The Tinkerbell fallacy yet again
Existence precedes essence.
What’s not super hard is grasping that people don’t cease to exist when others don’t believe their self-descriptions. The two things are separate. Tom Coates could claim to be very clever, and I would not believe that claim, yet my non-belief would not cause Tom Coates to stop existing.
Exactly. My belief that identity beliefs of this nature are not objectively true does not stop people from holding them. Much the same with flat earth theory. Clearly, people clinging to those beliefs exist, even if they claim that my skepticism somehow erases them.
Whether “trans people” exist depends what one means by “trans people”. Clearly people who claim to be trans exist, but people who actually are “trapped in an opposite sex body” do not. Yet the TAs take this rejection as “you’re denying my existence” rather than “you’re denying a characteristic I claim to have”.
It’s like denying the existence of a “chosen people” or “magical people”.
OMG. Sarah Burns is genocidal!
Not just corpses that have to be buried or burned either, but wholly imagined phantasms. Let’s get our non-existences sorted.
Yes, exactly.
Indeed. I’ve always struggled to understand what TRAs think they’re claiming when they say this. As another mantra it no doubt works well enough but when you’re trying to convince others. . .
So much of the trans position is made up of unevidenced claims or outright lies that I’m left wondering what substance it has at all. The fact that the mildest questioning of any of the claims is shouted down as bigoted, genocidal transphobia might be a clue that this doubt about the reality of transness is shared by many of those who espouse it. Protesting too much. They’re trying to defend the indefensible by building an impregnable fortress out of empty rhetoric. Appallingly, to a greater degree than it could possibly merit, it has worked.
Being a good “ally” means agreeing to, and promoting, a whole lot of bullshit. But good news! Trans activists are working to extend the definition “transphobia” to include allies, so feel free to lie, intimidate, and bully for the cause. You’ll be excused, celebrated, and protected. Even by law enforcement. Sweet deal!
For the rest of us, here’s a small selection of wrongthink things we’re being ordered to forget or unlearn in order to “be kind,” which is doubleplus good.
Are there more than two sexes? No.
Can humans change sex? No.
Is there a simple straightforward way of objectively determining the existence of any one’s “gender identity”? No.
Is there a definition of “gender identity” that does not rely on or assume performative, stereotypical, sexist behaviours and mannerisms? No.
Are “trans women” women? No.
Are they more vulnerable, marginalized and victimized than anyone else? No.
Are “trans rights” compatible with women’s rights? No.
Should they be given access tor female-only, single-sex spaces and facilities as if they were women? No.
Does “gender affirming care” provide the mental health benefits it promises? In many cases (perhaps most, if not all), no.
Saying any of this out loud in front of the wrong audience will elicit a chorus of Butterworth gasps. This is only a small part of the thicket of “transphobic” trip-wires one must avoid to prevent accusations of anti-trans hatred and incipient eliminationism. Because nothing says anti-trans pogrom like “But men aren’t women.”