TLDR The left wins when we achieve working class solidarity. Excluding groups of people based on identity isn’t solidarity.
At first I thought that I needed to know what your argument defined as the left to respond to your argument. Then I realized my argument is the same regardless of that.
Any movement that success depends on excluding trans people or Palestinians or any minority group for that matter is not one I want to be a part of or one that I have any interest in succeeding.
If all we are willing to fight for is success for a handful of white cis straight men of European decent then we’ve successful divided ourselves so thoroughly that we are doomed to be ruled by either Republican fascists or Democrat fascists who serve the owner class.
Bigots use biology as a crutch to justify their bigotry. That’s how I know this woman is a bigot. Unless we are all willing to work together to fight for each other’s rights we won’t get anywhere. That means voting Democrat for the most progressives candidates we can in elections. It means solidarity with groups the Democrats would rather abandon between elections. It means abandoning bigotry and sticking with trans people.
I’ll phrase it another way. I support lesbians. I am a lesbian. Why doesn’t this woman who supports lesbians support me a transbian? How is her subscription to a division in the working class that benefits the owner class not the debilitating issue in this dynamic? Why is she not the reason the left is losing?
Why is my desire for rights the issue when I support her rights and the rights she is fighting for? I knew nothing about this woman before seeing this post. I still know mostly nothing about her. I know she doesn’t support my rights though. How am I supposed to have solidarity with her when she already went out of her way to exclude me? And why am I being gaslight into thinking I’m the problem?
There’s an idea that says we should abandon certain people based on the likelihood embracing them will cause a movement to succeed or fail. It of course adjusts this calculus based on preexisting notions of what is normal for race, ethnicity, gender, sex, attraction, physical appearance, personal ability, and everything else that shouldn’t matter at any given time.
The refutation of this line of thinking is straightforward. If we abandon trans people today it’s lesbians who will be abandoned tomorrow. But more to the point, this line of reasoning completely undermines the premise it pretends to stand for. To reiterate, the argument says, “We should stop caring about X group and just focus on the working class and calling terfs bigots is the problem”. But X group is part of the working class (X was gay people in a comment I saw elsewhere that seems to be an emotional appeal to rebrand neoliberal shifting to the right as socialist). Trans people are part of the working class. The only group that isn’t part of the working class is the owner class.
Refusing to care about a certain group of people isn’t working class solidarity. It’s doing the work of dividing the working class for the owner class.
Y’all are why the left is losing.
If you want to know why the left is losing look no further than your comment. I’m not going back in the closet. I’m not giving up on my rights because it will make it convenient for you. Fuck terfs. If she wants my support all she has to do is put down her bigotry. I’m still standing in the middle ground where lesbians and trans people get to exist thanks.
As far as I read, she doesn’t say anything about being against trans rights. What I read is that she believes that being trans doesn’t change someone’s gender, and I think that’s different to being a bigot. One can respect trans people without believing transitioning actually changes their gender, because the meaning of gender has evolved, and not everyone agrees (and this is coming from someone who actually agrees).
I think it’s important not to use the word “bigotry” as willy nilly, because if people start calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them a bigot, the word loses its meaning altogether.
I do believe in people being transgender, but I do have friends that don’t but, nevertheless, respect trans people anyway. One can believe transitioning doesn’t change the underlying gender but still respect the people who do it anyway.
This might sound a bit weird, but I think the principle is very similar:
You can have an atheist and a theist in the same room. Their beliefs are inherently different, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can respect each other.
One person in the room doesn’t believe the other person in the room has the right to exist. They cannot respect someone they are against existing in the first place. The groups are not the same. They don’t have different viewpoints, one group just want to exist and to be left alone, the other wants to remove them.
You can have an atheist and a theist in the same room. Their beliefs are inherently different, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can respect each other.
But this comparison completely fails to encapsulate the disagreement in question between terfs and trans people. The theist argues that god(s) exists in some capacity while the atheist argues that god(s) do(es) not exist in any capacity. The relevant debate between the theist and the atheist only references god(s) not the theist or the atheist.
The relevant debate between terfs and trans people inherently references the trans people. Whether or not trans people get to exist as their gender is the debate.
One can believe transitioning doesn’t change the underlying gender but still respect the people who do it anyway.
The reason transitioning doesn’t change our underlying gender is that we are already our underlying gender whether we transition or not. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Despite not having transitioned physically I am a woman. Before I knew I was a woman I was a woman who thought I was a man. Some people are gender fluid. A gender fluid person’s gender can change at any time. Physically transitioning isn’t the standard we use to determine who is or isn’t trans or what a person’s gender is.
Transitioning is for the benefit of trans people, not how gender is changed. Physically transitioning involves changing sex characteristics. Gender is a social construct. A person’s lived experience is going to be how a person determines their gender before anything involving physically changing sex characteristics is relevant.
I do believe in people being transgender, but I do have friends that don’t but, nevertheless, respect trans people anyway.
You don’t need to believe that trans people exist. I, a trans person, am writing to you right now. What about me do these friends of yours respect if not my right to exist as myself? I am a woman. I am going to be a woman whether or not anyone believes it. If they can’t respect me as a woman then they don’t respect me.
I think it’s important not to use the word “bigotry” as willy nilly, because if people start calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them a bigot, the word loses its meaning altogether.
I used the term bigot to refer to a well known kind of bigot, terfs, trans exclusionary radical feminists. But even still, people who disagree that trans people have a right to exist, which I didn’t realized needed to be said, as the gender trans people say they are, are bigots. Their intolerance against trans people is what makes a person a bigot. There is no tolerant way to argue someone shouldn’t exist.
As far as I read, she doesn’t say anything about being against trans rights.
BIOLOGY IS NOT BIGOTRY.
This is called a dog whistle. It’s called a dog whistle because much like real dog whistles If you aren’t part of the group it’s designed to be heard by you likely can’t hear it. This idea that biology determines gender isn’t supported by any credible body of scientific research but it’s a commonly used to tactic to justify the arbitrary social norms around gender.
If you are a trans person you’ve had this argument thrown at you before and know it’s an attack line to demonize and undermine you. If you aren’t a trans person it can come off as a seemingly reasonable defense of a woman’s political views that appeals to the gender binary most people grew up with. Much like war on crime or war on drugs can sound like a politician is talking about stopping crime or drug trafficking to a white person but they mean over-policing black people.
What I read is that she believes that being trans doesn’t change someone’s gender, and I think that’s different to being a bigot.
Being trans means a person’s gender does not match the gender that person was assigned at birth usually based on sex characteristics. So being trans doesn’t change a person’s gender. But it does mean a person may realize later that their gender was not what they thought it was. Also being trans does mean a person is the gender that they say they are regardless of what society says a person’s sex characteristics mean. That last one is the actual relevant discussion.
One can respect trans people without believing transitioning actually changes their gender, because the meaning of gender has evolved, and not everyone agrees (and this is coming from someone who actually agrees).
Trans people have existed as long as there have been people. Even as concepts of gender changed over time and people decided that this modern gender binary always existed.
If a person doesn’t believe a trans man when he tells that person he is a man that person isn’t being respectful. The same way it would be disrespectful for a person to not believe a cis man when he tells that person he is a man.
Our understanding of gender has evolved. Insisting that the word gender has some inherent meaning as opposed to acknowledging that gender is a social construct is part of the problem. The fact some people cling to the artificial gender binary at the expense of real people is also part of the problem.
The fact you agree is appreciated. So I wrote you this explanation. I recommend reading up on the topic further before commenting on these issues in comment sections of posts in communities on this instance. You gave the terfs the benefit of the doubt which was nice of you.
We, trans people on this instance, are already familiar with terfs and their talking points. We do not get give terfs the benefit of the doubt here. If you would like to continue this or similar discussions consider asking first and giving an opinion second. Otherwise I look forward to your ban. Hope that helps!
I appreciate your comment. The last part was a bit uncalled for, but anyway. In any case, while I can agree in scientific consensus, there will always be people that don’t. And that is the point I was trying to make.
There are people who believe the world is flat, and people who believe the world is 4000 years old. My point was that not agreeing with scientific consensus is not the same as not believing the people who do shouldn’t exist or shouldn’t participate in society however they want.
In fact, the person I know who doesn’t believe in the concept of transgenderism did in fact vote in favour of trans rights in my country (as did I). They don’t understand it and don’t agree with the concept, but they still want everyone to have the rights they deserve and know it’s not up to them to decide how one defines themselves.
The kind of person you are articulating, someone who would vote in favor of trans rights, is fundamentally different than terfs who actively campaign to destroy trans people. This woman we are discussing is a terf and thus a bigot. The fact she is couching her bigotry in a misrepresentation of science should not in anyway be interpreted as a sincere misunderstanding. We are way past that point in 2025.
To you it may seem uncalled for, but this is not the average neoliberal both-sides right-wing talking points instance. If you can’t recognize a person who wants trans people dead when she is pointed out to you then there are other instances where you can give terfs the benefit of the doubt.
I appreciate that you and your friend voted for the interests of trans people in your country. I don’t believe you or your friend are bigots. However the bar is higher than whether or not a person is a bigot here. Here on Blåhaj we always act in the interests of trans people. That means calling terfs bigots. And banning people who insist on having a problem with that. edit: typo
Y’all are why the left is losing.
TLDR The left wins when we achieve working class solidarity. Excluding groups of people based on identity isn’t solidarity.
At first I thought that I needed to know what your argument defined as the left to respond to your argument. Then I realized my argument is the same regardless of that.
Any movement that success depends on excluding trans people or Palestinians or any minority group for that matter is not one I want to be a part of or one that I have any interest in succeeding.
If all we are willing to fight for is success for a handful of white cis straight men of European decent then we’ve successful divided ourselves so thoroughly that we are doomed to be ruled by either Republican fascists or Democrat fascists who serve the owner class.
Bigots use biology as a crutch to justify their bigotry. That’s how I know this woman is a bigot. Unless we are all willing to work together to fight for each other’s rights we won’t get anywhere. That means voting Democrat for the most progressives candidates we can in elections. It means solidarity with groups the Democrats would rather abandon between elections. It means abandoning bigotry and sticking with trans people.
I’ll phrase it another way. I support lesbians. I am a lesbian. Why doesn’t this woman who supports lesbians support me a transbian? How is her subscription to a division in the working class that benefits the owner class not the debilitating issue in this dynamic? Why is she not the reason the left is losing?
Why is my desire for rights the issue when I support her rights and the rights she is fighting for? I knew nothing about this woman before seeing this post. I still know mostly nothing about her. I know she doesn’t support my rights though. How am I supposed to have solidarity with her when she already went out of her way to exclude me? And why am I being gaslight into thinking I’m the problem?
There’s an idea that says we should abandon certain people based on the likelihood embracing them will cause a movement to succeed or fail. It of course adjusts this calculus based on preexisting notions of what is normal for race, ethnicity, gender, sex, attraction, physical appearance, personal ability, and everything else that shouldn’t matter at any given time.
The refutation of this line of thinking is straightforward. If we abandon trans people today it’s lesbians who will be abandoned tomorrow. But more to the point, this line of reasoning completely undermines the premise it pretends to stand for. To reiterate, the argument says, “We should stop caring about X group and just focus on the working class and calling terfs bigots is the problem”. But X group is part of the working class (X was gay people in a comment I saw elsewhere that seems to be an emotional appeal to rebrand neoliberal shifting to the right as socialist). Trans people are part of the working class. The only group that isn’t part of the working class is the owner class.
Refusing to care about a certain group of people isn’t working class solidarity. It’s doing the work of dividing the working class for the owner class.
If you want to know why the left is losing look no further than your comment. I’m not going back in the closet. I’m not giving up on my rights because it will make it convenient for you. Fuck terfs. If she wants my support all she has to do is put down her bigotry. I’m still standing in the middle ground where lesbians and trans people get to exist thanks.
As far as I read, she doesn’t say anything about being against trans rights. What I read is that she believes that being trans doesn’t change someone’s gender, and I think that’s different to being a bigot. One can respect trans people without believing transitioning actually changes their gender, because the meaning of gender has evolved, and not everyone agrees (and this is coming from someone who actually agrees).
I think it’s important not to use the word “bigotry” as willy nilly, because if people start calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them a bigot, the word loses its meaning altogether.
I do believe in people being transgender, but I do have friends that don’t but, nevertheless, respect trans people anyway. One can believe transitioning doesn’t change the underlying gender but still respect the people who do it anyway.
This might sound a bit weird, but I think the principle is very similar: You can have an atheist and a theist in the same room. Their beliefs are inherently different, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can respect each other.
One person in the room doesn’t believe the other person in the room has the right to exist. They cannot respect someone they are against existing in the first place. The groups are not the same. They don’t have different viewpoints, one group just want to exist and to be left alone, the other wants to remove them.
But this comparison completely fails to encapsulate the disagreement in question between terfs and trans people. The theist argues that god(s) exists in some capacity while the atheist argues that god(s) do(es) not exist in any capacity. The relevant debate between the theist and the atheist only references god(s) not the theist or the atheist.
The relevant debate between terfs and trans people inherently references the trans people. Whether or not trans people get to exist as their gender is the debate.
The reason transitioning doesn’t change our underlying gender is that we are already our underlying gender whether we transition or not. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Despite not having transitioned physically I am a woman. Before I knew I was a woman I was a woman who thought I was a man. Some people are gender fluid. A gender fluid person’s gender can change at any time. Physically transitioning isn’t the standard we use to determine who is or isn’t trans or what a person’s gender is.
Transitioning is for the benefit of trans people, not how gender is changed. Physically transitioning involves changing sex characteristics. Gender is a social construct. A person’s lived experience is going to be how a person determines their gender before anything involving physically changing sex characteristics is relevant.
You don’t need to believe that trans people exist. I, a trans person, am writing to you right now. What about me do these friends of yours respect if not my right to exist as myself? I am a woman. I am going to be a woman whether or not anyone believes it. If they can’t respect me as a woman then they don’t respect me.
I used the term bigot to refer to a well known kind of bigot, terfs, trans exclusionary radical feminists. But even still, people who disagree that trans people have a right to exist, which I didn’t realized needed to be said, as the gender trans people say they are, are bigots. Their intolerance against trans people is what makes a person a bigot. There is no tolerant way to argue someone shouldn’t exist.
This is called a dog whistle. It’s called a dog whistle because much like real dog whistles If you aren’t part of the group it’s designed to be heard by you likely can’t hear it. This idea that biology determines gender isn’t supported by any credible body of scientific research but it’s a commonly used to tactic to justify the arbitrary social norms around gender.
If you are a trans person you’ve had this argument thrown at you before and know it’s an attack line to demonize and undermine you. If you aren’t a trans person it can come off as a seemingly reasonable defense of a woman’s political views that appeals to the gender binary most people grew up with. Much like war on crime or war on drugs can sound like a politician is talking about stopping crime or drug trafficking to a white person but they mean over-policing black people.
Being trans means a person’s gender does not match the gender that person was assigned at birth usually based on sex characteristics. So being trans doesn’t change a person’s gender. But it does mean a person may realize later that their gender was not what they thought it was. Also being trans does mean a person is the gender that they say they are regardless of what society says a person’s sex characteristics mean. That last one is the actual relevant discussion.
Trans people have existed as long as there have been people. Even as concepts of gender changed over time and people decided that this modern gender binary always existed.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/02/10-must-know-facts-about-transgender-history-that-you-didnt-learn-in-school/
If a person doesn’t believe a trans man when he tells that person he is a man that person isn’t being respectful. The same way it would be disrespectful for a person to not believe a cis man when he tells that person he is a man.
Our understanding of gender has evolved. Insisting that the word gender has some inherent meaning as opposed to acknowledging that gender is a social construct is part of the problem. The fact some people cling to the artificial gender binary at the expense of real people is also part of the problem.
The fact you agree is appreciated. So I wrote you this explanation. I recommend reading up on the topic further before commenting on these issues in comment sections of posts in communities on this instance. You gave the terfs the benefit of the doubt which was nice of you.
We, trans people on this instance, are already familiar with terfs and their talking points. We do not get give terfs the benefit of the doubt here. If you would like to continue this or similar discussions consider asking first and giving an opinion second. Otherwise I look forward to your ban. Hope that helps!
I appreciate your comment. The last part was a bit uncalled for, but anyway. In any case, while I can agree in scientific consensus, there will always be people that don’t. And that is the point I was trying to make.
There are people who believe the world is flat, and people who believe the world is 4000 years old. My point was that not agreeing with scientific consensus is not the same as not believing the people who do shouldn’t exist or shouldn’t participate in society however they want.
In fact, the person I know who doesn’t believe in the concept of transgenderism did in fact vote in favour of trans rights in my country (as did I). They don’t understand it and don’t agree with the concept, but they still want everyone to have the rights they deserve and know it’s not up to them to decide how one defines themselves.
And I think they are not a bigot.
The kind of person you are articulating, someone who would vote in favor of trans rights, is fundamentally different than terfs who actively campaign to destroy trans people. This woman we are discussing is a terf and thus a bigot. The fact she is couching her bigotry in a misrepresentation of science should not in anyway be interpreted as a sincere misunderstanding. We are way past that point in 2025.
To you it may seem uncalled for, but this is not the average neoliberal both-sides right-wing talking points instance. If you can’t recognize a person who wants trans people dead when she is pointed out to you then there are other instances where you can give terfs the benefit of the doubt.
I appreciate that you and your friend voted for the interests of trans people in your country. I don’t believe you or your friend are bigots. However the bar is higher than whether or not a person is a bigot here. Here on Blåhaj we always act in the interests of trans people. That means calling terfs bigots. And banning people who insist on having a problem with that. edit: typo
Please elaborate