That didn’t answer the question you replied to, and didn’t actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this “compromise” manifest? I’m guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way…
They asked “What is there to compronise” and i answered “an example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women”…
Its called agreeing to disagee, have civil discussions with people who you might actually find you have more in common with then you disagree on and minds can be moved that way.
This whole all or nothing approach is just turning more people away, you want to talk about putting trans folk in harms way, but what happend to just wanting to be able to live a normal life?
I guess when you are in your own bubble its hard to see other perpectives, but surely you dont honestly think if you surveyed a random set of a few hundred people, the majority of them would not be on the same page about any trans rights issues, insulting or chastising them wont win them over and will only cause more resentment against trans people.
So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.
Its about engagjng in good faith discussions so that people who just passivly observe things dont get the impression that the disenguous “just asking questions” people are the moderate and reasonable ones.
“I think people should have respect” isn’t something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.
Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women’s safety, as if trans women aren’t part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.
And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.
The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don’t just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.
I’m also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven’t become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.
Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you, I don’t. I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback (and this happens on both sides, across all issues, not just trans rights). You’re taking what i’m saying to mean people should not push back at all, and that is NOT what im saying. You are also conflating an observation with a prescription. My initial post was only critical of the “all or nothing” approach that most people seem to take to issues these days, and how that can negatively affect progress. I’m expressing a concern about how black and white things are compared to how things seems 20-30 years ago with gay rights or 50-60 years ago with civil rights even.
I’m very curious what you think the positions i’ve become entrenched in are? I suppose the one thing is that I believe we as a society/human race are extremely fucked at the moment, probably past the point of no return on a number of things that will end us, but not really specific to this conversation.
Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you
You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.
I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback
Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.
Your framing of that as “all or nothing” means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don’t believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people
You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.
Cool strawman, but I don’t think that, not even close
Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.
I never said to give up on anything. I was making a statement about how different the current situation is from a past situation in which noticeable progress was made on some kind of civil rights. Are you implying that people in the 90s and 00s who fought for gay rights just did stuff to appease their way to marriage equality?
Your framing of that as “all or nothing” means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don’t believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people
I’m simply pointing out that things seem to have gone beyond a point of no return in terms of 2 sides being able to agree on pretty much anything anymore because one side is composed almost exclusively of narcissists with oppositional defiance disorder, and the other side is so busy in-fighting that they don’t realize they’re alienating their own and not making any progess.
Again, there is no suggestion being made here… everyone should continue fighting as hard as you are able, in whatever ways are accessible to you to forward the cause of trans rights and any other rights you believe in.
Yes there is. I asked you what you think compromise looks like in real world terms
You replied with this
So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.
That is quite explicitly a suggestion. Or rather, two suggestions.
In this suggestion, you use the word “women” as if it doesn’t apply to trans women. ie, you say “women’s safety” when you clearly means cis women’s safety. Dangerous, because it normalises the attack on trans women that they aren’t women. And dangerous because it implies that trans women are a risk to cis women, when in fact, trans women are more at risk of sexual assault and violence than cis women are! There is danger here, but it’s not coming from the trans women, and framing it as if it is, and as if that is something that should be compromised on is dangerous to trans people.
There is no compromise, when that compromise involves having our safety ignored, and our rights rolled back. That’s not compromise.
That didn’t answer the question you replied to, and didn’t actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this “compromise” manifest? I’m guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way…
They asked “What is there to compronise” and i answered “an example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women”…
Its called agreeing to disagee, have civil discussions with people who you might actually find you have more in common with then you disagree on and minds can be moved that way.
This whole all or nothing approach is just turning more people away, you want to talk about putting trans folk in harms way, but what happend to just wanting to be able to live a normal life?
I guess when you are in your own bubble its hard to see other perpectives, but surely you dont honestly think if you surveyed a random set of a few hundred people, the majority of them would not be on the same page about any trans rights issues, insulting or chastising them wont win them over and will only cause more resentment against trans people.
Literally no one thinks cis women and trans women are the same, so your compromise doesn’t mean anything in and of itself.
I’m asking you what your position means in real world terms. What are the consequences of these differences? Because that’s what really matters.
Feigned outrage because I asked you for specifics seems counter to your stated goals of reaching compromise and makes me question your motives.
So a specific compromise would be when someone says that they accept transwomen as people deserving of respect and dignity, but i dont think they should be allowed to compete in professional sports as women, you dont call them a bigot or refuse to engage with them. Its saying "could you think of a way to esure womens safety that doesnt assume all trans people are sexual predators? " when they say women should be able to feel safe in locker rooms.
Its about engagjng in good faith discussions so that people who just passivly observe things dont get the impression that the disenguous “just asking questions” people are the moderate and reasonable ones.
“I think people should have respect” isn’t something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.
Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women’s safety, as if trans women aren’t part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.
And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.
The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don’t just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.
I’m also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven’t become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.
That’s why
Your statement seems to imply you think i disagree with you, I don’t. I am expressing concern about how other peoples actions will cause more negative pushback (and this happens on both sides, across all issues, not just trans rights). You’re taking what i’m saying to mean people should not push back at all, and that is NOT what im saying. You are also conflating an observation with a prescription. My initial post was only critical of the “all or nothing” approach that most people seem to take to issues these days, and how that can negatively affect progress. I’m expressing a concern about how black and white things are compared to how things seems 20-30 years ago with gay rights or 50-60 years ago with civil rights even.
I’m very curious what you think the positions i’ve become entrenched in are? I suppose the one thing is that I believe we as a society/human race are extremely fucked at the moment, probably past the point of no return on a number of things that will end us, but not really specific to this conversation.
You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.
Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.
Your framing of that as “all or nothing” means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don’t believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people
Cool strawman, but I don’t think that, not even close
I never said to give up on anything. I was making a statement about how different the current situation is from a past situation in which noticeable progress was made on some kind of civil rights. Are you implying that people in the 90s and 00s who fought for gay rights just did stuff to appease their way to marriage equality?
I’m simply pointing out that things seem to have gone beyond a point of no return in terms of 2 sides being able to agree on pretty much anything anymore because one side is composed almost exclusively of narcissists with oppositional defiance disorder, and the other side is so busy in-fighting that they don’t realize they’re alienating their own and not making any progess.
Again, there is no suggestion being made here… everyone should continue fighting as hard as you are able, in whatever ways are accessible to you to forward the cause of trans rights and any other rights you believe in.
Yes there is. I asked you what you think compromise looks like in real world terms
You replied with this
That is quite explicitly a suggestion. Or rather, two suggestions.
In this suggestion, you use the word “women” as if it doesn’t apply to trans women. ie, you say “women’s safety” when you clearly means cis women’s safety. Dangerous, because it normalises the attack on trans women that they aren’t women. And dangerous because it implies that trans women are a risk to cis women, when in fact, trans women are more at risk of sexual assault and violence than cis women are! There is danger here, but it’s not coming from the trans women, and framing it as if it is, and as if that is something that should be compromised on is dangerous to trans people.
There is no compromise, when that compromise involves having our safety ignored, and our rights rolled back. That’s not compromise.