• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
Darat said:
TM is making sense.

From where we are at the moment is that we have two groups of extremists, you are never going to satisfy both of those groups with any solution. Therefore a third way has to be found and the idea of not forcing anyone to use a toilet that is the "wrong" one for them would seem to be the only way of compromising.
Click to expand...
I agree. It took me a while to come around, but yeah I think he's making sense.
 
TM is by no means wrong in the literal sense, I just think the friction is coming from "He's a solution to the problem" and "There is no problem, and the side that thinks there a problem needs to accept that" aren't the same thing.

They are, to be sure, both absolutely valid stances to hold in theory, but they are not the same thing.

And I stand behind my "There is no problem" stops being a valid stance when the people saying there is a problem have been awarded "victim" status.
 
Hell if anything I wish overall society going "The solution is... SHUT THE %$#@! UP WE'RE SICK OF HEARING IT FROM ALL OF YOU!" was a solution we went to more often.

Again nobody is "wrong" here. "Here's a potential solution" and "There is no problem, that's the solution" are both... valid points to argue. They just don't work for each other's definition of what the problem we're trying to solve is.
 
Belz... said:
They already have one!

I mean, if you can't get the basics of the topic straight, how can you hope to discuss it?



More lies. You know for a fact that this isn't what's being discussed. Hell, you can't even get the concept of compromise right.
Click to expand...

I seems the topic of bathroom access was not mentioned in this thread until TM brought it up. It is completely off topic and should be sent to AAH. Bad TM! :rolleyes:
 
Feet to the fire bathroom (and similar public-private spaces like locker rooms and gendered living arraignments), sports, and.... pronouns are the only directed, non-general context transgenderism ever seems to come up.

We can't discuss any practical application of transgenderism without one of those being on the table, so I see no point in "who brought it first" finger pointing.
 
caveman1917 said:
IIRC it was actually already suggested that trans-women could use the disabled's bathroom, but this was rejected because it didn't validate their identity as women.
Click to expand...
Rejected by whom? People who look like women can already use the women's loo with no problem.

JoeMorgue said:
Feet to the fire bathroom (and similar public-private spaces like locker rooms and gendered living arraignments), sports, and.... pronouns are the only directed, non-general context transgenderism ever seems to come up.
Click to expand...

There are only a few contexts in which gender- and/or sex-segregation are still considered socially acceptable (in the west) these days, those are the situations in which authorized gatekeepers must struggle with how to separate the men from the women. Sport, dorms, toilets, changing rooms, etc. We should probably bear in mind that the solution that works in one area (e.g. SRY gene for sport) might not serve us well in another.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
I seems the topic of bathroom access was not mentioned in this thread until TM brought it up. It is completely off topic and should be sent to AAH. Bad TM! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hey, join in the lying fun! The more the merrier.

Clearly, what I meant was that no one in this thread had discussed bathrooms. Not even myself. Nope. That's gotta be it.

Seriously, do you think you're being clever? Or did you really not notice that I was responding to TM's comment about compromise?
 
d4m10n said:
Rejected by whom? People who look like women can already use the women's loo with no problem.
Click to expand...

Okay people keep asking people to show them "where" a potential solution has been explicitly "rejected" and I don't get what they are asking.

The entire stated purpose of the transgender movement by its definition rejects having the wrong gender role or a special third gender role placed on them.

It's like asking us to show you exactly where a vegan "rejected" steak for dinner. He didn't necessarily, it's covered in the overall topic.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
That many trans-identifying males want free access to female only spaces, and that many women want them to be denied access.

Didn't read the thread huh?

Deny trans-identifying males this access. Which is contained in your suggestion also.
Click to expand...

You're rejecting a compromise on bathrooms because it only solves one real world problem arising out of a philosophical debate. I'm more inclined to fix the manifestations of problems than wait for philosophical resolution of underlying theory because that's how society works. We didn't wait to solve racism before we abolished slavery.
 
d4m10n said:
There are only a few contexts in which gender- and/or sex-segregation are still considered socially acceptable (in the west) these days, those are the situations in which authorized gatekeepers must struggle with how to separate the men from the women. Sport, dorms, toilets, changing rooms, etc. We should probably bear in mind that the solution that works in one area (e.g. SRY gene for sport) might not serve us well in another.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I was just saying I don't see any need to "identity and call out" basically the person who first brought it up in the discussion. It's sorta always there by definition.
 
TragicMonkey said:
You're rejecting a compromise on bathrooms because it only solves one real world problem arising out of a philosophical debate.
Click to expand...
Again I am not rejecting it but I am rejecting your label of compromise for it.

I doubt that any trans-activists bent on free access to female only space would think it was a compromise either. Don't think we have any participating in this topic though.
 
Belz... said:
Dude, testosterone alters behaviour and perspective. Men and women have, on average, different levels of it and other hormones. That means that it will affect behaviour differently for both sexes. You can't deny this.

{...}

For the umpteenth time that IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. At least make a modicrum of effort to understand what other people are saying before pretending that you know what they're talking about.

NOBODY said it was a simple linear progression. That is YOUR simplistic interpretation. It is entirely possible for testosterone to be heavily involved in aggression, to cause men in general to be more aggressive than women AND some women to be more aggressive than some men even if those men have a lower testosterone level.
Click to expand...

Fine, present your model for how you claim testosterone affects behavior.

Now you're just knee-jerk nay-saying. How can we be over-simplifying an issue when our entire point is that it's more complex than you're pretending?
Click to expand...

A model which has the testosterone effect on behavior modulated by socio-cultural environment is by definition more complex than a model where the testosterone effect on behavior is not modulated by socio-cultural environment.

I know of no such culture.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the well known epistemic principle that if Belz doesn't know of something then it doesn't exist.
 
Francesca R said:
Again I am not rejecting it but I am rejecting your label of compromise for it.

I doubt that any trans-activists bent on free access to female only space would think it was a compromise either. Don't think we have any participating in this topic though.
Click to expand...

I think they'd be foolish to reject a current small advancement for a much less likely hypothetical future one. History has demonstrated that multiple incremental gains over time are more successful than abrupt revolutions in society.

Eta and it would be a compromise from their perspective: they have the men's room now, want the women's room, but would settle for the uncategorized room. That's a compromise on their part. It's less of a compromise from the "real women only" perspective as they're getting their previous sacred space, and in return all they have to concede is that they won't stop people from using the uncategorized bathroom. Not asking as much, true, but frankly I doubt they'd be willing to concede even that much. They seem to hate transwomen so much I expect they won't accept even a victory if it doesn't require a crushing defeat to their enemy.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Fine, present your model for how you claim testosterone affects behavior.
Click to expand...

Ask an endocrinologist. I'm giving you the general idea and why you're wrong about your over-simplification.

A model which has the testosterone effect on behavior modulated by socio-cultural environment is by definition more complex than a model where the testosterone effect on behavior is not modulated by socio-cultural environment.
Click to expand...

Except that neither you nor I nor Zig is arguing that culture has no impact on behaviour. So your model is still the more simplistic one.

Ah yes, the well known epistemic principle that if Belz doesn't know of something then it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I didn't said it didn't exist. I said I wasn't aware of it. If anyone can't tell the difference between the two, it's you.

Seriously, if you can't keep track of such a simple argument, why are you even on a forum like this one?
 
Side A: I want to go to Pizza Barn
Side B: I want to go to Taco Hut.
Side C: Shut up both of you, we're compromising and going to Taco Hut. (or even Burger Palace.)
Side A: How... how is that a compromise?
Side C: Because I say so.

Now that sounds flippant but I'm actually slightly serious in a certain way. Semantics of whether or not it is right to call it compromise aside, there is nothing inherently morally or logically wrong with "At a certain point we just have to declare the debate over, even while recognizing that there will be certain agents still unsatisfied."

There's some workable grey area between "A compromise nobody is happy with" and "We have to keep having the debate until every single last person is satisfied."

TM is, rightly, come at this from the place of "Good enough is not the enemy of perfect."

I don't personally agree that his solution is as tenable as he wants it to be, but still.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
I think they'd be foolish to reject a current small advancement
Click to expand...
Good luck with that.

To be clear, I don't think all transwomen would object. I am near certain that the lobbying segment of them who demand access to women-only space would object and do object, and that they would label an arrangement like you propose as horrendously transphobic, and its advocates as hate-criminals.

Maybe we shall see . . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom