Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 18:41:18 GMT
Jun 27, 2020 16:47:57 GMT @jeanhunt said:
Genuine question - because as a straight woman who doesn’t follow the LGB Alliance, I’m not in a position to know - might it be because up to now, lesbians have tended to bear the brunt of the radical side of the trans lobby? (As in: “if I am a male-bodied person who identifies as a lesbian woman, you should be as happy to have a relationship with me as with a lesbian who’s a natal woman. If not, you’re transphobic.”)I’d say that’s more an LGB specific concern than one for the more generalist women’s groups (who tend to focus more on the perceived risks of self-ID and potential losses to female achievement/representation in sports, arts and politics etc - which of course affect all natal women, whatever their sexuality)? Or is it that the LGB Alliance tend to post these generalist women’s concerns?
It’s interesting - my perception so far has been that it’s mainly women who’ve spoken up against radical trans ideology (for obvious reasons; see paragraph above!). I’ve heard a couple of gay male friends (of a certain age) make comments that suggest they’re less than impressed by some things that go on in the name of the T in LGBT, but it’s really only since the tragic killings in Reading that I’ve been aware of a real outspoken-ness (if that’s a word!) from gay men generally, insisting on their right to be recognised specifically as gay.
But it sounds like your perception of that may be very different, so I’m interested to hear more. Would you say some gay men have been as uncomfortable as gay and straight women over this issue for a while now?
REPLY (I seem to have screwed up the replying mechanism). You may well be right that women have been at the forefront of setting up the LGBA and that as women they BOTH perceive threats to women as women AND are particularly aware of what appear to be threats to lesbians (apparently, some lesbians have got abuse for refusing to date trans women, and the LGBA thinks young lesbians are particularly liable to persuasion that they are 'really' boys). But, as I said, to be convincing as a gay rights organisation, the LGBA needs to locate its position on T within a much broader conception of gay rights and gay campaigning. That would help to defuse the common charge that it's 'just' an anti-trans group.
I think, too, that the emphasis on women's sensibilities ignores men's (though I realise that women are more likely to be victims of violence from men than vice-versa). Sometimes the idea seems afloat that whereas women are rightly disturbed at male-bodied people in their changing rooms, men are insensitive clods who don't mind female-bodied persons in male changing-rooms. That idea needs questioning.
My own concerns have two sources. First, as a gay man, I find it increasingly odd that i should be perpetually glued to trans people as a "LGBT person". The House of Commons recently went so far as to issue a report on "LGBT health needs", whereas I don't think I share any healthy needs with T that I don't have with the rest of the population. Moreover, I thought we were getting away from the old stereotype according to which gay men were women on the inside and lesbians thought of themselves as men, but the relentless use of the "LGBT" initialism suggests that gay and trans are fundamentally the same. I have seen a number of comments outwith the activist bubble which suggest just that misunderstanding. In the Wolfenden Report of 1957, homosexuals were treated in common with prostitutes; in the 1970s, paedophile groups tried to cloak themselves in the gay movement; then gay people were told that they were to be termed "LGBT people". Can't we ever just be ourselves? Some LGBA posts have talked of it as defending the interests of gay people, women and girls, and I worry that "LGBT" is going to be replaced by "LGBW".
Second, as an ex-academic I do find myself seriously doubtful about many of things asserted by trans theorists. With me, the question, "Is there any reason to think that that is true?" usually bubbles up when I see claims like "Trans women are women" or "A woman is someone who dientifies as a woman." Some of us do care about truth simpliciter.
I think there was a time when people were much less clear on the crucial difference between gay and trans. Many gay men seemed to have thought they had to act girly (see, for instance, a mid-century novel like City of Night); perhaps T people somehow felt that they had to think of themselves as basically gay, but with a sort of add-on. The differences are now clearer.
On issues like shared bathrooms and changing-rooms, I have no fixed views. In any case, I think the idea that people are happy to strip off in front of their own sex needs to be looked at critically. Certainly, I loathed communal showers at my all-boy school. A bigger emphasis on cubicles for all might defuse some of the issues.
On some boards I come across as a defender of T people. For instance, there is a Roman Catholic poster in The Herald (Glasgow) who repeatedly dismisses T people as mentally ill; I routinely tell him that since he believes that what is empirically bread and wine has the substance of flesh and blood, what was the problem about adapting that metaphysics to accommodate the idea that what is empircally a man might be in substance a woman?
I agree, men’s take on sharing space with female-bodied people definitely needs to be discussed. As I say, I rarely see men speaking out in support of sex-based rights on forums like Twitter. The ones that do tend to be speaking personally and not affiliated to any kind of group. It sounds like the LGB Alliance could usefully provide that, for some men at least.
You are SO right about communal showers/changing rooms. When I used to go swimming I’d shower in my cozzie and if the two changing cubicles were in use, I’d dry off as much as possible and then scoot to the toilets to do a contortion act and put my clothes on again!
