Trans Women are not Women

[Belz...]

Ah how sweet of you.

Well at least I won't give you labels you didn't earn.

Yes it is. It shows that your argument is based on the same kind of bigoted reasoning and is thus unsound.

You're not showing that it's based on bigoted reasoning, you're saying it's used by bigots. I've already explained why that's a stupid argument.

You have to explain why there's any meaningful difference to your reasoning first.

No, I don't, just like a vegetarian doesn't have to explain how his eating habits are different from Hitler's.

Again, if only because it would make MtF transsexuals happy and content, what's the harm in accepting them as women?

On its face, nothing. But it's when you get in situations like the one being discussed in this thread that the question arises.

Let's try to find some common ground here: traditionally for sports, "woman" was understood to be a biological female, and sports were segregated on that basis. Now you want to split "woman" from "biological female", which is one thing, but also you want to change the basis of segregation to "woman" rather than "biological female", which quite reasonably introduces a number of questions about how that would work in a way that isn't unfair to biological females in sports.

They can be accurate if only you would allow them to be women in your eyes. That's the whole point.

Well, that's not false. If we redefine "woman" to mean "someone who feels like a woman", then sure, "feeling like a woman" makes someone a woman. That's not how the word is commonly understood, however. You're insisting that the new definition is the one we should use, but aside from accomodating trans women, you've not given any reason why.

That doesn't stop you from potentially being a bigot by any means.

Oh, potentially, no. I'm not a bigot, however, and even if I were, it would change nothing about the value of the argument. "Hitler was a vegetarian" doesn't mean vegetarian diets are bad or that they lead to genocide.

 

[Arcade22]

They are, only if you re-define "women" to include "men", which is singularly unhelpful.

This insane craze will be over in a decade or two, hopefully sooner, and medicine and psychiatry can concentrate on really helping people with the various forms of gender dysphoria including hormones and surgery only for those who really can't be reconciled to their physiology as it is.

But pretty much every measure of the level of public support seems to suggest the complete opposite?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Progressives might have finally argued themselves into an inescapable corner with the "The right thing to do is always just to agree with the disenfranchised group about everything because you don't want to be seen as mean" mentality.

For the 50th billion time so someone can just scream "uRa tRANSphOBE!" at it again, we are not beholden to conceptualize gender and sex exactly within the confines of how a very small minority of exceptions defines it in order to be good, caring, and decent people.

This perverse balancing act of "Gender roles don't exist except when they are being subverted" cannot hold.

 

[Belz...]

If you support transition then you appear to have an odd position if you deny the end result of that transition. If transwomen are not women then what have they transitioned to?

Trans women. They're not trans women before the transition.

However, I'm quite happy to call trans women "she" and "her".

Why would you support someone transitioning to something if you think they are factually wrong about their situation?

The two are not mutually exclusive. Someone without gender dysphoria could also transition. But it doesn't make you a woman. None of those positions are contradictory. It's not a package deal.

 

[Rolfe]

If you support transition then you appear to have an odd position if you deny the end result of that transition. If transwomen are not women then what have they transitioned to? if the end result of the transition is not that they are treated equally with people of the group they have transitioned to then how is that supporting transition?

Why would you support someone transitioning to something if you think they are factually wrong about their situation?

There's a fundamental misunderstanding here. Men cannot become women. Some men, however, suffer from a mental condition which leads them to want to be women, even to believe they are women. Now cross-sex hormones aren't good for anyone, sex reassignment surgery can go very badly wrong and life as a transwoman is anything but a bed of roses. So encouraging every man who presents with any degree of that mental illness to go the whole hog is not the kindest thing to do.

But having said that, there are individuals for whom it may be the best solution. The first challenge is to try to determine which these are, and avoid facilitating a course of action which may lead to someone feeling even worse in the long term. We have to remember that long-term studies show fully-transitioned transwomen are not on average any happier after they've done it, and Johns Hopkins university actually discontinued offering SRS after they analysed their long-term outcomes and realised they were probably violating the "do no harm" edict.

But there are people for whom this will be the best, or at least the least worst, course of action. So what are they "transitioning" to. They're not turning into women and it's doing them a grave disservice to let them believe they are. They're perfecting as far as possible their identity as transwomen, or transsexuals as many prefer to be called. They're men who are happier and function better when their bodies are altered to resemble female bodies, and they take as much of a female role in society as is possible for them.

So it doesn't follow that they must be treated equally with the group they're trying to resemble. In some respects that will be possible, and that's fine. But in other respects the attempt to do this violates the rights of others, so some compromise and accommodation is required.

 

[Rolfe]

But pretty much every measure of the level of public support seems to suggest the complete opposite?

Uh, no it doesn't. Opinion polls regularly show the general public is against the concept by about a three to one ratio.

 

[Francesca R]

But pretty much every measure of the level of public support seems to suggest the complete opposite?

Evidence for this claim please I asked you to back up a similar assertion before and you have not done so.

 

[Rolfe]

However, I'm quite happy to call trans women "she" and "her".

The pronoun police are a strange phenomenon. When I'm talking to my trans friends I call them "you". No awkwardness, no stumbling over what one was going to say, no problem, no causing offence.

When I'm talking about someone, the pronouns I use are my choice. Nobody else gets to dictate my choice of language. If the person I'm talking about is in earshot I will choose my words carefully in order not to hurt their feelings. If they're not, but I'm talking to someone who expects me to use "she" for an actual man, again I will choose my words carefully. But these are choices made to avoid awkward social situations, and they may not necessarily reflect how I think about the person.

If I'm talking about someone I perceive as male, in a context where neither that person nor anyone who knows him is going to be hurt, I'm not policing my own language for anyone.

 

[Arcade22]

You're not showing that it's based on bigoted reasoning, you're saying it's used by bigots. I've already explained why that's a stupid argument.

Yeah, and the reasoning is bigoted because they refuse to change their definition for no good reason, even in the face of good reasons! That's why bigoted arguments sound so much alike: they stubbornly refuse to be inclusive and accepting.

No, I don't, just like a vegetarian doesn't have to explain how his eating habits are different from Hitler's.

You really are mistaken here. It's not bad because the conclusion is objectively false, or because bad people reason in this manner. It's bad reasoning because those who use it can't or won't allow the definition of something to widen.

On its face, nothing. But it's when you get in situations like the one being discussed in this thread that the question arises.

Yeah it gets complicated but that's not very good argument for anything.

Let's try to find some common ground here: traditionally for sports, "woman" was understood to be a biological female, and sports were segregated on that basis. Now you want to split "woman" from "biological female", which is one thing, but also you want to change the basis of segregation to "woman" rather than "biological female", which quite reasonably introduces a number of questions about how that would work in a way that isn't unfair to women in sports.

My personal opinion is that sex-segregated sports is, if anything, a necessary evil because people want women to have a chance at many sports where they would otherwise lack any real chance against men. That's why we have to come up with a compromise to reconcile our desire for a inclusive definition of woman with the right for women to be able to compete and win against each-other on fair terms, even if very few exceptional women would be considered too manly and masculine to compete fairly and are excluded.

Well, that's not false. If we redefine "woman" to mean "someone who feels like a woman", then sure, "feeling like a woman" makes someone a woman. That's not how the word is commonly understood, however. You're insisting that the new definition is the one we should use, but aside from accomodating trans women, you've not given any reason why.

Their happiness sounds like a good enough reason to me. It certainly overrules the anger and spitefulness of upset bigots.

Oh, potentially, no. I'm not a bigot, however, and even if I were, it would change nothing about the value of the argument. "Hitler was a vegetarian" doesn't mean vegetarian diets are bad or that they lead to genocide.

I never used that as an argument. There's a subtle difference here that you seem to miss.

 

[Francesca R]

I will be honest and say that this certainly appeared to be the complaint [ . . . ] So i am genuinely confused

Yes. You are. You do not understand the rationale (legally protected) for single sex services / places in which biological males are excluded from the female version. You display full lack of ability to get it.


Your strong desire for that which you don't understand to be something you can call "transphobia" and the like then intervenes so that you convince yourself that you have got to the bottom of things.


#NotAClue.

 

[Rolfe]

Evidence for this claim please I asked you to back up a similar assertion before and you have not done so.

Here's evidence that the opposite is the case.

The rights of women
The law that nobody wants (you have to scroll quite a way down on that one to get to the opinion poll data)

 

[Rolfe]

Progressives might have finally argued themselves into an inescapable corner with the "The right thing to do is always just to agree with the disenfranchised group about everything because you don't want to be seen as mean" mentality.

For the 50th billion time so someone can just scream "uRa tRANSphOBE!" at it again, we are not beholden to conceptualize gender and sex exactly within the confines of how a very small minority of exceptions defines it in order to be good, caring, and decent people.

This perverse balancing act of "Gender roles don't exist except when they are being subverted" cannot hold.

Excellent observations.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, and the reasoning is bigoted because they refuse to change their definition for no good reason, even in the face of good reasons!

That's not what "bigoted" means. Also, that you disagree with their reasons sure makes them bad reasons for you, but demonstrating why those reasons are bad, rather than just calling these people bigots, would be more effective.

That's why bigoted arguments sound so much alike: they stubbornly refuse to be inclusive and accepting.

Now that's not true. Being inclusive and accepting doesn't imply agreeing with everything that's suggested. No one's saying that trans people should be excluded from society. What's being discussed is whether biological males competing with biological females is fair to the latter. It actually has nothing to do with inclusivity or acceptance.

It's bad reasoning because those who use it can't or won't allow the definition of something to widen.

Good reasoning often doesn't allow definitions to widen, either, if there are reasons not to. It remains a pretty bad argument from you, however you put it.

My personal opinion is that sex-segregated sports is, if anything, a necessary evil because people want women to have a chance at many sports where they would otherwise lack any real chance against men. That's why we have to come up with a compromise to reconcile our desire for a inclusive definition of woman with the right for women to be able to compete and win against each-other on fair terms, even if very few exceptional women would be considered too manly and masculine to compete fairly and are excluded.

The other option is to segregate based on biology. It won't have an impact of either sport while allowing everyone to compete.

Their happiness sounds like a good enough reason to me.

But how far does it extend? If someone really feels like they're Napoleon, do we act as if they are? If someone really feels like the bible is the literal truth, should they be allowed to teach creationism in science classes? At some point you surely will agree that one's convictions or feelings can't be made to alter reality, and can't be catered to, even if it makes them happy.

As far as I understand, transitioning is what is supposed to make them happier. Pretending like they are just like biological females in all things will, in my view, cause them more harm than good, and that's a good enough reason to me.

 

[Rolfe]

Their happiness sounds like a good enough reason to me.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the happiness of what is still a pretty small minority of people is so all-important that it justifies telling 50% of the population that they have to give up rights they fought pretty damn hard for, the loss of which will make them unhappy.

It's all one way traffic with the trans lobby. Trans demands trump everything, nobody else's interests should be considered at all.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

I never have to adjudicate either sex or gender myself. I don’t manage a place of public accommodation, I don’t coach girls’ soccer, I’m not deciding who gets the scholarships for women in STEM, etc. That said, it’s a fascinatingly difficult topic with increasing policy salience, even for those of us who don’t live in the UK.

The people who study these things seem to agree that trans is a thing.

I don’t think anyone here denies that gender dysphoria is a real thing, though folks evidently differ on how often sexual transition should be prescribed to young people who are coming to terms with adult bodies for the first time. (I’m not nearly qualified to state an opinion on this, but it would be nice to consider some meta-analyses of the relevant studies.)

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

If you’re okay with safe spaces or sports leagues or scholarships for women, then you must agree that some people must be judged and labeled as men and thereby denied the right to access those spaces or services.

 

[8enotto]

Happiness is s moving target,in this case being sought by a smaller group of people than straight men or women.

Among that group is a full rainbow of gender confusion between mind and body that cannot be solved by defining any limited set of rights more than what non confused types get.

Latching on to feminist ideals for a group of folks not really feminine in totality isn't really helping as women will be supportive in public, in general and in principal but not in the bathrooms or locker rooms.

Want to kill a gym? Allow open bathrooms and changing rooms. Within a month a large number of women will have moved on to a less tolerant gym.

 

[GlennB]

Latching on to feminist ideals for a group of folks not really feminine in totality isn't really helping as women will be supportive in public, in general and in principal but not in the bathrooms or locker rooms.

Want to kill a gym? Allow open bathrooms and changing rooms. Within a month a large number of women will have moved on to a less tolerant gym.

Exactly, but the happiness of trans women is supreme, it seems, and the unhappiness of the cis women who don't want open changing rooms has to be discounted. To suggest otherwise constitutes, we're being told, 'bigotry'.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly, but the happiness of trans women is supreme, it seems, and the unhappiness of the cis women who don't want open changing rooms has to be discounted. To suggest otherwise constitutes, we're being told, 'bigotry'.

Which is interesting and sad all at once, given how important cis women supposedly were, not too long ago. I guess they're thrown under the bus when it becomes inconvenient.

 

[sadhatter]

Let's see here:

A person who absolutely refuses to recognize that same-sex marriages are actually marriages, because marriage can only ever be between people of the opposite sex and this can never ever change, is called a HOMOPHOBE.

A person who absolutely refuses to recognize that people of non-Swedish descent can actually be Swedish, because only people of actual direct Swedish ancestry can only ever be considered true Swedes and this can never ever change, is called a RACIST.

A person who absolutely refuses to recognize that biological males who are more or less visibly and behaviorally indistinguishable from women are actually women, because real women can only ever be those who were born with a certain genetic makeup and that this can never change ever, is called a TRANSPHOBE.

Is that clear enough for you people or do i need to dumb it down since a lot of you apparently took the shortbus to school?

Again you coils just keep adding Amy old thing to your post and it would have just as much weight.

If you don't clean your naps you are gross.

If you eat too much candy you get fat.

If you don't use your blinker you are an *******.

Now don't you see how wrong you are?

I agree with other posters, you don't ever actually make a point, just get angry when people don't accept you without question.

 

[theprestige]

Which is interesting and sad all at once, given how important cis women supposedly were, not too long ago. I guess they're thrown under the bus when it becomes inconvenient.

It's the patriarchy. Being born with a penis makes you a first class citizen. Even if you later give it up, you're still higher caste than those who were born without.