This is extremely similar what anti LGB people were also saying in how they were contrasting it to the civil rights movement.
Also similar to what the anti-civil rights movement were saying when contrasting it to the end of slavery.
Here, let me show it:
"This also highlights the huge difference between the "Abolitionist Movement" and "Civil Rights". The abolitionist movement just asked society to leave them alone. No impositions on my life. The "civil Rights" movement demands that I accept they can share spaces with me (or I'm a bigot) and allow blacks to have access to the same systems in society (or I'm a bigot)."
The only thing that has changed between these is that once these movements get set in stone, and legislation catches up - reactionary people such as Coleman stop attacking and othering it. This is why history is important. You get to see these patterns and realize its just the same shit happening all over again.
Please could you explain in more detail why you think this is analogous? I'm not seeing it.
All you've done is slot some different words into his tweet and asserted that the meaning is similar. How, exactly?
Also, your original claim was that Hughes is "against trans people being able to exist in this world" which you haven't provided any proof of. That tweet I quoted shows his actual expressed views, which refutes this.
Dictating to trans people about _how they get to live_ is the process of saying they can't co-exist in this world. It is the insinuation that they are _separate but equal_.
We've been through this ride before. We're going through this ride again. Bigots, like that author, will lose and history will not look kindly upon them.
However, for now, they get to act as an "enlightened rationalist", and sell books to people so people can justify their discomfort against trans folks.
These enlightened rationalists aren't new. Again, I'm saying that what history provides us is seeing the patterns of behavior and speech.
--
Let me more specifically target that tweet you've sent. Trans people make up such a small number of people, and an even smaller percentage of those would be interested in professional sports. Spending this much time having a moral freakout over this, when there's practically no "unfairness" happening in any mainstream sports is telling.
This moral outrage has now led to invasive "tests" women have to go through before they participate in multiple sports at an international level. This outrage has caused a proliferation of false claims lodged against women who just, simply do well in sports and don't fall within the very subjectively defined "gender identity".
For example, what Imane Khelif went through is a damned outrage. Has this author taken responsibility of what their rhetoric might mean to so called "real women" that he's claiming to be so supportive of?
--
Now as for the language. As society shifts, and attitudes towards culture changes, our language also changes. It wasn't that far ago where words like the n-word were very common place in American culture. Now, if you're using that you will be considered a bigot. If I'm to take this author at face value, that's somehow supposedly a bad thing?
This is similar to actively, and maliciously, misgendering someone. It's just not reached that level of understanding in society yet.
Language is a living and breathing thing. The meanings of words change over time. How acceptable a phrase is changes over time. Folks crying about this are, at best just scared of change, at worst trying to monetize other folks' fear of change. I believe this author falls into the latter here.
--
It's not just his tweets, he's set his career around this issue (https://youtu.be/WDFXPlv-R_s). For someone who wants to be less _social justice_, he sure spends a lot of time talking about issues that ultimately are not relevant for 99% of the population, and is just part of the culture war himself.
"Dictating to trans people about _how they get to live_ is the process of saying they can't co-exist in this world. It is the insinuation that they are _separate but equal_."
This isn't about "how they get to live". For instance, if a male wants to dress in clothing designed for female wearers and adopt a name more commonly used by women and girls then the vast majority of people will live and let live, and happily co-exist. It's not a problem.
However it becomes a problem when encroaching on the rights of others. The female category in sports is a great example because exclusion of males is the entire rationale, as this provides women and girls with a competitive space that is fairer and safer than if it is mixed-sex. Allowing males into the category - which effectively destroys it - has a negative impact on female athletes. So of course there is going to be opposition to this.
"This moral outrage has now led to invasive 'tests' women have to go through before they participate in multiple sports at an international level. This outrage has caused a proliferation of false claims lodged against women who just, simply do well in sports and don't fall within the very subjectively defined 'gender identity'."
Screening for sex can be done with a cheek swab. This is vastly less invasive than the anti-doping tests athletes must take, which involves having blood taken and urinating in a cup while someone watches.
"For example, what Imane Khelif went through is a damned outrage. Has this author taken responsibility of what their rhetoric might mean to so called 'real women' that he's claiming to be so supportive of?"
There's a significant amount of evidence that indicates Imane Khelif is actually male, with the athletic advantage that brings.
"Language is a living and breathing thing. The meanings of words change over time."
Right, but going back to the above point, if we can't use words like "man", "boy" or "male" to describe the category of people who are definitionally excluded from the female category of sports without being shut down and complained at, then how can anyone make the case for women's sports to those who disagree? Or indeed any aspect of anything relating to women.
Perhaps that's the point - attempting to make it "bigoted" and "transphobic" to argue in favor of women's and girls' sex-based rights, rather than presenting any rational argument for taking them away.
Anyway I think this shows quite clearly that your analogy doesn't fit when one digs into the detail. None of the above is anything like the struggle for racial equality.
As I understand it, these are the major pieces of evidence:
- Karotype testing of Khelif (and the other disqualified boxer, Lin) showing XY chromosomes, reported by sports journalist Alan Abrahamson who's seen the lab reports and covering letter that was received by the IOC from the IBA: https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2024/8/5/fa9lt6ypbwx5su...
- A member of Khelif's training team, Georges Cazorla, revealing in interview that Khelif has problems with chromosomes and hormones, and has been under testosterone suppression to bring levels into the female range: https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/2024-olympics-imane-khelif-was-...
- Extracts from a medical report leaked to French journalist Djaffer Ait Aoudia, which state that Khelif has a disorder of sex development, 5-alpha reductase deficiency, which exists only in males: https://lecorrespondant.net/imane-khelif-ni-ovaires-ni-uteru...
There are other oddities as well, like Khelif choosing not to pursue a case at the Court of Arbitration for Sport after being deemed ineligible to compete in IBA events. And the head of the Spanish national team, Rafael Lozano, saying that when the Algerian team visited to train, they ended up matching Khelif with a male boxer to spar, as the upper body strength and punching power was too much for the female boxers.
Worth noting also that all this is consistent with Khelif competing at the Olympics in the women's boxing category, as they only ask for identity documentation and do not verify sex, unlike weight classes which are strictly controlled.
Everything is the same as everything else if you rewrite all the words to different words. Regardless, "right to exist in the world" is a patently disingenuous description of the rights in question.
Other people are similarly reading and reacting to your rhetoric. Lying about what your opponents say, regardless of what you think it might evolve into, does not reflect well on you.
Also similar to what the anti-civil rights movement were saying when contrasting it to the end of slavery.
Here, let me show it:
"This also highlights the huge difference between the "Abolitionist Movement" and "Civil Rights". The abolitionist movement just asked society to leave them alone. No impositions on my life. The "civil Rights" movement demands that I accept they can share spaces with me (or I'm a bigot) and allow blacks to have access to the same systems in society (or I'm a bigot)."
The only thing that has changed between these is that once these movements get set in stone, and legislation catches up - reactionary people such as Coleman stop attacking and othering it. This is why history is important. You get to see these patterns and realize its just the same shit happening all over again.