I Find Nuance Is Often Used An Excuse For Inaction

I usually enjoy writing these little intros. It’s often a fun exercise to think back over the conversation, connect a few key points in my mind, and come up with something that gives you a flavour of what you’re about to read.

But in this case, the quote that doubles as the title for this piece is so mind-boggling that I’m not sure where to begin.

In my article, The Trouble With “Trans”, I wrote about the ever-expanding interpretation of the word “trans.” People with gender dysphoria (who would until recently have been called transsexuals), transvestites, autogynephiles, opportunistic predators, confused teenagers, all of these and more have taken refuge under the “trans umbrella.” 

I suggested that we need to be more nuanced when we think about and speak about these very different people. Especially when we’re talking about access to women’s spaces.

Rob, well, the title says it all. Buckle up, it’s a long one.

---

Rob:

I find nuance is often used an excuse for inaction. Getting granular over trans identities deflects from the shared oppression that comes from gender biases.

We can respect personal gender while also dismantling the systemic oppression related to the gender binary.

Also, it’d be nice to have a content warning for all the talk about rape. Rape is often used as a divisive and inflammatory talking point, which does a disservice to trans people and people affected by rape. There are many people who belong to both of those groups.

---

Steve QJ:

I find nuance is often used an excuse for inaction.

What a bizarre thing to say! Recognising that there's a difference between a transvestite and a transgender person and expecting that the question of whether they should have legal access to women's spaces is not an excuse for inaction but an attempt not to take action that harms women.

I am constantly astonished by how little empathy people have for the privacy and comfort of women on this issue. You respect "personal gender" but are happy to take a "move fast and break things" approach to women's rights and safety. What could possibly go wrong?

Also, "rape is often used as a divisive and inflammatory talking point." Are you high?! It's not a talking point. It's a thing that happens. Primarily to women. I have no idea what point you think you're making there. I actulally included a trigger warning regarding rape on a recent article. I didn't (and still don't) think it necessary for a single mention of it.

Getting offended on behalf of other, hypothetical people must be so tiresome, no?

---

Rob:

If trans people are entering women's spaces it's because they are women, not out of some bad intent. Policing gender is part of the problem. It creates situations where women and LGBTQ+ people get hurt. I heard a story where a cis women's gender was questioned in a bathroom. This ideas end up hurting women more than protecting them.

If we want to actually protect women, then focus on cis men. They are the biggest danger to women. Don't go after the groups that also need protection from cis men. That will just create more problems.

As a side note, you brought up rape two separate times. There was the story about attempted rape and another time with the rape threats/crisis centre.

LGBTQ+ people experience violence more than straight people. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-lgbt-violence-press-release/

In particular, trans and bi/multisexual women have a much greater risk of sexual assault than other people.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-assault-and-the-lgbt-community

---

---

Steve QJ:

If we want to actually protect women, then focus on cis men.

This is what drives me so crazy about this debate. Yes! I agree with you!

I don't know how I could possibly have been clearer about the fact that I differentiate between trans women and men. I even wrote an article recently focusing on men. My point is, the idea that all we need to do to differentiate between men and trans women is ask them, is just the most stupid thing I can even imagine.

When the standard for womanhood was higher than a change of pronouns. When there was a structured process of social and medical transition, pretty much nobody was talking about this. But the idea that if I were to say right now "I'm a woman, please use she/her pronouns," you believe I should be treated legally as if I'm a woman, is just so god damn asinine. I cannot believe that in the year of our lord 2022, there are people seriously suggesting this.

And that's before we even address the fact that rates of male sexual violence are unaffected by transition. They're low amongst trans women, of course, they're low amongst men too as a percentage of the population, but sexual aggression is a male problem, not a gender identity problem.

Finally, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about bi/multisexual women being sexually assaulted. Are bisexual women not women? Does that not prove my point about the rate at which women are sexually assaulted and the need to take sensible steps to prevent it? They're still being assaulted by males you know? I don't think rapists ask about the woman's sexuality first.

p.s. I'm not going to put a trigger warning in an article because I write the words "rape crisis centre." The only part of the article that might warrant a trigger warning is the very tangential reference to an attempted sexual assault. As it's the only reference to sexual assault and wasn't graphic in any way, I decided that a trigger warning probably wasn't necessary. You, a man, are the only one of thousands of readers who have said anything about it. Please stop using performative fragility as an identity.

---

Rob:

Most people can’t even tell the difference between cis and trans, let alone trans and trans. That means more cis and trans women will be attacked just for how they look. That’s what happens when society tries to police other people’s gender. It results in more attacks, not less.

Maybe rethink bathrooms (like single stall rooms) and keeping people safe (reduce male aggression), instead of coming up with new ways to be transphobic.

---

Steve QJ:

reduce male aggression

Ah yes, let's "reduce male aggression." Now that you say it, it's amazing that nobobdy else has ever had this genius idea...

All statements like this reveal is that you aren't interested in thinking about the issue at all. And certainly aren't interested in the safety and comfort of over 50% of the population.

Especially given the fact that trans women ARE male. So even if there were a way to just "reduce male aggression," we need to figure out how to do that for trans women too. As I said, rates of sexual violence aren't lower in trans women than in other males.

Male violence is a problem. I agree. And it affects trans women far more than men. I agree. I just don't understand where you get the idea that this problem is female's responsibility. Why not just "reduce male violence" or "rethink bathrooms" so trans women can use male spaces? Or is caring about the rights and boundaries of women just a new way to be "transphobic"?

---

Rob:

Trans women ARE women.

Sorry, I was confused before. I guess what’s happening here is just regular transphobia.

Trans women aren’t trying to fool people and nobody is pretending to be trans. Why would you pretend to be someone who has a much higher risk of being assaulted?

Trans people are trying to fit in a world that has a narrow view of gender. Gender is just a rough approximation of who a person is. It’s not a category to shove people into.

---

Steve QJ:

Trans women ARE women.

I'm not going to debate this. It's a silly, semantic argument used as a purity test. If trans women were women there'd be no need for transition, no need for angst about pronouns, no need for the "trans." And if you divorce the word "woman" from biology entirely, then all men are just women who haven't had surgery or vice versa.

Anyway, I said trans women are male. Which is indisputable. As in trans women are not female. This is literally the only prerequisite for being a trans women. There's so much hyperbole about people not wanting trans people to "exist." Yet when you acknowledge the one fact that is central to trans people's existence; the fact that they transition because males are different to females, you get accused of transphobia. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

It used to be the trans commnity that reminded people that sex and gender are different things. This nuance was useful in helping people understand trans people and gender dysphoria. Then suddenly people like you seemed to completely lose track of this difference and in doing so completely undermine the reality of trans people.

As I said in the article, it's so silly to both claim that trans people are just people (which is true) and then claim that none of them are liars or perverts (which is infantilising nonsense). And it's hopelessly naive to think that perverts who ARE NOT TRANS (!!!!!) won't take advantage of policies that allow them to enter women's spaces and claim they have a protected right to be there, simply because they say the magic words; "I identify as a woman." There is abundant evidence of this happening.

I honestly don't know what to say. How to even begin to have an honest conversation with somebody whose brain is so filled with propaganda that basic facts are mistaken for hatred of trans people? What can I say to somebody who reads an article explaining the need for nuance in this conversation so that people don't simplistically claim that trans people are perverts and come away thinking I'm claiming that trans epoeple are perverts? It's exhausting. Thankfully most people, including most of the trans people who commented, understood the very simple point I was making.

---

Rob:

Have you ever needed a safe space? They aren’t safe because of an imaginary wall stopping certain genders from passing through. They’re safe because the people who need that space can recognize who belongs to that space. Women don’t want you acting like a bouncer outside of the ladies room.

And maybe you’re still figuring out your own gender and that’s why it’s such a big deal to you. If we stop trying to tell people who they are, there’s nothing holding them back from exploring what gender means to them. What if you find out you aren’t the gender you thought you were? That can be a scary thought, but it can also make your life so much better

---

“What if you find out you aren’t the gender you thought you were? That can be a scary thought, but it can also make your life so much better”

Here begins a bizarre subtext where Rob tries to hypnotise me into being trans. I found it quite funny at the time, but looking back, it’s genuinely sinister to think that this is the way people speak to confused, vulnerable kids online. And not just about gender identity…

“Just try it.”

“It can be scary at first.”

“It can make your life so much better.”

---

Steve QJ:

Women don’t want you acting like a bouncer outside of the ladies room.

I'm not. It won't surprise you to hear that I've never once stood outside a ladies room. And sure, if what you were saying were even close to true, and women got to decide who they recognised as belonging in that space, that would be great. But this is absolutely not true.

In fact, funnily enough, I recently saw this poster specifically admonishing women NOT to speak up if they recognise somebody in their spaces who they think doesn't belong there.

As for whether "I find out that I'm not the gender I thought I was," I literally have no idea what you're talking about. This, to me, sounds like saying what if you find out you're not the height you thought you were or your skin was a different colour than you thought it was? Gender is not the solid thing you seem to imply. I'm masculine in some ways, feminine in others, and this has no bearing on the fact that I'm a male bodied human being which, up until recently was uncontroversially known as a man. If you're up for it, I'd love you to explain this in more detail. The way some people talk about gender today makes zero sense.

Now, of course, I don't have gender dysphoria. And I'm not in any way trying to deny that gender dysphoria exists. I'm simply saying that when you move beyond "let everybody live their personal lives however they want" (which every decent person agrees with) to "change the norms and boundaries of women in a way that lets men come into their spaces" I think you need to be a little more intelligent than asking "well, who 'feels' like a woman today?" Especially in a world where males, whether trans women or men, commit ~99% of all sexual assault.

---

Rob:

That's what I was talking about before. People can't even tell the difference between cis and trans. People can't tell by looking at someone if they belong to a safe space. You have to actually know the person. And if you don't know the person, then don't judge them based on their appearance.

The popularized idea of "sex" is only applicable if you're trying to sexually reproduce. There are certain biologicial requirements to thT. In all other cases, we're talking about the social concept of gender. It might be associated with sex, but it is not sex.

When it comes to your own gender, if being a man feels right to you, then you are a man. But that is something you have to decide for yourself. Your body doesn't decide that for you and society doesn't decide that for you. If being a man doesn't always feel right to you (like maybe you prefer feminine things sometimes), then it might be worth looking into different genders and seeing what feels right. Your gender doesn't have to fit perfectly, but it should fit comfortably.

And lastly, trans women make up about 0.7% of the population, so grouping them with men wouldn't impact the statistics. Trans women are assaulted more than most women. And women are assaulted more than men. So I guess trans women must be women. That's the same kind arbitrary logic.

---

Steve QJ:

That's what I was talking about before. People can't even tell the difference between cis and trans.

Yes, you built your entire premise on a lie. There are some cases where you can't tell. Granted. But most of the time, especially without makeup, you can tell quite easily. Human beings are extremely well evolutionarily adapted to be able to do this. Most babies can do it by the age of 3 months.

That's the entire reason why the concept of "passing" exists after all.

But even if we put that aside. By definintion, women aren't complaining about males in their spaces if they can't tell they're male. The issue is the males who are very easily distingushable, because of this push for there to be no sensible standard for who is considered a woman. If you're saying that all that needs to happen for me to be a trans woman is for me to say that I'm a woman, then yes, you'd definitely be able to tell the difference between me and a woman

I wonder if you understand how bizarre the things you're saying sound to somebody who hasn't been brainwashed by gender ideology. If I "prefer feminine things sometimes" it might be worth looking into different genders? What does this even mean?

First of all, why do I need to redefine myself, why do I need to find a new word to describe my "gender" just because I occasionally like feminine things? Why is the concept of a feminine man so abhorrent to you people? Or just a man who likes some stereotypically feminine things?

And secondly, what do you mean "prefer feminine things"? Am I not a man if I like the colour pink? Or baking? Or scented candles? Or flowers? Does liking any of these things mean I'm not a "real" man, but some other "gender"? What if I like makeup and dresses? Is that a clear sign in your mind that somebody isn't a "real" man?

This is so hilariously regressive and sexist. You'd be in absolutely perfect alignment with a Christian conservative from the 1950s. Do you not see that?! They too would have told their son that he wasn't a real man if he liked any of these things. Now, that father might have beaten his son with a belt or sent him off to the army, instead of gently suggested he try a new "gender," but the "logic" is exactly the same.

Lastly, no, trans women are not assaulted more than women. Trans woman sexual assault figures always ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of trans sexual assaults are sex workers, usually in countries like Brazil. Ever wonder why it's always "especially trans women of colour" when these statistics are quoted? It's because being a sex worker carries an enormously increased risk of sexual assault. This is true whethere you're a trans woman or a woman.

But the bigger problem is that the only data available on trans sexual assault is self-reported and includes everything fom rape to unwanted fondling.

I'm not trying to minimise sexual asssault against trans women. Sexual assault is a terrible problem regardless of how often it happens. But I'm tired of seeing it used as a form of emotional bribery against women when women suffer it more often and have to deal with greater consequences like pregnancy and just their generally lesser ability to fight it off.

I'm not sure what you mean by "grouping them with men wouldn't impact the statistics? What statistics? And why should I care whether they're impacted? But yes, I think even you realise that the last paragraph you wrote doesn't qualify as "logic" 😅 You seem to think that any group that isn't identical to men is automatically women.

---

Rob:

The difference is that it wasn’t okay to be a feminine man before. In the past, people would tell you to hide your femininity and push you towards liking only “masculine” things.

And now people more and more people are saying to embrace the parts of you that don’t conform to the old views of gender. You can be a feminine man, because masculinity isn’t what makes you a man. And conversely femininity doesn’t make you a woman. That’s why trans women and feminine men aren’t the same genders. That why people say there are many genders out there. You have to find the gender (or genders) that works for you. You don’t have to even label it, but it’s good to know yourself.

One definition of being Trans is to “transcend the gender binary,” so thinking in terms of sex or male/female doesn’t work. You have to be open to the idea that there are other possibilities out there. It might confusing or even scary, but most social progress is like that at first.

---

Steve QJ:

The difference is that it wasn’t okay to be a feminine man before

Yes, and just as that was truly changing, just as we were teaching men that it's okay to cry and talk about their feelings, just as homosexuality was reaching broad acceptance, just as traditional gender roles were finally being broken down in meaningful, lasting ways, along came the gender ideologies to tell a new generation of boys that if they "liked feminine things sometimes" they weren't men but "non-binary" or "demigender" or women.

To tell girls that if they didn't like the sexist gender roles being placed on them by society, if they didn't like wearing makeup or playing with dolls, or if they felt uncomfortable with they're newly-pubescent bodies (as pretty much every girl does for a while), they're actually men in the "wrong body."

They aren't embracing the parts that don't conform to old views of gender, they are literally chopping them off!!! They erase all trace of who they were behind new names and pronouns. I spoke to a trans man a few months ago who referred to the perfectly healthy female body "he" was born with as a developmental defect.

Every single person on Earth expresses femininity and masculinity in different proportions at different times. So what? Does that mean there are ~8 billion genders? The word, as you're attempting to use it, is meaningless. Or at best, is a synonym for "personality."

---

Rob:

Society isn't telling trans people that they have to change their bodies. Trans people are telling society that they want to change their bodies. And why shouldn't we let them? Trans people have always existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#History

What has changed recently, is that people are advocating for trans people to be acknowledged and respected as part of society.

Personally, I do believe each person has their own gender. We use labels like "man" because it allows us to better understand each other's experiences. Labels can help, but labels never work perfectly. "Man" can be seen as a single gender, or it can be seen as a broad term for many different genders like: feminine male, "bro", masc lesbian, trans man. All those people can relate to the idea of male in some way.

If you don't feel strongly about gender, then you might be agender or genderless, or you might not want to use any kind of label.

---

Steve QJ:

If you don't feel strongly about gender, then you might be agender or genderless, or you might not want to use any kind of label.

Everybody who hasn't been brainwashed by this nonsense (or brainwashed by the old stupid ideas about gender) is "agender." Again, "gender," as you use the word, is meaningless. What experiences does "man" involve in your opinion? I presume you don't even believe "man" has anything to do with being male. So what is it?

As far as I understand, and I'm talking about your framing, not mine, it's an idea in whoever "identifies" as a man's head. But, of course, there's no way in the universe that two people will have the same idea. If I asked every single one of my male friends what it meant to be a man, well, actually, most of them wouldn't know how to answer (I've already asked a few of them). But if I pressed them, they'd each give a different answer.

Does this mean that none of them are men? Because they don't have the same "man feeling"? Or that they're all men, but the "feeling" that makes them men is different for each of them, meaning that there isn't a specific feeling that makes somebody a man? Which again, means the word has no meaning.

How specific do we need to get about our behaviour before we realise this is all a bunch of self-absorbed, incoherent nonsense? Or to be more charitable, as I said earlier, simply a synonym for a personality.

---

Rob:

Is personality also meaningless because each person has a different one? No, it just means the idea of personality is flexible enough to be different for each person.

Gender isn't a concrete objective idea. It might take some cues from nature, but ultimately each culture treats gender differently. That's why people call it a social construct. It's constructed by society. And as a society, we can change it.

And that's already happened. There is no proper definition of "man" anymore because there are no specific characteristics that belong to only men. The idea of "man" is just a collection of things that most men have in common. And if you relate to those things, then you're a man. But that's something you have to decide for yourself.

---

Steve QJ:

Is personality also meaningless because each person has a different one?

Of course personality isn't meaningless. What's meaningless is trying to name it. What is the word that describes your personality? And would you expect it to be the same word as anybody else's? What is the point in every human on Earth inventing a word that describes our personality? And then getting mad if everybody doesn't validate and use our word. And, of course, stay up to date when the word inevitably changes. This is the self-absorbed incoherence I was referring to.

There is a proper definition of man. Just not in the confused circles you move in. It's the same definition that we've been using since the birth of the English language. We see this very clearly when issues get important enough. Very few people were struggling to define "woman" when Roe vs Wade was being overturned, for example. Ask 99% of people who don't spend their lives on Twitter and Tumblr and they all know what a man is. And most of them will be evolved enough that they don't tie their definition to behaviour but simply biology.

Again, it's amazing to me how you don't realise how bizarre and regressive the things you're saying sound to everybody who isn't brainwashed. The thing most men have in common is that they have a penis. That's it. For everything else, you have to rely on the very same stereotypes we've been trying to escape. It's your ideology that insists that if an adult human male likes dresses or liked playing with dolls growing up or is simply a bit effeminate, they're a woman.

You keep ignoring this simple, obvious problem. That your ideology relies on the same stereotypes the Christian conservatives did in the 1950s. Stop ignoring it and actually think about it.

---

Rob:

So if you lose your penis, are you no longer a man? Of course not. You might have some gender dysphoria, but you’d still be a man.

If someone told you, you could have surgery to have a penis, would you refuse that surgery on grounds that your no longer a man? No, because you were always a man. Only you can say whether or not you’re a man.

Also, the English language wasn’t born. It developed over time from old German and then they made up a bunch of words during the Renaissance. And it continues to develop today. You keep pretend things are static and never change. But language and gender have always been changing. It can be hard to keep up with it sometimes, but it still happens.

My guess is that if you budge even an inch on the trans issue, it might allow you to accept something about yourself. Is it so bad to be a woman sometimes or to not even have a gender? Maybe try for 5 min. Feel released from all the pressure of being a man. It’s okay to not be a man all the time.

---

Steve QJ:

So if you lose your penis, are you no longer a man?

😅 it's so sad that I've seen these stupid arguments so many times that I can predict the "oh-so-clever" things people will say to counter them. Note that I said that the thing *most* men have in common is that they have a penis. Yes, I can think of a few examples of men who have had their penises removed for various reason. In each case, they had their penises removed. Yes, they're still men, because whether or not they still have their penises, they're still male. I wish I could have these conversations in person so I could see the look on your face as you pretend you're stupider than you are in order to try to score points.

If I were burned horribly in a fire tomorrow, I'd still be black. The material facts of who you are don't change because of accdents or surgeries or an idea in your head. You can tell what sex a human is at about 7 weeks after conception by giving the mother a quick blood test. You can tell what sex a human being was thousands of years after they died by analysing their DNA. Sex is immutable.

Lastly, this weird gender hypnosis thing you're trying to do isn't working you know?😅 It's not bad to be a woman at all. I don't think it is. What's bad is violating women's boundaries because of stupid fantasies about "being a woman sometimes." What's bad is men threatening to rape and kill women who say "no" when they demand access to their spaces. What's bad is detransitioners living with regret because they were duped by this nonsesnse when they were vulnerable.

As I said, if I accept your framework, I'm "agender." The thought doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I wrote an entire article about my nonbinary identity. I know you'd like to imagine that I feel threatened by your nonsense, or that I hate trans people, but neither is true. It's just that I see that it's nonsense. The emperor truly has no clothes.

---

The more I talk about this issue, the more clearly I see its different faces.

There are misogynists and perverts and people who will say anything if they think it puts them on “the right side of history.” There are people who are suffering and angry and bitter. And there are a surprising number of mindless, brainwashed ideologues.

Gender ideology is so incoherent that it makes trans issues almost impossible to talk about. It can only be accepted through cult-like, unthinking devotion. It can only be defended with dishonesty and emotional blackmail. Because its sole purpose is to cultivate the lie that sex is meaningless.

Recognising the existence of gender dysphoria doesn’t require gender ideology. Breaking down gender stereotypes doesn’t require gender ideology (quite the opposite, in fact). And treating transgender people with compassion certainly doesn’t require gender ideology.

Gender ideology is only useful for forcing men into places where they don’t belong. Perhaps that’s why Rob prefers that we don’t think about the nuances.