From Genevieve Gluck:
“The term “anti-trans” is meaningless because transgenderism is a belief system rather than a class of people. It is a belief in the innateness of gender stereotypes. No one is born with a gender. Stereotypes are assigned based on observed sex.
When people use the term “anti-trans”, they are relegating to individuals what is actually a social analysis of how gender functions. This is neo-liberalism: the reduction of social analysis to subjective individual feelings.
Someone asked me recently if Magdalen (Berns) was anti-trans or opposed to gender stereotypes. These are the same questions but the former depends on a preconceived belief in gender as innate. “Anti-trans” is a deflection from discussing the oppressive nature of gender.
Similarly, understanding that gender is a system of stereotypes necessitates an understanding that flipping them reinforces rather than undoes them. Anti-trans, or anti gender-stereotype is exactly the same question. The first is neo-liberalism, and the second is social analysis.
A better question would be if someone is anti-gender, since it is gender itself that is being questioned rather than the subjective views of what basically boils down to a religious ideology that everyone is born with a gendered soul.
In short, transgenderism functions like a religion and ascribes ideas about innateness of those gender stereotypes that are socially constructed.
Therefore, asking if a view is “anti-trans” is akin to asking an atheist if they are “anti-Christian”. Both can be compared to telling women who question how our oppression functions to being “anti-men.”
Supporting critical thought and analysis of society is then reduced to a framework which centers how someone *feels* about such an analysis rather than bothering to engage. It is dishonest and a diversion.”