Transphobia

[Kfox]

(my emphasis)

That might not have been your intention but they are the words you used. Which is, interestingly, the wider point here.

Yeah; looking back I should have phrased it, it can be used for all bigotry. I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote that and didn't have time to proof read it

 

[Kfox]

Whereas using a word to denote a strong fear of something is... objective?

Fear can be demonstrated as true or not; making it objective.

Words and their usage and what they apply to is always subjective.

I disagree. Consider the words used to comprise the phrase: there is a tree on my front lawn. That phrase is objectively true because the existence of that tree can be demonstrated as existing

Are you under the misunderstanding that because there is a psychological phenomenon that we also use the word "phobia" for, that this usage is somehow more "objective" than the use of the term in broader contexts?

Yes. If phobia is used to describe something that can be demonstrated empirically, that makes it more objective than using it for something based on personal opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was not suggesting they must be used, I was suggesting Xenophobia or trans phobia makes about as much sense as using Christian Phobia or Atheist phobia

The problem is that they don't make sense to use, is subjective and not objective.

 

[Kfox]

The problem is that they don't make sense to use, is subjective and not objective.

I agree none of it makes sense, that was not my point. My point is if you can use it for one, you should be able to use it for the other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree none of it makes sense, that was not my point. My point is if you can use it for one, you should be able to use it for the other.

But that you agree, is subjective.
The problem is that you use a subjective judgment to declare only the objective relevant, but that it is relevant, is subjective and thus not relevant. You have made a self-referring negation, that makes itself irrelevant according to itself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Fear can be demonstrated as true or not; making it objective.

No, it isn't. Fear responses are varied, manifest in many different forms, have many different levels, and not all fear responses are considered phobias.

I disagree. Consider the words used to comprise the phrase: there is a tree on my front lawn. That phrase is objectively true because the existence of that tree can be demonstrated as existing

Except:
What counts as a "tree"?
What is a "lawn"?
What distinguishes a "front" lawn from a "non-front" lawn?

The meanings we assign to these terms and this phrasing IS subjective.

Yes. If phobia is used to describe something that can be demonstrated empirically, that makes it more objective than using it for something based on personal opinion.

Good, because you can demonstrate transphobia empirically. Or, at least, just as empirically as you can demonstrate "fear".

 

[Debater Slayer]

What you say is partially true, but a bit of an overstatement too imo.

Using another example, many people here have complained about the term New Atheism, because evangelical anti-theism wasn’t new. Some went as far as pretending the term was incomprehensible and nonsensical, when it is quite obvious they understood the term’s referent.

As the term is a proper noun (phrase) and not separate adjective + noun it doesn’t matter whether it is literally a new form of atheism, just that it has an identifiable referent.

Claiming the term doesn’t make sense because you refuse to treat it as a proper noun and insist it must be treated as 2 separate words is obtuse and silly.

Saying “I understand what it means but find the term misleading so I don’t like using it” is fair enough.

Many people don’t like -phobia suffixes as they find them misleading and prejudicial and thus dislike using them.

It’s silly to pretend it is difficult to understand that the meaning of phobia has expanded to cover prejudice, but it is reasonable to dislike this expansion and feel the connotations of the suffix are an impediment to good faith discussion.

While some people may not want there to be a label, most people would be fine with alternative labels like anti-trans bigotry.

I’d say that is a perfectly reasonable position to hold.

In a practical sense, what would be the difference between the terms "transphobia" and "anti-trans bigotry"? In what context would someone who misused one not simply also misuse the other?

 

[Augustus]

In a practical sense, what would be the difference between the terms "transphobia" and "anti-trans bigotry"? In what context would someone who misused one not simply also misuse the other?

I’d say the phobic suffix makes such misuse a bit easier as its meaning is a bit fuzzier.

“It’s transphobic to say transwomen have an unfair advantage in women’s sports.”

“It’s anti-trans bigotry to say transwomen have an unfair advantage in women’s sports.”

Imo the latter stands out more as being fallacious and an attempt to stifle legitimate discussion.

It’s more clear with something like Islamophobic where it potentially obscures the difference between legitimate criticism of an ideology and illegitimate prejudice against people.

Anti-Muslim bigotry makes this harder.

 

[Kfox]

But that you agree, is subjective.
The problem is that you use a subjective judgment to declare only the objective relevant, but that it is relevant, is subjective and thus not relevant.

I never suggested that which is subjective is not relevant. It might not be as authentic as that which is objective, but even if it's only relevant to the person believing it, it has relevance. But this has nothing to do with my point. My point is, if phobia can be applied to (example) Islam, or trans it can be applied to Christians and Democrats.

 

[Kfox]

No, it isn't. Fear responses are varied, manifest in many different forms, have many different levels, and not all fear responses are considered phobias.

The person experiencing fear knows it.

Except:
What counts as a "tree"?

Whatever description it has, it fits what sits on my lawn

What is a "lawn"?

A patch of grass in front of my home

What distinguishes a "front" lawn from a "non-front" lawn?

It's location

The meanings we assign to these terms and this phrasing IS subjective.

Not in this case, otherwise such communication would be impossible

Good, because you can demonstrate transphobia empirically. Or, at least, just as empirically as you can demonstrate "fear".

If the person says they are not transphobic, how can you demonstrate empirically that they are?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I’d say the phobic suffix makes such misuse a bit easier as its meaning is a bit fuzzier.

“It’s transphobic to say transwomen have an unfair advantage in women’s sports.”

“It’s anti-trans bigotry to say transwomen have an unfair advantage in women’s sports.”

Imo the latter stands out more as being fallacious and an attempt to stifle legitimate discussion.

It’s more clear with something like Islamophobic where it potentially obscures the difference between legitimate criticism of an ideology and illegitimate prejudice against people.

Anti-Muslim bigotry makes this harder.

I think "Islamophobia" is by far the clearest example of a vague and weaponized term of this nature, but I don't see the same level of distinction between "transphobia" and "anti-trans bigotry." I suspect that anyone who uses one of the terms, whether accurately or not, will use the other in the same way.

As you said, "anti-Muslim bigotry" specifies that the bigotry is toward Muslims as people, whereas "Islamophobia" obscures the distinction between the religion and its followers. This is why I think the term is problematic in a way not shared by most similar terms.

 

[Augustus]

bigotry." I suspect that anyone who uses one of the terms, whether accurately or not, will use the other in the same way.

They will likely use thebterms the same way, but, imo, the misuse stands out more clearly.

Not that it will ever come to be used as 3 word terms are too inconvenient when a single word can be coined.

I imagine we’ll see a number of new phobias enter common usage over the coming years.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree. I detest the lazy use of the suffix "phobia". The trans issue is very new and presents a number of problems. The stigmatising of people that raise these issues, and argue for caution in developing policy, as "transphobic" is just a way to shut down discussions that need to be had and browbeating everyone into accepting the point of view of the activists.

Clearly phobiaphobic.










Sorry, I'm immature and couldn't resist.

 

[exchemist]

I think "Islamophobia" is by far the clearest example of a vague and weaponized term of this nature, but I don't see the same level of distinction between "transphobia" and "anti-trans bigotry." I suspect that anyone who uses one of the terms, whether accurately or not, will use the other in the same way.

As you said, "anti-Muslim bigotry" specifies that the bigotry is toward Muslims as people, whereas "Islamophobia" obscures the distinction between the religion and its followers. This is why I think the term is problematic in a way not shared by most similar terms.

I'm with @Augustus on this one. Sticking the pejorative label "phobia" on something suggests the people in question are self-evidently irrational, not worthy of any understanding and can be peremptorily dismissed. Whereas if you speak of "bigotry", or better yet, "prejudice", that allows for some attempt to understand why people think and act as they do, instead of writing them off as nutcases.

Anti-muslim prejudice is a great example. There are perfectly understandable reasons why people in some places and situations can suffer from this, even if one does not agree with them. To overcome the prejudice, one needs to understand what causes it and thus what can mitigate it. Whereas to simply call them "islamophobes" conveniently puts them beyond the pale of rational discussion. This may be comforting to the speaker in that it saves him or her the effort of any engagement with the issue, but it's basically lazy and and just further exacerbates division. Rather like people with rightwing politics who stick the ghastly label "woke" on issues to which they are unsympathetic.

My interaction on this thread with @ImmortalFlame is a case in point. I was trying to explain there can be legitimate issues with some people that want to be accepted as women, just on their say-so (i.e. not having had the operation), giving the example of the Scottish rapist who decided to be a woman so he would be sent to a woman's prison. However IF immediately labelled my post "transphobic" and failed to make an attempt to understand my point.

P.S. Here, right on cue, is a further illustration of the non-trivial issues involved: Rishi Sunak to consider law change to protect ‘biological’ women

 

[Kfox]

I'm with @Augustus on this one. Sticking the pejorative label "phobia" on something suggests the people in question are self-evidently irrational, not worthy of any understanding and can be peremptorily dismissed. Whereas if you speak of "bigotry", or better yet, "prejudice", that allows for some attempt to understand why people think and act as they do, instead of writing them off as nutcases.

Anti-muslim prejudice is a great example. There are perfectly understandable reasons why people in some places and situations can suffer from this, even if one does not agree with them. To overcome the prejudice, one needs to understand what causes it and thus what can mitigate it. Whereas to simply call them "islamophobes" conveniently puts them beyond the pale of rational discussion. This may be comforting to the speaker in that it saves him or her the effort of any engagement with the issue, but it's basically lazy and and just further exacerbates division. Rather like people with rightwing politics who stick the ghastly label "woke" on issues to which they are unsympathetic.

I think any use of the term "phobia" other than it's original definition; does this; whether it's homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia, etc all of them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm with @Augustus on this one. Sticking the pejorative label "phobia" on something suggests the people in question are self-evidently irrational, not worthy of any understanding and can be peremptorily dismissed. Whereas if you speak of "bigotry", or better yet, "prejudice", that allows for some attempt to understand why people think and act as they do, instead of writing them off as nutcases.

Anti-muslim prejudice is a great example. There are perfectly understandable reasons why people in some places and situations can suffer from this, even if one does not agree with them. To overcome the prejudice, one needs to understand what causes it and thus what can mitigate it. Whereas to simply call them "islamophobes" conveniently puts them beyond the pale of rational discussion. This may be comforting to the speaker in that it saves him or her the effort of any engagement with the issue, but it's basically lazy and and just further exacerbates division. Rather like people with rightwing politics who stick the ghastly label "woke" on issues to which they are unsympathetic.

My interaction on this thread with @ImmortalFlame is a case in point. I was trying to explain there can be legitimate issues with some people that want to be accepted as women, just on their say-so (i.e. not having had the operation), giving the example of the Scottish rapist who decided to be a woman so he would be sent to a woman's prison. However IF immediately labelled my post "transphobic" and failed to make an attempt to understand my point.

P.S. Here, right on cue, is a further illustration of the non-trivial issues involved: Rishi Sunak to consider law change to protect ‘biological’ women

It's definitely a complicated issue, and I don't envy the officials and medical experts who need to come up with answers to some of the gray areas where they have to balance trans rights with reducing the potential for abuse of certain laws. The above link mentions that if the law change goes through, there may be potential exclusion of all trans women from women's sports even if there are no concerns about fairness, for instance. I'm not sure how to work around that or around situations where genuine pre-op trans women request access to women's spaces. I don't think I would find it fair for a law to exclude the vast majority who are harmless because of a few malefactors.

I have seen "bigotry" used as a demonizing word to shut down discussions, which is part of why I'm not sure that it would be an improvement over any of the -phobia terms. There's also the problem of opportunistic bigotry: you and I may have valid concerns about, say, some parts of mainstream Sunni Islamic doctrine or some gray areas of legal self-identification concerning gender, but you can bet that a lot of actual anti-Muslim and anti-trans bigots will jump on our points to advance their own agendas. Sometimes it's not because they care about the rights of ex-Muslims or cis women at all; they may simply see an opportunity to attack their bugbear group and run with it. The UK has a vocal TERF movement, for example, and sometimes their anti-trans rhetoric extends far beyond any gray areas or reasonable concerns and clouds necessary discussions.

I'm interested to see how the public discourse and laws around trans issues will progress five years to a decade from now. I think further research and practical experience could hopefully provide more groundwork to help iron out some of the current issues.

 

[exchemist]

It's definitely a complicated issue, and I don't envy the officials and medical experts who need to come up with answers to some of the gray areas where they have to balance trans rights with reducing the potential for abuse of certain laws. The above link mentions that if the law change goes through, there may be potential exclusion of all trans women from women's sports even if there are no concerns about fairness, for instance. I'm not sure how to work around that or around situations where genuine pre-op trans women request access to women's spaces. I don't think I would find it fair for a law to exclude the vast majority who are harmless because of a few malefactors.

I have seen "bigotry" used as a demonizing word to shut down discussions, which is part of why I'm not sure that it would be an improvement over any of the -phobia terms. There's also the problem of opportunistic bigotry: you and I may have valid concerns about, say, some parts of mainstream Sunni Islamic doctrine or some gray areas of legal self-identification concerning gender, but you can bet that a lot of actual anti-Muslim and anti-trans bigots will jump on our points to advance their own agendas. Sometimes it's not because they care about the rights of ex-Muslims or cis women at all; they may simply see an opportunity to attack their bugbear group and run with it. The UK has a vocal TERF movement, for example, and sometimes their anti-trans rhetoric extends far beyond any gray areas or reasonable concerns and clouds necessary discussions.

I'm interested to see how the public discourse and laws around trans issues will progress five years to a decade from now. I think further research and practical experience could hopefully provide more groundwork to help iron out some of the current issues.

Yes, the whole thing is very new and challenges a lot of presumptions about how society is wired up. It won't be sorted out for quite some time. That's exactly why I think the activists would be well advised to stop and listen to those who are uncomfortable, rather than trying to demonise and dismiss them as morally defective.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, the whole thing is very new and challenges a lot of presumptions about how society is wired up. It won't be sorted out for quite some time. That's exactly why I think the activists would be well advised to stop and listen to those who are uncomfortable, rather than trying to demonise and dismiss them as morally defective.

I agree. I think the same also applies to TERFs and other anti-trans groups who refuse to consider that the current setup of society may need to evolve to accommodate more recent research and understanding.

Not that these public conversations are a bad thing; I wish my region had more of them about touchy and taboo issues. I believe such discussions are necessary for any society that seeks to progress with the times.

 

[exchemist]

I agree. I think the same also applies to TERFs and other anti-trans groups who refuse to consider that the current setup of society may need to evolve to accommodate more recent research and understanding.

Not that these public conversations are a bad thing; I wish my region had more of them about touchy and taboo issues. I believe such discussions are necessary for any society that seeks to progress with the times.

Indeed. "The times" in this case is largely to do with "the technology". We have the ability to change people to be what they want, with drugs and surgery, in ways inaccessible in the past. And our understanding of the psychology behind these wants has progressed too, of course.

 

[JDMS]

Yes, the whole thing is very new and challenges a lot of presumptions about how society is wired up. It won't be sorted out for quite some time. That's exactly why I think the activists would be well advised to stop and listen to those who are uncomfortable, rather than trying to demonise and dismiss them as morally defective.

The problem is that you (general you) don't know how many people are listening and taking other's comfort into account, because those people are silent. You usually only hear the voices that disagree with any given statement. "The activists" as a whole are not dismissing everyone even if some activists are.