- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
In light of recent controversy and its handling, the twice-a-year FediForum unconference for April 1st and 2nd has been canceled by its organizer.
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t understand how we live in a society where so many people are concerned with what other people do. Most of the world will never knowingly deal with trans people and yet they’re obsessed. How about people stop focusing on how to differentiate each other and instead focus on ways to bring people together?
Some of what Kaliya is saying sounds reasonable but it’s actually reprehensible. As far as sport goes, someone pointed out a while back that sport would be better off if division was done by skill and weight class and I wholeheartedly agree, let’s make sport better and more inclusive, foundationally.
As for Johannes, unfortunately when you try and remain classy, people baying for heads will feel you’re not doing enough. I felt he did little wrong, but can totally see how a more fire and brimstone approach would’ve appeased some.
To be fair to Johannes, I think he ultimately made the right decision. The main problem lie in communication, and timeliness.
I don’t understand how Kaliya’s statements can be controversial or classed as transphobia. Isn’t it in line with the definition of trans?
Her comments cover everything from “trans women are mostly autistic boys who have been gaslit” to “there are only two sexes” to “trans people are unfit to play in their gender’s sport.” However, there are far worse comments floating around out there that talk about genital mutilation and all kinds of other heinous shit.
So the other stuff is clearly wrong and gross, but I’m confused by the “only two sexes” comment. Gender being a spectrum makes sense but I always thought we all pretty much agreed that biological sex was a binary function in humans. Sure there are genetic disorders that create exceptions, but aren’t those exceptions that prove the rule instead of break it?
This is a genuine question. I’m a computer guy not a biology guy.
So…while biology does account for male and female reproductive systems across a variety of species, they have found that, as they continue to study many different forms of life, that they actually have to keep adjusting the model of what they once thought. Life is weirder, more complex, and accounts for a tremendous amount of variation in how this whole thing works.
I’m not a biologist, there are experts who can speak extremely well on this subject. Within the field of biology, the whole “two sexes” thing is kind of an oversimplification. Even if we just focus on humans and not, say, some form of algae with 500 different sexes, there are plenty of divergent forms of human beings that manifest as some form of intersex, with quite a few different variations.
Even if intersex people are a fraction of a fraction of the population, they are a compelling case study for why things don’t definitively boil down across some kind of sexual binary across the board for absolutely everyone. Heck, even males and females in the traditional sense of sexual dimorphism tend to exhibit traits of the other sex in one way or another.
TL;DR - it’s a huge complicated can of worms, and people who try to shutdown discussion of nonbinary or transgender identities with “there’s only two sexes, it’s just science!” tend to have a grade-school understanding of biology.
I feel like were straying back into “sex and gender are the same thing” territory which seems reductive to me.
Not sure why we would focus on algae when we’re clearly only talking about humans.
I get that intersex/other genetic disorders exist. But I still don’t get how that breaks the rule instead of proving it. The rule is that humans have two arms and two legs. Just because there’s one armed people doesn’t mean that rule is broken. It means they’re an exception to that rule.
I don’t understand how Kaliya’s statements can be controversial or classed as transphobia
That’s because it’s mostly dog whistles and wedge tactics. It’s a rehashing of common transphobic talking points, but with the edges brushed off. It’s the way transphobia is portrayed to appear reasonable at first glance.
The dog whistles are easy to miss if you aren’t familiar with them, but the sheer volume of them from her shows that they were absolutely intended. This isn’t accidentally repeating something, this is an active relisting of transphobic talking points predominantly utilised by transphobic groups.
Sex isn’t a “gender orientation” it is really simple biology.
There are unspoken parts to this. What she really means here, even though she doesn’t explicitly say it, is that sex is real, and thus gender isn’t, and because of that, sex is more important than gender. It’s the way transphobic folk often phrase things so they can have a facade of acceptance, whilst still being transphobic. "I’m not questioning your gender, but you’re still male and should be denied space
Sex and gender might be distinct, but they’re related, often conflated and neither are inherently static, binary or immutable. Any attempt to draw a hard line between them, or to point at a dictionary definition is normally always said with the goal of validating exclusion, and that’s what is happening here.
Gamete size – its really simple.
This is a regular talking point used by transphobic groups. It is said precisely for the reasons I mentioned above. It’s an attempt to make a black and white, one sized fits all definition. And the reason that TERFs use it, is because to them, it’s a “gotcha” definition that allows them to exclude trans folk from spaces. And those reasons are there, but unspoken when Kaliya wrote that.
Stop confusing young autistic vulnerable people.
This is also a straight up transphobic talking point. It comes from transphobic literature that paints transgender identity as a form of social contagion, whilst also implying that autistic folk are more vulnerable to this social contagion. The specific context in which it is normally used by these transphobic groups is when talking about young trans men, by portraying them instead as vulnerable young girls.
You think it IS moral to have male-bodied people who identify as trans women playing in elite comparative sport for female-bodied people?
This is more dog whistle transphobia. The big give away here is that she can’t even give trans women the validity of their own identity. She defines trans women first as “male bodied” and secondly as “identitying as trans women”. There is a transphobic term “TIM”, that transphobes use as a slur against trans women. It means “trans identified male”. Transphobes like it, because it is a masculine name, and because it defines their identity as being male, whilst implying that the trans part is less real. The word “identified” here implies it is a phase, or a deceit.
This comment from Kaliya is using that exact concept, but just skipping the acronym.
Gender can be socially-constructed.
Sure. Parts of it can be, and are socially constructed. But what she is really saying here is that gender isn’t as real as sex.
There are only two sexes.
See my earlier comment. When you try and make things black and white, and use strict definitions, generally, the reason for doing so is to validate a push for exclusion, which is exactly what this is.
Telling male children who have feminine tights they must be female is what is happening and it is hurting boys.
Once more, portraying trans identity as social contagion.
culture has gone competely bonkers confusing sex and gender.
Explicitly transphobic. Portrays trans folk as “bonkers”.
Which is a lot of words to say, she’s a transphobe, and she is rehashing transphobic talking points, but framing them in such a way that the transphobia isn’t immediately obvious to folks who aren’t familiar with trans and gender diverse folk.
Besides, “there are only two sexes” is rather obviously inaccurate. While intersex people aren’t terribly common, they do exist and are well-documented – as are the genetic reasons for why they’re intersex. XX men and XY women are also a thing. Genetics are inherently messy.
But acknowledging all that would mean having to admit that sex is a complex matter and can’t be handled with simple statements like “the one you were born with is the one you should have”. It’s easier to just pretend intersex people don’t exist.
That’s pedantry. If I said “the difference between cars and bicycles is 4 wheels versus 2” someone will feel the need to shout out about some 6 wheeled Mercedes or unicycles and tricycles.
Her comment was meant as black and white. To use your analogy, she would be arguing that 6 wheeled cars don’t exist, and insisting that all vehicles have two or four wheels, and that’s how we distinguish them
Did you actually read any of the arguments she was making? It was bog standard TERF nonsense
They were clearly referring to the arguments provided in the article.
You think it IS moral to have male-bodied people who identify as trans women playing in elite comparative sport for female-bodied people?
Go listen to detransitioners and what has happened as the culture has gone competely bonkers confusing sex and gender.
in what universe is this not transphobic? or am i missing something?
You don’t understand how they can be controversial? How about factually, for starters. Even setting aside the issue of transphobia (which we really shouldn’t because let’s face it, it’s pretty central to what’s going on) every one of the posts displayed contains a claim that’s blatantly untrue on its face.
