Trans Women are not Women

[Damien Evans]

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.

You keep saying that, but nowhere in the CAS case or any other literature is that confirmed. Every single mention of XY karyotypes in the CAS report refers to groups, not once is Semenya mentioned individually.

 

[Arcade22]

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

Yeah and it's not pretty, there's nothing misogynistic about acknowledging that. I've seen more than enough old fat men in public showers and locker rooms, but you know what? I handle it. Public showers does not mean that only pretty and nice things are allowed.

You could do the same by growing up and stop acting like some special snowflake who responds to penises just like superman does to kryptonite. No one is forcing you to look and if they are then that's sexual harassment.

 

[sadhatter]

Once again this is a lie

Things can have different meanings in different circumstances.

You are arguing the social meaning of woman when they are talking about the definition for sport.

So no they are not lying they are using the definition they defined for their purposes. Just like you use a different definition than Rolfe.

People like you wanted to open this can of worms, you don't get to complain when others play the game and win.

Good lesson for those that feel that playing with definitions ,nazi being another good example, is they key to progress versus understanding and working with facts.

 

[sadhatter]

Yeah and it's not pretty, there's nothing misogynistic about acknowledging that. I've seen more than enough old fat men in public showers and locker rooms, but you know what? I handle it. Public showers does not mean that only pretty and nice things are allowed.

You could do the same by growing up and stop acting like some special snowflake who responds to penises just like superman does to kryptonite. No one is forcing you to look and if they are then that's sexual harassment.

No one forces you to read being called a ******* ********, but for some reason the forum censors it. Maybe certain things being in public view are offensive to some, and it's reasonable to remedy that.

 

[Rolfe]

You keep saying that, but nowhere in the CAS case or any other literature is that confirmed. Every single mention of XY karyotypes in the CAS report refers to groups, not once is Semenya mentioned individually.

We know which group she belongs to by the decision.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What does "problematic" mean in this context?

That it assumes the conclusion of the argument. That it denies the very existence of trans as a thing. That the person making the judgement appears in no position to assert it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

The clue to them being men is in them being called transWOMEN?

deary me. you are better than that argument.

 

[Baylor]

A transwoman is like an English Horn.

An English Horn is neither English nor a horn.

A transwoman is neither trans nor a woman.

 

[Arcade22]

No one forces you to read being called a ******* ********, but for some reason the forum censors it. Maybe certain things being in public view are offensive to some, and it's reasonable to remedy that.

Nah. Just toughen up like everyone else. Or don't and just shower at home.

 

[GlennB]

Crying Game?

The scene I have in mind was set in SE Asia, where the 'bar find' girl turned out to be a boy. Er ... except that some would have it that the 'girl' is truly a girl by virtue of their appearance, dress and demeanour.

 

[GlennB]

Yeah and it's not pretty, there's nothing misogynistic about acknowledging that. I've seen more than enough old fat men in public showers and locker rooms, but you know what? I handle it. Public showers does not mean that only pretty and nice things are allowed.

You could do the same by growing up and stop acting like some special snowflake who responds to penises just like superman does to kryptonite. No one is forcing you to look and if they are then that's sexual harassment.

And there we have it

If a biological male enters the women's showers displaying their male genitalia, with no reasonable option for the women to look away, then that trans woman is guilty of sexual harassment.

p.s I've seen a thousand penises. I'm 68 and spent many years in shared showers at school, Uni, pools, gyms and beyond. The sight of a dick doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

[Arcade22]

If a biological male enters the women's showers displaying their male genitalia, with no reasonable option for the women to look away, then that trans woman is guilty of sexual harassment.

Yeah that's right. Men can change clothes and shower together in public facilities without it invariably leading to sexual harassment. Women can do the same.

p.s I've seen a thousand penises. I'm 68 and spent many years in shared showers at school, Uni, pools, gyms and beyond. The sight of a dick doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Then stop sounding like a drama queen, ok?

 

[quadraginta]

Is there any particular reason why you never seem to mention female-to-male transgender people? You must know that is an actual thing, right?

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.

Rolfe doesn't discuss transmen very often because she subscribes to the Blanchard pseudoscience, and in his world there are no transmen. There are only suppressed homosexual females who have been brainwashed by evil therapists into believing they have a gender identity issue.

Transwomen, on the other hand fall into one of two subsets. They are either suppressed homosexual males who have been brainwashed by evil therapists into believing they have gender identity issues ...

OR they are fetishists with a sexually stimulating paraphilia related to imagining themselves as female.

No other options in the Blanchard world. At least none he views as statistically significant.

Blanchard is to the transphobe and TERF community as Andrew Wakefield is to anti-vaxxers.

He validates their beliefs. That's why they like him so much.

They disregard the rest of the research and information about transgenderism (i.e. pretty much all of it) for the same reasons that anti-vaxxers disregard anything positive about the efficacy and safety of vaccines (i.e. pretty much all of it).

They don't want to hear it because it doesn't support what they want to believe.

 

[quadraginta]

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.)

This isn't particularly surprising, since to accept the idea means that all of Blanchards theories and his entire body of work would disappear back up his own backside if he did.

Conveniently, since he invented the name and concept of "autogynephilia" all by himself, for the express purpose of classifying what he believed to be a subset of his understanding of transwomen, and specifically defined it as a paraphilia which affected men, he defined women out of the whole idea.

To accept the idea that the exact same sensations which he describes as a male paraphilia are also felt by a large majority of natal women would basically destroy his core premises, because then it would just be transwomen feeling the same thing that ciswomen feel, and his entire argument about AGP and transwomen becomes meaningless.

 

[GlennB]

Yeah that's right. Men can change clothes and shower together in public facilities without it invariably leading to sexual harassment. Women can do the same.

Eh? The subject at the moment is where biological males shower along with biological females. Meanwhile it was you that suggested that males forcing the viewing of their male body parts on females constitutes abuse,

You're not making a grain of sense here. Step back for a moment, maybe?

 

[sadhatter]

Nah. Just toughen up like everyone else. Or don't and just shower at home.

Why can't the trans person toughen up like everyone else?

Also I take it from your post you would have no problem with the censor being removed? Do you feel that would improve discourse?

Also it gets old hearing the "if the question is can god do it the answer is yes" responses people like you give. I feel I could say "if a trans person wanted to kill a room full of kittens would that be okay? " and your answer would be " why not there are plenty of kittens. ".

To me that attitude shows a fear of being wrong coupled with an actual insecurity in regards to your point of views validity.

 

[Francesca R]

You are quoting my summary of another person's argument and attributing it to me. I don't think you are stupid so i conclude you are dishonest. although i could be wrong about the former.

Nope pretty sure it's your argument that falls on those levels.

 

[sadhatter]

Yeah that's right. Men can change clothes and shower together in public facilities without it invariably leading to sexual harassment. Women can do the same.



Then stop sounding like a drama queen, ok?

I like the qualifier "invariably" here you could have it happen 95 per cent of the time and you would still be technically correct, though your point would be hollow still.

"I can put a gun to my head and pull the trigger and it won't invariably kill me, so all those people complaining about one being pointed at them can just toughen up. " has the same about of intellectual sway.

The issue is, do men or women (or males and females if you are going to drag this into the grammar mire) commit sexual harassment in the same numbers. Them the question is what gives you the right to tale that risk assessment away from born females.

 

[sadhatter]

Eh? The subject at the moment is where biological males shower along with biological females. Meanwhile it was you that suggested that males forcing the viewing of their male body parts on females constitutes abuse,

You're not making a grain of sense here. Step back for a moment, maybe?

Is a symptom of applying the "if the question is can god do it the answer is yes" logic to social matters. Take the saddest puppies side and never let anyone tell you different.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Before we define a solution, we have to be sure we know what problem we are trying to solve.

Seems to me the problem is very clear: People are basically complaining about inclusivity. Unfortunately, there are no gray areas for a situation like this. It's either you include everyone, or you create separate categories for each "group". Because as soon as you start making exceptions, you have to justify why that particular case deserves the exception.

So again, since we're never all going to reach an unanimous agreement about whether or not trans women are just like regular women, there are 2 solutions:

1) Create a category only for trans people to compete
2) Destroy all categories and have a mixture of every single kind of human being competing against each other. Trans, disabled, children, people with three arms, old people, giants, midgets, etc...