Trans Women are not Women

[Rolfe]

Do you have any links for that. Such people should be presumed to be acting in bad faith.

Here's a link.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/

I'm not sure what you mean by "acting in bad faith". Being convicted of a sex offence is one definition of acting in bad faith! However if you mean that they're only "pretending" to be trans to get into a woman's prison, my impression is that this is quite rare. Even Karen White, whom prison officers suspect of doing just that, had a history of cross-dressing going back some time.

Autogynaephilia isn't necessarily accompanied by creepy behaviour and inappropriate behaviour to women, but there does seem to be some correlation. The problematic transwoman sex offenders mostly appear to show some signs of autogynaephilia and hence could be regarded as "genuinely" trans, that is their adopting of women's clothes and a female persona is not solely a ruse to be allowed into a woman's prison.

 

[Rolfe]

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

So you know what a human female is. The dictionary definition of "woman" is "adult human female". On what grounds do you feel justified in extending this definition to include individuals who are not adult human females?

Still trying to unpack your extraordinarily circular definition, perhaps you're aware of what an adult human female is, but then you want to define "woman" as "someone who performs the stereotypical behaviour men like to associate with women". I put that last bit in because it should be obvious that women as actual people vary enormously and include Myra Hindley and Rose West and Boudicca and Catherine the Great and Agrippina and Elizabeth of England and Margaret Thatcher as well as Florence Nightingale. But somehow I don't think your definition is trying to maintain that a woman is anyone who behaves in the manner of Rose West or Myra Hindley or Boudicca etc.

However, since both common and legal usage of the word "women" adhere to the dictionary definition, certainly until very recently indeed, this can only introduce confusion. Legislation referring to women, written with the intention that this should be seen as referring to adult human females, cannot be retrospectively rewritten by redefining such a central term, so that actual adult human females become excluded and people who are not female become included.

This is going a long way down into Humpty Dumpty land.

 

[jimbob]

Here's a link.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/

I'm not sure what you mean by "acting in bad faith". Being convicted of a sex offence is one definition of acting in bad faith! However if you mean that they're only "pretending" to be trans to get into a woman's prison, my impression is that this is quite rare. Even Karen White, whom prison officers suspect of doing just that, had a history of cross-dressing going back some time.

Autogynaephilia isn't necessarily accompanied by creepy behaviour and inappropriate behaviour to women, but there does seem to be some correlation. The problematic transwoman sex offenders mostly appear to show some signs of autogynaephilia and hence could be regarded as "genuinely" trans, that is their adopting of women's clothes and a female persona is not solely a ruse to be allowed into a woman's prison.

The highlighted was what I meant.

The previous post, where I quoted Zambo gave a BBC fact check on the article.

 

[Rolfe]

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!"

Weird world, and a world where the abuse of children by sterilising them and surgically mutilating them is rife.

 

[Rolfe]

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

(A GRC is a Gender Reassignment Certificate).

These seem reasonable

Unfortunately when (if?) the new legislation goes through that will allow anyone to have a gender recognition certificate simply by signing a form - no need for surgery or hormones or dressing like a woman or even bothering to shave your beard - then we're back at square one only worse off.

 

[Puppycow]

A Victory for Female Athletes Everywhere

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) this week upheld the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) regulations governing eligibility for the women’s category in international elite athletics competition. In effect, CAS decided the question “who is a woman” for purposes of elite sport. And it ratified the IAAF’s preferred answer: A woman in sport is anyone whose legal identity is female—whether they personally identify as such or not—and who has testosterone (T) levels in the female range. That may seem like a mere technical ruling. But as I’ll explain in this article, the ramifications are profound for female athletics everywhere—a cause that has been central to my life and to the lives of millions of girls and women worldwide.

 

[Rolfe]

That's an "interesting" take on the decision, to put it mildly. But it's not as if the author is grinding any particular axe, is it...?

The decision certainly ratified the existing rules, as it could hardly do otherwise. The existing rules say that anyone at all can compete in women's events, however people who possess the SRY gene, and only these people, are required to lower their testosterone below a somewhat arbitrary threshhold. It is the differential rule for people with the SRY gene (male) and people without it (female) which is the crucial point here, but the author seems to have missed it completely. (I omit the wrinkle that people with the SRY gene but who have complete androgen insensitivity are also not covered by the rule, but name-check it here in case I'm accused of not being complete.)

Anyone who possesses the SRY gene (and doesn't have CAIS) is male. It was decided in (I think) 2007 that males could compete in women's events so long as they lowered their testosterone. Females don't have to lower their testosterone, they are already eligible for these events by virtue of being actually female. I've yet to see an article that explains that clearly.

Males (SRY +ve, not CAIS) are now allowed to compete in women's events purely to placate the demands of the trans lobby. The Semenya case didn't seek to challenge that in any way, therefore to trumpet that the CAS ruling confirmed that males are allowed to compete in women's events is somewhat redundant. Way to miss the point.

The Semenya case was about the requirement to reduce testosterone, and whether she was subject to that requirement. She petitioned that she should not be, I'm not really quite sure on what grounds but I can only assume on the basis that she was "assigned female at birth" and brought up as a girl. The decision was entirely in accordance with the rules. She is XY and does not have CAIS, so she is included in the male category and must reduce her testosterone in the same way transwomen have to do. It was made explicitly clear that this rule does not apply to XX competitors.

The ruling, while not challenging the decision to allow males to compete, was a clear victory for biological essentialism, i.e. it clearly and correctly distinguishes between biological male and biological female, and applies different rules to each sex category.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What is "behaves in a manner of ..." supposed to mean? Wear stereotypical women's clothes? Do the cooking and cleaning? Please explain.

I tell you what. You tell me what makes a woman in a man's body different from a man (or vice versa or whatever combination you want) and I'll have the answer do your question

The entire concept of a "trans" person requires non-biological gender differences in order for them to be subverted, but we're the one perpetuating sexist stereotypes.

Standards can't exist only when they are being subverting. If there's no non-biological difference between a man and a woman, there's no difference between a X and X who identifies as a Y.

 

[Arcade22]

So you know what a human female is.

I do know that, which is more than some can say. Thank you for noticing.

The dictionary definition of "woman" is "adult human female". On what grounds do you feel justified in extending this definition to include individuals who are not adult human females?

Lets see here: if it look like a woman, sounds like a woman, behaves like a woman... it's a woman. Or at least it's as much of a woman as to make no real difference to me.

Still trying to unpack your extraordinarily circular definition, perhaps you're aware of what an adult human female is, but then you want to define "woman" as "someone who performs the stereotypical behaviour men like to associate with women".

Not just men mind you, women associate stereotypical behavior with other women too but you know that. Men tend to be masculine and women tend to be feminine, that's an objective fact whether you acknowledge it or not.

I put that last bit in because it should be obvious that women as actual people vary enormously and include Myra Hindley and Rose West and Boudicca and Catherine the Great and Agrippina and Elizabeth of England and Margaret Thatcher as well as Florence Nightingale. But somehow I don't think your definition is trying to maintain that a woman is anyone who behaves in the manner of Rose West or Myra Hindley or Boudicca etc.

I wouldn't necessarily treat manliness and womanliness as mutually exclusive. Women can be masculine, even manly, while men can be feminine and outright girly. One can accept that there are general traits associated with peoples sex, stereotypes, without mandating or just encouraging conformity to said stereotypes.

However, since both common and legal usage of the word "women" adhere to the dictionary definition, certainly until very recently indeed, this can only introduce confusion. Legislation referring to women, written with the intention that this should be seen as referring to adult human females, cannot be retrospectively rewritten by redefining such a central term, so that actual adult human females become excluded and people who are not female become included.

Your line of argumentation is, with only a few substitutions, an argument against same-sex marriage. You still refuse to recognize that there's no meaningful difference between your transphobia and homophobia.

I should note here that Swedish society has not collapsed since same-sex marriage was legalized and neither has it because trans women can be legally recognized as female and are legally protected against discrimination. Society has become more tolerant towards male-to-female transsexuals, and women are more tolerant than men in this regard (which is more or less the complete opposite of what Rolfe seems to suggest, as if men were imposing this on women or whatever).

 

[GlennB]

Lets see here: if it look like a woman, sounds like a woman, behaves like a woman... it's a woman. Or at least it's as much of a woman as to make no real difference to me.

And if the 'looks like a woman' person turns out to have male genitalia while showering alongside people who have female genitalia?

eta: I recall a film from many years ago where a hetero (cis) male gets together for sex with a very convincing trans/transvestite (can't remember the details) 'woman'. Their foreplay is going swimmingly until he puts his hand down 'her' panties, only to encounter a full set of boy bits. Should that make 'no real difference' to the cis male in that situation? It certainly makes a huge dent in your definition of 'woman' for anybody in a similar situation.

 

[Arcade22]

And if the 'looks like a woman' person turns out to have male genitalia while showering alongside people who have female genitalia?

Can't be worse than being in the same room as some fat granny with old wrinkled and saggy breasts. Seriously grow up.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

Someone may still have to decide but I for one don't think I am qualified to adjudicate and I have severe doubts that most people opposed to trans rights are either.

The people who study these things seem to agree that trans is a thing. Given that I have little sympathy for people as we see sometimes here simply dismissing it as pretending or being wrong.

People who feel qualified to judge, label and deny rights to others in my experience are not people I want to associate with.

Of course there remains the chance that they are correct this time but i remain to be convinced. i am not going to be the gender police and i doubt the motivations of anyone who wants to establish themselves as such

 

[Damien Evans]

I think in general it's just not as much of an issue the other way around.

For instance, on the thread topic, a trans male isn't going to overwhelm men in their sports field.

Uh huh, and when was the last time a trans woman won anything outside of an age group event?

 

[Damien Evans]

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.

You are certainly entitled to think that.

 

[GlennB]

Can't be worse than being in the same room as some fat granny with old wrinkled and saggy breasts. Seriously grow up.

Your misogyny is showing again. We all get old and wrinkled and saggy in parts.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.




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.

Indeed. But then you are simply asserting this conclusion and i dont think you are in any position to claim authority on this. you appear to simply be dismissing the idea that trans is a thing.

 

[jimbob]

And if the 'looks like a woman' person turns out to have male genitalia while showering alongside people who have female genitalia?

eta: I recall a film from many years ago where a hetero (cis) male gets together for sex with a very convincing trans/transvestite (can't remember the details) 'woman'. Their foreplay is going swimmingly until he puts his hand down 'her' panties, only to encounter a full set of boy bits. Should that make 'no real difference' to the cis male in that situation? It certainly makes a huge dent in your definition of 'woman' for anybody in a similar situation.

Crying Game?

 

[Damien Evans]

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.

Once again this is a lie

 

[Damien Evans]

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.

You're the one trying to gaslight with that load of tosh

 

[Rolfe]

Once again this is a lie

Citation? And I don't mean another link to an article by a terminally confused journalist. The CAS report makes it entirely clear that males (XY without CAIS) have to reduce their testosterone, but females (XX) do not. And that the reason Caster Semenya has to reduce her testosterone is that she is XY and androgen responsive, i.e. male.