Why transphobia doesn't really exist: a thought experiment

I’ll start by first acknowledging that there are people who hate trans people. What I am arguing here is that trans people, by and large, do not experience mistreatment on account of their transness, but on account of their gender non-conformity, and I believe I can convincingly illustrate this with the following thought experiment:

Imagine that a trans-identified male who conforms to the stereotypes of his sex walks into the men’s room. He looks like what a man is supposed to look like according to gendered stereotypes, but he identifies as a woman. He even participates in r/actuallesbians.

Now imagine that a gender-nonconforming “cis” man enters a male-only space. He has long hair and wears makeup and a blouse but recognizes his presentation for what it is, gender non-conformity and individual expression. He has no delusions of being a woman and doesn’t identify as such.

Who do you think is more likely to be a victim of assault?

1 Like

The problem (and this is a problem with the trans ideology, not with you) is that “trans” is not well-defined. Which of the following is a “trans woman:”

A male who presents as a male in every way but in his mind he is a woman.
A male who presents as a male in every way and professes publicly to be a woman.
A male who wears female clothes and professes to be a woman.
A male who goes through with full surgery and professes to be a woman.

And for each of those examples, imagine a version who suffers from gender dysphoria and a version who does not suffer from gender dysphoria but simply likes the idea of being female for other reasons. And does the reason matter? What if it’s AGP?

“Trans” is such an ill-defined word (as are all of their terms, including the ones they stole from society and tried to redefine such as “woman” or “gender”) that equivocation is inevitable. It becomes very precarious to debate with them because of the (very intentional) definition shifts they utilize.

2 Likes

It’s because “trans” is a fucking crap shoot

3 Likes

It’s a prefix taken from the Latin literally meaning “across”. Transvestite or transsexual are valid uses, “trans woman” is linguistic non sequitur:

I’m an across woman

Technically trans should be “trans~” to indicate the word is truncated to include other object words, but it still leaves ambiguity; this is the point, by default “including that which we deem it to include, possibly at a later date”.
This is only one of the logical inconsistencies in modern ‘woke’ language, and they all need to be resisted.
Not because “being a pedantic cunt is a good troll”, but whilst thought is not moderated by language, it is communicated by it, and allowing these “fuzzy” definitions to exist dilutes communication, and also allows the Motte and Bailey fallacy to be easily constructed in debate (hence the “by default” comment earlier).

The best answer to anyone who uses the word trans as an adjective is to just ask “Trans what?”, and stick to it.
I have an advantage, in that I get to play the “Who are you to presume to tell an Englishman what English words mean, do you normally use cultural appropriation as a proxy for insult?” card.
If you can’t do that then defaulting to ‘The Oxford English Dictionary’ definition works too, you can quite honestly refer to it as the cornerstone of the English language and they don’t publish for free on a website so they’ll have to take your word for it. I have a “concise pocket edition” in the Scrabble box upstairs, I’m pretty sure under gender it reads

adj; sex; state of being male or female.

God bless Dr. Samuel Johnson.

4 Likes

Yep. They intentionally embrace the double meaning (trans as an abbreviation for transition or transformation, and trans as in the Latin “on the other side of”) and pivot to either interpretation depending on which one suits their argument.

What’s more, the second meaning only applies when there is a physical barrier present: in chemistry (on the other side of the line of symmetry) and occasionally in geography (eg Transjordania and Cisjordania). There is no linguistic precedent for using trans in this manner to describe a metaphysical concept, so “transgender” is indeed nonsensical, especially when you consider the fact that queer theorists don’t see gender as a binary anyway.

3 Likes

This :100: hell I don’t only not acknowledge them saying their trans I don’t acknowledge them as human