Graham Linetransexclusionary

[Jumblegraws]

Measured by who? How and when were these rules agreed?

I address this point in the next part of my post that you quoted. You asked if it was possible to label someone a bigot from the opinions that they express. You didn't ask if it was possible to do so from a position of objective authority, a question which would have gotten a flat "no" from me.

Might it not be better to concentrate on why his opinions are wrong, rather than looking for the quick win of labelling him a transphobe, which is a subjective term anyway?

Completely false dilemma. People have done both, if he is spitefully rejecting sincere counsel because someone called him a bigot or a transphobe, that's contemptible in itself. As I've said earlier, I resent the notion that oppressed people always have to be politely converting their oppressors and are being self-destructive if they push back with some strong words of their own.

We're going in circles here and I'm starting to feel contributing to this thread isn't worthwhile.

[Jumblegraws]

I agree that when people are talking about things on the Internet (especially in the political sphere) ignorance is rarely a valid alibi... But not everyone uses the Internet as much or in the same way as us. I knew someone in his 50s who was talking about getting confused over words changing and mentioned that he used the word "tranny" in a conversation with his son, who told him that wasn't acceptable. He completely accepted that, but he genuinely didn't know until then that it was an unacceptable word, and I don't think he had heard the term transgender before.

I agree with all of this. As I say, there isn't really a general rule you can apply to these kinds of things.

[Funcrusher]

I address this point in the next part of my post that you quoted. You asked if it was possible to label someone a bigot from the opinions and the express. You didn't ask if it was possible to do so from a position of objective authority, a question which would have gotten a flat "no" from me.

It may be a flat no from you, but many people currently applying the term transphobe, or TERF appear to be doing so with an absolute sense of certainty. And doing so has the effect of placing the other person beyond the pale and ending a debate.

Completely false dilemma. People have done both, if he is spitefully rejecting sincere counsel because someone called him a bigot or a transphobe, that's contemptible in itself.

Once someones called him a bigot or a transphobe, which tends to happen early on in these conversations, then the person probably will 'reject sincere counsel'.

As I've said earlier, I resent the notion that oppressed people always have to be politely converting their oppressors and are being self-destructive if they push back with some strong words of their own.

I guess lesbian radical feminists would argue that they are an oppressed people too.

We're going in circles here and I'm starting to feel contributing to this thread isn't worthwhile.

I think that it's the approach I'm objecting to which is circular. Transphobic is a subjective term, but I can still apply it objectively.

[BeardFaceMan]

I agree that when people are talking about things on the Internet (especially in the political sphere) ignorance is rarely a valid alibi... But not everyone uses the Internet as much or in the same way as us. I knew someone in his 50s who was talking about getting confused over words changing and mentioned that he used the word "tranny" in a conversation with his son, who told him that wasn't acceptable. He completely accepted that, but he genuinely didn't know until then that it was an unacceptable word, and I don't think he had heard the term transgender before.

Exactly, trans issues are going to be outside the realm of experience for a lot fo people, especially older people and people who dont use the internet a lot. So calling them a bigot when they genuinely dont know why isnt helpful, the language that you use matters and will probably dicatate whether youre helping things or not as peoole are not going to be receptive to new information if you start off by calling them an idiot.

Thats not to say they aren't bigoted people about and you should never call someone that, just be very sure that they are a bigot and not someone who doesnt know any better and would probably come around to your point of view if you stopped insulting and started talking. You only have to look at threads on here, as soon as the insults start its gloves off and everyone starts arguing about the people posting and the arguing about ideas goes out of the window.  Nothing is learned and nothing is accomplished , other than keeping people arguing with each other instead of talking to each other.

[Jumblegraws]

It may be a flat no from you, but many people currently applying the term transphobe, or TERF appear to be doing so with an absolute sense of certainty. And doing so has the effect of placing the other person beyond the pale and ending a debate.

Once someones called him a bigot or a transphobe, which tends to happen early on in these conversations, then the person probably will 'reject sincere counsel'.

I guess lesbian radical feminists would argue that they are an oppressed people too.

I think that it's the approach I'm objecting to which is circular. Transphobic is a subjective term, but I can still apply it objectively.

I think this is more down to an inflexible approach you have to interpreting language. Just because someone expresses themsleves with conviction, or even with dogmatism, it doesn't mean that they are mistaking their own opinion for objective fact. One of the first things I was taught about writing textual analysis essays for standard grade English was to avoid prefacing every opinion with "I think..." or similar because 1) it made for inconcise prose and 2) you are implicitly insulting the reader by assuming they can't infer an opinion is subjective on the part of the writer by the very fact that the writer wrote it.

I guess lesbian radical feminists would argue that they are an oppressed people too.

And? If the people you're referring to genuinely think that the efforts of trans advocates in question are a front for homophobia and/or misogyny, I don't begrudge them for saying so. I just don't agree with them and I don't believe in linehan's sincerity in associating himself with them, given his history on the subject. Incidentally, do you consider aforementioned feminists guilty of breaking your rule about avoiding definitive language like "bigot" and permutations thereof, or does that only apply to trans advocates?

[Funcrusher]

I think this is more down to an inflexible approach you have to interpreting language. Just because someone expresses themsleves with conviction, or even with dogmatism, it doesn't mean that they are mistaking their own opinion for objective fact. One of the first things I was taught about writing textual analysis essays for standard grade English was to avoid prefacing every opinion with "I think..." or similar because 1) it made for inconcise prose and 2) you are implicitly insulting the reader by assuming they can't infer an opinion is subjective on the part of the writer by the very fact that the writer wrote it.

Calling someone a transphobe isn't the same thing as writing an essay. And mistaking your own opinion for objective fact is pretty much a definition of dogmatism.

And? If the people you're referring to genuinely think that the efforts of trans advocates in question are a front for homophobia and/or misogyny, I don't begrudge them for saying so. I just don't agree with them and I don't believe in linehan's sincerity in associating himself with them, given his history on the subject. Incidentally, do you consider aforementioned feminists guilty of breaking your rule about avoiding definitive language like "bigot" and permutations thereof, or does that only apply to trans advocates?

Is it possible for people to "just not agree" with you without being a bigot? I don't know what examples of use of definitive language you're talking about - I'm not a radical feminist, so don't agree with much of their world view.

[Jumblegraws]

Is it possible for people to "just not agree" with you without being a bigot?

Of course. You are clinging very stubbornly to a notion that people only ever use words like "bigot" as a rhetorical trump card and not because they sincerely believe it's an appropriate descriptor for the person they're confronting in a given situation. I do not use the word as an underhand means of couching people I disagree with as villains, nor do I believe that is the intent when people have used it to describe Linehan.

I don't know what examples of use of definitive language you're talking about - I'm not a radical feminist, so don't agree with much of their world view.

I alluded to the examples in my post, terms like "homophobe" and "misogynist", which have the same sort of force as words like "transphobe" and "bigot". When you brought up "lesbian radical feminists" I assumed that you were implying I was prioritising trans women as a protected class over cis lesbians and trying to test the consistency of my belief that it's right and proper for the oppressed - and their allies - to be forthright in calling their oppressors "bigots" and what have you.  So let me repeat: if someone uses these kinds of words in a confrontation, I take for granted that they sincerely mean it and aren't just deploying a stalling tactic. If I had such a label levelled at me, I would listen investigate why and either counter the claim as best as I could or - heaven forbid - examine my beliefs and attitudes and see if they needed fixing. It's not the fault of trans activists if Linehan or anyone else is incapable of doing the same.

[Funcrusher]

Of course. You are clinging very stubbornly to a notion that people only ever use words like "bigot" as a rhetorical trump card and not because they sincerely believe it's an appropriate descriptor for the person they're confronting in a given situation.

I have never said that people "only ever" use words like bigot as a rhetorical trump card. This is a straw man you have conjured up.

I alluded to the examples in my post, terms like "homophobe" and "misogynist", which have the same sort of force as words like "transphobe" and "bigot". When you brought up "lesbian radical feminists"

What sort of force is that? It doesn't sound like the neutral descriptor used only to  describe in your previous paragraph.

because they sincerely believe it's an appropriate descriptor for the person they're confronting in a given situation. I do not use the word as an underhand means of couching people I disagree with as villains, nor do I believe that is the intent when people have used it to describe Linehan.

When you brought up "lesbian radical feminists" I assumed that you were implying I was prioritising trans women as a protected class over cis lesbians and trying to test the consistency of my belief that it's right and proper for the oppressed - and their allies - to be forthright in calling their oppressors "bigots" and what have you.  So let me repeat: if someone uses these kinds of words in a confrontation, I take for granted that they sincerely mean it and aren't just deploying a stalling tactic. If I had such a label levelled at me, I would listen investigate why and either counter the claim as best as I could or - heaven forbid - examine my beliefs and attitudes and see if they needed fixing. It's not the fault of trans activists if Linehan or anyone else is incapable of doing the same.

But if you counter the claim but the accuser still thinks you're a bigot and you examine your beliefs and attitudes and don't feel they need fixing, what then?

[Jumblegraws]

I have never said that people "only ever" use words like bigot as a rhetorical trump card. This is a straw man you have conjured up.

Fair enough, that was an overstatement. My point was that when you say things like:

Is it possible for people to "just not agree" with you without being a bigot?

And

Might it not be better to concentrate on why his opinions are wrong, rather than looking for the quick win of labelling him a transphobe, which is a subjective term anyway?

Then you are framing the usages of these words as being a trigger-happy and/or bad faith way that I don't feel you ever justified. I had made this clear by the time you said that first quoted example which was why I said you were being stubborn.

What sort of force is that? It doesn't sound like the neutral descriptor used only to  describe in your previous paragraph.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. By "force" I mean they are all used in a way that is firmly condemnatory of the words, attitudes and actions of the person being described. I have never described them as neutral terms.

But if you counter the claim but the accuser still thinks you're a bigot and you examine your beliefs and attitudes and don't feel they need fixing, what then?

Then you've reached an intellectually honest impasse, something you can't claim if you're so affronted by being called a "bigot" or whatever that you refuse to engage any further. It's this latter route that you've implied Linehan has taken:

Once someones called him a bigot or a transphobe, which tends to happen early on in these conversations, then the person probably will 'reject sincere counsel'.

[manticore]

I've hardly read any of what Linehan's twitterings, but from memory the vast majority of what I've read on here about what he says is basically insults like 'bigot'. If people really want to talk about him it would be more interesting if they maybe took a paragraph he's written and critiqued it.

Another thing is that people talk a lot about 'TERFS', radical feminists, but huge swathes of people I see on the net who are critical of gender ideology are not actually radical feminists. Among other things they're people who want to resist gender stereotypes and impositions, especially on children.

One example from a socialist man:

There is a different way to oppose biology-based stereotypes of the girly-girl and red-meat guy: to let males as males and females as females throw off stereotypes and live freer lives just as they are. I think most trans people would have no problem with this; they might even see it as vaguely allied to their own approach. It was once a commonplace among leftists and feminists. Yet we rarely hear of this approach, for it is not what the elite want people to hear. The Left does not challenge them, for it has surrendered a great deal of ground on this issue.


A trend that goes far beyond transgender people themselves

Transgender people defy the most traditional sex stereotypes that people born with a female body are naturally feminine, people born with a male body are naturally masculine, and anything else is unnatural and unhealthy. This means that transgender people face widespread social ostracism, run the risk of violent attacks, and face political attacks from the religious Right and the so-called alt Right. Transgender people deserve support in confronting all these forms of discrimination. Transgender people themselves can reasonably expect to lead that process themselves, or at least to be at the front and centre of any discussions. At the same time, they have huge support from liberals and leftists.

This blog is centred on different concerns:
1 that some ideas associated with transgender identity are politically conservative and work against women's liberation
2 crucially, that the neoliberal elite disseminates the most conservative elements of this thinking, via the mass media and public and private institutions, to help maintain women's oppression
3 that this process is not being challenged by liberals and leftists who normally defend women's rights.

Because of this, discussions around transgender identity are not simply about defending a minority's rights. The issue impacts directly on the whole population, particularly women.

https://freerlives.wordpress.com/about/

[Jumblegraws]

I've hardly read any of what Linehan's twitterings, but from memory the vast majority of what I've read on here about what he says is basically insults like 'bigot'. If people really want to talk about him it would be more interesting if they maybe took a paragraph he's written and critiqued it.

Another thing is that people talk a lot about 'TERFS', radical feminists, but huge swathes of people I see on the net who are critical of gender ideology are not actually radical feminists. Among other things they're people who want to resist gender stereotypes and impositions, especially on children.

One example from a socialist man:

https://freerlives.wordpress.com/about/

As I've said earlier in the thread, I fundamentally disagree that there's a need to refrain from calling him a bigot if that is truly one's impression of him and that it's possible to do this in addition to addressing the finer points of the debate. I'm sure this article must have been posted in this thread already, but I think it's worth linking to again as an instance of the sort of coverage I'm talking about, from someone who is upfront about their agenda https://medium.com/@AlexaEphemera/its-time-to-call-out-graham-linehan-s-ugly-transphobia-30b15be317a5 . The problem as I see it is that Linehan has been confronted with firm but not overtly acrimonious criticism which he has brusquely waved aside, at which point people tire of working through the issue and say "fine, but for the record, you're being a transphobic arsehole", a response which is wrongly construed as the key component of the opposition to things he's said.