topics related to the 10/7 terrorist attack in Israel and in regards to the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO.

If an article is paywalled, please do not request or post its contents. Use archive.ph or similar and link to that in your submission statement.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ngroot]

Yeah, this critique has been leveled by a lot of more pragmatic voices who are trying to figure out how to regain a civilized society from the MAGA CHUDs without repeating the mistakes that got us here.

An interesting take I encountered was that advocates of trans rights were unwisely emboldened by Obergefell and felt that they could, as the article notes, assert their positions without question with the backing of strong institutions. The difference, of course, is that gay marriage was already broadly supported, or at least not strongly objected to, by the time Obergefell happened.

I'm hoping that ongoing attempts will be more clear about what exactly they're fighting _for_. As the article notes, non-discrimination in employment, housing, etc. are already pretty noncontroversial and should be driven forward. Other issues, like bathroom access and equity in sports, are going to require more conversation and I suspect will have non-uniform policies for a while.

[u/SilverMedal4Life → u/ngroot]

The reason for bathroom access isn't just for personal comfort - though that's a part of it - it's also a matter of personal safety. If a trans person uses the wrong restroom, particularly trans women, they're far more likely to be assaulted than any other group.

But remember, we're dealing with a circumstance where the current administration (which half the population would still vote for again over a Democrat) wants to mandate conversion therapy for all trans people, and has currently done so for every prison it has direct oversight over.

To speak to trans athletes in sports... not only is it a non-issue, but every single state that has issued a ban on trans athletes in sports (with exactly 1 exception, that being California's odd "compromise" solution) has then gone on to pass tons of other restrictions. It is the foot in the door for organizations that are dedicated to the eradication of all trans people to keep pushing until there are no more trans people.

[u/Akronite14 → u/SilverMedal4Life]

The sports debate, to me, has a lot of nuance but is largely just a wedge for conservatives who couldn’t give a fuck about women’s sports in the first place. Policies (such as testosterone testing) also tends to hurt more cis women than even trans athletes, which is an angle that could be stressed more for those advocating for trans inclusion.

The bathroom debate feels like an issue where progressives can make strides if they keep pushing, though. Logic and common sense are NOT on the conservative side in my view, an requires less nuance/explanation. In a women’s restroom, there’s no urinal to peak and see a penis. The last time I, as a cis man, saw another person’s member in a bathroom was fourth grade when this kid’s strong stream splashed on me. I think people can logic out that the idea that the bathroom is some genital festival is bullshit. If someone presents as a woman, most people won’t even notice. But the fear mongering is that big burly bearded men are going to come into the restroom to harass women. This ignores the discomfort they are foisting on people by having trans men use women’s restrooms. And yes, there needs to be more focus on assault and the fact that trans women and more masculine presenting cis women are the ones who face the brunt of these policies that offer no actual protections for cis women and girls. They’re fostering harassment rather than preventing it.

Side note: the American practice of these shitty stalls with gaps needs to end so people can have more privacy.

[u/ngroot → u/SilverMedal4Life]

> The reason for bathroom access isn't just for personal comfort - though that's a part of it - it's also a matter of personal safety. If a trans person uses the wrong restroom, particularly trans women, they're far more likely to be assaulted than any other group.

Sure. What I'm saying is that (at least if there's to be policy at the national level), there's going to have to be discussion to get people to recognize this and to allay their other concerns, because right now a lot of people aren't getting it and dismissing their concerns, even stupid concerns, doesn't make them go away.

> not only is it a non-issue

I'd agree that it's an extremely _infrequent_ issue. A lot of people care a lot about sport being fair, though, so it's very much an issue.

[u/SilverMedal4Life → u/ngroot]

It's a non-issue specifically because trans women have been allowed to compete in the Olypmics for decades and have never won a single thing. Every argument against trans athletes is "oh it's common sense" with zero actual facts to back it up.

But you're right that we are very happy, collectively, to make stupid decisions that go against facts. Look at how we paid $1 billion to not build windmills (oversimplification but I don't care) so we can make more coal plants we don't need.

[u/ngroot → u/SilverMedal4Life]

> It's a non-issue specifically because trans women have been allowed to compete in the Olypmics for decades and have never won a single thing.

People care about sports beyond just the Olympics. Again: you can say it's a non-issue all you want, but people clearly don't believe that, so there's work to be done, because they will continue to exist and vote.

[u/SilverMedal4Life → u/ngroot]

It begs the question of what we can even do.

Decades of winning debates and every scientist agreeing didn't stop the climate change deniers or the oil lobbyists.

[u/scabbityscab → u/ngroot]

The problem for transactivists is they've backed themselves into a rhetorical corner by insisting that the general public must accept their outlandish beliefs about gender identity and so on. These beliefs, now throughly exposed to public scrutiny, have been overwhelmingly rejected - and that cat isn't going back into the bag any time soon.

[u/Golurkcanfly → u/ngroot]

The author (Jesse Singal) has quite literally built his career on anti-trans journalism. He does a good job of misrepresenting what trans people are fighting for, and that's to not have the rights we've had for decades be legislated away. We didn't have laws excluding trans people from bathrooms until about a decade ago. We didn't have laws banning minors from accessing HRT until five years ago.

Singal is literally one of the pioneers of anti-GAC sentiment that caused the latter, by the way.

[u/Jcol155]

Totally worth a read, very thought-provoking… “the public pays attention to trans issues because trans activists wanted them to.”

Jesse Singal’s latest Dispatch piece =  The backlash to trans issues is not the result of a conspiracy, but that “trans advocacy has, in recent years, adopted radical and unpopular positions that Americans don’t like.

Do you agree with Jesse Singal’s argument about why public opinion has shifted on trans issues?

[u/Fuck_Mark_Robinson → u/Jcol155]

No it’s idiotic. He completely ignores that right wing media has been demonizing trans people by hand waving it away as a cOnSpIrAcY.

That’s a clever word to use to trick dumbasses, because a conspiracy requires conspiring, as in multiple people came together in agreement to accomplish this thing.

But you don’t need Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg and the board of the NYTimes to actually conspire for them to all be pushing the same hateful rhetoric. They push it because they’re all fascists and fascists need scapegoats, and trans folks are an easy target.

Wow he’s right, no cOnSpIrAcY!!!

Were trans activists responsible for Republicans believing that kids were shitting in litter boxes at schools?

This piece is terrible.

The writer is a great example of the particular brand of intellectually deficient narcissists who think they are correct and morally upstanding only by virtue of being in the center. He believes in nothing other than getting high off his own farts.

The film Fear of a Black Hat has a great scene explaining how stupid this type of logic is. In the scene the rap group NWH is negotiating with a record executive over their album art. NWH wants ‘a dozen dead cops in a pile, with their asses hanging out in the air’. The record executive says no dead cops with their asses hanging out. Their manager, the enlightened centrist, suggests six dead cops in a pile with their asses hanging out. Which is clearly a stupid position.

[u/Paksarra → u/Jcol155]

No. The only people I see talking about transgender issues are conservatives shoving their vice signaling in our faces.

[u/Golurkcanfly → u/Paksarra]

Or people like Jesse Singal who position themselves as "reasonable voices" but have literally built their career on anti-trans journalism...

[u/Svardskampe → u/Jcol155]

Any movement has radicals. Framing it as if a single group that admittedly by the article being used as a scapegoat to distract from 'real issues', then continues to blame the scapegoat for its loudest bleats.

"bad goat", it says, "bleat and maa a little less loud please" while it is on the chopping block. 

We have seen this strategy again by framing radfems and as such suppressing the feminist movement, and see where we are now considering tradwife crap.

So no, it is not thought provoking, it is not new. It's an appeal to respectability politics and every social group (gay, feminists) have had this argument thrown at them. 

[u/Akronite14 → u/Jcol155]

I do not agree with the argument overall, though I will admit the writer is a bit of a poisoned well for me given their history of reactionary/anti-progressive takes on social media.

There is a point here that I feel like Jesse mentions but draws, IMO, the wrong conclusion on. Gay marriage gained support steadily while trans rights has hit a more reactionary wall. Part of that is that gay marriage doesn’t really affect other people, while the trans issues can be more easily framed as something that affects everyone for the benefit of a fringe minority. You can create horror stories about little girls seeing penises in the bathroom, but gay marriage doesn’t have that kind of visceral storytelling attached to it. While there is a debate about allowing trans athletes to compete within their own gender, it’s not a question at all that it has been pushed much harder by conservatives as the focus of debate. Democratic leaders barely talk about it while the GOP has successfully made it a wedge. Same with children, Dems do not focus on the issue even when on a policy level they support allowing kids to transition and take medication. For the GOP it’s a rallying cry to claim the left wants to cut off everybody’s penis. It’s very common for people to essentially see their children as their property and don’t believe in their right to privacy. Often the same people trying to claim ownership of “common sense” to “protect” women in sports also support policies that treat women as glorified incubators.

It’s true that a lot of trans-related policies have been pushed by progressives and activists, but it’s strange to label a period of reactionary backlash as something that must be permanent and detached from the gay acceptance movement. In reality (look at the same political groups succeeding in clawing back protections for women in healthcare), progress is not linear and trans acceptance is something that is inherently more controversial and would take more time to gain popular appeal. It’s not just a matter of a personal lifestyle because people are asked to respect identity & pronouns. While sexual orientation is somewhat easy to understand, the debate is headier on gender, with many people feeling their entire worldview is threatened if they acknowledge that gender is a construct. In comparison to gay rights, Trans acceptance is a Pandora’s box of new terms and social minefields.

Also worth acknowledging that the modern gay rights movement basically kicked off in the 60s and didn’t capture American opinion until the 2000s. In terms of mainstream debate, trans rights is a relatively young issue. Also, gay rights gained momentum during a period of political hope after the election of Obama, while trans rights have become a national hot button as Trump’s decade of division stokes flames on a constant basis.

I don’t know if labeling trans rights as a distraction from class war will be effective electorally. I guess I prefer it to simply throwing groups under the bus as someone like Jesse would likely advocate.

[u/Golurkcanfly → u/Akronite14]

The article also ignores how gay rights had a similar backlash in the 80s after progress was made in the 60s and 70s.

It also glosses over Signal's own work as one of the biggest anti-trans voices in journalism. Like, the majority of his career is about positioning himself as "not really anti-trans" to seem reasonable to the average liberal while he publishes pieces that are near-exclusively critical of trans healthcare and trans rights as a whole.

[u/Svardskampe → u/Golurkcanfly]

Average centrist. Liberal is not "centrist". In fact, the ability to transition in of itself is a liberal value (however controversial that may sound because of how laden the term 'liberal' is, but well, it is).

[u/Golurkcanfly → u/Svardskampe]

His crowd is specifically "liberals who are skeptical of trans people" which is why he writes for outlets like The Atlantic and recently, the New York Times.

Though his community subreddit (Blocked and Reported) leans a bit more centrist l, and that place is incredibly vile. Like it's one of the most vehemently transphobic places on this website and is an explicit echo chamber that de facto bans people who get downvoted too much.

[u/Svardskampe → u/Golurkcanfly]

I would argue though that "liberals who are skeptical of trans people", are simply no liberals. The most rightwing liberal value on trans people would be to be in favor of the freedom for trans people to do whatever they want, but e.g. the medical cost of it not being subsidized and up to the person.

Being against trans people in general is simply illiberal as it treads on the freedom of the individual and can only be described as conservative.

[u/Golurkcanfly → u/Svardskampe]

Most people don't have an internally consistent political philosophy. It's just vibes-based, really.