• 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.
JoeMorgue said:
1. "My" bathroom is for people who are the same biological sex as me.
2. "My" bathroom is for people who identify as the same gender as me.
3. "My" bathroom is for whoever.
Click to expand...


I could never agree to item 3.

It should be "whomever."
 
JoeMorgue said:
And my argument is that transgenderism as a concept requires us to keep the classic, rigid gender definitions in place.

Again without the standards, people subverting them makes no sense.

I'm the one arguing there's base biology you can't change and a bunch of made up socially applied nonsense that shouldn't be there to subvert against in the first place.
Click to expand...
Ah. Then on that point, at least, according to me you're wrong.

You call it socially applied nonsense. I call it socially applied sense, an evolved (and evolving) strategy for building stable societies on top of base biological variations that you can't change.

Most of what we think of as gender is actually a large and complex edifice of emergent and evolving social constructs on top of gender. It's tempting to say that it's all nonsense and we can just sweep it away and start fresh, but I think that's a mistake.

I think the fact that it's a mistake is illustrated clearly in professional sports. You start getting rid of the "socially applied nonsense", and almost immediately you run face-first into base biology that you can't change. Suddenly all that "nonsense" starts to look more like a sensical approach to having biology-based competition in a larger social context.

---

Which is not to say all social constructs around gender are good or healthy or supported by biology. These constructs can get twisted into grotesques over time, or even start out that way. Some of them are sub-optimal. Others made sense in a different time and place, but not so much anymore. Others are a transient manifestation of the interaction of gender with other social norms and expectations.

Getting rid of these constructs might "solve" transgenderism. If my ass-pulled theory is correct, and gender disphoria is a kind of allergic reaction to social constructs around gender, then abolishing those constructs may result in transgenderism disappearing from the scene almost entirely.

But I think that most of these constructs are more deeply rooted in biology than we think, and that you won't be able to get rid of them, and that if you did you'd end up causing more problems than you solve.

---

Men have more testosterone on average, making them more aggressive and stronger than women.

Obviously this creates a power imbalance that works against a stable society of cooperating and complementary genders.

Therefore, in order to reduce male proclivity to sexual aggression, and encourage them to focus on more productive outlets like building a Better Tomorrow, we should insist that women be assigned to a strong male patron, and kept completely covered up (when they go out in public at all) so as to avoid triggering Male Gaze and other counter-productive behaviors.

Our society just works better that way.

---

I am expressing a conundrum, not making a prescription.
 
Ziggurat said:
Transition surgery changes biology, but transition is never complete. A male that has undergone transition surgery to female is still not actually female. They don't get functioning ovaries or a uturus, they don't have XX genes, if it happens post-puberty they still have a male skeletal structure. But their biology is undeniably changed from what it was prior to surgery. Their genital morphology is altered to be closer to female, they no longer have testes, their hormone profiles are female-like. It is not inconceivable that one day true sex change procedures might exist, but we're nowhere close to that.
Click to expand...

Even if technology reaches a point where a male individual could download the contents of his mind into a newly-built 100% female body assembled from base atoms in a Star Trek replicator there are still some feminists who would say the resulting individual isn't a woman because it didn't start out life living only the female experience.
 
I just had a moment of inspiration.

GOkUyDV.jpg


I think I am indigenous. Trans-indigenous. Like Iron Eyes Cody or Liz Warren.

That means that, naturally, there are cis-indigenous people and trans-indigenous. The former have cis privilege and hence I am even more oppressed than they are. Please don't invalidate my identity. Making fun of Liz Warren is a hate crime.
 
Puppycow said:
I just had a moment of inspiration.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/GOkUyDV.jpg[/qimg]

I think I am indigenous. Trans-indigenous. Like Iron Eyes Cody or Liz Warren.

That means that, naturally, there are cis-indigenous people and trans-indigenous. The former have cis privilege and hence I am even more oppressed than they are. Please don't invalidate my identity. Making fun of Liz Warren is a hate crime.
Click to expand...

I think I need more context for that picture. It seems like they're trying to *not* sell you stuff, and make you feel bad for even walking into the store thinking there might be something there for you to buy.

Anyway, Rachel Dolezal has prior art on trans-ethinicity.
 
I always ask myself "does this belong to me?" before I purchase anything. Because if the answer is yes, I don't need to purchase it.
 
I'm actually legit surprised that as a concept transgenderism hasn't ever been accused of "appropriating" the other gender's culture.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Then I literally have no idea what we're arguing about...
Click to expand...

Well, you've been attributing views to me which I do not hold (in quotes, no less) and I've been mostly puzzled as to your approach.

JoeMorgue said:
But if that's the case where does transgenderism even come into the discussion?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, there is an ongoing debate over whether existing multiuser toilets and locker rooms should be segregated by sex or gender. I'm not seeing any good compromise which won't freak at least some people out.

JoeMorgue said:
3. "My" bathroom is for whoever.
Click to expand...

I think that's a fine solution, and my local Target agrees.

2e5b400c7301f4befe7ad1d312ccc2ce.jpg
 
cullennz said:
Sorry. You said changing rooms

They are a whole different kettle of fish.

Find a pool with cubicles, which frankly most are these days, or find another pool that does if it makes you uncomfortable
Click to expand...

There's no way I could put in enough cubicles for people to change efficiently in my yoga studio.

Oddly enough I actually have TM's solution implemented (really by chance), since I have separate men's and women's changing rooms and one single use unisex room (with both a toilet and shower in it).
 
d4m10n said:
As far as I can tell, there is an ongoing debate over whether existing multiuser toilets and locker rooms should be segregated by sex or gender. I'm not seeing any good compromise which won't freak at least some people out.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the discussion people have been having for 80 pages now. Thank you for restating it.

Somebody is walking away not happy and that somebody is going to call the people who failed to make them happy some variation on "bigot." That's the problem.

It's not that we can't make everybody happy, those scenarios are a dime a dozen. The problem is who ever we don't make happy is going to assume the same kind of outrage.

Either I'm a transphobic bigot who wants transgenders to commit suicide or an evil alpha male that doesn't care that the poor widdle woman is going to get raped in the bathroom.
 
Myriad said:
And yet, the legislators (who passed the Act in the first place), judiciary, and bar of Massachusetts, thousands and thousands of trained professionals whose primary skill set is the dissecting and arguing of words and phrases as they apply to particular real-world cases, have been caused no difficulty whatsoever by this egregious contradiction you're perceiving.

(Interestingly, as well, if you walk up to one of them and tell them "everything I say is a lie," they do not go into comas, nor emit sparks and then explode. I've tried.)

Either they (and the many politicians and organizations that further publicly endorsed the Act during the subsequent referendum, including LGBT+ organizations, women's rights organizations, anti sexual assault and domestic violence organizations, the ACLU, the state Attorney General, bar associations, law enforcement organizations, and labor unions) are all missing something obvious, or you are.
Click to expand...

I don't care how many of them there are. If a facility is segregated by sex then it is not the case that everyone is free to choose which facility to use. And if everyone is free to choose which facility to use then the facility is not segregated by sex.

A: "Don't you find it horrible that schools are still racially segregated?"

B: "Erm, schools haven't been racially segregated since the 1960's."

A: "Yes they still are. Look, people of all races are free to choose which school to attend. That means that schools are racially segregated."

B: "Erm, no, that means that schools are not racially segregated."

A: "But thousands of people agree with me. People of all races are free to choose which school to attend, schools are racially segregated. Are you going to disagree with thousands of people?"

B: "..."
 
Myriad said:
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.




And yet, the legislators (who passed the Act in the first place), judiciary, and bar of Massachusetts, thousands and thousands of trained professionals whose primary skill set is the dissecting and arguing of words and phrases as they apply to particular real-world cases, have been caused no difficulty whatsoever by this egregious contradiction you're perceiving.

(Interestingly, as well, if you walk up to one of them and tell them "everything I say is a lie," they do not go into comas, nor emit sparks and then explode. I've tried.)

Either they (and the many politicians and organizations that further publicly endorsed the Act during the subsequent referendum, including LGBT+ organizations, women's rights organizations, anti sexual assault and domestic violence organizations, the ACLU, the state Attorney General, bar associations, law enforcement organizations, and labor unions) are all missing something obvious, or you are.
Click to expand...

If his logic is wrong you should be able to show that it's wrong. The fact that many people didn't see or didn't care about the contradiction doesn't lead to the conclusion that the contradiction doesn't exist.

Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy.
 
Roboramma said:
There's no way I could put in enough cubicles for people to change efficiently in my yoga studio.

Oddly enough I actually have TM's solution implemented (really by chance), since I have separate men's and women's changing rooms and one single use unisex room (with both a toilet and shower in it).
Click to expand...

I hope you at least label the toilet and shower so they aren't confused for each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom