Trans Women are not Women

[8enotto]

I live a couple hours away from Mexico city, where gay marriage is allowed, in fact quite profitable as long as everywhere else refuses to go there.

There used to be a pride parade here and there used to be a number of adults in the non binary category one would see when out and about.

Since Mex City passed that law they all seem to have moved to the big city. There was no obvious harassment I ever heard of but certainly acceptance was not all that notable either.

Gotta follow the opportunity and a subculture in Mex City offered more than a smaller city. Nobody ever noted nor mentioned them all quietly slipping away, maybe their families do.

It's not easy to be different here. Everyone is watching all the time. It took a long time to gain acceptance and get better opportunity.

 

[Francesca R]

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

Enough information has been provided in the discussion (more than once) to answer that. You systematically blank it because either you can not empathise or you decide it does not matter in your perspective. This gives rise to copious volume of mansplaining that all lands light years from the target of this issue because you've blinded yourself to that and have adopted a feel-good but utterly false premise of exposing something-phobia.

It's a rather bold illustration of bigoted intolerance. That it is actually quite common is scary. But it is still a marginal folly and will hopefully be extinguished under the illumination of common sense.

It's not just you of course. I have singled you out as a "classic case"

 

[Francesca R]

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.

This is correct in my view, agreed. There needs to be a specific definition applied and enforced to many/most sex segregated services or public spaces. It need not apply to everything and almost certainly shouldn't

This is contrary and unacceptable to the staunch proponents of sex self-ID (and it has been infringed already in cases)

 

[This is The End]

And women can now have penises. You may not like that, anymore than you might not like the fact that black people can use the same facilities as you (or even that they are considered people at all). You even said that seeing penises didn't bother you in the least so why do you act like it's any worse than seeing ugly people naked? It shouldn't.

I don't care what side of this issue you are on but that type of argument has no place here.

 

[GlennB]

Thanks for this. Assume i am clueless because i really dont see why periods require segregated bathrooms. i mean the women i have lived with have managed without one at home.

Blimey. A few seconds thought would have saved the embarrassment you must be feeling about having typed that.

 

[The Atheist]

That's part of what I was trying to get at earlier, though. Each instance of sex segregation requires its own well-grounded rationale; we shouldn't expect a single dichotomy to serve well in all cases.

Which means the obvious answer for bathrooms, which seems to be the single biggest issue, is to have all unisex facilities divided into private rooms.

There used to be a pride parade here and there used to be a number of adults in the non binary category one would see when out and about.

NZ had a longstanding pride parade as well. It's been a great call for inclusion over the years.

It was cancelled this year due to the various LGBT groups involved in running it having a disagreement over allowing police to take part in their uniforms.

Inclusiveness seems to be a one way street.

 

[Rolfe]

This is correct in my view, agreed. There needs to be a specific definition applied and enforced to many/most sex segregated services or public spaces. It need not apply to everything and almost certainly shouldn't

This is contrary and unacceptable to the staunch proponents of sex self-ID (and it has been infringed already in cases)

Critics need to remember that while we're fighting for the principle of sex-segregated spaces, nobody is actually insisting on a rigid exclusion of all male-bodied people with no exceptions.

Take prisons for example. When we discussed the scandal of "Karen" White, I said that the default position had to be that all male-bodied prisoners were housed in the male prison estate. I was promptly shouted down by people saying "so you think she - "she" in this case being either Jackie Green or Jazz Jennings - should be put in a male prison if she ever commits a crime?" Well, no, that's not what the word "default" means.

Both Jackie Green and Jazz Jennings were castrated at the age of sixteen after having been on puberty blockers for a number of years. They never reached sexual maturity. They are essentially asexual and very unlikely to display typical male violence behaviour. They certainly aren't going to rape anyone, they don't have the equipment. They are practically a different species from Karen White.

What we want as far as the prisons are concerned is a default of male-bodied prisoners to the men's prisons, and then exceptions can be made for specific situations such as people who were castrated pre-puberty or perhaps any man who has had full SRS. Similar guidelines can be developed for other situations. In this context, where "transwoman" can mean anything from Jazz Jennings to Karen White with a lot of oddballs in between, one size cannot fit all.

However, the default that the trans can have everything they want because to rein in their wishes in any way is bigoted hate, needs to go.

I don't know what's going to happen with lavatories and (especially) changing rooms though. Given the behaviour of the narcissistic bully-boys over the last few years, it's going to be difficult to return to the old system where women were prepared to take it on trust that any male using their facilities was a post-operative transsexual who was just trying to fit in unobtrusively may have gone forever.

 

[Rolfe]

Which means the obvious answer for bathrooms, which seems to be the single biggest issue, is to have all unisex facilities divided into private rooms.

First of all, that isn't the single biggest issue. It's the issue which affects the largest number of people, certainly, but in terms of impact most people would probably consider that women's sports, or women's prisons, or rape crisis centres, were actually bigger issues in the grand scheme of things.

Then, have you the remotest idea how impractical your proposal is? The cost of such conversion would be astronomical, the disruption would be huge, and it would take years. And even if it could be accomplished, the significantly fewer single unisex units that could be created using the existing lavatory space in any public building would be a huge issue. The "queue for the loo" problem would be multiplied several times over.

Is every business owner simply going to be required to do this conversion, at their own expense? Many small firms could easily go out of business under the burden of that sort of cost. And all because some men with lady feelz won't use either the bathroom appropriate to their own plumbing, or accept the offer of a third space just for them. Because lady feelz, you know. Talk about a disproportionate response?

And the women who need to escape from the importunate male would still have nowhere to go, and the miscarrying woman wouldn't have a safe space where she can be helped by other women until medical care arrives, and unless these miraculous new private rooms are big enough for a pram, the woman with the baby in the pram is still going to have a problem.

 

[Baylor]

Both Jackie Green and Jazz Jennings were castrated at the age of sixteen after having been on puberty blockers for a number of years. They never reached sexual maturity. They are essentially asexual and very unlikely to display typical male violence behaviour. They certainly aren't going to rape anyone, they don't have the equipment. They are practically a different species from Karen White.

Just looked into this case. This is child abuse. Plain and simple. No, child torture is more appropriate of a term. Can't believe we live in a society where this is legal. And it's being aired on cable television as if the castration and mutilation of a child is something to be celebrated. Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Rolfe]

Just looked into this case. This is child abuse. Plain and simple. No, child torture is more appropriate of a term. Can't believe we live in a society where this is legal. And it's being aired on cable television as if the castration and mutilation of a child is something to be celebrated. Absolutely disgusting.

We live in strange times. I actually agree with Baylor. (And Claire Heuchan and Frances Barber and I think my head is going to asplode.)

 

[Rolfe]

Breaking, in Twitter news. A feminist woman (whose daughter is a lesbian I believe) tweeted to a man, "You are not a lesbian" and was given a permanent ban.

Meanwhile, this is a Labour Party women's officer (a post which constitutionally must be held by a woman, but hey, this person is male) with a tweet that wasn't sanctioned at all,

https://twitter.com/BrightonResist1/status/1125514288796459011 (warning, NSFW)

Trans rights activists have colonised Twitter. Women are being banned for saying things like "Woman (n): adult human female" while men are getting away with the most revolting threats against women and the tweets are being given the all-clear "in context". Funny about the "in context" thing though, because a woman was banned for posting a fairly abusive phrase within quote marks - in context it was clear that she was quoting an abusive tweet to highlight it, not actually saying these words to anyone. She was banned but the tweet she was quoting was allowed to stand.

Big Brother is alive and well and living in Silicon Valley.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

The problem with this is that men and women are simply not different species and so much of the evolutionary psychology this is based on is just organized sexism.

 

[d4m10n]

The problem with this is that men and women are simply not different species and so much of the evolutionary psychology this is based on is just organized sexism.

Is it your theory that the various physiological differences caused by androgen production do not include anything neurological? It seems like it would be rather difficult to explain how evolution could select for physical dimorphism without a corresponding behavioural component.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

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.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12/0

No, YOU call them these words. At present most people don't even have them in their vocabulary because they were simply made up not that long ago for exactly the use you put them to - vacuous name-calling.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Breaking, in Twitter news. A feminist woman (whose daughter is a lesbian I believe) tweeted to a man, "You are not a lesbian" and was given a permanent ban.

Meanwhile, this is a Labour Party women's officer (a post which constitutionally must be held by a woman, but hey, this person is male) with a tweet that wasn't sanctioned at all,

[had to snip link thanks to idiotic forum rules for newbs, sorry]

Trans rights activists have colonised Twitter. Women are being banned for saying things like "Woman (n): adult human female" while men are getting away with the most revolting threats against women and the tweets are being given the all-clear "in context". Funny about the "in context" thing though, because a woman was banned for posting a fairly abusive phrase within quote marks - in context it was clear that she was quoting an abusive tweet to highlight it, not actually saying these words to anyone. She was banned but the tweet she was quoting was allowed to stand.

Big Brother is alive and well and living in Silicon Valley.

Surely the point must come when even the most dyed-in-the-wool "skeptic" has to wonder if there is a design, social engineering. And if so, is one really supposed to believe that MyFace Inc. and the rest are owned by "liberal progressives" whose tender hearts bleed at the sight of the (alleged) injustices our society inflicts on minorities like men-with-breasts?

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know the specifics, and this could be mere conspiracy theorising, but there is a school of thought that suggests there is an organised plan which has been running for about 15 years and is funded and promoted by a small number of autogynaephile trans guys in senior positions in the tech industry.

I did read a long article some time ago that set out this theory and appeared to be closely argued with evidence and links. However I could see it was published in a right-wing journal and the SOP on this forum is to dismiss anything published in a right-wing journal on this topic, regardless of the quality of the argument or the evidence presented, and I don't have the link any more.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is it your theory that the various physiological differences caused by androgen production do not include anything neurological? It seems like it would be rather difficult to explain how evolution could select for physical dimorphism without a corresponding behavioural component.

Nice goalpost shift. We went from "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." To "Caster Semenya is a man baby"

How does any kind of psychological effects of androgen mean there has been 200,000 years of divergent evolution between men and women?

So evolutionary psychology tells us that women don't really want or desire sex but use it to gain power and such from mates. So clearly any woman who has sexual desire is clearly less of a woman than one who does not.

 

[Rolfe]

No, YOU call them these words. At present most people don't even have them in their vocabulary because they were simply made up not that long ago for exactly the use you put them to - vacuous name-calling.

Hi. I like your style. I think we're going to get along.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

Okay we need to address this.

Gender/sex is not complicated for.... pretty much everybody within a statistical margin of error. For most... like everybody there is not some great battle going on in their minds between what's between their legs and what's in their... gender soul as I'm pretty much reduced to calling it at this point.

Most people don't default to making this huge distinction between gender and sex (or biological this and mental that, or between your... demographics and your identity or whatever) because it's just not a thing for most people. And that doesn't make those people bad or evil or hateful.

We can not confuse caring for and respecting and accomodating and tolerating minority views/lifestyles/whatever with some grand pantomine where all have to pretend they aren't minority views/lifestyles/whatever and expect them to have the exact level of influence on just general street level day to day life.

"Is this dude I'm talking to really a dude" is not ever going to be a common thing people just consider without reason in generic, day to day casual conversation and if they do, it's not going to be in the way transgender people want but in a much more distrustful and sinister way that I don't think anyone wants. The trans community has to fight the "Trans = Trap" nonsense enough, they don't need to make it a core part of their argument.

I don't like this anymore than you probably do, but I can't make it not true.

This... mythology that the trans community has created for themselves where there some statistically significant amount walking around legitimately fooling people as to what biological gender they are is.... not accurate.

I kind of had the same train of thought during the big gay rights push, this popular idea that gays had been living in the closet in some literal sense... I mean not in the literal sense of being in actual closet of course more of the metaphor being the idea people were being gay and literally keeping in secret. That happened, to be sure, but I think much more common the "closet" was a more valid metaphor for a level of plausible deniability then some literal "Nobody knows/suspects I'm gay" kind of thing.

But anyway this idea that the big "gotcha" moment is going the revelation that a bunch of transgender people are in my Dunbar's Number and I'm not aware of it... no. Sorry. Not gonna happen.

People are just not nearly as good at hiding their true nature as they think they are. There's a reason the members of the military refer to the day Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed "No Duh, Thursday, Presented by your new CO, Captain Obvious."

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

And again you can't go "Well I don't consider you a bigot" and wipes your hands of when all the hoops I have to jump through to not be a bigot to you are the exact same hoops that I have to jump through to be a bigot to someone else.

My endstate in all this can't be "Just pick who you want to consider you a bigot" when all the arguments are basically the same "You're not doing anything wrong, you just aren't conceptualizing it the way I want you too."

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

You aren't the only one in this conversation I have to appease.

 

[d4m10n]

So evolutionary psychology tells us that women don't really want or desire sex but use it to gain power and such from mates.

I've read at least a handful of evopsych folks (and even known a few) but don't recall any of them saying anything substantively equivalent to this.

Probably most of them would be willing to say that men are much less discriminating than women, though, on account of differential parental investment during the relevant age of evolutionary adaptation.