|
In having this kind of argument, you're first going to need to decide your strategy- are you looking to change the mind of your opponent, or are you looking to influence bystanders? In both cases, you need to understand their underlying arguments and motivations. If you're looking to change someone's mind, you'll really need to be in a more private venue, willing to take months of gradual picking at things, and be someone they trust. (If you don't already have a closeish relationship, this is probably not going to work out for you.) You'll need to be accepting to them- emphasize that you like and respect them as a person, and you like being around them, but you don't agree with this particular opinion. It's a pretty difficult task: people will only change when they feel like it's safe to do so, and that can be super hard to set up, especially in a lot of Western cultures where we've got the impression that changing one's mind is weakness and lack of spine. If you're just looking to influence bystanders, then worry less about the opponent- you're not changing their mind- and just work on cutting to the underpinnings of their arguments. From what I've seen, anti-trans rhetoric with a "feminist" flavor comes in three broad categories: "Men want to invade women's spaces, and trans rights will allow this," "Transtrenders are loving up our children!!!" and "Biology is everything." The first is silly because, leaving aside the issue of treating trans women as men, men who want to invade women's spaces have historically never felt like they couldn't. Why would a man bother to disguise himself when he can much more easily just bull his way in? (In fact, there have been multiple sexual assaults on women by men in bathrooms, no disguise needed.) Meanwhile, trans women are, for the most part, just trying to keep their heads down and live their lives, and are much more likely to support keeping cis men out of women's spaces because they, too, get victimized by cis men. (There are trans women who will abuse other women, just like there are cis women who will abuse other women. The problem in that case isn't the woman being trans, it's the woman being an abuser, and abusers should be kept out of pretty much any area until they can change their behavior.) The second tends to rely mostly on a fear of children being given Bad Chemicals that will permanently alter their bodies and minds. This is silly because it assumes that the people who have, for decades, worked with trans people are universally bad at their jobs and also don't care about children's well being. It's also especially difficult to argue against because, like anti-vaxxers, the people arguing this are coming entirely from a place of fear and an instinct to protect their children. It's not reasonable at all, so it can't be reasoned against. The best you can do, if you're trying to change someone's mind here, is to coax them toward thinking of the people treating kids as people who also have the best interests of kids at heart, and people with a lot of experience. You can even invite them to think about their own personal areas of expertise as analogy- are they no better at their own job than someone who just came in off the street? In terms of arguing the transtrenders thing for the sake of bystanders, I personally think the best argument is just that puberty blockers have been shown to be both safe and reversible- if the kid decides they're not trans, they get taken off and go through puberty as normal. Ironically, the biggest issues seem to come for kids who end up deciding to transition fully, as avoiding "natural" puberty can affect the ability to harvest eggs or sperm for future personal use, and the ability to undergo the most popular vaginoplasty. Here's an article by a doctor with a bunch of sources. The third argument (in feminist context, at least) is generally an outgrowth of second wave feminist philosophy. Second wave feminism was all about understanding one's self and identity in relation to one's body, and how that was distinct from- and not inferior to- a man's body. This was extremely important at the time, and built the foundations for things like the growing medical understanding that "white male" is not the default human body type, and therefore not the only body necessary to study! If you're arguing with someone who's focused on biology from a feminist angle, you absolutely should make certain you're ready to acknowledge that this philosophy was important and necessary, or else you're not going to make a lot of inroads. Biology as sex is tricky, though, because nature does not give a poo poo about your human categories. Want to sort people by chromosomes? There's a pretty hefty population of people who have something other than the expected setup. Want to sort by junk? Good luck figuring out where intersex people go! There's also evidence that there are male and female patterns of brain behavior- and trans people tend to have the same patterns as the gender they feel they have, not the one they were assigned. (This last one is a very oversimplified view of how gender works, so don't use it as your main argument! Gender is extremely difficult to pin down scientifically, which is probably why so many people throw up their hands and go "I don't know, whatever you were born with, stop giving me a migraine!") Ultimately a lot of it is just based on fear of the unknown and a terror of having one's status lowered in some kind of zero-sum game. Your best bet in general is to make the unknown known, and help people realize that the issue is unlikely to personally affect them. That's a pretty delicate needle to thread, but it's absolutely commendable to do it! Good luck!
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:25 |
|