Transphobia

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a relatively new phenomenon, the entire transgender acceptance and activism being inputted into our society and laws. There is bound to be confusion.

This is fair. It happens every time with significant, progressive movements.

You can’t point the finger at those who suggest trans women shouldn’t be allowed in cis women’s prisons or sports and call them transphobic.

I didn't say that. I say those specific statements were transphobic. I think there's a lot of difference between people raising reasonable questions about protected spaces and people implying that trans people inherently pose a threat, or calling trans women "women" (in inverted commas), or suggesting that they need to have an associated surgery in order to "count" or "be safe".

It isn’t a simple matter and there’s a lot to take into consideration. Do you think people who hold these views are holding them because they hate transgender folks?

A lot of them, yes. I do. I genuinely believe that a lot of people raise these concerns merely because they wish to make the trans community look bad by association rather than because they want to promote reasonable discussion. Trying to parse the bad faith from the good faith can be difficult, however. It is rare that I engage with someone in a trans debate who takes the side of denying trans people access to women's spaces or sports who doesn't also then turn out to have some very troubling associations with regards to how they personally feel about trans people in general.

Rare, but not completely nonexistent, though.

 

[exchemist]

I would say calling trans women a "self-described trans "women"" would be pretty -phobic, yeah. As would requiring them to undergo gender corrective surgery, or to necessarily imply that being trans and having "the operation" need be synonymous, or implying that trans women somehow intrinsically pose a threat to cis women in prison.

Yes, I'd say those are transphobic statements.

We've just had a case in Scotland, in which a rapist chose to describe himself/herself, after the rapes, as a woman, so he/she could be sent to a women's prison. Good plan? That's what I meant by "self-described". Obviously this is abnormal, but it can happen if you don't have any safeguards about when to take seriously someone who has just announced he or she has changed sex. Any old perve can just announce he's a woman and start wandering into women's changing rooms. A lot of women really don't like the sound of that.

If you insist on labelling what I have written as "transphobic", then you are going to make adversaries of a large part of the population, quite unnecessarily. The activists need to make their case and listen to concerns, not try to shut down discussion of reasonable anxieties.

 

[Kfox]

Once again, no. They do not mean the same as "transphobia" and "xenophobia". Something can be "anti-" something while not necessarily being bigoted or prejudiced against said thing.

What constitutes transphobia and xenophobia as used is completely subjective. Transphobia and xenophobia are accusations of bigotry; but just because you are accused of something does not mean you are. The correct usage of the word Phobia is objective; based on facts; but when it is used in front of xeno, trans, or the countless other things people put in front of the word, it becomes subjective. Anti can be used the same way, bigotry isn't always involved, but neither is bigotry always involved when it comes to transphobia or xenophobia.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We've just had a case in Scotland, in which a rapist chose to describe himself/herself, after the rapes, as a woman, so he/she could be sent to a women's prison. Good plan?

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote. Where on earth have I said that people can self identify and, in all cases, be assigned wherever their self-associated gender dictates?

My issues were with the implications of your statements.

That's what I meant by "self-described". Obviously this is abnormal, but it can happen if you don't have any safeguards about when to take seriously someone who has just announced he or she has changed sex.

Then, obviously, we should have safeguards. I have yet to see people advocating for a lack of safeguards.

Any old perve can just announce he's a woman and start wandering into women's changing rooms.

Then it's a good thing nobody is advocating for that.

A lot of women really don't like the sound of that.

In my experience, "a lot of women" haven't really been asked.

If you insist on labelling what I have written as "transphobic", then you are going to make adversaries of a large part of the population, quite unnecessarily.

So unless I agree with your own interpretation of your statements, I am going to upset people who don't agree that transphobia is transphobia?

Good. I'm glad I don't agree with those people. I like being right.

The activists need to make their case and listen to concerns, not try to shut down discussion of reasonable anxieties.

You mean, like how you responded to the arguments I just made about the implications of your statement by ignoring everything I just wrote and instead suggesting that somehow by advocating against transphobic language I am instead arguing for the removal of safeguards against people abusing trans-positive language, and scare-mongering about how it puts women in danger?

We are making our case. The problem is that when people respond to us by constantly insisting that we have some kind of pro-perv agenda it doesn't exactly fill us with confidence that you are arguing with the best interests of women or the transgender community in mind. And when you necessarily associate trans women with "threats to women" it doesn't exactly make you look like you see trans people as anything else.

When you are relieved of this baseless notion that trans people are somehow intrinsically threatening to cis people, I can confidently say you are not transphobic. Until then, I will call a spade a spade.

The things you said are transphobic. That's just the truth.

 

[Father Heathen]

What constitutes transphobia and xenophobia as used is completely subjective. Transphobia and xenophobia are accusations of bigotry; but just because you are accused of something does not mean you are. The correct usage of the word Phobia is objective; based on facts; but when it is used in front of xeno, trans, or the countless other things people put in front of the word, it becomes subjective. Anti can be used the same way, bigotry isn't always involved, but neither is bigotry always involved when it comes to transphobia or xenophobia.

If you're irrationally adverse to something, both bigotry and the suffix phobia are fitting.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What constitutes transphobia and xenophobia as used is completely subjective.

Congratulations. You realised that language is subjective and we have to work together to identify what fits what label.

Transphobia and xenophobia are accusations of bigotry; but just because you are accused of something does not mean you are.

This is true. What makes it so is the justification BEHIND the label, not the label itself.

The correct usage of the word Phobia is objective;

No, it is not. Language is not objective. Never has been, never will be.

based on facts; but when it is used in front of xeno, trans, or the countless other things people put in front of the word, it becomes subjective.

This is such a bizarre, nonsensical take on language. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely as weird as "a word is objective, but adding other words to that word makes it subjective". That's plain absurd.

Anti can be used the same way, bigotry isn't always involved, but neither is bigotry always involved when it comes to transphobia or xenophobia.

Except that's how they are defined. The terms literally mean bigotry.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This is fair. It happens every time with significant, progressive movements.


I didn't say that. I say those specific statements were transphobic. I think there's a lot of difference between people raising reasonable questions about protected spaces and people implying that trans people inherently pose a threat, or calling trans women "women" (in inverted commas), or suggesting that they need to have an associated surgery in order to "count" or "be safe".

I don’t find calling those statements transphobic as helpful to a debate on it, either. But it also depends on what statements. I think it is fair to argue that prisons and sports should be separated by sex and not gender, but I also see reasonable points made about the contrary. I will agree though that assuming transgender people are dangerous is a similar mindset to people who think “blacks are dangerous.” And that putting quotes around “women” is being intentionally rude. I think the reason people suggest a post-op surgery as the place to draw the line is to some way prove legitimacy, as well as to prevent male-on-female rape in prison.

A lot of them, yes. I do. I genuinely believe that a lot of people raise these concerns merely because they wish to make the trans community look bad by association rather than because they want to promote reasonable discussion. Trying to parse the bad faith from the good faith can be difficult, however. It is rare that I engage with someone in a trans debate who takes the side of denying trans people access to women's spaces or sports who doesn't also then turn out to have some very troubling associations with regards to how they personally feel about trans people in general.

Rare, but not completely nonexistent, though.

 

[SomeRandom]

Just because I have seen the word "transphobia" pop up several times again.

To my understanding people have transphobia if they don't agree with the views on transgenders.

Do people also suffer from christianophobia, atheistphobia, democratphobia, republicanphobia, Trumpphobia, Bidenphobia, etc?

If "youns" is a made up word, transphobia definetly is IMO.

To be fair, literally every single word is made up. That’s how languages work
Also a static language is a dead one.
Definitions change over time and can differ depending on the context. Usually academic and layman speech.

“Homophobia” is basically defined (in a layman context) as someone who is basically a racist only against gay people. Don’t try that old talking point. I remember kids refuting that back in the day. Like come on.

 

[PureX]

This is a little long, but I think it's an excellent positive commentary on this issue of 'transphobia', and on dealing with it on a personal level.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Just because I have seen the word "transphobia" pop up several times again.

To my understanding people have transphobia if they don't agree with the views on transgenders.

Do people also suffer from christianophobia, atheistphobia, democratphobia, republicanphobia, Trumpphobia, Bidenphobia, etc?

If "youns" is a made up word, transphobia definetly is IMO.

There are certain forms of prejudice for which there are specific words and some for which there aren't. Examples of the former include prejudice against trans people (transphobia), homosexuals (homophobia), Jews (antisemitism), and women (misogyny or sexism). "Islamophobia" also refers to prejudice against Muslims, but I dislike that word because sometimes it conflates criticism of Islam with hatred of Muslims as people and shuts down necessary discussion about Islam.

To identify why some forms of prejudice, such as hatred of Christians or atheists, don't have a commonly used word ending in a -phobia suffix, I think we may need to examine the historical and cultural context in which such words arise. There's no deterministic process whereby every single manifestation of prejudice could have a separate word in the dictionary; words sometimes develop in response to surrounding circumstances.

Some languages also have specific words for abstract concepts, feelings, or other phenomena that other languages don't have. There's no equivalent word in Arabic for the German word Weltschmerz, nor an English equivalent of the Arabic expression masha'allah. Why? Because each of these languages have evolved in their own sociocultural and historical contexts. They converge in a lot of ways that are universal to the human condition, but there will always be some differences across cultures.

I see the origins of "transphobia," "homophobia," and other words similarly: they're not arbitrary, and they arose in their own unique contexts (e.g., there's no similar, widely used word for hatred of Democrats or atheists). While they—and many, many other words in various languages—are sometimes misused or weaponized in discourse, they still serve a vital function. I think that on a global scale, there are many more genuine instances of transphobia and homophobia, as well as laws derived from each, than there are false accusations of either. LGBT people still face significant legal and social threats in much of the world, after all.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It’s one thing to say that children shouldn’t undergo surgery or MTF women shouldn’t play in professional female sports. It is transphobia to say that transgender people are this or that to characterize anyone with gender dysphoria in a negative light.

I would say that both issues you mentioned are far from black and white, too. Sometimes medical professionals determine, following thorough assessment of a person, that surgery or hormone therapy is necessary, and a lot of trans people who started transitioning before puberty didn't regret it or change their minds later. The issue of trans women in sports also varies from sport to sport, although it remains a nascent area of research and therefore not settled at all.

I can see valid concerns regarding both issues, and I find certainty about either to be premature at best. This is why I don't agree with classifying all concerns about the medical transitioning of minors or trans women's participation in women's sports as "transphobic," nor do I agree with entirely opposing both under all circumstances because I think that position lacks consideration of the nuances and complexity within both issues.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I would say that both issues you mentioned are far from black and white, too. Sometimes medical professionals determine, following thorough assessment of a person, that surgery or hormone therapy is necessary, and a lot of trans people who started transitioning before puberty didn't regret it or change their minds later. The issue of trans women in sports also varies from sport to sport, although it remains a nascent area of research and therefore not settled at all.

I can see valid concerns regarding both issues, and I find certainty about either to be premature at best. This is why I don't agree with classifying all concerns about the medical transitioning of minors or trans women's participation in women's sports as "transphobic," nor do I agree with entirely opposing both under all circumstances because I think that position lacks consideration of the nuances and complexity within both issues.

I guess we can agree to disagree on the last sentence. There are two threads regarding both debates, and admittedly I am not well researched enough to participate. Not that my opinion matters on the subject in the grand scheme of things, I think society will figure it out on its own and I will remain unaffected as a cisgender.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To my understanding people have transphobia if they don't agree with the views on transgenders.

They are called transphobic if they have an aversion to or disregard for transgendered people. Since it's an irrational aversion, applies to every member of a law-abiding group, and is destructive, it's also bigotry.

Do people also suffer from christianophobia, atheistphobia, democratphobia, republicanphobia, Trumpphobia, Bidenphobia, etc?

You can use those words and be understood. I've been using the word atheophobe for years:

[1] "No, that's your atheophobia coming through."
[2] "Phobia in this context is not the psychiatric usage as with arachnophobia, claustrophobia, or agoraphobia, which means fear. In lay language, it means any aversion or dislike, and so we have the words homophobia, atheophobia, and islamophobia, none of which imply a neurosis."
[3] "You're describing your religion as manifest in the States. It's the chief source of homophobia and atheophobia there, two hateful, bigoted doctrines."

If "youns" is a made up word, transphobia definetly is IMO.

I guess you've already been told that all words are made up. It's an interesting objection. And that word is meaningful and useful in discussions such as this one.

To me, the only "transphobia" is denying that gender/sex dysphoria is real and thinking we're all just delusional or crazy. Honestly, a lot of that is probably a symptom of the times and all the nonsense in the media that's been presented about it lately

Where do you suppose all of that comes from? Are the humanists spreading that kind of thinking? Somebody is making life more difficult for a lot of people based in a bigotry that we are not born with.

This is part of a language game scam developed by the Left over many decades.

I can always count on you to make a tendentious political comment whatever the topic.

They origionally began using the word"phobia"out of context with homophobia, now everybody with an agenda is using the word to shame anyone who doesn't agree with them by attaching it to whatever pet behavior/idea they want to normalize.

Your grievance is noted. It's got to be difficult to live in such a world. One can only imagine the harm these words have done to your life.

If Phobia is a word to denote bigotry, then it has is to be used against all bigotry; IOW not just Trans-Phobia, & Xenophobia, but also Christian phobia, atheist phobia, republican phobia, and everything else.

OK.

Just because you might disagree with what many sociologists say about gender dysphoria, does not mean you are advocating for their harm.

I use the term cold bigotry fairly often to refer to bigotry without a feeling of hatred. One might be well-meaning and still be bigoted and harm others. I'm sure that my father loved my sister, but he didn't feel that college was the right place for a woman because she just wouldn't have the constitution to succeed, and besides, what use would an education be to her once she started having children. This is the cold bigotry of lowered expectations, which is not experienced as hatred. One can be advocating for harm without realizing it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I guess we can agree to disagree on the last sentence. There are two threads regarding both debates, and admittedly I am not well researched enough to participate. Not that my opinion matters on the subject in the grand scheme of things, I think society will figure it out on its own and I will remain unaffected as a cisgender.

If you don't see yourself as having done enough research to participate in the threads about either, what makes you disagree with the last sentence? As a rule of thumb, I think supporting a blanket ban on anything requires significant evidence and consideration. This concerns the medical well-being of an entire group, so I see that as even more reason to proceed with caution when adopting any stance on the topic.

 

[HonestJoe]

The same can be said for Trans phobia and Xeno phobia, but for whatever reason; people do use those words that way.

Sure, but as I said in my initial post here (#20), that is just how language and common usage of it naturally changes and evolves. Nobody can or does control which words or phrases become commonly used and which never catch on or fade out of use. None of it is that specific to this topic.

Anti-Semitism is used to mean anti-Jewish (despite Semite referring to a much wider grouping, somewhat ironically including most Arabs) but there is no equivalent term for any other faith. There are a whole load of linguistic, socio-political, historical and frankly random reasons for that, but it isn't something anyone chose to make happen (or could have done so). It just did.

Less controversially, there is the mess that has flammable and inflammable coming to mean the same thing. Again, a whole line of circumstances and random factors led to that situation, but nobody consciously made it happen.

 

[JDMS]

If you don't see yourself as having done enough research to participate in the threads about either, what makes you disagree with the last sentence? As a rule of thumb, I think supporting a blanket ban on anything requires significant evidence and consideration. This concerns the medical well-being of an entire group, so I see that as even more reason to proceed with caution when adopting any stance on the topic.

I agree. Even I myself as a strong proponent of transgender rights, and a transgender person myself, do not have a real stance on the issue of trans people in sports and prisons. Not for a lack of personal research on those topics, but because the real, professional research isn't adequate for anyone to make decisions on, yet.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If you don't see yourself as having done enough research to participate in the threads about either, what makes you disagree with the last sentence? As a rule of thumb, I think supporting a blanket ban on anything requires significant evidence and consideration. This concerns the medical well-being of an entire group, so I see that as even more reason to proceed with caution when adopting any stance on the topic.

The issue is, I've seen arguments from both sides and can find backings for both sides. Detransitioners are not a rare breed, and their stories are frightening and legitimate, they need to be taken into consideration. I also see that there is a need to deal with the suicides of young people with gender dysphoria. I don't believe allowing minors to transition is the correct answer, at least not until there are more security measures in place to prevent mistakes - there are a lot of people in the medical field who rush the process and honestly I don't trust that the medical field fully understands gender dysphoria enough to diagnose it so easily to make permanent solutions like this.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote. Where on earth have I said that people can self identify and, in all cases, be assigned wherever their self-associated gender dictates?

My issues were with the implications of your statements.


Then, obviously, we should have safeguards. I have yet to see people advocating for a lack of safeguards.


Then it's a good thing nobody is advocating for that.


In my experience, "a lot of women" haven't really been asked.


So unless I agree with your own interpretation of your statements, I am going to upset people who don't agree that transphobia is transphobia?

Good. I'm glad I don't agree with those people. I like being right.


You mean, like how you responded to the arguments I just made about the implications of your statement by ignoring everything I just wrote and instead suggesting that somehow by advocating against transphobic language I am instead arguing for the removal of safeguards against people abusing trans-positive language, and scare-mongering about how it puts women in danger?

We are making our case. The problem is that when people respond to us by constantly insisting that we have some kind of pro-perv agenda it doesn't exactly fill us with confidence that you are arguing with the best interests of women or the transgender community in mind. And when you necessarily associate trans women with "threats to women" it doesn't exactly make you look like you see trans people as anything else.

When you are relieved of this baseless notion that trans people are somehow intrinsically threatening to cis people, I can confidently say you are not transphobic. Until then, I will call a spade a spade.

The things you said are transphobic. That's just the truth.

You said: "I would say calling trans women a "self-described trans "women"" would be pretty -phobic, yeah."

What did you mean by that? It seems to me you may have have jumped to a wrong conclusion about what I was saying.

 

[PureX]

The issue is, I've seen arguments from both sides and can find backings for both sides. Detransitioners are not a rare breed, and their stories are frightening and legitimate, they need to be taken into consideration. I also see that there is a need to deal with the suicides of young people with gender dysphoria. I don't believe allowing minors to transition is the correct answer, at least not until there are more security measures in place to prevent mistakes - there are a lot of people in the medical field who rush the process and honestly I don't trust that the medical field fully understands gender dysphoria enough to diagnose it so easily to make permanent solutions like this.

I think we need to encourage these folks to talk to each other, and to share their experiences, information, strength, and hope with each other. And to do that we need to create safe environments for them to meet and talk freely WITHOUT OUR JUDGMENT (meaning the rest of society).

Seems everyone wants to weigh in and pass judgment and impose controls when they have no idea what they're talking about. As usual.

 

[exchemist]

The issue is, I've seen arguments from both sides and can find backings for both sides. Detransitioners are not a rare breed, and their stories are frightening and legitimate, they need to be taken into consideration. I also see that there is a need to deal with the suicides of young people with gender dysphoria. I don't believe allowing minors to transition is the correct answer, at least not until there are more security measures in place to prevent mistakes - there are a lot of people in the medical field who rush the process and honestly I don't trust that the medical field fully understands gender dysphoria enough to diagnose it so easily to make permanent solutions like this.

What's a detransitioner?