Oppressive and invalidating rhetoric

It’s starting already. A tweet cited Harrop:

They aren’t. But people who deny that exclusive same-sex or opposite-sex attraction exist, often in the name of transgender rights (nothing to do with transgender rights) are in conflict with gay and lesbian rights – being born this way. This from a gay supporter of trans rights:


The interlocutor said Harrop wouldn’t appreciate being cited, and in he popped to confirm.

Entirely. This comment is being taken out of context and my position and thinking is being misrepresented. Anyone using *my* words to justify *their* transphobia is doing so in bad faith, and / or is entirely ignorant re: what my opinion on this subject actually is.

So, I asked him a couple of questions.

Ok so explain it to us. Why do you get to say you can have a preference about genitals but feminist women don’t? Or to put it another way, why can’t you even try to understand that the issue is just as intractable for us as it is for you?

Why do you continue to call it “transphobia” when it’s NOT phobia – it’s just non-belief. You can’t help it about the genitals. We can’t either. Why do you see yourself as ok and us as evil? You could at least think about it.

We literally CAN’T see men as women no matter how strenuously they insist. Why does that make us evil but not you?

I think his view is that he does see trans women as women, it’s just that that doesn’t change his attraction or lack of attraction to the relevant genitals.

Our view is that that just doesn’t make any sense. Genitals are either female or male (barring a small number of intersex people); it’s everything else that’s fungible. Bodies are female or male; minds can mix things up however they choose. (Potentially. Socially speaking it’s not that easy, but at least it’s easier than pretending a penis is a vagina.) Harrop doesn’t actually disagree with us, but he’ll never let himself see it.

12 Responses to “Oppressive and invalidating rhetoric”