If they say
Here’s the exchange between Selina Todd and Lloyd Russell-Moyle: just the audio.
So, Russell-Moyle didn’t say: “If people don’t consider transwomen to be women then that is against the law and they should face disciplinary procedures.” He said, beginning at about 6:30:
Well if they say a trans woman is not a woman and I will never recognize that, that’s against the law, and actually they should either have to explain themselves in great detail, and if they were unable to do that, then yes they should look at disciplinary procedures
Similar but not the same, and especially he didn’t say “consider” but “say,” and that’s a very important difference.
That said – he still has a hell of a nerve announcing that we can’t say that trans women are not women without explaining ourselves in great detail or facing “disciplinary procedures.” Trans dogs are not dogs, trans houses are not houses, trans tulips are not tulips. Nobody should be disciplined for saying that.
That’s a very odd sort of thing to say — that if you can explain a position in great detail, then you’re presumably okay, but if you can only explain it poorly, or with a lot of detail but not an impressive, massive amount, then you’ll be kicked out.
It reminds me of what an English professor might say regarding an unusual or seemingly trivial interpretation of a work of literature. “Look, if you’re going to do your senior thesis on Hamlet being secretly in love with his uncle, you better support that with the text, and explain your theory in great detail, with numerous quotes and research — or it’s an ‘F.’”
Ha! I love that example. I’ve read a lot of books on Hamlet and there are some wack theories out there – my least favorite of which is that Shakespeare didn’t write it.
It’s a weird stance, since “transwomen are women” period is used as a mantra, with no added explanation or qualification.
What a bully this fellow is. He just won’t let a woman speak.
Transphobic = Infidel.
The trans movement is a cult, and a sinister one. It’s fascinating how many people are coerced into thinking it’s about fairness and tolerance, when it’s actually about making people accept things about the world that are false. Moyle says he will “never recognize” that “a trans woman is not a woman”, which illustrates his ignorance. Trans women are definitely not women in the most fundamental biological sense. Moyle here conflates the secondary qualities of stereotypes and gender roles with the biological distinction, which has the effect of ignoring the essential reality of biology. Kool Aid anyone? The terrible thing about this cult is that it’s tenets are not restricted to a handful of believers on some remote compound, it’s pervasive in the public consciousness. If anyone disagrees with their lies they are labeled ‘transphobic’ and bad people (which is just another lie), just like the non believers of religion are labeled ‘infidels’ and bad people. What the trans cult does, is capitalize on people’s phobophobia, which springs from the PC culture, and the pseudo-psychology taboo on phobias. To which I would argue some fears are justifiable, like not holding your hand in a campfire. I’ll choose common sense over dogma every time.
“I believe it because it is absurd.” This is a statement of faith, of commitment. I doubt that he’s really that confused about biology. Given a quick look at his bio, I’m guessing he’s gay; if so he never has to “prove” his faith by dating a transwoman. Mouthing the words “TWAW” is apparently an acceptable substitute. Would he date a transman, though?
How many of the woke would suddenly beg off dating a trans identified person precisely because of the very biological facts that their ideology requires them to so fervently deny? For how many trans identified people is this also true? Suddenly those genitals you’ve derided others for “reducing” people to become very important indeed. It’s all well and good until it’s your own wants and needs on the line, your own flesh on the line, your actual willingness to live up to the demands you’re willing to impose on others on pain of demonization and ostracism. Do as I say, not as I do. Dying for one’s faith with rebirth in a glorious Christian afterlife is all well and good theoretically, but there are plenty of Christians who sure as hell don’t want to die.
Let’s try that quote a little differently: “Well if they say a trans woman is a woman and I will never recognize that, that’s against the law, and actually they should either have to explain themselves in great detail, and if they were unable to do that, then yes they should look at disciplinary procedures.”
“I doubt that he’s really that confused about biology.”
The problem is he’s not giving it any thought at all, and that’s a key component to their agenda.
Kristjan – I think you must mean “Well if they say a trans woman is a woman and I will ALWAYS recognize that” – right? If you mean it the way you put it I don’t know what your point is.
twiliter, the TWAW/TMAM claim depends on defining “woman” or “man” to mean how one acts. So when conflicts related to actual sex-based differences are pointed out, TRAs say they don’t matter because what a woman or man is can ONLY be about how one acts. So for TRAs, biological sex just doesn’t matter when it comes to civil rights. The problem is that those long-standing sex-based differences haven’t gone away, and of course won’t. Males are physically advantaged over females, the fact that females have the burden of pregnancy and child-rearing disadvantage them also, and of course females are subject everywhere to the threat of male violence. This can’t be ignored and won’t, as we’re seeing now with #ExpelMe, with women being told that any man who wishes to self-ID as a woman will be protected under law, regardless of how that impacts women. That this doesn’t matter when it comes to women self-IDing as men should be a huge tell, honestly.
It’s not only how one acts though, it’s also, and more, how one feels. The Platonic inner essence is key; the insistent dualism is key. Without that the whole thing falls apart.
The claim of there being a ladybrain with ladyfeels still requires some sort of material affirmation though, such as pronoun proclamation or acting/appearing ladylike. That one can do this without having actual inner feels is left as a problematic exercise for the TRAs. Or not.
Well, so far it’s mostly “Or not.” TRAs deny the actual harm already actually done to women by predatory men claiming to be women, using gender “identity” as smokescreen. They deny that this is ever going to be a real problem, ignoring that it’s ALREADY HAPPENED. Evidently it’s someone else’s problem, not theirs.
YNnB, there’s also the matter of said ladyfeels being based not on there being an actual biological ladybrain, but rather just a brainbrain that’s internalized sexist stereotypes about what women should feel. I can actually accept having dysphoria about one’s body, but what I don’t understand is how that then requires us to accept the claim that this should be the basis for defining what a woman is for civil rights purposes.
J.A. @ 12 – it really doesn’t, though. That’s one of the ways the dogma has ratcheted. It’s transphobic to expect (much less demand) any such outward signs. Transpeoplearewhotheysaytheyare.
J.A., This, very clearly. >> “So for TRAs, biological sex just doesn’t matter when it comes to civil rights”.
But women’s liberation is just the opposite, biological sex is the defining component of why society has historically been unfair to women (and still is to a large degree). If the TRA’s had any courage, they would stop trying to bootstrap off of feminism. I’m sure there is some way to deal with their uniquely trans/queer civil rights issues, but without trampling the civil rights of other groups where there is overlap. Didn’t the LGB rights movement do just that?
I’d say that TRAs are “bootstrapping” off the LGB movement and redefining feminism to center it on AGP men.
Yes, you’re probably right NB, I see that perspective too.