Trans Women are not Women

[Arcade22]

Because the actual definition of "woman" is "adult biological female human being".

Exactly. You intentionally choose to define woman in a way as to exclude transsexual women, even though they can be more womanly and feminine than some "biological females" could ever hope to be.

This exclusionary attitude is no different from somehow only acknowledging people of exclusively Swedish descent, requiring Swedish parents going back many generations, as genuinely "Swedish".

Why is that so important to you? What do you gain for defining woman in that way? Absolutely ******* nothing.

 

[Francesca R]

The transphobia on display is disgusting.

Agreed.

I, for one, would be very grateful if you could point out a few posts that you judge to contain "disgusting transphobia". Even better if you can isolate the relevant disgusting transphobic elements. Are any of my posts disgustingly transphobic? Does disgusting transphobia (to the extent that you have observed it in this thread even though you have not pointed it out yet) amount to "hate speech"?

Thanks in advance! This would be a most useful sampling exercise of the readiness or otherwise that some have to attach these labels.

 

[Arcade22]

There hardly is any argument in real life. At least I've never been faced with males entering or trying to enter female only spaces*. On the internet however things take on different relative proportions (in case you had not noticed)

Well apparently in "some places", also known as "Canada", any man can just waltz into women's locker-rooms at any time, take photographs of girls and so forth. Happens all the time there apparently.

 

[Francesca R]

I shall doubt that absent evidence. Presumably so will you

 

[angrysoba]

What an ugly thread.

The transphobia on display is disgusting.

Agreed.

I've actually found Rolfe's posts to be very enlightening. I have certainly learned a lot from them including things I did not know about Caster Semenya.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. You intentionally choose to define woman in a way as to exclude transsexual women, even though they can be more womanly and feminine than some "biological females" could ever hope to be.

You know, someone could call the above misogyny.

And you intentionally choose to define woman in a way that includes transsexuals.

See? It's not an argument that helps either way. I asked before: how do you define "woman", and why?

 

[d4m10n]

What an ugly thread.



The transphobia on display is disgusting.

Blatant attempt to stifle discussion without even a fig leaf of counterargument.

The anti-skepticism on display is disappointing.

 

[Arcade22]

You know, someone could call the above misogyny.

Isn't that how racists argue? They aren't racist at all, they claim. They don't hate anyone or any race, rather they really just love their race and want to protect it because it's at risk of being defiled and destroyed through miscegenation. Almost the same kind of argument is made by the homophobes who refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. They really aren't homophobes, see. They just want to protect the sanctity of marriage and families from the horrors of sodomites.

And you intentionally choose to define woman in a way that includes transsexuals.

And?

See? It's not an argument that helps either way.

Except it shows just that there's no meaningful difference between transphobic attitudes and racist, homophobic or similar attitudes. That was the entire ******* point that apparently flew over your head.

I asked before: how do you define "woman", and why?

A woman is someone or something that acts, looks or otherwise behaves in a manner of a female human. I have no apprehensions of recognizing that even a machine made in form of female human could potentially be more of a woman than a "biological female". I can only imagine how triggered all those feminists are by the possibility of being out-competed machines. Hah!

 

[Meadmaker]

No, there's no difference, sorry. Yes, men (at least those of us who're straight) like to watch naked women, but spying on them, be it in showers or through people's windows, is different from that:

Ok. That particular line of argument wasn't the most articulate or well stated thing I've ever said. Let me see if I can restate it better.


In these debates, one tactic commonly employed by trans rights activists is to diminish or dismiss the anxiety expressed over sharing space with males. This tactic takes a couple of forms. One is to act like women's "modesty" or whatever word describes their discomfort about exposing themselves to men, is somehow childish, immature, prudish, or in some other way invalid. Another tactic is to insist that there is no way that they ought to be concerned that non-trans men would ever take advantage of relaxed laws just to see women naked in locker rooms. I'm saying that the desire to see women naked in locker rooms is actually extremely common, indeed normal. Empathy is enough to keep most men from exercising that desire, but laws and social consequences are necessary for other men. If you relax those laws and make it easier for men to get away with it, some people will indeed take advantage of the situation.


It's not some silly fear that ought to be dismissed with a hand wave.

No, there is nothing natural about it at all. An example from around here:

And yet, I'll bet there are gyms/health clubs/whatever in Denmark, and I'll bet they have segregated locker rooms. I note that your quotes referred to certain "well defined situations".

Like I said, I don't know whether or not it's "natural", but it's mighty darned common, even in Denmark, to either keep your clothes on around the opposite sex, or limit nudity to certain "well defined situations."

By the way, the unnatural inhibition about nudity seems to be returning in my country among very young people.

Interesting. I've remarked as well how young people in America seem more uptight about nudity than the way I grew up. I was referring specifically to men in locker rooms. These young guys are always wrapping towels around themselves so no one sees their privates, or at most for a couple of seconds while changing. I have reluctantly adopted the custom myself. It's a bloody nuisance. Danged kids these days.

 

[d4m10n]

A woman is someone or something that acts, looks or otherwise behaves in a manner of a female human.

This definition makes perfect sense if you're trying to tell if someone should go to the men's or the women's section at the local department store. It doesn't help us decide whether someone should play women's tennis or use the women's showers, though.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A woman is someone or something that acts, looks or otherwise behaves in a manner of a female human.

The most contentious part of this thread is the discussion of a small number of individuals who don't fit that description except to the extent of claiming that they do.

 

[angrysoba]

A woman is someone or something that acts, looks or otherwise behaves in a manner of a female human.

I would say that this itself is open to the very problems that other theories of feminism seek to solve, such as the idea that women should not be shoehorned into some stereotypical idea of how a lady woman should behave, i.e ideas that women should be nurses rather than doctors, or firefighters or truck drivers because of women's natural caring and nurturing manner.

Isn't the idea that "men behave like this and women behave like that" more of a socially constrained strait-jacket rather than "women generally have these bits, and men generally have these bits"?

 

[Belz...]

Isn't that how racists argue? They aren't racist at all, they claim.

You're still just calling people bigots, trying to put them on the defensive rather than engage their points on their own merit, or seeking to label them so as to dismiss their concerns.

Make. An. Argument.

And?

And how is that better than the reverse? If argument by definition is bad, then it's always bad. Why is you doing it ok and someone else doing it not?

Except it shows just that there's no meaningful difference between transphobic attitudes and racist, homophobic or similar attitudes.

It shows nothing of the sort, because it doesn't discuss the points in any meaningful way. I can draw parallels between vegans and nazis but it doesn't really tell us anything.

A woman is someone or something that acts, looks or otherwise behaves in a manner of a female human.

1) Who decides what those acts, looks and behaviours are? The person doing them or the people around them?

2) Where does that definition come from and why did you pick it?

 

[Belz...]

The most contentious part of this thread is the discussion of a small number of individuals who don't fit that description except to the extent of claiming that they do.

Exactly my point above.

If I claim to be Napoleon, and really believe myself to be, it doesn't change objective reality, and no one's going to humour me and give me the First French Empire. Most atheists here would agree that although theists truly believe in their gods and spirits and such, they are factually wrong. In the end, what gender you are is determined by other people, not you.

And it is entirely possible to believe that trans people should have the same rights and protections as anybody else, and also that they are factually wrong about their gender. It's possible to disagree with some of the current trends and beliefs about gender and identity without being a bigot or a transphobe.

 

[Francesca R]

[transsexual women] can be more womanly and feminine than some "biological females" could ever hope to be.

Failing to see the relevance of this point to anything. Not for the first time of course and you haven't responded previously to such queries . . .

A woman is someone or something that acts, looks or otherwise behaves in a manner of a female human

. . Makes it a bit clearer perhaps. That is some ugly sexism there.

 

[Meadmaker]

In other cases (e.g. communal showers) we're faced with a significantly harder problem. What do we do when a transwoman has feminine breasts and male genitals? No matter which shower she goes into, someone is going to see something they aren't used to seeing in there.

Indeed. The transition phase is the most complicated to deal with.

Most people, including everyone I have ever heard express an opinion here at ISF, would say that a person who has undergone a sex change operation (to use an old fashioned term) should use the facilities associated with their newly approximated anatomy.

However, there's a fairly long period of time in preparation for the surgery where, there's no doubt about it, things get a little odd. At what point does it make sense to say that a person really ought to switch sides at the gym? I don't have an answer to that, and would defer to people with more knowledge of the transition process. Most people at ISF, and I think the majority of people in society at large, would be ok with accommodating people in that situation. If those were the only people we had to make decisions about, there really wouldn't be a huge problem. Threads like this one would be much shorter.


The issue comes in when the trans rights faction insists that people who have not begun the transition, or who have no intention of ever beginning the transition, get treated the same way as those who have transitioned or are in the process. Before the transition, there's a word for those people, and the word is "men".

And when it comes to sports, even post-transition it doesn't make sense to treat trans-women exactly like the non hyphenated variety of women.

 

[Meadmaker]

. . Makes it a bit clearer perhaps. That is some ugly sexism there.

Indeed. Not to mention that it's a circular definition. It manages to be meaningless and offensive all in one neat little package.

 

[sadhatter]

I do it all the time! I go into the women's locker room at the local gym and start perving up the place by sniffing their panties, lewdly ogle them, grabbing their genitals and such. If staff shows up asking what the hell I'm doing i just say that i identify as female and that they have no right to tell me that i don't belong there, and they slowly back away because they don't want to be imprisoned for a hate crime.

Works every time i tell ya.

You run a gym.

You get a complaint about a trans woman acting inappropriate, are you dealing with a transphobe or a sexual predator?

 

[jimbob]

Indeed. The transition phase is the most complicated to deal with.

Most people, including everyone I have ever heard express an opinion here at ISF, would say that a person who has undergone a sex change operation (to use an old fashioned term) should use the facilities associated with their newly approximated anatomy.

However, there's a fairly long period of time in preparation for the surgery where, there's no doubt about it, things get a little odd. At what point does it make sense to say that a person really ought to switch sides at the gym? I don't have an answer to that, and would defer to people with more knowledge of the transition process. Most people at ISF, and I think the majority of people in society at large, would be ok with accommodating people in that situation. If those were the only people we had to make decisions about, there really wouldn't be a huge problem. Threads like this one would be much shorter.


The issue comes in when the trans rights faction insists that people who have not begun the transition, or who have no intention of ever beginning the transition, get treated the same way as those who have transitioned or are in the process. Before the transition, there's a word for those people, and the word is "men". And when it comes to sports, even post-transition it doesn't make sense to treat trans-women exactly like the non hyphenated variety of women.

I think this is it

 

[sadhatter]

And if people don't like sharing spaces with gay men or black people they shouldn't have to either, right?

You are cool if I sleep in your bed tonight then? Cool, but I'm a cuddler just so you know.