This extract is from a longer email about a meeting and a few other matters.
***
I would like to offer some brief comments on the question you took on notice that alleged trans and women's rights were separate matters to be "balanced".
I'd like to begin with a James Baldwin quote, which is:
“We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
On that, the Lemkin Institute, has published a “Statement on the Genocidal Nature of the Gender Critical Movement’s Ideology and Practice” at https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement%E2%80%99sideology-and-practice, so it is important to be aware that attacks on, or criticisms of/calls for limitations on, trans rights MIGHT be fundamentally unacceptable - to check, I look for positive statements affirming transwomen are women, transmen are men, and acceptance of non-binary/gender fluid/etc, including use of correct pronouns, as a measure of whether or not this aspect needs to be examined further (if the positive statements and correct pronouns are present, I can just go straight to the merits or otherwise of their case; if not, it needs to be rejected or modified).
That sets one limit on discussions, but I also note (from an online human rights course offered by the Universidad Diego Portales via MOOC), that “according to an ancient Kantian maxim, the liberties and rights of others are the frontier which cannot be trespassed when exercising one’s rights”.
The issue that brings up is that it is, IMO, a false argument to try to separate women's and trans rights:
- the evidence is that where attacks on transwomen's rights have led to erosion of trans rights, that also leads to loss of women's rights with problems such as genital inspections, chromosomal testing (which is an area that shows biology is NOT just M or F), attacks on non-traditional women (e.g., butch women - including lesbians, but also heterosexual), and issues such as transmen (possibly bearded and heavily muscled) being
forced into women's spaces;
- a failure to consider the issue of transmen's rights can also be a result of the simplistic nature of this attempt to create an artificial division of rights;
- experiences when transwomen transition have helped to highlight the gender pay gap, and thus helped provide evidence for change;
- protecting trans rights enables women - and men - to be their authentic selves if that is not a traditional gender stereotype ... which means supporting trans rights helps to free others;
- in sports, there is significant evidence that an adequate period on hormones removes the differences - but that period may be several years (but does NOT have to start before puberty, which is the sort of nonsensical, genocidal requirement the Lemkin Institute's statement applies to). In any case, natural physical variations in characteristics is often of greater significance, as shown by a photo of the US women's basketball team beside another basketball team (see here).
It should also be noted that science - actual science by experts, not cherry picked or invented "papers" as done for things like theonotoriousoCasso"report"oandoinotheoUSA - supports the benefits of trans rights. That is particularly so for trans children, who benefit so greatly from things like puberty blockers thatoQueensland'socuttingooffoaccess is, in myoopinion,olife-threateningoandoabusive; - I note that public toilets labelled as for "women" have private cubicles, so there is no reasonable objection for any transwomen using those.
In addition, the allegations that transwomenoareoaoriskotoociswomen are false.
My personal opinion is that a lot of this style of response is, in truth, based on trying to perpetuate/reinforce old social gender stereotypes, includingo"prettyoprivilege",o"princessofantasies",oetc. - which is often surprisingly difficult to publicly argue against. - There is also the possibility of some resistance to trans rights being based on religion.
However:
- no religion has the right to impose their beliefs and ways on living on others without a specific exemption;
- many religions are SUPPORTIVE and INCLUSIVE of trans people, but their voices are often ignored, partly as they don't create enough media draw, partly as many people don't know they exist, and partly because those better religions are too quiet.
From a pragmatic point of view, my opinion is that a lot of the backlash really shows that legalistic human rights advocacy (which leads to changes in laws such as anti-discrimination protection, being able to correct identity documents, etc) needs to be combined with humanistic human rights advocacy - which provides education and humanisation of these issues.
In fact, one of the main benefits - that we knew of beforehand - in having legal protections introduced in Victoria in the year 2000 was that it would give our efforts to educate others as to the truth on trans issues more weight - credibility. (TGV has subsequently continued to do, IMO, outstanding work on this.)
I think the need for accurate knowledge generally has also been shown by the outstanding work of the Yoorrook Commission, and the principle of combining humanistic and legalistic human rights advocacy probably applies to many areas.
Given time, it would probably be possible to come up with a quick one sentence reply to questions such as that asked last night ... maybe something along the lines of: “Although there may be sensitivities based on life experiences of individuals to consider, science supports the importance of being inclusive of trans people and protecting them - and others - from discrimination, and evidence from places that have reversed that show that reversal can actually lead to very real harms for others, including ciswomen, so consideration needs to be careful and comprehensive.”.
***
Possible flaws
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
If you appreciated this post, please share it. I am now on SubStack, Patreon,
and you can support me at PayPal (or PayPal Repeating Support Options) or Ko-Fi
Any and all support will be greatly appreciated, and will aid me in continuing this work
Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).
#PsychicABetterWorld and may all that I do be of value and actively BPM used for and by the nonphysical BPM because #KindnessIsThePoint
Note that I am cutting back on aspects of my posts - see here, and Gnwmythr is pronounced new-MYTH-ear
Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2025 NO AI
I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence
(AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or
other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to
reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise replicate any part of
this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s
may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.
Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative
Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
.jpg)
