Lengthy comment from 'bainsidhe' I deleted and reposted with the name replaced (see note above):
As someone who has found herself agreeing more and more with the "gender critical feminist" movement (aka dreaded TERFs) lately, I want to expand a bit on that topic. For me (and to be clear, I speak only for myself), it's not really that affirming a trans woman means rendering me invisible. That feels too binary to me (which isn't a criticism of Katie's wording - the debate itself is pretty binary, and I'm sure she's paraphrasing plenty of actual things she's seen around The Internet). But for me, the "trans rights" movement lost me when it stopped being about merely affirming trans people - something I'm very happy to do! - and became about how *everyone else* was required to speak, think, and relate to topics across the board from mammalian biology to the politics of Title IX. Just to go with a couple of quick examples:
1) Until about 3-4 years ago, I was probably as "pro-trans" as any other generic American liberal. The first time I ever seriously questioned "now wait a minute, what?"about the movement was when I began seeing a proliferation of "trans women are women, period" posts on Twitter, etc. I wondered what that meant - was I prepared to treat trans women AS women, in pretty much all social situations? Of course I was. But did that mean that trans women WERE LITERALLY women, as in, there is no physical or material distinction in reality between trans women and women, as if some manner of alchemy innate to transness transformed a previously male human being into a female one, or vice versa? Well... not so fast. Again, I want to make it very clear that, on a social basis, I was (and am) almost always willing to accept the presented gender of any person, use their preferred pronouns, etc. But what I am not willing to do is say, out loud, something that I find to be counter to basic physical reason. You're seeing this more and more now: witness the metldown over JK Rowling saying what essentially amounted to "biological sex is real." How is that remotely controversial? The writing was on the wall with "trans women are literally women," and it's that sort of tactic - to accept trans people, you must be willing to literally redefine the nature of reality - that sticks in my craw.
2) The second issue revolves around the limited number of situations where, given the inherent truth of "biological sex is real and sometimes is relevant" as established in 1) above, some situations really DO need to be restricted by biological sex rather than social gender identity. Sports is the big obvious example here. I think what truly and definitely broke me apart from "trans rights" activism was seeing athletes like Cece Telfer and several others competing in "women's" categories, despite the obvious, patent unfairness of a biologically-developed male racing(!) or lifting(!) or cycling(!) against biological women, when every single piece of evidence as well as common sense has always shown that male bodies are inherently superior to female bodies *in terms of being able to sprint very fast over short distances, or use upper body strength to lift lots of heavy weights,or pedal a bicycle really fast.* I get frustrated with this issue because it sounds like those of us concerned about the fairness and integrity of women's sports are being forced to admit that women are weaker, when that's not the case - but it IS the case that, again, in CERTAIN ACTIVITIES that are measured in certain sports, male bodies will almost always outperform female bodies. Women fought so hard, and for so long, to claw and fight our way to recognition. Title IX was only passed in my mother's lifetime - when she was a girl, her extracurricular options were the Homemaker's Club or debate team. That's it. It galls me, as a former girl athlete, and as a feminist, to see those gains come under fire from "my own side" in the name of a mistaken ideal of inclusion.
I offer these examples not just to rail on about "gender critical issues," but, I guess, to provide a hopefully even-keeled, non-combative set of reasons why some feminists have become wary of trans issues. I don't think this wariness has to be set in stone for the future, but it will require intelligent, open-minded trans people like Katie to come to the table, be willing to listen, and be willing to recognize where there are areas of compromise to be made. And for what it's worth, I think the vast majority of trans rights issues ARE compatible with feminism and require very little compromise! The sports issue is the biggest area of actual policy compromise that needs to be made from the woke side - the recognition that, no, in this case, biological sex is more important than gender identity. Other issues, like bathrooms and changing rooms... I think that debate can go on, and that both sides need to take a deep breath and tone down the rhetoric, because I can see valid points on both sides - on one hand, no, I have no interest in policing or caring about a trans woman in the stall next to me, but on the other hand, I have no interest in having the women's rooms be open season for some creepy Jessica Yaniv type making no attempt to "pass" who feels entitled to barge in because he says he's a woman. Again... we need to figure out the best way to help real trans people without giving a hall pass to bad faith sex pests to harass women.
I hope this comment has been helpful in illuminating this issue from a "cis woman" perspective (I don't prefer that terminology myself, honestly) who can see how some of the overheated rhetoric from the gender critical side can seem alienating or like compromise is impossible - I don't think it is, but I do think there are some genuine issues here which have to be respected and not just kneejerk dismissed as "transphobia" or "bigotry." Katie sounds like she's a bright, thoughtful person, and she sounds like the kind of person who is willing to reach across these chasms of bitterness.
I would suggest: get off social media and go out to do things in your local community. Get a subscription to your local paper. Find a volunteering outlet you like (I would suggest something apolitical and that brings you in contact with different sorts of people than the kind you normally fraternize with). Just "grounding" yourself with the real world can be an amazingly refreshing and reorienting experience.
As for reading...
"White American Youth" by Christian Picciolini is an autobiography by the man who nearly single-handedly reinvigorated white supremacy groups in the American Midwest, and then eventually escaped that life. I think it's always a good idea to recognize one's ideological opponents as people, and to be humble about how easily one could be swayed by evil, and Picciolini's story is bracing in its banality--he restarted an alt-right group that was failing basically because he liked the music and looked up to the group's former leader as a surrogate father. "Hillbilly Elegy" by JD Vance is in much the same mold--humanizing the "other side" and explaining how and why they are what they are
"Escape from Freedom" by Erich Fromm. This is a philosophical treatise and I found it a bit of a slog to get through, but it's an interesting read. The main thesis is that freedom is terrifying, and given freedom people will construct all sorts of rules and eventually submit to authoritarianism, studying Nazi German as an example of a society that was granted greater and greater freedom before suddenly falling back into even stricter rules.
"Self-Portrait in Black and White" by Thomas Chatterton Williams. I haven't finished this one yet so I can't fully endorse it, and I kind of feel like it isn't "for me" (a white woman), but it is interesting. Williams (a black man) discusses having to learn how to expand identity past race after his biracial daughters come out blonde, blue-eyed, and undeniably not "black" by any worthwhile definition. It's hard to describe, but (having several "mismatched" sets of parents/children in my own family) I think it's an important conversation to have.
"Against Empathy" by Paul Bloom. A book that argues that "empathy" as commonly deployed is a useless emotion politically because it focuses us on what makes us feel best, not what *is* best. I don't fully agree with all its points, but it's definitely an interesting proposition.
Lengthy comment from 'bainsidhe' I deleted and reposted with the name replaced (see note above):
As someone who has found herself agreeing more and more with the "gender critical feminist" movement (aka dreaded TERFs) lately, I want to expand a bit on that topic. For me (and to be clear, I speak only for myself), it's not really that affirming a trans woman means rendering me invisible. That feels too binary to me (which isn't a criticism of Katie's wording - the debate itself is pretty binary, and I'm sure she's paraphrasing plenty of actual things she's seen around The Internet). But for me, the "trans rights" movement lost me when it stopped being about merely affirming trans people - something I'm very happy to do! - and became about how *everyone else* was required to speak, think, and relate to topics across the board from mammalian biology to the politics of Title IX. Just to go with a couple of quick examples:
1) Until about 3-4 years ago, I was probably as "pro-trans" as any other generic American liberal. The first time I ever seriously questioned "now wait a minute, what?"about the movement was when I began seeing a proliferation of "trans women are women, period" posts on Twitter, etc. I wondered what that meant - was I prepared to treat trans women AS women, in pretty much all social situations? Of course I was. But did that mean that trans women WERE LITERALLY women, as in, there is no physical or material distinction in reality between trans women and women, as if some manner of alchemy innate to transness transformed a previously male human being into a female one, or vice versa? Well... not so fast. Again, I want to make it very clear that, on a social basis, I was (and am) almost always willing to accept the presented gender of any person, use their preferred pronouns, etc. But what I am not willing to do is say, out loud, something that I find to be counter to basic physical reason. You're seeing this more and more now: witness the metldown over JK Rowling saying what essentially amounted to "biological sex is real." How is that remotely controversial? The writing was on the wall with "trans women are literally women," and it's that sort of tactic - to accept trans people, you must be willing to literally redefine the nature of reality - that sticks in my craw.
2) The second issue revolves around the limited number of situations where, given the inherent truth of "biological sex is real and sometimes is relevant" as established in 1) above, some situations really DO need to be restricted by biological sex rather than social gender identity. Sports is the big obvious example here. I think what truly and definitely broke me apart from "trans rights" activism was seeing athletes like Cece Telfer and several others competing in "women's" categories, despite the obvious, patent unfairness of a biologically-developed male racing(!) or lifting(!) or cycling(!) against biological women, when every single piece of evidence as well as common sense has always shown that male bodies are inherently superior to female bodies *in terms of being able to sprint very fast over short distances, or use upper body strength to lift lots of heavy weights,or pedal a bicycle really fast.* I get frustrated with this issue because it sounds like those of us concerned about the fairness and integrity of women's sports are being forced to admit that women are weaker, when that's not the case - but it IS the case that, again, in CERTAIN ACTIVITIES that are measured in certain sports, male bodies will almost always outperform female bodies. Women fought so hard, and for so long, to claw and fight our way to recognition. Title IX was only passed in my mother's lifetime - when she was a girl, her extracurricular options were the Homemaker's Club or debate team. That's it. It galls me, as a former girl athlete, and as a feminist, to see those gains come under fire from "my own side" in the name of a mistaken ideal of inclusion.
I offer these examples not just to rail on about "gender critical issues," but, I guess, to provide a hopefully even-keeled, non-combative set of reasons why some feminists have become wary of trans issues. I don't think this wariness has to be set in stone for the future, but it will require intelligent, open-minded trans people like Katie to come to the table, be willing to listen, and be willing to recognize where there are areas of compromise to be made. And for what it's worth, I think the vast majority of trans rights issues ARE compatible with feminism and require very little compromise! The sports issue is the biggest area of actual policy compromise that needs to be made from the woke side - the recognition that, no, in this case, biological sex is more important than gender identity. Other issues, like bathrooms and changing rooms... I think that debate can go on, and that both sides need to take a deep breath and tone down the rhetoric, because I can see valid points on both sides - on one hand, no, I have no interest in policing or caring about a trans woman in the stall next to me, but on the other hand, I have no interest in having the women's rooms be open season for some creepy Jessica Yaniv type making no attempt to "pass" who feels entitled to barge in because he says he's a woman. Again... we need to figure out the best way to help real trans people without giving a hall pass to bad faith sex pests to harass women.
I hope this comment has been helpful in illuminating this issue from a "cis woman" perspective (I don't prefer that terminology myself, honestly) who can see how some of the overheated rhetoric from the gender critical side can seem alienating or like compromise is impossible - I don't think it is, but I do think there are some genuine issues here which have to be respected and not just kneejerk dismissed as "transphobia" or "bigotry." Katie sounds like she's a bright, thoughtful person, and she sounds like the kind of person who is willing to reach across these chasms of bitterness.
I would suggest: get off social media and go out to do things in your local community. Get a subscription to your local paper. Find a volunteering outlet you like (I would suggest something apolitical and that brings you in contact with different sorts of people than the kind you normally fraternize with). Just "grounding" yourself with the real world can be an amazingly refreshing and reorienting experience.
As for reading...
"White American Youth" by Christian Picciolini is an autobiography by the man who nearly single-handedly reinvigorated white supremacy groups in the American Midwest, and then eventually escaped that life. I think it's always a good idea to recognize one's ideological opponents as people, and to be humble about how easily one could be swayed by evil, and Picciolini's story is bracing in its banality--he restarted an alt-right group that was failing basically because he liked the music and looked up to the group's former leader as a surrogate father. "Hillbilly Elegy" by JD Vance is in much the same mold--humanizing the "other side" and explaining how and why they are what they are
"Escape from Freedom" by Erich Fromm. This is a philosophical treatise and I found it a bit of a slog to get through, but it's an interesting read. The main thesis is that freedom is terrifying, and given freedom people will construct all sorts of rules and eventually submit to authoritarianism, studying Nazi German as an example of a society that was granted greater and greater freedom before suddenly falling back into even stricter rules.
"Self-Portrait in Black and White" by Thomas Chatterton Williams. I haven't finished this one yet so I can't fully endorse it, and I kind of feel like it isn't "for me" (a white woman), but it is interesting. Williams (a black man) discusses having to learn how to expand identity past race after his biracial daughters come out blonde, blue-eyed, and undeniably not "black" by any worthwhile definition. It's hard to describe, but (having several "mismatched" sets of parents/children in my own family) I think it's an important conversation to have.
"Against Empathy" by Paul Bloom. A book that argues that "empathy" as commonly deployed is a useless emotion politically because it focuses us on what makes us feel best, not what *is* best. I don't fully agree with all its points, but it's definitely an interesting proposition.