I think it's just bolting another party/celebration onto what is a momentous occasion, especially when post birth, people probably don't bother with christening anymore. It's harmless enough (unless done with flares on a dry brush forest clearing or something) and very American, but it's none of my business.
The initial meanings of 'fear/panic' adopted from the original Greek gained a wider applicability than that earlier narrow one a while ago, over 100 years at least. The shift seems to have been when the use of it as a noun (eg xenophobia) was accompanied by a tendency to also use it as an adjective...so 'fear of foreigners' (xenophobia) could lead to treating them in a manner that displayed hatred or dislike, as 'in a xenophobic manner.' It is correct to state that this widened usage is not in line with the more specific Greek usage, but that's the way languages evolve.
I still think this is arguable. The roots of 'dislike/hatred' will frequently spring from fear, albeit possibly inherited over generations. And I still think a less loaded term might be adopted to identify the 'opposing' camp, given that many would consider a 'phobia' to be irrational. I note also that the Cambridge definition uses the word 'fear' (albeit along with 'dislike').
I was saying the definition of the term had widened to include 'dislike' and 'hatred' alongside the original narrower ones. I was not implying the later definitions had replaced the earlier ones. Your comment about 'dislike' springing from 'fear' maybe partly helps to explain the evolution of the meaning in English.
OK, fair enough, then I agree. The more important point, imo, is that the label -phobia implies some degree of irrationality (or, more mildly a somewhat unthinking negative standpoint) and is therefore a useful mechanism for closing off debate. So, contrary to Arakel's post above, I think language is hugely important here.
Treat them exactly the same as everyone else. Ultimately, the issues they face are novel, but the associated outcomes are no different to those faced by all of us. There is a reason they cannot compete that is tragic for the individual, but fair to society, and that is the case for practically everyone when applied to some area of life or other.
The thing is, the term now has widened to mean 'not fully accepting of the entire dogma of a particular lobby.' People like Rowling have repeatedly stated their love and respect for trans people, but that they are simply biologically different from their identified sex and it's been widely described as 'transphobia' to the point that that term must mean someone who doesn't agree you can change birth sex biologically.
I would start a list and add Graham Linehan, Raquel Rosario Sanchez (one for @Keighley to comment upon?) and Kathleen Stock to it. Didn't Stonewall incur a lobby's wrath?
I was actually discussing the meaning attached to the suffix '-phobia' in modern English, in all contexts, not this specific one. I personally think that accusing someone of being 'transphobic' because they do not believe M to F transsexuals should be allowed to compete in all women's sporting competitions is an incorrect use of the term in any meaningful context. Maybe a lot of the angst this issue causes could be attributed to the attempts to accomodate the existence of transsexuals of all types (and the term is used to describe a multitude of expressions of self-identity) within purely binary M/F sexual definition. Could it be argued that the variety of expressions of transgender identity renders such a binary definition worthy of reassessment?
I think that comes down to where the objection stems from. If it is one based solely on perceived disadvantage of competing against someone who went through puberty as a male, then it absolutely isn't. On the other hand, if the speaker thinks transsexuals' are rancid, devil-possessed sub humans and forms their opinion on the issue based on that, I feel it changes the context significantly. There is an unfortunate trend in society to take an opinion and assume the motivation (and very often it's the very worst interpretation of that motivation), but I feel that the reality is that when we're talking about grey areas the motivation or thinking behind the opinion makes everything a lot more nuanced. It gets even more knotty when you consider that those holding true malice often hide behind the reasonable objections of those who don't hold malice, thus muddying the issue further.
For Stonewall it was the other way around. They have been 'cancelled' by the anti lobby who have campaigned for the BBC and others to sever links with them.
Rowling may state her 'love and respect' but she is constantly aggy on the subject. I don't actually understand what her 'love and respect' means or what other members of her lobby expect for transwomen. They wish to exclude transwomen from almost all female areas. Ok, maybe sport is problematic, but the law as it stands says that a transwoman may live as a woman and not be discriminated against, yet time and again the anti lobby is saying they should live as men, use male toilets and changing areas, go to male group therapy, be sent to male prisons and at school play on the men's team, however, feminine they may be, however complete the transition. And wow will they go up the wall if services even explore articulating their needs. It's wah wah, we can't say 'woman' anymore. This isn't really living supporting transwomen to live as women - At best it's tolerated transvestism. I'm not hearing the 'love and respect' call even for a third way.
There's a great deal of anger in sections of the LGB community at how trans activists have retconned Stonewall to actually diminish the struggles of homosexuals in achieving acceptance and equality. In Trumpian style, history has ben rewritten to state that Marsha Johnson not only started Stonewall (he wasn't even there when the riots kicked off) but that he was trans (video footage of him reaffirming his male identity exists). There are many in the community who feel that their decades of struggle is being undermined by a novel group who not only trivitalise the work that LGB people have done, but are also essentially undermining the concept of innate sexuality through arguing that if you're a lesbian, you should sleep with trans women too, or you're a bigot. That's why many 'terfs' are lesbian women
What you've done there is just put inflammatory rhetoric to paraphrase a simple belief that natal women are different and have different needs from trans women. That's really all it's about. That's the battle ground. That a marginalised group who make up 50% of the population are now having their issues diluted because of an extremely vocal social media presence of a tiny minority of people. The original tweet about 'people who menstruate' kicked this all off. Women's rights over sanitary products, period poverty, work leave for severe cramps and even some cultures in the developing world shunning menstruating women and girls in solitary confinement for shark week - these discussions cannot be realistically had when you have to pretend the issue applies to some nebulous portion of the community without a unifying connection. Sure there are trans men who menstruate, but they make up <1% of the 'period havers' yet the whole discussion needs to be shifted and diluted to accommodate them, even though in my experience, it was never trans men who cared about the labelling.
This is simply not true. There is no ‘replacing’. There is no denial of service to women by acknowledging the health needs of a few transmen. It’s a straw man of epic proportions to say a few struggles with the language are a real threat. In the real World you live in, not the one you read about, is there any actual change to the services women get?
If the terminology doesn't matter, why are those who mispeak on this subject according to the latest rules, labelled terfs and bombarded with rape and death threats? The door swings both ways.
Most transgender people deplore those threats and do so. One of the most important things in this debate must be to turn the temperature down.
So the terminology doesn't matter? How would black people manage to fight for their rights if the word "black" was redefined and ceased to mean what it means, or could no longer be used to discuss black issues. Could LGB people have got where they are if they were not allowed to own their own terms and descriptors? Why do people expect all women to accept that the word women should include anyone who chooses it and that women's fundamental issues of rights should be discussed with focus on the concerns of tiny tiny outliers or males? Don't tell me that doesn't affect accesses to services or rights. That's what 'terfs' are saying and it's cognitive dissonance to say they are wrong, whilst accepting that all other marginalised groups can and should own their own terminology.
How society treats ‘outliers’ is pretty important really. Tolerance is generally a benefit to all. Under the law, if someone transitions to female, then the law respects that decision and determines that they should not be discriminated against. That’s likely to include persistent misgendering as a harassment, i.e., calling a trans woman a ‘man’. Would you disagree with that or can they live as ‘women’? If you do then my next question is, what do you think transgender is? A mental disorder or a fundamental human experience? Whatever your view on that would seem to provide the answers to your questions. It doesn’t appear as if there is a genetic explanation of transgender, but it does seem that across time and societies there has been an inability for some people to fit into their evident or assigned gender, which in itself is very widely expressed.
Again, the battleground here is gender vs sex. If someone outwardly expresses a female gender and asks me to address them as such then it's simply respectful to do so. That doesn't mean I fundamentally believe that they are biologically the same and have the same issues as a natal woman. Treating outliers in any particular way is fine, until it has the unintended consequence of affecting the inliers, which is the point many women are making.
I suppose the issue is muddled by the fact that not all transgender women actually want to have the full surgical transition anyway. As I stated in an earlier post the very term 'transgender woman' encompasses a multitude of expressions of self-identity and should not be assumed to automatically mean full surgical transition. Many 'transgender women' who do not want to surgically transition have absolutely no romantic or sexual interest in women who are 'fully female from birth' whether they be lesbian or heterosexual, so would not welcome such attention from lesbians. The whole debate is hampered by an excessively binary approach which is totally inadequate for its compexity.
It's interesting to me that this was the battleground used by transgender activists to get people on board for years ("sex is binary, gender is a spectrum" paraphrasing a bit), but the sporting competition discussion is one based solely on sex and yet it's still labelled as discrimination. Sports have long been divided based on sex due to issues of competitive fairness: men are simply physically stronger at the top end due to a variety of biological factors (obviously, individuals can vary and plenty of women are stronger than some men). It is noteworthy to me that a group who have been arguing/educating for years on the differences between physical sex and mental/social gender is now focused on something that is entirely defined and split by physical sex.
Pretty clear what side of the argument the Daily Mail are on, and even in their portrayal of events, it seems a toddler was wearing a dress and wasn't immediately told off for it by their teacher. Non-story.
Well that depends on the line and how many women are drawing it, because support for transgender women among women is pretty high. You claim it is women saying it, but polling suggests that men have stronger positions on it. So the YouGov polling below indicates that a majority of women approve of transwomen using female changing spaces, whereas men do not and more women than not (but not the majority of women because of don’t knows) agree that transgender women are ‘women’ while men do not. Attitudes may be hardening, possibly because there is a lot of amplified negativity. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
The well-known LBGT'phobe Bette Midler. British Triathlon has announced its policy, as the sport has described itself as "...gender affected...", with a new "Open" category. The head of the sport made quite an interesting statement: I think the policy will copied by many other sports.
Though it is an honest attempt to appease the trans lobby, this isn't even a solution if it is applied at the most innocent and naive level of interpretation. If the trans lobby wanted a separate category, that is what they would have been campaigning for. Is that not obvious? Problem is, the policy completely misses the point, which is that a political ideology is being promoted here. It is not about whether trans people can compete, or whether that would be fair to women. No one has ever suggested they should not compete, and if you think I am lying you have completely swallowed the bait. Trans people have always been able to compete based on their natural scientific sex, just as you or I can compete and be measured by our achievements against others of our sex. I would very much like to hear any argument that suggests that was not the case. This is about whether trans women are 'women' or not, and if bigots and racists (anti trans has been associated, by the lobby, with a form of racism) say not, and a that trans women must compete in a category that sets them apart from 'other' women, it is unfair and discriminatory. If people have not figured this out by now, then I look forward to their confusion when trans lobbyists start calling everyone bigots and racists because a separate category is created for trans women. If you want the clearest indicator that the left is fighting a culture war, here it is. Even people like BW see a reasonable resolution that does not include trans women competing in women's sports, yet it will not be good enough for the extremists.
Good article on the Maya Forstater (local gal) affair. ‘Now other women are free to say what they believe’: researcher who lost her job over transgender tweets
