Trans Women are not Women

[Belz...]

You seem to have nailed exactly what transition is later on, altering their bodies to match their identity and yet you seem at odds with this definition while saying you support transition.

I'm not at odds with it, but we have to make a choice, here. If trans women are women to begin with, then they can't transition. If they're not, then they can either physically transition into one, or they can't. So the only option where the word "transition" makes any sense is the second one.

A cisman would not require transitioning. Transitioning is only relevant to transpeople.

Would not require does not mean cannot or would not. Ergo, your second sentence is incorrect.

So i am honestly asking what you mean by supporting transitioning if you honestly believe it doesn't mean anything or change anything?

As I explained above, the issue is that there are several different interpretations, and in only one does the word "transition" actually change someone's gender. If you don't subscribe to that scenario, as I don't, then they don't transition at all. They get surgery.

indeed. which is the case for all kinds of disorders and conditions. But the doctor is not simply there to unquestioningly give a patient what they ask for and there is a process to ensure a treatment is appropriate. Yes, it is possible that a cisman could fake it, but why on earth would they want to?

Fake it, be mistaken or confused, or pressured, etc. If you can fool your doctor into prescribing you opiates to soothe your addiction, you can fool them into thinking you need transition. Especially since, if they refuse, you can call them a bigot on socia media and get them fired or worse.

Belz stated he supported transitioning

And by that, I simply mean that I support them getting whatever surgery or process is required to alter their bodies to their liking, just as do for anyone. I just wouldn't call it "transition" in the sense that they go from one gender to another, because I don't subcribe to the ideas that the term implies.

You dont agree that people who oppose gay marriage are bigots?

I don't agree that they necessarily are. Let's say that, theoretically, someone has seen evidence, in their eyes, that homosexuals having a family and adopting children is harmful to those children. Now, whether or not they are correct about that, their concerns could make them decide that homosexual adoption should not be allowed despite being entirely in favour of people having sex with whomever they wish.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Person 1: "X should be treated in way Y"
Person 2: "Doesn't that cause problem A?"
Person 1: "You're a BIGOT!"
Person 2: "Why, though?"
Person 1: "A BIGOT would ask the same question. Accept without question!"
Person 2: "I don't think I will."
Person 1: "You're a BIGOT!"
Person 2: "That's not an argument."
Person 1: "You're a BIGOT!"
Person 2: "You're not going to get anywhere with this."
Person 1: "You're a BIGOT!"
Person 2: "Right, fine."

We are still at line 2 of this conversation then. Because problem A has not been presented. Just a load of assertions that transwomen arent women because.

I have literally spent about 5 or 6 pages now waiting for problem A to be explained. But so far all i have is 'i am.not comfortable with Person x' and yes that is analogous to the bigotries of old. If you disagree explain how its different but dry your eyes about the bigotry accusations first.

 

[Rolfe]

Those who deny transwomen rights are arguing there is something innate about being a woman that a transwoman can't ever attain.

Correct. A female body.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Services and treatments, yes. But there is no test. A test is different than a treatment or a service.

I disagree. There are diagnostic tools and techniques. These are tests. They may not be as clear cut as an x-ray but that's how mental health works.

Its not perfect but its a long way off just saying you are trans, and its not the case that a doctor would agree to transitioning someone they didnt believe was trans, nor is it the case, as was the original point i countered, that it is the process of transitioning that makes someone trans.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Thanks once again for unilaterally giving away someone else's rights.

You really have the blinkers on here. I did no such thing.

 

[Rolfe]

You most certainly did.

a compromise is to allow trans people to use the facility they wish to.

That is not a compromise, that is wholesale surrender of the rights of people who do not wish to relinquish sex segregation in public lavatories - which I might remind you is still the actual law, no matter how much it may be flouted at present.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Both. Neither. I'm a rational adult stating my opinions and concerns, you are the same. Let us not overly worry about assigning us to the proper side.



Your entire argument can't be that everything we currently do that you are comfortable with is "Just the way it is and unlikely to be accepted differently" while arguing to a massive change that makes people uncomfortable.

Your "Comfort Card" can't have a lower mana cost and higher hit points then everybody else's. The "Victim" Card is no longer allowed for league play for use as a modifier.

No i think you misunderstood. I make no claim as to whether gender segregated bathrooms are right wrong or otherwise, nor is my comfort level relevant. I am merely trying to answer your question as to how we ended up where we are and why two things may appear at odds and yet be a practical solution.

I dont have a huge stake in the toilet business personally...doesnt bother me which toilet i use or who else is there with me and i dont really see admitting transpeople as a huge change.

I am awaiting enlightenment as to what the problem is from those who have strong opinions on the matter but i admit to being largely none the wiser other than vague sense of 'comfort' and a hand wave at 'rights'. I admit to perhaps not getting it, but the unwillingness of other parties to explain it isnt really helpful nor is the aggressive, insulting reaction often received

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You most certainly did.




That is not a compromise, that is wholesale surrender of the rights of people who do not wish to relinquish sex segregation in public lavatories - which I might remind you is still the actual law, no matter how much it may be flouted at present.

It is a compromise. It may not be one you agree with but it certainly is one. Also note that in what you quoted i did not state that it was right or wrong. Also note that i have no authority over targets toilet policy so am unable to surrender anyone's rights.

Incidentally what right is being lost? what harm is being done?

My understanding of the law is different to yours incidentally. Not sure if we want to get bogged down on that but i will state my disagreement anyway.

 

[Baylor]

1. Why not? Gay rights was the biggest thing since civil rights for black people over where people like to stick their dicks. And civil rights was the biggest thing since whatever was before that over melanin levels.

Meh current year. Meh progress. Meh right side of history.

Such a noble person. They'll be writing history books about you kiddo.

 

[d4m10n]

Just as a general observation from following the thread.

We don't need a single all-singing, all-dancing, always applicable definition of "woman" which allows us to separate the men from the women. We need one for top-level sport, another for recreational leagues, another for boarding schools, another for Target restrooms, another for STEM scholarships, and so forth.

It is possible to treat transwomen as women for all of your own social and personal purposes while recognizing that the designated gatekeepers of gender/sex-segregated spaces have a difficult and thankless task ahead of them.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't care if a women who identifies as a woman uses the men's room (or vice versa) because I think gender separating bathrooms are stupid. But no I can't conceptualize a mental framework where I care about having separate bathrooms but don't care about some random exceptions to the rule.

I do not accept purely internal personal identification completely divorced from any and all actual objective differences as something I should be expected to factor into my worldview.

And the whole "Well not everybody is like you" is a copout since I'm still getting called a bigot. My choice is just to decide who calls me a bigot and for what reason.

Again I can't win, I can't lose, I can't quit the game. What do I do because the only option I have left is flipping over the table.

Actually unless you are doing physical exams on people you meet you absolutely are accepting their self identification on a daily basis. You might have a problem resolving this logically but that's exactly what you are doing.

I am sorry to hear people brand you a bigot, i have seen no evidence to suggest this is the case..

I think you have picked me or something up wrongly on the bathroom issue.

 

[DragonLady]

Just a load of assertions that transwomen arent women because.

They aren't women because they haven't been born with or grown up with the female mind that has spent 200,000 years evolving to work with female bones, female hormones, female reproductive organs and female behaviors....

If you believe in evolution (as I do) you must realize you can't have a trait -like a penis- without also having the behaviors and mindset that accompanies that trait.

ETA: I know "female" is kinda misplaced in a couple of places, but I wasn't sure how to word it to make sense otherwise.
"Women bones, women hormones...etc. would be more correct factually, but sure makes for clunky reading.

 

[Rolfe]

It is a compromise. It may not be one you agree with but it certainly is one. Also note that in what you quoted i did not state that it was right or wrong. Also note that i have no authority over targets toilet policy so am unable to surrender anyone's rights.

Incidentally what right is being lost? what harm is being done?

My understanding of the law is different to yours incidentally. Not sure if we want to get bogged down on that but i will state my disagreement anyway.

Thank goodness you're not in charge, indeed.

No, it's not a compromise. Men who want to be women are demanding free unfettered access as of right to women's lavatories. Women do not want this to happen. Declaring that this is a solution is not a compromise, women are being asked to give up everything, trans are getting exactly what they want.

I'm somewhat tired of repeating the reasons why women require sex-segregated lavatories, I did it again not too far upthread. There is corrently a human rights campaign going to improve the provision of sex-segregated lavatories in the third world so that girls can actually go to school on the days they have their period (or even at all), for the same reasons. Ironically there are prominent posters advertising this charitable appeal and how one can donate by text phone placed on the inside of the stall doors in many ladies' toilets. You can imagine the state of our irony meters when we see these appeals, these days.

You might want to look up the exemptions in the Equality Act that allow single-sex provision where this is required for sex-specific purposes. Also the law as it relates to the provision of separate male and female toilets in schools.

 

[Belz...]

We are still at line 2 of this conversation then. Because problem A has not been presented.

That's strongly disingenuous. The problems have been explained in depth, over and over. I don't believe for a second that you missed them, or that you really think that it's just about comfort.

It is a compromise.

How is it a compromise? What is being compromised on the other side?

You most certainly did.

That is not a compromise, that is wholesale surrender of the rights of people who do not wish to relinquish sex segregation in public lavatories - which I might remind you is still the actual law, no matter how much it may be flouted at present.

Rolfe, having segregated restrooms is not a right.

 

[Baylor]

. Those who deny transwomen rights are arguing there is something innate about being a woman that a transwoman can't ever attain.

What?

 

[Rolfe]

Actually unless you are doing physical exams on people you meet you absolutely are accepting their self identification on a daily basis.

You seem to think that it isn't blindingly obvious when someone is actually a man, even though he's tricked out in a mother-of-the-bride outfit or similar. I don't doubt there are occasional cases where one might not notice, but come on!

Just because I don't go up to these people and comment that they look like right chookies and if they think they're fooling anyone they're very much mistaken, doesn't mean I'm "accepting their self identification". In the context of the trend to "identify" as a transwoman while changing pretty much nothing about one's outward appearance, the opposite applies. They look like the men they are, there's nothing showing to give us a clue about this mystical identity, so we're entirely oblivious of it.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, having segregated restrooms is not a right.

The equalities act allows for the provision of single-sex facilities in certain circumstances, and this is one of them. The right is to have either a genuine unisex provision where absolutely everything is in a single-person room behind a lockable door with no shared washing/grooming space (as one often finds in very small establishments), or single-sex provision. This is being flouted more and more, but it's still the law.

In particular children at school above the age of eight are supposed, by law, to be provided with single-sex toilets. The stuff I hear going on in a lot of schools these days is simply illegal. The girls who aren't drinking so they don't have to go to the mixed-sex lavatories at school don't know that of course.

 

[Rolfe]

Those who deny transwomen rights are arguing there is something innate about being a woman that a transwoman can't ever attain.

Once more, with feeling.

Yes there is. A female body.

 

[Belz...]

The equalities act allows for the provision of single-sex facilities in certain circumstances, and this is one of them. The right is to have either a genuine unisex provision where absolutely everything is in a single-person room behind a lockable door with no shared washing/grooming space (as one often finds in very small establishments), or single-sex provision. This is being flouted more and more, but it's still the law.

In particular children at school above the age of eight are supposed, by law, to be provided with single-sex toilets.

I didn't say there weren't lawful accomodations. But I wouldn't call it a right, like the right to free speech or the right to legal representation.

 

[Baylor]

ally spent about 5 or 6 pages now waiting for problem A to be explained. But so far all i have is 'i am.not comfortable with Person x' and yes that is analogous to the bigotries of old. If you disagree explain how its different but dry your eyes about the bigotry accusations first.

What you don't seem to understand is these shaming tactics have diminishing returns. You probably noticed no one is the least bit intimidated by your "you're just like those bigots of old!" accusation. The other guy seemed somewhat cognizant of this so he went straight for the "big guns" and compared denying transsexuals from undressing in front of little girls to the holocaust.

This is why it helps to have actual arguments.