Trans Women are not Women

[TomB]

Blanchard may have overestimated the role of autogynephilia as a cause of desire to transition to the opposite sex, but I don't think anyone could question the reality of the phenomenon, or reasonably deny that it plays a role in some transgenderism.

(Snipped post down to last paragraph as I'm not responding point by point.)

I think I mostly agree. Autogynophilia exists.

I also think that autoandrophilia exists. Though Blanchard instead calls it "autohomoeroticism" which he defines as "a female's love of (the idea of) herself as a *gay* man." (https://twitter.com/BlanchardPhD/status/986233413588877313)I'm not sure how he defines a condition where a female loves the thought of herself as a straight man. One respondant posted an article that suggests that some women do fantasize about being a male without the homoerotic element Blanchard posits. (https://surveyanon.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/autoandrophilia-survey-results/) I think there are a few gaping holes that Blanchard doesn't address.

I also agree that these auto____philias can potentially lead someone to actually transition to the opposite sex. But I question the proportions. First, because subsequent work suggests that there are those who don't fit Blanchard's categories, and second because I find it difficult to determine the direction of causation in each individual case.

In any event, you are correct that the criticisms of Blanchard have been used as a means of dismissing Autogynophilia entirely, which is incorrect, and not what the critics themselves seem to do. But it's also true that Blanchard's theories have been used by the other side as a club to say "See! They're just delusional perverts!" Which is equally incorrect. (And, I think, a mischaracterisation of Blanchard.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't think we have to split some infinite regressive hair over "At what point does exact level of thought Y equate to exact level of wanting to be the other gender X" since wanting to be something doesn't make it so.

 

[theprestige]

All these murders of transpeople. The fact is that statistically it's safer to be trans than either male or female in England and Wales.

Safer in terms of overall murders per capita? Or safer in terms of murders per transperson?

If ten out of a hundred people are murdered, but only one of them is trans, then it certainly looks safer to be the transperson than to be one of the other nine men and women who got murdered. But if only two out of a hundred people are trans to begin with, then it looks like half of all transpeople are getting murdered.

Ugh.

I'm terrible at statistics. I know I didn't explain that properly. I hope someone will figure out what I'm trying to say, and say it more clearly than I can.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think we have to split some infinite regressive hair over "At what point does exact level of thought Y equate to exact level of wanting to be the other gender X" since wanting to be something doesn't make it so.

The question of whether wanting to be something makes it so is exactly the question we're debating here, and which our larger society is also debating. Policy is being crafted. Activists are acting. The question of how much wanting clears the bar of being needs an answer. Your answer of "none" is no longer sufficient - at least not without going back to first principles and re-hashing several thousand years of organic social development around biological gender.

But kudos for wanting to stick with several thousand years of "this is how we do it, and nobody has a good idea for how to change it", if possible. We'll make a conservative of you yet!

 

[quadraginta]

Safer in terms of overall murders per capita? Or safer in terms of murders per transperson?

If ten out of a hundred people are murdered, but only one of them is trans, then it certainly looks safer to be the transperson than to be one of the other nine men and women who got murdered. But if only two out of a hundred people are trans to begin with, then it looks like half of all transpeople are getting murdered.

Ugh.

I'm terrible at statistics. I know I didn't explain that properly. I hope someone will figure out what I'm trying to say, and say it more clearly than I can.

I thought you did fine.

Add to this that most of the time these people are being murdered (or beaten, or sexually abused) specifically because they are trans. Not because someone wanted their money, or because of jealousy, or any of the other common causes that get most people who aren't trans murdered.

 

[TomB]

Illinois' governor is expected to sign a law that makes all public single stall bathrooms gender neutral. Seems like common sense to me. There is a small expense involved, I suppose, for signage.

I mentioned it to my wife, who works security at a library. She said that the trans people use the bathroom for whichever gender they are dressed as. There's never been an issue.

As for the violence statistics. I think it would take some significant statistical analysis to get anything meaningful. What you would want to compare is people assaulted or murdered because they are trans vs. people assaulted/murdered because they are natal male or natal female. That excludes a lot of violence: assault during a robbery/drug deal, assault during arguments over football games, etc. Sexual assault would be included.

 

[quadraginta]

Illinois' governor is expected to sign a law that makes all public single stall bathrooms gender neutral. Seems like common sense to me. There is a small expense involved, I suppose, for signage.

I mentioned it to my wife, who works security at a library. She said that the trans people use the bathroom for whichever gender they are dressed as. There's never been an issue.

Possibly because no one every made an issue of it. If someone complained about a man in the bathroom and they were asked to leave, then refusing would be trespassing.

When NC passed their HB2 bill it would have been outright illegal, because government facilities were covered by a requirement that multiple occupancy bathrooms only be used by people of the appropriate natal gender.

As for the violence statistics. I think it would take some significant statistical analysis to get anything meaningful. What you would want to compare is people assaulted or murdered because they are trans vs. people assaulted/murdered because they are natal male or natal female. That excludes a lot of violence: assault during a robbery/drug deal, assault during arguments over football games, etc. Sexual assault would be included.

I don't think it should be if the assault resulted from the discovery that the person assaulted was trans and not a "real" woman.

 

[Rolfe]

Safer in terms of overall murders per capita? Or safer in terms of murders per transperson?

If ten out of a hundred people are murdered, but only one of them is trans, then it certainly looks safer to be the transperson than to be one of the other nine men and women who got murdered. But if only two out of a hundred people are trans to begin with, then it looks like half of all transpeople are getting murdered.

Ugh.

I'm terrible at statistics. I know I didn't explain that properly. I hope someone will figure out what I'm trying to say, and say it more clearly than I can.

In terms of murders per capita of the demographic group in question. Men have the highest rate, women next, and transwomen (not sure if it included transmen) the lowest rate. Overwhelmingly the murderers are men. However the per capita rate of violent offending among transwomen is similar to the rate among men and well above the rate among women,

 

[Francesca R]

But where does all this anger and hatred start?

Do you think there is, what, some kind of social hatred-equiibrium that is symmetric between those who agitate for transwomen to access female segregated spaces and those who oppose them? I think that is demonstrably lopsided actually. But that may be just me.

However if you are asking "who initiated the conflict" or even "who has the more compelling grievance", I would probably give an answer that couldn't be freed from bias.

In any case neither group is going to admit it is them. And it doesn't have a whole lot of moral or practical relevance on who will prevail either. I don't think the opposing objectives can reach compromise. because their interests are wholly opposed. I would personally argue for one side over the other for vested personal reasons (I am female, do not want biological males intruding on a host of segregated spaces). And I would big up the argument of there being, what, predatory imposters who corrupt the case for transwoman access, unfortunate as that is for many transwomen who, believe it or not, I have sympathy for.

 

[Francesca R]

In terms of murders per capita of the demographic group in question. Men have the highest rate, women next, and transwomen (not sure if it included transmen) the lowest rate. Overwhelmingly the murderers are men. However the per capita rate of violent offending among transwomen is similar to the rate among men and well above the rate among women,

I never spend a lot of time worrying about being murdered. That may be "just me".

I do spend considerably more time mindful of sexual violence (or just violence). With respect to that, as I have said before, and as I am positive is also the case for transwomen, and transmen, actually, reported statistics can with respect go whistle. Every woman knows perfectly well that they are an entirely useless metric of risk. I know of no woman who gives them any weight.

Or, don't try to prove anything in this realm of enquiry with crime stats.

(. . . . I would however concede that under reporting of murder is less of an issue than sex crime)

 

[theprestige]

I thought you did fine.

Add to this that most of the time these people are being murdered (or beaten, or sexually abused) specifically because they are trans. Not because someone wanted their money, or because of jealousy, or any of the other common causes that get most people who aren't trans murdered.

Thanks!

I want to say there's a kind of "ghetto effect" (Warsaw, not inner-city). Jews/Homosexuals/Transsexuals are quite safe - as long as they stay in their ghetto. It's only when they try to interact with the rest of society, as first-class citizens and human beings, that life suddenly becomes disproportionately dangerous for them.

Personally I think such ghettos are a bad idea, whether self-selected or externally imposed.

But yeah, I'm pretty sure that Rolfe's statistic doesn't hold, once you start controlling for open transsexuals interacting with society at large.

 

[Francesca R]

I want to say there's a kind of "ghetto effect" (Warsaw, not inner-city). Jews/Homosexuals/Transsexuals are quite safe - as long as they stay in their ghetto. It's only when they try to interact with the rest of society, as first-class citizens and human beings, that life suddenly becomes disproportionately dangerous for them.

The same can be said about women in many parts of the world today, and in more parts of it before now. The trend towards reduced danger has depended on additional social and practical arrangements being made by societies.

Not surprising there is large pushback about the trend being driven into reverse in certain areas.

 

[TomB]

Do you think there is, what, some kind of social hatred-equiibrium that is symmetric between those who agitate for transwomen to access female segregated spaces and those who oppose them? I think that is demonstrably lopsided actually. But that may be just me.

However if you are asking "who initiated the conflict" or even "who has the more compelling grievance", I would probably give an answer that couldn't be freed from bias.

I think it's less lopsided than you think. It's my observation in discussions like this, there is a higher bar of what constitutes hateful rhetoric for ones own side than the opposite side. I see it in liberal/conservative debates, male/female debates, cis/trans, gay straight etc. It's impossible to be truly objective. (As you point out in your second paragraph.)

For example, I've watched a lot of YouTube videos that address these issues. Some of them (on both sides) get pretty angry and emotional. But they all feel that they are reacting to hate, not generating it. And there are mini-arguments in the comments section as to whether a particular portion (or comment) was offensive or hateful.
(Note: There is a danger in gauging the attitudes of a community based on YouTube videos. Only the most invested make videos, and of those only the most radical or controversial get noticed. Also, the producers often get paid per view. The more controversial, they are the more views they get, which = $$$. Take social media with a grain of salt. They are shock jocks.)

In any case neither group is going to admit it is them. And it doesn't have a whole lot of moral or practical relevance on who will prevail either. I don't think the opposing objectives can reach compromise. because their interests are wholly opposed. I would personally argue for one side over the other for vested personal reasons (I am female, do not want biological males intruding on a host of segregated spaces). And I would big up the argument of there being, what, predatory imposters who corrupt the case for transwoman access, unfortunate as that is for many transwomen who, believe it or not, I have sympathy for.

And the point is not who started it. (My questions were rhetorical.) At this point it's impossible to say who started it. And it doesn't really matter.

So some trans activists spew hateful things. So do some activists on the other side. I think we are all better served to leave the activists on both side out of the conversation. (Or at least the most strident activists.) I think that reasonable people on both sides can at least respect and empathize with the other side even if finding a good solution is hard.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As best I can tell, "Men can't have babies." is a bigoted statement, according to the Official Field Guide to Bigotry.

What if I say "Trans women can't have babies."

Exactly it is right and proper that trans people die of cancer that could be treated because the doctors refuse to threat them. To actually let them have access to medical care would be wrong and against basic logic.

Most gynecologists refuse to treat trans men for example and I am sure you agree with that.

https://rewire.news/article/2016/05/17/trans-reproductive-health-care/

 

[ponderingturtle]

Aye. In all my years I've only been 'propositioned' twice by men, both times in a gay pub in London, and both times the encounter was 'polite' for want of a better word. Never cat-called or wolf-whistled by the male oafs up the scaffolding on the building site, never groped by a man on the bus or train.

Women put up with far more crap in this regard than men do, and I can see no good reason to allow self-certified 'women' into female safe spaces to add, perhaps massively, to that crap.

And these fake women of course deserve all the sexual harassment they can get.

 

[Meadmaker]

And on that note, I think it's time to bow out.

 

[Belz...]

And these fake women of course deserve all the sexual harassment they can get.

And BAM! I knew you couldn't resist bringing that strawman back.

Lying about other people's posts is your signature move.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And BAM! I knew you couldn't resist bringing that strawman back.

Lying about other people's posts is your signature move.

It was clear, only real women deserve protection from sexual harassment, trans women should be thrown to the sexual harassing men. That is the simple logical tandem of the stated view in the post. Real women need protection from sexual harassment and assault, but trans women should not get it.

The only way this isn't obvious is if one pretends that trans women are not sexually harassed and assaulted. But that of course is totally untrue.

 

[Francesca R]

And the point is not who started it. (My questions were rhetorical.) At this point it's impossible to say who started it. And it doesn't really matter.

Think I . . . covered this in the bit you quoted.

I think we are all better served to leave the activists on both side out of the conversation. (Or at least the most strident activists.) I think that reasonable people on both sides can at least respect and empathize with the other side even if finding a good solution is hard.

That may sound quite Mahatma Gandhi-ish but I don't think it is a highly flyable idea.

Reasonable trans women wish to be able to access female space with the full rights women enjoy. Reasonable women do not want any bio-male access to female space due to the danger of intrusion of predatory male imposters. You would have to consider both groups one of which includes yours truly, as "the most strident activists" and "leave them out of the conversation". You would find a non solution that was stillborn as wholly irrelevant I expect.

 

[TomB]

That may sound quite Mahatma Gandhi-ish but I don't think it is a highly flyable idea.

Reasonable trans women wish to be able to access female space with the full rights women enjoy. Reasonable women do not want any bio-male access to female space due to the danger of intrusion of predatory male imposters. You would have to consider both groups one of which includes yours truly, as "the most strident activists" and "leave them out of the conversation". You would find a non solution that was stillborn as wholly irrelevant I expect.

No, actually, I think you would not be in the strident activist group. Without reviewing posts, I think you have responded and considered arguments from the other side. Which means I think you can discuss the issue in a reasonable manner. By strident I mean "OH MY GOD THEY ARE ALL PERVERTS!!!!" or (on the other side) "IF YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE UNDRESSING IN FRONT OF ME YOU'RE A BIGOT!!!!"

Reasonable people can talk reasonably to people on issues of conflict.

For the record, I tend towards your side of the argument for changing rooms and showers, but I think restrooms are areas where accommodation is more practical.

I don't know that there is a solution. But at least we can stop throwing insults (Pervert! Transphobe!) around and try to understand the other side.