The principles of listening and solidarity
It’s about the conflict over “trans rights”:
Siân Berry is to quit as leader of the Greens, citing conflict within the party over transgender rights and claiming it had been a “failure of leadership” on her part that the party was sending “mixed messages”.
What are transgender rights though? That’s the problem, isn’t it – they turn out to be a very peculiar form of “rights,” that are not really rights at all.
“There is now an inconsistency between the sincere promise to fight for trans rights and inclusion in my work and the message sent by the party’s choice of frontbench representatives,” she said.
Again, that’s a trick claim. Normally “inclusion” means just not invidious exclusion for bad, prejudiced reasons, but in the case of “trans rights” it also means “inclusion” in the sex that the trans person is not. Those are two very different kinds of inclusion. Women don’t want to be forced to “include” men as women, because that would make a mockery of our rights.
There’s a widespread delusion that men who are trans are feminists because they are women, but that’s completely wrong. Most men who are trans have zero clue about feminism and care even less than that. Men who are trans are interested in what they want, not what women need.
She said the forthcoming leadership election would mean serious questions must be asked of the party. Berry said: “Will we continue to embrace the principles of listening and solidarity when minority groups are singled out for attack?”
What about when women are singled out for attack?
Why is Berry so much more focused on trans people than she is on women? Why does she think trans people matter so much more than women?
“It is important to recognise that women’s rights and trans rights go hand in hand and the party conference continues to consider policy proposals on this issue,” the spokesperson said.
But they don’t. It’s not “important to recognise” that, because it’s not true. Everything would be so much easier if it were true, but it’s not.
Aside from what comes out of very conservative religious circles, there’s no argument over whether transgender people should be free of discrimination in housing, employment, business transactions, etc. The “trans rights” area in dispute needs to be settled by forming a consensus on the ontological status of trans men and trans women. And that can only be discussed if there’s already agreement on the ontological status of men and women.
Of course the TRAs want to skip directly to “including all women” in safe spaces, political representation, or whatever. It begs the question. It’s like a Christian demanding that an atheist accept that a perfectly moral God exists before criticizing His motivations. It’s a slick move, even though that Christian may be convinced it’s the only rational way to begin.