Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Harmful to whom?
There are categories of things we shouldn’t say, because they can hurt and because there’s no value to saying them. We shouldn’t go around telling people they’re ugly, for instance. The law doesn’t come into it, but basic sympathy with other people should.
This is not that.
It’s not, but it seems to look like it to a lot of people, which may be why the whole Just Don’t Say It thing has taken such a grip on people.
I think that at this point, this kind of reaction might not be because of any regard for the tender feelings of trans identified males, but that bringing up the “Gabrielle” Ludwigs and “Karen” Whites makes “allies” look bad. It breaks the illusion that they’re fighting for the underdog, and rubs their noses in the fact that what they’re doing hurts women. Looking at it from Artymorty’s “Tribal Politics” pesrpective, having already committed themselves to the belief that what they’re supporting is “good” and “progressive”, they have no alternative but to try to suppress the predicted, inevitable result of letting men into women’s spaces and facilities. Seen in this light ,”NO DEBATE” is as much about protecting the reputations of trans supporters as it is about protecting an allegedly “marginalized, vulnerable community.” Exactly how many “allies” who are heterosexual men who claim with a straight face (HA!) that “TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN!” would ever include trans identified males into their dating pools? Likely very few, yet they’re more than happy to force lesbians to do exactly this. It’s so easy to give away things that don’t belong to you, to be blasé about collateral damage that is unlikely to fall upon your own head. Heroism without sacrifice. Cookies without cavities. Slow clap all ’round.
(The UK is an interesting test case. They seem to be having a “Hang on a minute” moment in advance of other countries that have been hauled down the trail of trans-ideological capture, so what happens there matters. It might be a preview of Coming Attractions on this side of the Atlantic. Granted that politics in both the US and Canada are different enough from the UK (and each other) that we can’t expect any direct transplant between any of them, what happens there is informative and helpful, so observations are useful.)
What is the percentage of British union membership who are actually trans-identified? (What percentage of the membership are women?) There’s more than one kind of forced teaming in operation. The suppression of uncomfortable truths covers the asses of a lot more “allies” than it does of actual trans-identified people. In terms of numbers, it’s not just trans people themselves who are benefiting from the demonization and ostracism of the bearers of bad news, it is also self-righteous trans “allies”. I daresay there are more of the latter than the former. The bacon they are saving is their own. The misogynistic, not-so-rearguard actions of those like Brighton City Council, and the SNP against the Supreme Court ruling are political examples of the sunk cost fallacy, showing an inability to accept that their support for trans intrusion of women’s spaces was both wrong and wrongheaded, and is now, however they try to spin it, actually against the law. They cannot and will not accept that , in this case, they are indeed the Baddies.
Leave a Reply