You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Trans Ideology?’ tag.
Catch the rest of the article here.
“In the past several years ‘gender’ has been radically re-defined by a reactionary movement that has transformed it from a set of conventions and constraints on what men and women can be or do, to an interior mental state. Chrissie Daz is right in saying that something fundamental has changed in the way in which gender is understood in the twenty first century, with the new transgender warriors representing a major paradigm shift in gender thinking over the last forty years. An idea once wielded by the liberal left against conservative sexist and heterosexist social norms, gender has now been retooled as a weapon in the armoury of a regressive politics that is not only sexist but homophobic. Today’s transgender movement reinforces the myth that ‘men’ and ‘women’ are altogether different species of human beings, not just reproductively, but mentally — with different desires, different needs, different aptitudes, and different minds. Now transgender spokespersons support the traditionally conservative naturalisation of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ as innate psychological states, intrinsic in the human subject from birth and arising from brain chemistry or other hormonal interactions of the body. The progressive idea that there is no uniform way that all boys as such (or all girls as such) necessarily ‘feel’ or ‘think’ has been scrapped.
Instead of railing against a rigid heterosexist gender binary (as their rhetoric would suggest) the new Trans warriors assume that their innate sense of self (‘identity’) is inherently ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ prior to any socialisation. Apparently, the influence of cultural indoctrination is negligible. Gender has been de-politicised, naturalised and medicalised in the same stroke.”
The take away is that trans-ideology is sexist and homophobic excluding it from any reasonable sort of feminism. :)
The claims of trans-ideology, when examined, often fall short of being persuasive. The confusion between sex and gender and the terminology involved almost always plays a large role in making their arguments functionally opaque to the lay person. In this conversation Auntie Wanda, a gender critical feminist, wades through the confusion and gets to the heart of the issue – biological sex is an immutable fact, and that a better argument to displace this notion has not been made.
http://auntiewanda.tumblr.com/post/150592499566/homerundamage-auntiewanda-anne-the-map
The argument depicted below seems to sum up the problematic nature of the truth claims that trans-activists make. To analyze these claims precisely and coherently and refute them seems to get one labelled as a ‘transphobe’ (for disagreeing with worldview of someone else). Sorry, but that just doesn’t wash.
If we are to maintain any dedication to reasonable argumentation and reliance on evidence based decision making then there should be nothing wrong with the position Auntie Wanda takes. Win people over with strong arguments, not strong pejorative labels meant to silence them.
There is a controversy in Canada going on with with regards to the issue of free speech, Bill C-16, and the refusal of a Professor at the U of T to use the alternate pronouns people choose for themselves. This is the video that started it all (1h).
Three viewing options depending on your time frame. A long panel debate (1h), a dual format interview (15m), and a one on one interview with Peterson alone (4m).
Also see the transcript to his interview on CBC radio here, and a look from an alt-right publication here, and from a local Toronto publication. This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the sources available – just a sample and please bear that in mind while thinking about the issues being raised. I’ll quote Peterson describing his position:
“This week, University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson released a video online criticizing political correctness on campus. He also said he doesn’t recognize a person’s right to be addressed using genderless pronouns like “they” instead of “he” or “she.”
Under the proposed Federal law Bill C-16, it will become illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity or expression. As It Happens host Carol Off spoke with Peterson about his position.
Carol Off: Professor Peterson, why have you said you don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns you use to address them?
Jordan Peterson: That’s right. I don’t recognize that. I don’t recognize another person’s right to decide what words I’m going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people. They might have a point but I’m not going to say their words for them.
CO: There are a lot of words that you can’t say even though you may want to, that may be considered, not just offensive, but even illegal. So you’re not entirely free to use whatever words you want in any context…
JP: No, that’s certainly true. I’m not claiming that a person is free to use any words, in any context. But what I’m saying is that I’m not willing to mouth words that I think have been created for ideological purposes.
CO: Even if it’s the law that says you should do that?
JP: Well, I guess we’re going to find out exactly what the law says and it’s one of the reasons that I don’t like Bill C-16. I think that it’s loosely written enough that the kinds of things that I’m talking about could be transformed into hate speech almost immediately.
CO: You have said that you don’t believe that there is enough evidence that non-binary gender identities even exist?
JP: No. I didn’t say that actually. If I’m going to be accused of saying things I have to be accused of exactly what I said. There’s not enough evidence to make the case that gender identity and biological sexuality are independently varying constructs. In fact, all the evidence suggests that they’re not independently varying constructs. I can tell you that transgender people make the same argument. They make the argument that a man can be born in a woman’s body and that’s actually an argument that specifies a biological linkage between gender identity and biological sex. I’m also not objecting to transgender people. I’m objecting to poorly written legislation and the foisting of ideological motivated legislation on a population that’s not ready for it.
CO: Well, transgender people are ready for it and they have been feeling a great deal of discrimination and that’s why they were seeking this type of redress in the law. Do you appreciate that?
JP: I don’t believe that the redress that they’re seeking in the law is going to actually improve their status materially. I think, in fact, it will have the opposite effect. I believe that the principles on which the legislation is predicated are sufficiently incoherent and vague to cause endless legal trouble in a matter that will not benefit transgender people.”
[from the CBC interview on As It Happens]
The core of Peterson’s argument is this: “I don’t recognize another person’s right to decide what words I’m going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people.“
An important distinction to be noted here is that Peterson is not arguing against the exclusion of certain words (n*****) for example, but rather the mandatory and legislated inclusion of words.
Here is a conversation gleaned from the comment sections of the article entitled – “Non-Binary Students React to the U of T Prof Who Won’t Acknowledge Their Pronouns”:
The comment thread is some 500 responses long and there are several instances of exchanges between Micheal H and other people. Several of the arguments present mirror how this debate often unfolds and the positions taken on the free-speech/discrimination issue. If you have time, the article and comment section is a worthy use of your time.
Summarizing Micheal H’s position:
“Using someone’s preferred name doesn’t place an obligation on me to deny my appreciation of objective reality and affirm someone else’s.
What I find ‘somewhat wrong’ is someone expecting that his completely subjective, idiosyncratic self-conception should be validated by other people at the expense of their own foundational conception of reality.”
Micheal certainly has the arguments working for him. What seems to be missing is the social realization that each person experiences society differently and that sometimes mere arguments cannot adequately capture all of the nuance of the interactions that take place in society – consider his phrasing here ‘And the hypocrisy here is to conceive of the dynamic between two autonomous individuals […]’
Once in society the phrase ‘two autonomous individuals’ becomes a less useful term because all of the social encumbrances and dynamics at play (race,class,sex,). Not appreciating, or accounting for the ‘societal noise’ makes the arguments seem very clear cut and straightforward. Perhaps a bit too easy.
Let’s take a look at some raw footage at Peterson’s gathering. The interactions are haphazard at best, but the video gives some background onto what both sides are saying in the argument.
Vice – weighs in on the topic essentially saying that the entire Peterson episode is quite like a tempest in a teapot:
“The bill would do nothing to restrict people’s freedom to their own beliefs or to teach their own children,” Garrison told Albrecht during the debate. “What it would do is try to protect the expression of hatred and the kind of discrimination in public that takes place each and every day against transgender Canadians.”
C-16 will also update Canada’s Criminal Code, criminalizing “advocating genocide” and the “public incitement of hatred” based on gender identity or gender expression—adding those two classes to the current list of protected classes: colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, and mental or physical ability.
“The use of pronouns is not about advocating genocide,” said Cossman.
The bill also means that assault or murder, motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate against people with a certain gender identity or expression, could come with a stricter sentence.
“It’s not creating a new offense,” said Cossman. “It’s saying if there’s a hate crime, if there’s an assault, and you find that it was motivated by hatred on the basis of gender identity and expression, that could affect your sentencing in the same way that race or ethnicity or sexual orientation already do.”
It’s also highly unlikely that the failure to use gender-neutral pronouns will rise to the level of hate speech in Canada, Cossman said.
“The way hate speech has been interpreted by the courts is that it’s only applied to very extreme speech,” she said. “[The misuse of pronouns] is nowhere close.”
Cossman, who says reasonable people can disagree on whether or not hate speech laws are a good thing, says adding one ground to the list of identifiable groups isn’t a major change.
“It’s significant for the trans community, but it’s such a small addition that the idea that this is the most egregious just doesn’t add up.”
I’d have to agree this debate is a tempest for sure – the grist for the mill is how big the teapot happens to be. It would seem, if the Vice analysis is correct, that we have little to worry about with regards to Free Speech. Drawing the line between what is hate speech and what is a difference of opinion, will as always be the next contentious issue.
All members of Canadian society have the right to be free of discrimination. At the very same time though, we all have the right to disagree with people’s opinions and evaluate them on the truth value they carry. As the situation stands, it looks like both camps are still protected under the legislation as it stands.
Further reading: A critique of Peterson’s CBC interview can be found here. Also, another professor against the alleged PC culture on campus.
—–
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”—Ralph Waldo Emerson
My eyebrow arched with considerable alacrity while reading the title of this opinion piece from The Independent
(‘Jaden Smith as a new face of womenswear might seem progressive – but he’s on transgender territory.’) While reading and fighting the loss of my irony meter (boundaries not being respected…) said brow remained frozen in place at how amazingly silly the authors points are. Let’s get started.
“So, it’s been announced that 17-year-old Jaden Smith, son of American actor Will Smith, is to be the new face of Louis Vuitton clothes. To be more specific, the womenswear section. And I didn’t even know they had an old face – clearly I’m out of the fashion loop.”
[…]
“Jaden seems to be up for this gender-neutral, equal clothing rights thing which allows men to wear women’s clothes without any fear of ridicule. But there is another, more important issue afoot.”
Another important issue? Hmmm… Considering that a major fashion label is promoting gender non-conforming behaviour, this issue must be very important indeed.
“There’s a reason why men wear men’s clothes and women wear women’s clothes, and why they are generally so different. OK, I know women have been wearing trousers for decades but they’re usually a femme version of the male equivalent – and I’m not talking about unisex clothes like jeans and t-shirts.
I’m talking about basic clothes norms that depict which gender is wearing them, even in the modern world. Stereotypically, men wear trousers and women wear dresses and skirts. That’s the ‘norm’ and it’s more than that – it’s a uniform.”
The argument for why gender norms are good for you is about to be made. Please keep in mind that gender is a hierarchy designed to distinguish the dominant class from the submissive class and that said gender hierarchy is toxic for both women and men.
So the author states that clothes have a normative value in distinguishing between the two biological sexes.
“When you get out of bed in the morning the most important thing you have to do all day is tell the world what your gender is, because from that, everything else flows.”
Really? I thought the most important thing in the world is my first cup of coffee. Coffee addiction aside, I might suggest that the most important thing in the world is agreeing to be kind to those around you, and trying to a creative, productive member of society. Following a codified notion of gender would seem to be in sync with the sexist stereotyping feminists have fought against (and continue to fight against) for decades.
“You may think that your job is to be an office supervisor or a stockbroker or police officer but these are all human constructs. Deep down your real job is to reproduce, and showing other humans your gender is the first step on that path.”
Wow. Gender essentialism for $500 please Alex. Reproduction takes place on the idea of sexual attraction – specifically heterosexual attraction. We invented this thing we call gender on this basis and from this sprang the constructed societal norms we expect women and men to perform. These constructed roles are not written in stone, nor are they necessarily correct.
“So, to help make it plain for anyone to see which gender you are, you put on a uniform. Men put on trousers and have men’s haircuts, and women put on dresses and skirts, feminine tops and tights and women’s shoes to show their femininity and declare to the world that they are female.”
None of these ‘declarations’ are necessary. Society, as a whole, can generally identify male bodies and female bodies without the gendered stereotypes mentioned here. Again, the author sounds as if perpetuating these stereotypes is somehow beneficial to society.
“They have women’s hair-dos and they put use cosmetics to make themselves look nicer and more presentable and to reinforce the female uniform a bit more.”
Really? Compulsory femininity for the winz? I can’t even…
“Male-to-female transgender people rely on props like clothes, shoes, make-up and hairstyles to create the gender identity they want to portray to the world because most of the time their bodies alone are unable to do that. There are a few lucky ones who don’t have to do a thing to put across a female persona, but most trans women have to work hard at it.
The danger for trans women is that if wearing what are traditionally women’s clothes becomes the norm for men too, then trans women will no longer be able to rely on these props to help them display a female gender identity – and for many, that could be a serious problem.”
Read those two paragraphs carefully. The author is defending the harmful hierarchical system of gender and gender roles. Quite the conservative stance, no? Gender non-conforming behaviour (going against the system that is bad for all of us) is being portrayed as a threat to those rely on traditional gendered roles to express themselves.
If your inner rad-fem isn’t blowing a lobe by now, then Huston, we have a problem. But wait, it gets better.
“But trans people should be aware that well-known faces like Jaden Smith are starting to encroach on our territory. They’re starting to wear the trans uniform without actually stating that they are transgender, and they’re claiming it for themselves under the guise of gender-neutral fashion.”
Yep, Jaden Smith is encroaching on trans territory because he’s not conforming to the gender hierarchy. His gender non-conforming behaviour challenges the socially constructed norms of what is for men, and what is for women a.k.a actions that subvert the norm as opposed to the author’s defence of supporting the toxic gender hierarchy.
“All of which begs the question: where does that leave us?”
Reading further that question is quite clearly answered in the article from the ‘other side’ of the story:
“Jaden Smith isn’t wearing a dress because he wants to identify as female; he’s wearing a dress because he rejects strict gender norms. And if someone identifies as something other than ‘male’ or ‘female’, and they feel comfortable and happy in doing so, then I struggle to see why we should support that sort of expression being stifled.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…