Trans Women are not Women

[tyr_13]

No, he's saying that being labelled with a vicious slur can have consequences for people's jobs and suchlike.

People can imagine themselves to be anything they like. Napoleon. Black. Stunningly beautiful. Female. Nobody is under any obligation to behave as if any of these things is literally true, even if not doing so might hurt their feelings. Labelling people with derogatory slanders that might get them sacked is something else. Of course trans activists are very fond of trying to get people who disagree with them sacked, we've noticed.

Oh, being outed could get you fired, have adverse social effects, and in some cases result in violence against you?

Yup, a lot of people can image themselves as a lot of things, like not bigoted, and people are under no obligation to match your imagined identity back at you. This irony is just too heavy now.

 

[Mycroft]

Let me state for the record that I'm not extremely sad either, because I have no connection. However, the insinuation that someone would be glad is beyond the pale.

Yes, that was uncalled for. At the same time, so is the suggestion that trans-people should feel responsible for the baby being stillborn because they want recognition and rights.

 

[Mycroft]

That is where it becomes nonsensical.

It isn't "his" baby, it's "hers".

So on a fundamental level, you just don't believe that trans-men are men. Presumably trans-women are not women either?

That's you're opinion, but lot's of people don't agree with you, including medical professionals.

However, it then behooves her to make some bloody plans around the event, like having medical professionals involved and maybe a medical bracelet, especially if she's hiding the pregnancy under male clothing and a beard. Just think, a $10 medical bracelet would have saved the baby's life. But it's the hospital's fault?

Not buying it, sorry.

I'd like to see where you buy a medical alert bracelet that says "Trans-man, could technically be pregnant."

Given how useless the mother was, the baby is probably better off dead than living in some absurd opposite land where you can change gender when you change your pants.

Better off dead? Wow. Just wow.

 

[Mycroft]

I think we should consider the practical effects of public policy, rather than evaluating whether our team is winning. In this case, the practical effect is a dead baby. It's hard seeing how anything is more important than that.

What public policy changes would you suggest that would prevent trans-men from having still-born babies?

What that means is that in the near future, a 17 year old girl is going to be put in the company of a large number of adult, male, murderers, robbers, and, last but certainly not least, rapists. What could go wrong?

What public policy changes would you suggest that would prevent vulnerable people from being incarcerated with dangerous people?

 

[Mycroft]

It's not even that. It goes beyond that. It requires everything to be conceptualized in a way that allows for show offy "lookit me caring."

It's not enough that you transpeople with respect and dignity. You have to treat them with respect and dignity and agree that they are special outlier cases.

That's why it's not "good enough" that I wouldn't so much as raise an eyebrow at a "biological woman who identifies as a man" walking into a man's bathroom, because the fact that I also wouldn't raise an eyebrow at a biological woman who identifies as a woman walking into the men's room means I'm not treating the transperson as a special case, therefore no "Lookit me being all progressive" narrative, therefore I don't "care" the right way.

At its best progressivism is the force moving us forward. At its worst it's social Munchausen by Proxy.

I think most trans-people neither need nor care about your positive affirmations. They most likely just want to pee.

 

[Meadmaker]

So on a fundamental level, you just don't believe that trans-men are men. Presumably trans-women are not women either?

That's you're opinion, but lot's of people don't agree with you, including medical professionals.

But if we say that transmen are men, as they are giving birth, what does the word "man" mean?


It is at best nonsensical, relying on a circular definition. At worst, it asserts that behavior is what defines a man. See Joe Morgue's posts on that issue.



And if there were no real world consequences, then it wouldn't matter, but there are real world consequences. It's pretty darned rare that the real world consequences include a dead baby, but the other real world consequences matter as well. When Karen White rapes women in a female prison, that's a real world consequence. If Alec McKinney goes to a men's prison, it will be only through great chance that there will not be a real world consequence. When a world class female athlete loses a race to a trans-girl, that's a real world consequence. When a girls' high school swimming team is told they have to share a locker room with a naked "woman", who is displaying a fully functional penis and scrotum, that's a real world consequence.


Go ahead and call me a bigot if you like, but the way that word is used today it has no more meaning than the word "woman".

 

[Mycroft]

That's exactly it. You've got to agree that men can literally turn into women, that there's no such thing as biological sex, that feelings in someone's head trump physical reality, and that all sex-segregated spaces should immediately become mixed-sex or else you're a horrible bigot.

Well I'm not on board with that and neither are most of the women (and quite a lot of the men) who are only just finding out about it.

You don't have their experience. You don't know the challenges and thought processes of someone who grows up believing they should be a different gender from what they were born to. You only have your own experience of being born the gender you are, and presumably being comfortable with that, and that's just not enough for you to judge these people.

So instead you deny their experiences. You deny their gender identity, you call trans-women men and trans-men women. You make up horror scenarios about cis-men who just claim to be women so they can have access to women's bathrooms and changing rooms for vague nefarious purposes. You claim that a trans-woman's gender dysphoria is really autogynephilia, a sexual perversion, as if what someone's sex fantasies were about were relevent in any way.

Then you turn around and act like you were just minding your own business when trans-people came along and pushed your comfort-zone too hard, but the reality is you're the one attacking them, their sense of identity and their rights to get along in society.

You're not a passive victim here.

 

[Brainster]

Did I post this link already? I'm not sure. Maybe have a look at it and think about the concept of "oppression" and "oppressors". A letter to the woman who called me a terf

Great letter, but I would amend this part:

Remember me too, when these women rapists are locked up with vulnerable women in female prisons and cannot escape, because to challenge the presence of the women rapists with penises in prison with them would be hate speech.

I think you mean to use the word "who" there. The way it reads now it sounds like the women rapists cannot escape.

 

[d4m10n]

You make up horror scenarios about cis-men who just claim to be women so they can have access to women's bathrooms and changing rooms for vague nefarious purposes.

I believe the "vague nefarious purposes" were basically spelled out upthread.

I may be wrong, “Unisex [changing rooms] put women in danger of sexual assault”.

Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.

 

[Mycroft]

But if we say that transmen are men, as they are giving birth, what does the word "man" mean?

That's a great question.

It's also a hard question. If you think about it, there are an awful lot of qualities that we identify as "male" or "female", yet few of them are absolute applying universally to every man or woman.

At the same time, somehow we figure it out. We're all able to correctly identify men and women with nearly 100% accuracy without ever looking at their genitalia. If we can do that, then maybe the genitalia alone isn't that important?

Not every man has a deep voice, hard muscles and facial hair. Not every woman likes make-up, has a petit figure or long hair. Some women are really good at math, engineering and chess. Some men have a great eye for colour. Some women have facial hair, some men have really smooth skin. None of these characteristics are 100% accurate predictors of gender.

So if none of these things are 100% accurate predictors of gender, maybe it shouldn’t be so hard to just add having a penis or a vagina to that list? If someone can, have a beard and still be a woman, then maybe having a penis shouldn’t be a disqualifier either. Is that so hard?

It is at best nonsensical, relying on a circular definition. At worst, it asserts that behavior is what defines a man. See Joe Morgue's posts on that issue.

Complex is not the same as circular, and nobody is asserting that only behavior defines a man. If that were true, nobody would need hormones.

And if there were no real world consequences, then it wouldn't matter, but there are real world consequences. It's pretty darned rare that the real world consequences include a dead baby, but the other real world consequences matter as well.

You're attributing that still-born child to transgenderism. That person identified himself as trans when he went to the hospital. That "real-world consequence" is of the hospital miscommunication.

When Karen White rapes women in a female prison, that's a real world consequence...

Women rape other women in prison. While Karen White is certainly an awful human being, her being trans didn’t create that particular problem. Make that particular person disappear, and women will still rape other women in prison.

 

[Puppycow]

We do have "JY" though, I'll give you that.

Sorry, what's that?

 

[Mycroft]

I believe the "vague nefarious purposes" were basically spelled out upthread.

That study doesn't address trans-people.

The idea that you can't let trans-women into women's bathrooms and changing rooms because they might sexually assault cis-women is pure fear mongering. It’s saying, ”Hey, they’re not really women they’re MEN! And since men are inherently sexually aggressive, watch out!”

It’s vague because she never says trans-women will sexually assault cis-women, but she will make a reference to some cis-man with a full on beard who’s gonna sneak in to the women’s room by just claiming to feel like a woman that day. You know, because cis-male rapists just love calling attention to themselves that way.

 

[Mycroft]

He was stating straight facts.

That's only true to someone who denies the existence of trans-people.

As for bullying. If calling someone "he" when they demand to be "she" is bullying, then the worlds emotions have turned a bit fragile.

I think if the discussion were about your gender and somone were to keep calling you a woman (assuming you identify as a man) that you would consider that a provocation and bullying.

No one has the right to demand to be called a certain pronoun

So you would be fine if everyone started calling you a woman? How would you feel about that?

Shapiro wasn't bullying. He was just being a jerk

Shapiro often tries to anger people he disagrees with, and it's a form of bullying.

 

[Mycroft]

Listened to another podcast which took on these issue from a philosophical perspective this afternoon, thought you might take an interest:

https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1130898913693773825

https://philosophybites.com/2019/05/kathleen-stock-on-what-is-a-woman-.html

Is it just me, or does Kathleen Stock look disturbingly like Macaulay Culkin?

 

[Puppycow]

So on a fundamental level, you just don't believe that trans-men are men. Presumably trans-women are not women either?

That's you're opinion, but lot's of people don't agree with you, including medical professionals.

Is it really just an opinion though? Do you believe that sex is a fact of biology, or something that someone can choose?

As for "medical professionals," they are subject to the same social pressures as the rest of us (perhaps more so in many cases, since they could lose their employment if they say the wrong thing.)

 

[Mycroft]

You may not agree with it but those are the attributes that make you the "oppressor".

Which may be the opinion of some, but is hardly universally believed by "the left".

You're taking an extreme position and extrapolating that to be the common opinion. You should be able to see what's wrong with that.

Just check out the link in post #2130. There is no room here for a third option.

I looked at that link and didn't see anywhere where anyone said that trans-women are identical in every way to cis-women. Can you quote it?

 

[Brainster]

At the same time, somehow we figure it out. We're all able to correctly identify men and women with nearly 100% accuracy without ever looking at their genitalia.

We used to be able to correctly identify men and women with nearly 100% accuracy.

 

[Meadmaker]

Complex is not the same as circular, and nobody is asserting that only behavior defines a man. If that were true, nobody would need hormones.

Complex is certainly not the same as circular. Complex definitions are hard to understand, but they are meaningful. Circular definitions are not meaningful.


Man - n. A person who identifies as a man.


That has no meaning, because it is circular.

You're attributing that still-born child to transgenderism. That person identified himself as trans when he went to the hospital. That "real-world consequence" is of the hospital miscommunication.

Not just miscommunication, but a very specific sort of miscommunication, which would not have occurred if the word "female" had been on the chart instead of the "correct" designation of "male"......in the maternity ward.

And it's for reasons like the above that I say any 12 year old can understand it, but if you went to college it might be more difficult. A 12 year old will say that men can't have babies. A college educated person will explain that this is based on a shallow understanding of the human condition, and explain why the inherited baggage of thousands of years of indoctrination must be shed for us to see the true, much more complex, picture.

In "The Emperor's New Clothes", the small child states the obvious and everyone admits that they were just playing along so that they would not be thought fools. Alas, it's just a children's story. No one ever studies that story in college.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's also worth pointing out that in that video Ben Shapiro was also acting like a bully. He deliberately provoked that woman by calling her by the wrong gender, and he knew he was doing that.

Now if I were to extrapolate that behavior to reflect on all conservatives or all white men, that would be bigoted. The reality is that obnoxious behavior only reflects the poor character of Ben Shapiro.

You seem confused about what a bully is. Saying something which offends someone, even intentionally, doesn't suffice. Physically threatening someone smaller and weaker than you in order to get your way does.

Was Ben being a jerk? Arguably yes. Was he being a bully? No. That's nonsense.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's only true to someone who denies the existence of trans-people.

This is pure nonsense. Misgendering a trans person doesn't deny their existence, it denies their preference.. But there is nothing sacred about your preferences. It is often polite to defer to people's preferences and rude not to, but even that isn't universally true. You can argue that this specific preference should always be deferred to, but even accepting that position, the refusal to do so is still not a denial of existence, a claim that isn't even coherent.

I think if the discussion were about your gender and somone were to keep calling you a woman (assuming you identify as a man) that you would consider that a provocation and bullying.

An insult from someone with no power over me is not bullying. It is merely rude. The conflation of the two does a serious disservice to those who are actually bullied.