A hot take on TERFs.
I realise that, as a man, I probably am not going to get all the nuances of feminism. I have been told that feminism is primarily about equality -- equal rights and equal treatment -- and that's something I can easily get behind. I am all for treating people fairly. To my mind, fairplay is the hallmark of being a gentleman, which implies that a
( Read more... )
Comments 2
As such, the existence of trans people challenges that premise: here is a group of people that expressly and explicitly wants society to treat them differently based on their gender. This goal is objectively impossible in the society these feminists want to create.
I am *also* neither female nor trans, so take this theory with the former contents of a salt mine, but it's my working hypothesis at the moment.
Reply
About the only reasonable case I can see for trans exclusion might be sports, particularly sports for children up to age 17. In that case, I believe participation should be determined by the sex a person is perceived to be at birth--because the vast majority of people do not put children through sex-change operations and the accompanying hormone treatments etc. That usually happens once a person reaches adulthood.
To me, that would at least make children's sports more fair than they are when trans girls are allowed to compete against girls who are mentally and physically female. And, by 'exclusion' in this case, I mean that, for purposes of competitive sports only, the child's mental gender should be disregarded in favor of the physical gender because sports often gives greater advantages based on physicality rather than mentality, up to a point.
As for TERFs, I agree that 'exclusionary' builds walls rather than tearing them down.
Reply
Leave a comment