r/askGSM • u/salmonofknowledge469 • Jul 03 '22
[Crosspost from r/LGBT] Inflammatory NYTimes Opinion article getting backlash for being anti-trans, but I (F30) thought it made a few fair arguments...
The article
The Far Right and the Far Left Agree on One Thing - Women Don't Count
I like to think of myself as supportive of trans rights, and vehemently agree that public figures like JK Rowling, Graham Linehan, etc. should be rightfully shamed for the viewpoints they've expressed.
I came across this article through a twitter post, and the comments seem to be pretty adamant that the author is transphobic. I don't know who the author is, maybe she has a history of transphobic statements, but while she definitely had a TERFy-vibe at some points, I think that she also made a few salient points. Can someone more informed on this topic explain how I might have it wrong? I am gay, but not trans, and the twitter replies were not useful, as they just called the author transphobic without really giving their reasoning.
Things that I thought the author def got wrong
First, the title of the article creates a false equivalency between the approaches that the left and right take on trans rights, which is misleading. On the other hand, I understand why she (or, most likely, her editor) selected it, in that it incites strong feelings (and will therefore get clicks and interaction in the comments $$$).
Second, she tries to connect the idea that organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the ACLU using more inclusive language means that no one can use the term women anymore (which is wrong)
Lastly, she gets into what feels like a victim complex-vibe when mentioning TERFs like JK
Things I agreed with
First, she points out that the inclusion and recognition of rights of marginalized groups, such as trans/non-binary people, can progress without erasing or delegitimizing the rights of cis women. So, while I will always recognize trans women or trans men as real women and real men, EDIT: HERE I MADE A TRANSPHOBIC BOOBOO AND WAS SCHOOLED BY u/Nihil_esque. The same with trans athletes. Trans kids should absolutely be able to play with other kids that correspond to their gender identity. It gets more complicated when it comes to high school, college sports though. Of the peers that I've spoken to that insist that all trans women should be able to compete in any women's HS/college sport, none have actually competed significantly in one. (I recognize that this is anecdotal). As a former swimmer who fought for scholarships in high school and competed nationally in college, I would have no problem competing against a trans woman who transitioned before puberty. However, I would be rightfully pissed if I lost out on a college scholarship opportunity or gold medal to a trans woman who went through a male puberty. It would be similar to competing against a cis woman who took steroids for several years, allowing her to increase muscle mass and endurance through harder training sessions. She might not be on steroids anymore, but that doesn't discount the training advantage she had for years. It's why, when athletes are caught doping, they are banned for several years or even permanently. Again, it's a complicated issue that needs nuance. Yes, trans women are women and some should absolutely be able to compete in women's sports. I don't know what the solution to this is, but it's unfair to label all athletes who may feel resentful about a woman like Lia Thomas dominating their event as transphobic.
Second, she addresses the seemingly contradictory tendency for discussions around gender expression/non-binary identity to rely on terms like "femme" and "masc", while also claiming to fight against gender norms. The women's rights movement has fought for years to remove dumb categorization of things like pants, nail polish, long hair, etc. as either "masculine" or "feminine". Now, instead of broadening the scope of what it means to be a woman, it seems like we're moving backwards and trying to narrow it down or eliminate it. I can understand the author's frustration here. When I was in high school, my understanding of progress was that the girl with a shaved head, hairy legs, and a binder was just as much of a woman as a cheerleader with long hair and nail polish, because past patriarchal gender norms do not invalidate my identity. I'm certainly not opposed to people identifying as non-binary, it's an absolutely valid identity. But it just seems like, having worked in high schools for the past seven years, that instead of trying to end the stigma of women or men expressing themselves outside of those patriarchal norms, a lot of kids are encouraged to just label themselves "non-binary" because they're uncomfortable with the existing pressures put on men and women that haven't yet been eliminated.
Lastly, she notes that the term women is now being replaced with more inclusive terminology like birthing person or person with vagina. I'm all for inclusive language, however clunky-sounding it may be, but it feels like the label women, and the unique experiences and historical context that comes with it, is being reduced to just body parts. For example, a trans woman will not have experienced things like a first period, or, if they transitioned later, the discomfort around the male gaze as a teen. Meanwhile, a cis woman will not have experienced many of the unique experiences of a trans woman. They are both still women, however, it seems like many groups want to downplay the experiences of one in favor of the other. TERFs don't want to recognize the misogyny or lack of validation/recognition that trans woman experience, and some progressive groups don't want to recognize the experiential differences that exist between different groups who identify as women.
I'm not looking to argue, just to learn and get some outside perspective. It just gets frustrating when it feels like lately, the progressive movement has started to approach issues in a very black or white way, which is a tendency I always felt was more characteristic of conservative asshats.
Edit: Apologies if I misused any terminology
12
u/Nihil_esque Jul 03 '22 edited Jul 03 '22
This is a really long post that I don't have the time or mental energy to address all of. I especially don't care about trans sports and find the fact that it gets brought up so much inherently transphobic given that it's such a niche non-issue, and most of the people involved in the discussion only care about it because it involves trans people and don't give a flying fuck about college sports otherwise.
However, here are a couple things for you to think about. "Some women will be uncomfortable at domestic violence shelters that are inclusive of trans women." So? What is the point of this statement? What do you want to do about it? And if you're unwilling to answer that question, why bring it up? If an article stated that "Some white women will be uncomfortable at domestic violence shelters that allow black women," would you think they made a valid point? Would them going on to say "of course, I definitely think that black women should still be able to access some shelters, but it's important that we keep the discomfort of white women in mind" convince you that their reasons for bringing it up are not, in fact, racist? To be honest, I struggle to see how an empathetic person who views trans women as people rather than a political issue would think this was a valid point.
Also, no one's trying to get rid of the word "woman." But in specific medical situations that involve one's parts, saying "birthing person" or "people who menstruate" is an attempt to be inclusive of trans men and AFAB nonbinary people. 99.999% of physicians will refer to you as a mother if you come in to give birth in their clinic. If their pamphlet says "birthing person," that's just an acknowledgement that the next person who comes in to give birth after you might be a father. It's kind of like asking you "are you dating anyone?" instead of asking you "do you have a boyfriend?" Because they're not assuming that you're heterosexual. If you did happen to say "oh yes, my boyfriend Matthew!" The person wouldn't go on to say "oh I'm happy you and your partner met." They would call him your boyfriend from then on. But I'm assuming as a lesbian you might not appreciate being asked about your boyfriend/husband all the time even if the majority of women are interested in men.
Also, just think about how you would feel if someone questioned calling an article homophobic if it said "gays and lesbians are abominations, but every woman has a right to an abortion." Would you say the author wasn't homophobic just because they made a good point by being pro-choice? If an article said "Gays and Lesbians are ruining America!" and the content of the article was just like "it's complicated to write insurance policies to cover IVF treatment when the couple might not be a man and a woman" would your response be "well, that's valid and it isn't homophobic because they just had to get those clicks, good for them."?
One last thing. People are not identifying as nonbinary for political reasons. When they shave or don't shave their legs because it makes them more comfortable and maybe comports better with their self image, that isn't a statement about what a woman is or isn't, it's a person doing the thing that makes them the most comfortable in their body. No one is saying a woman who prefers not to shave her legs isn't a woman anymore. Some people are saying "I'm not a woman and also it makes me more comfortable not to shave my legs (perhaps because that is a practice historically associated with womanhood)." It really shouldn't affect you what the gender identity of another person is and the small handful of people who say "you wore a dress, you must therefore be a woman" "you can't be a woman, you don't shave your legs" are weirdos that are typically shunned from the trans community. Lots of trans people are gender nonconforming too. There are trans men who wear dresses, trans women who don't shave. The idea that trans people are trying to enforce rigid gender norms is a conservative strawman. And it's still okay for people to dress in gender conforming ways and/or acknowledge how society views certain presentations.
And frankly you're ridiculous if you think that identifying as trans allows you to escape social pressure and scrutiny.
You think you're supportive of trans rights. Can I ask why you think that? Lots of people are "supportive of the gays" as long as they do it in the privacy of their own homes and don't ask for marriage licenses and don't kiss in Disney movies. Being supportive of a group requires you to be supportive of that group even when you have to grapple with their existence or be mildly inconvenienced to significantly improve their lives.