Trans Women are not Women

[angrysoba]

Not if you deny the concept of sex altogether.

No, but you end up in some weird world where it is, "you like blue toys and cars? You are a boy! You like pink toys and cooking? You're a girl!"

 

[Belz...]

I don't. It's not up to me. It's not up to anyone really is it?

Given that words are created and used by humans, actually, yes, it is up to us. And even if one uses a personalised definition of a word, it's their responsibility to define it so that everyone understand what they're trying to communicate.

If someone tells me they are a woman, or appears to me to generally act in a way I might expect a woman to then I am happy enough to think they are a woman.

Irrelevant.

It seems more and more clear that you're simply pretending that the conversation is about something else than it really is.

 

[Belz...]

My bed isn't a public space. What a weird question.

Ok make it a hotel room, then.

Stop dodging points.

 

[Arcade22]

No, but you end up in some weird world where it is, "you like blue toys and cars? You are a boy! You like pink toys and cooking? You're a girl!"

Yes it's either that or inventing a fantasy world where there's no difference between the sexes except gross external physical anatomy. It's that simple folks!

 

[Meadmaker]

I suggest you open a entry level biology textbook for special needs students if you have a problem understanding what human females are.

Personally, I would be perfectly happy if we used the definition found in the entry level biology textbooks.

 

[Belz...]

Yes it's either that or inventing a fantasy world where there's no difference between the sexes except gross external physical anatomy. It's that simple folks!

Now that we've got the false dichotomy out there, how about an actual discussion?

 

[caveman1917]

At any rate, Blanchard's work and followers are one 'side' but the other 'side' actually are many competing theories and research that actually argue with each other on the details but don't even take his work as worth exploring. This is akin to evolution, just with a lot less data to work with. Specifically discrediting Blanchard isn't something most would even think to engage in because his work has simply bore no fruit to address predicatively. That said, his methods specifically have been taken apart and found not just lacking, but ridiculous. For example, using his definition of 'autogyophile' and apply it to cis women results in 90%+ being categorized as 'autogynophiles', and a more rigorous application (stricter than Blanchard uses) resulting in almost %30 being 'autogynophiles'. That means that using Blanchard's own hypothesis, trans women being autogynophiles would mean they are more like cis women than less like them in that regard. If Blanchard had decided to bother using a control group, perhaps he would have found that himself. Or if he had bothered to use samples that were not from the same clinic. Or if his results had ever been replicated. Basic scientific method issues arise from his work that would normally get any actually skeptical community to laugh his 'study' out the door as, at best, a poorly done pilot study.

That reference was the best laugh in a while. Of course women will get arousal from the thought of themselves as women because they are women. The equivalent definition for the paraphilia for women is not "are you aroused by the thought of yourself as a woman?" but "are you aroused by the thought of yourself as a man?" You can't just take a definition which was specifically designed for one sex (male transsexuals in this case) and apply it to the other sex without correcting for that. By your logic I can claim that 95% of women are homosexual:

Step 1: I restrict consideration to male persons, and state a definition for homosexuality appropriate for that group, namely "are you aroused by the thought of sex with a man?"

Step 2: I now apply that definition to the other sex without correcting for that, and ask a bunch of women "are you aroused by the thought of sex with a man?" I find almost all of them say "yes."

Step 3: Profit! I've just proven that most women are homosexual.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Back in high school philosophy class (yeah, it was a thing for me) the teacher taught me about valid arguments and about sound arguments, but never about "legitimate" arguments. I also took Philosophy 101 in college, and the professor affirmed my high school teacher's definitions, and once again left off the description of "legitimate".

Meanwhile, your argument above has the form:

Some arguments that involve comfort levels are not legitimate.
The arguments against allowing biological males into women's only spaces involve comfort levels.
Therefore, the arguments against allowing biological males into women's only spaces are not legitimate.


The Philosophy 101 professor covered that form of argument on day 1, under the general heading of common forms of invalid arguments. Note that it is an invalid argument regardless of whatever the definition of legitimate is.


It seems to me that your declaration of a lot of arguments as illegitimate, whatever that means, is a declaration that you aren't really interested in actual debate. You have already declared the arguments illegitimate, and while you haven't provided a definition of illegitimate, it sounds like it is probably bad.




Ok. I will. Let's see if you are actually interested in debate.


Women in our society do not generally take their clothes off in front of men. (The obvious exceptions apply. I assume I don't have to describe them.) They feel discomfort when doing so. Whether that discomfort is a result of societal conditioning or is an instinctive aspect of modern humans is subject to debate, but it is real. From the perspective of the women in the locker room, there is absolutely no difference between a transwoman and a man. They are naked males in the women's only space.


In some cases, people try to equate the discomfort felt in the presence of transwomen to the discomfort than an older generation might have felt to sharing a locker room with black women. This comparison fails for several reasons. First, the discomfort is not caused by being in the presence of a transgender person. It is caused by being in the presence of a male. To say that the people are practicing discrimination against transgenders is to misidentify the discriminant. They are discriminating against men, not against transgenders.

Second, society as a whole has examined the discrimination that affected black people in ages past, and came to the conclusion that there is no difference between black people and white people that ought to justify creating a separate space for the two sorts of people. It was understood that generations of teaching had said that it was inappropriate for blacks and whites to undress together, but that teaching was examined and found to be unsound. The premise that blacks and whites shouldn't share such a space was considered incorrect. Their dark skin really didn't matter, and there was no other discernible difference. In the case of males and females being naked together, we did not reach the same conclusion. The fact that males can impregnate females, or engage in penetrative sexual intercourse with them, was decided to be a big deal. All of the feelings, emotions, and general attitudes related to sexuality were deemed to be significant. Therefore, we continue to segregate males and females. We do so because people are uncomfortable being naked around the opposite sex. Perhaps in some future society it will not be so. I cannot foretell the future, but for now, we have decided it is real.


So, the only question left is whether a person who declares themselves to be a sex (or gender, or whatever) that is different from the one that their biology dictates should be treated in accordance with their self declaration, or in accordance with their objectively measured biological characteristics.


I can continue this later, but I'm sure you can see where this is going, and I must get back to a project. The important part is to note that we do indeed separate men and women. The real question is what criteria we ought to use in order to make that separation. Should it be self-declaration, or biological characteristics. I am prepared to argue, if it is necessary to do so, that biology should be paramount in making that decision.

Right I wanted to come back to this. First of all thank you dor being honest enough to acknowledge the parallel rather than dishonestly claim there obviously isn't one.

I am happy enough to address the comments on logic and legitimate arguments but feel that is a side issue to the meat of the argument so won't for now. let me know if you want me to.

I will address your main argument now.

1. Women don't feel comfortable undressing in front of men.

Ok. So where do we go with that? I am a man and I don't feel comfortable being naked in front of men either. Most people probably dont feel comfortable being naked in front of strangers. You know the 'oi oi bums to the wall boys' brigade dont feel comfortable changing with gay men too.

The question is to what extent do feelings of discomfort allow us to dictate the rights of others.

Also note that you are now classifying transwomen as men apparently. Which is problematic.

2. Its discrimination against men, not trans folk

This fails the sniff test for me because it is not men who are impacted by the discrimation, but transwomen. You could make an argument that excluding gay men from locker rooms is not discriminating against gay men, but against people who have sex with men. I think (hope) you would agree this would just be clutching at wordplay straws.

3. There's no reason to exclude black people

Indeed. But do you agree it was wrong to exclude them? Even before society had worked through it all? Because it wasnt fair to black people to exclude them without a good reason or to assume that exclusion is right until we can show it isnt. It wasnt right that black people were segregated ever because some white folk weren't comfortable sharing.

4. We see male female as different

You seem to be referencing a lot of work which I am unaware of that has deciided this. Isnt the truth simply that we were happy enough to go along with the system because it was working ok? and now it is being tested by circumstances we are seeing flaws. I dont see the relevance of being able to impregnate someone- you must change your clothes in a very different way to me if chance of pregnancy is a risk during it.

5. The real question is about self declaration

Possibly but this is different to the comfort argument. And yet ultimately always regresses to this. And i am.not sure where this argument by definition gets us.

You will never convince a conservative christian that marriage between 2 men is a real marriage. You will never convince some racists that black people are every bit as equal a human as white. And i dont expect to convince people who want to exclude transwomen from locker rooms that people with penises can be women.

So the question then is to what extent should I take on board their concerns about comfort absent evidence of harm when i dont take on board those of conservative christians or racists.

Correct me if I am wrong but your argument seems to be that these comfort concerns are different because.. well they are. And I am not getting the justification for that other than the fact that you are willing to agree with them but not others. This is the clarity that is lacking for me.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Canada bans knives that do not look like knives (like a tube of lipstick for example) because it makes it very easy to get them into places knives should not be.

Should we get rid of this law because at the end of the day getting stabbed is getting stabbed?

Is there a legitimate reason to have knives that don't look like knives other than to smuggle them into places they should not be?

What a weird question. You are on a roll.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't. It's not up to me. It's not up to anyone really is it?

It's up to the various gatekeepers, ultimately.

Until very recently, someone had to decide which class of 18-y.o.'s didn't have to sign up for Selective Service in the U.S.

Someone still has to decide which people are eligible for girl's and women's sport at every level.

Someone has to decide who is supposed to go into the women's and men's locker rooms at my local gym.

ETA: Instances of sex segregation abound, even in everyday life. Just have a look around.

 

[Francesca R]

Women don't feel comfortable undressing in front of men.
[ . . . ]

Reducing the issue to something as absurdly diluted as that, then attempting spectacularly inappropriately to arrange it as a parallel to something like your discomfort of the same thing, and the absurd effort to equate your silly "result" to discomfort anyone might harbour with respect to other groups in which most discrimination law operates in the opposite way (for precisely the reasons you either miss or attempt to wave away) . . . are I think the main areas in which you are on the wrong planet with this.

At this stage I can't conclude whether it is accidental or deliberate.

 

[Meadmaker]

Archie,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I withdraw my former complaint that you appeared disinterested in debate.

I will be uncharacteristically brief in my response, because all the quibbling and objections I might raise to your points are dwarfed by one single one, which you recognized.

Also note that you are now classifying transwomen as men apparently. Which is problematic.

You are correct. That is precisely what I am doing, and which I intend to continue doing.


I'll make some exceptions in some circumstances for people who are at various stages of a transition process toward surgical procedures which would make them resemble their chosen sex.

In the case of people who have completed reassignment surgery, it would be in every circumstance I can think of except for certain decisions about athletic competitions.

Every other issue we discussed in our various posts flows from that basic issue.

 

[Belz...]

Also note that you are now classifying transwomen as men apparently. Which is problematic.

What does "problematic" mean in this context?

 

[Rolfe]

That reference was the best laugh in a while. Of course women will get arousal from the thought of themselves as women because they are women. The equivalent definition for the paraphilia for women is not "are you aroused by the thought of yourself as a woman?" but "are you aroused by the thought of yourself as a man?" You can't just take a definition which was specifically designed for one sex (male transsexuals in this case) and apply it to the other sex without correcting for that. By your logic I can claim that 95% of women are homosexual:

Step 1: I restrict consideration to male persons, and state a definition for homosexuality appropriate for that group, namely "are you aroused by the thought of sex with a man?"

Step 2: I now apply that definition to the other sex without correcting for that, and ask a bunch of women "are you aroused by the thought of sex with a man?" I find almost all of them say "yes."

Step 3: Profit! I've just proven that most women are homosexual.

I actually discussed this on twitter with Blanchard himself. The criteria used to determine autogynaephilia can't reasonably be applied to women. The whole thing is perverse and disappears up its own backside. (No, he didn't say that, he's more polite than I am.)

 

[d4m10n]

What does "problematic" mean in this context?

It means you must stop or else face a public shaming.

 

[Rolfe]

You are correct. That is precisely what I am doing, and which I intend to continue doing.

Absolutely. "Transwomen" are men. They are a subset of men, not of women. The clue is in the "trans" part. Can I be a transwoman? No I can't, because I'm a woman in the first place. Being a man is in fact the most basic, fundamental qualification for being a transwoman.

I have utterly had it with pandering to the pearl-clutchers who act like I said I'm just off to the black mass where I intend to drink the blood of unbaptised infants when I make such a statement. This is biological fact and I for one am not going to be bullied, browbeaten or gaslighted into fudging it.

 

[Rolfe]

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.

It's actually the dictionary that defines women in that way. The rest of your post is just a bunch of regressive sexist stereotypes.

 

[Rolfe]

This is an absolute load of hogwash.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...is-female-critics-say/?utm_term=.4186c8c90600
https://theconversation.com/the-demonization-of-caster-semenya-continues-116495

I can't read the first link, but from the small part that I am able to see it appears that the journalist has been getting information from an incorrect source. I have encountered many articles written by people who manifestly do not understand this issue.

I can read the second one and that is simply wrong. It repeatedly states that female athletes with naturally high testosterone will be required to reduce this. That is not true. The ruling specifically states that female athletes with naturally high testosterone are permitted to compete with whatever nature has seen fit to give them. It's only male athletes who have to reduce their testosterone if they want to compete in women's events. (This rule was introduced to pacify the trans lobby, and before it was introduced, male athletes were excluded entirely.)

No female athlete will have to reduce her testosterone to compete, so the ruling will not affect females. However, as Caster Semenya is male, she has to abide by the same rules as other male athletes if she wants to compete in the female events.

 

[jimbob]

https://www.google.com.sg/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-42221629

Thanks - so it looks plausible. And with a fairly low number. 60/125

However

I guess we move in different circles. but in all honesty in 40 odd years of being a man I can.count the number of penises I have seen using my fingers. Everywhere I change usually has private spaces for people to be naked and in toilets I can either use a cubicle or just not look. Am I unusual?

To get to the bottom of this we need to determine ehat the real issue is.

For some people, they object to the very idea that a transwoman is a woman regardless

For others they just dont like the idea of people with penises sharing their spaces regardless of whether they are on display or not.

For others apparently they worry about assault.

So what percentage of the problem is honestly 'small risk that may inadvertantly glance at a penis?' And why to be frank is it such a big issue? I mean I dont want to see penises either but i still have to share a bathroom with other people who have them.

Also, why is there apparently never the opposite complaint about female bodies in male spaces?

See Zambo's link above. There does indeed look to be a potential issue but it does indeed seem to be addressed by the UK prison services at least

That depends. If a trans woman already has a GRC, then the National Offender Management Service says she should be housed in a women's prison.

There is provision for any female prisoner - trans or not - to be housed in a men's prison if she's deemed especially dangerous.

It's more complex if she doesn't have a GRC.

In England and Wales, she can only be located in a women's prison if she's had a case conference.

Case conferences are told to watch out for evidence that the offender's decision to transition is related to their sentence length or a way of gaining access to future victims.

(A GRC is a Gender Reassignment Certificate).

These seem reasonable

 

[Rolfe]

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!

(Ignoring the circular nature of this definition, because it makes it nonsense and even thinking about it is doing my head in.)

That is a load of regressive sexist stereotypes. Being a woman is the biological reality of being born in and growing up in and living in a female body. It is not a set of behaviours, the clothes one chooses to wear, or one's preferences in hobbies. It's not a costume and it's not a LARP game and it's not a feeling in anyone's head.

A woman is still a woman if she's mean, nasty, self-centred, cruel, domineering, and wears nothing but dungarees and business suits. A man is still a man even if he's kind, considerate, sweet-natured, self-effacing and even if he likes to wear dresses and heels.

And most ironic of all, the most visible of the trans activists screaming fury if anyone misgenders them are about as "feminine" as Attila the Hun. "I want to rape a terf to death" is one of the mildest things one sees them come out with on twitter. They demonstrate their essential entitled masculinity with every word they utter from their over-lipsticked mouths.

And, contrary to your belief, women are not interested in performing femininity. They are not engaged in a competition about who is the most feminine, and jealous of anyone who performs femininity better than they do. They get on with their lives and let the men worry about performing femininity if that interests them.

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.

Yes, precisely that.