• 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.
Belz... said:
That is the exact opposite of my experience. Sure, men were expected to act a certain way, but that's not what defined them.
Click to expand...

So in your experience, it has never been suggested that someone is less of a man for acting in certain ways?

You have never come across the saying "Be a man" meaning act in a certain way?
 
Wasn't there that guy in a Shakespeare play who suggested that "gentlemen, now abed in England" would "hold their manhood cheap" because they weren't present at a particular battle?

I don't understand why they would hold their manhood cheap if, by "manhood", they meant nothing more than the possession of penis, testicles etc.
 
I've never understood the taboo on suggesting people have prejudices.

I have been called "transphobe", "Christophobe", "Islamophobe" in my time and it has never bothered me.

Either I do have prejudices, in which case they have a point, or I don't, in which case they are wrong.

I am perfectly willing to entertain the suggestion that I have prejudices.
 
Meadmaker said:
Except, lots of people do care, especially where locker rooms and showers are involved. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. "Nobody cares" is hyperbole. Anything at all, there's someone who has strongly held opinions about it. Fluoridated water. Contrails. Which compass direction faces up on maps.

There are clearly a good number of people who care a lot about opposing trans rights in Massachusetts. The thing is, it appears relatively few of them actually live in Massachusetts. Among people most likely to be affected by the actual laws and policies here, such as Massachusetts teachers groups, business owners, and women's rights organizations, few to none publicly supported the repeal initiative. The organizations that did support a repeal did so on the basis of rest room safety for vulnerable women and children. Had there been a single relevant incident for them to point to, one Willie Horton enabled in crime by lax progressive policies, they would have made sure we all knew about it by election day. That didn't happen.

There are, of course, problems and complaints. Someday there will be relevant incidents. It's an imperfect and uncertain world. But what we don't have right now is a major social issue or ongoing intense debate.

They also care about boys who break track records in girls' events.
Click to expand...


Athletic competition is an issue that the recent trans rights law doesn't directly address.

The issue of trans access to sex-segregated spaces only exists because sex-segregated spaces exist. Obviously.

The most recent trans rights law, that added public accommodation to the rights guaranteed regardless of gender identity, addressed one kind of legal sex-segregated space, physical facilities like rest rooms and changing rooms. Had it not, the status quo of legal segregation based on biological sex for rest rooms (which, keep in mind, was already an exception to equal access laws) would presumably have stood, but also would have soon been challenged in court. Against a background of ongoing national controversy over the matter, the state legislature (and two years later, the public) chose to make a policy statement.

Sex-segregated athletic competition is another standing exception to equal access laws. The situation is similar, but the issues are different. Decisions rest at the local and organizational level.

MA high schools have generally adopted trans inclusive policies regarding participation in sports at that level. As with the bathroom access situation, there has been little resulting controversy within the state.

You made a lot of good points about how silly the linguistic quibbling can get. In reality it could all be summed up in the five words of the thread title.
Click to expand...


The claim made in the thread title, whether linguistically valid or not, doesn't matter when it comes to resolving any actual cases of any actual issues regarding trans rights and women's rights.
 
Robin said:
So in your experience, it has never been suggested that someone is less of a man for acting in certain ways?

You have never come across the saying "Be a man" meaning act in a certain way?
Click to expand...

It can, and often does, carry the meaning you're describing, but it carries that meaning only in certain contexts. It can also be a purely descriptive word which means 'adult male'.

When I grow up to be a man - a song by the Beach Boys

'Men's hairdresser' - where men get haircuts (and don't need to be brave or bold to enter ;))

and so on.
 
Wayward son said:
Another example, which I think is better than Iron Eyes Cody was Grey Owl who was probably the most famous Native American for years (1920s and 30s). Actually for a time he was considered the most famous Canadian. Many films, books, lectures etc. He toured beyond North America, going to England and meeting the King and Queen. The day he died a newspaper (which had been sitting on the story for several years) exposed him as not being either Native American or Canadian, but instead Archibald Belaney born and raised in England.
Click to expand...
"Grey Owl" was a one-off, an aberration, and you can be sure people will never be fooled by his like again, they're far too sophisticated and urbane now (particularly liberals, who are smart by nature). There are absolutely no parallels with Elizabeth Warren's misunderstood claims of "native american" identity.
 
luchog said:
Scientific American: Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia

Excerpt:


There are a lot of links to studies that very effectively debunk the pseudo-scientific propaganda so beloved of the religious right and their TERF bed partners.

Not that any of the bigots here will pay attention to it, of course, but anyone who is actually interested in real and demonstrable facts will find it very informative.

Excerpt:


Emphasis added, link to citations available in the article itself.
Click to expand...

I know the MA prohibits you from actually calling anyone here a bigot to their face, but could you at least tell us which arguments your post is intended to debunk?
 
Leading Oxford academics blast LGBT charity Stonewall for pushing 'tendentious and antiscientific claims' in the trans awareness training it gives to universities

Daily Mail said:
More than 30 Oxford academics have blasted Stonewall for pushing 'tendentious and antiscientific claims' in the trans awareness training it gives to universities.

The group have taken issue with compulsory training that includes statements such as 'gender is how people interpret and view themselves' and expressed this in a letter, reports the Sunday Times.

It calls for universities to sever links with the LGBT charity unless it says it 'fully supports academic freedom of thought'.

Academics are also being told to not invite transphobic speakers who do not accept 'that trans people are the gender they say they are'.

They fear the new rules could see staff lose their jobs, and that they overrule freedom of speech.

Modern history professor Selina Todd told the Sunday Times: '[This] is really pushing an agenda which is dogmatic and completely overruling freedom of speech... I am very scared that academics will start to lose their jobs.

'I feel uncomfortable. I've told my employer that I feel vulnerable and I've had students say they feel intimidated by what's going on at this campus.'

Oxford and Cambridge spent £55,000 between them on LGBT training so staff are better equipped to help students who may be struggling...
Click to expand...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rity-Stonewalls-trans-awareness-training.html
 
William Parcher said:
Leading Oxford academics blast LGBT charity Stonewall for pushing 'tendentious and antiscientific claims' in the trans awareness training it gives to universities



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rity-Stonewalls-trans-awareness-training.html
Click to expand...

I wonder what makes them "leading" academics. Oxford is the institution that awarded Naomi Wolf a doctorate in English lit, with a history thesis in which she botched basic research on one of her central claims. So maybe "leading Oxford academics" just means "the first thirty clowns to climb out of the clown car".
 
Myriad said:
Fair enough. "Nobody cares" is hyperbole. Anything at all, there's someone who has strongly held opinions about it. Fluoridated water. Contrails. Which compass direction faces up on maps.

There are clearly a good number of people who care a lot about opposing trans rights in Massachusetts. The thing is, it appears relatively few of them actually live in Massachusetts. Among people most likely to be affected by the actual laws and policies here, such as Massachusetts teachers groups, business owners, and women's rights organizations, few to none publicly supported the repeal initiative. The organizations that did support a repeal did so on the basis of rest room safety for vulnerable women and children. Had there been a single relevant incident for them to point to, one Willie Horton enabled in crime by lax progressive policies, they would have made sure we all knew about it by election day. That didn't happen.
Click to expand...

1 out of 3 people voting No is hardly "few to none." Furthermore the result is entirely in line with the expectation based on differential campaign spending. About 90% of all campaign spending was by the Yes campaign and they won with about 34 percentage points difference (67% Yes vs 33% No) which is in line with expectations (see figure 1 here).
 
Robin said:
So in your experience, it has never been suggested that someone is less of a man for acting in certain ways?

You have never come across the saying "Be a man" meaning act in a certain way?
Click to expand...

It's also been suggested to people that they were babies for crying when insulted. Would you suggest then that the definition of "baby" is about behaviour, specifically crying, rather than age?

People use metaphors and figures of speech all the time. It doesn't change the meaning of the words they use. This is really a weak argument by you and others, here. Just because some have implied that you're less of a man for doing X or not doing Y, doesn't mean that this is how "man" is defined.
 
caveman1917 said:
1 out of 3 people voting No is hardly "few to none."
Click to expand...


Good thing I didn't say few to none voted for it, then.

Furthermore the result is entirely in line with the expectation based on differential campaign spending. About 90% of all campaign spending was by the Yes campaign and they won with about 34 percentage points difference (67% Yes vs 33% No) which is in line with expectations (see figure 1 here).
Click to expand...


Interesting graph, and highly applicable had the vote been for a Democrat candidate for the House of Representatives. (Though in that case, it would hardly have been surprising that with voting districts heavily gerrymandered all over the country, a Democrat both attracted more funding and won their race by a large margin in a Democratic district. Who'd have thought?)

Why do you think the spending was so lopsided, though? Maybe all the churches, women's rights groups, women's anti sexual assault groups, and businesses that publicly supported the measure didn't have the money to secretly fund the other side.
 
And by the way...

caveman1917 said:
You are the one who brought up references to segregation:

Don't like people talking about segregation? Don't bring it up.
Click to expand...


Yes, I quoted the phrase "segregated by sex" which is how the present in-force law phrases it and is also an accurate legalistic description of most rest rooms all over the world. You then made a direct comparison between that and racial segregation in American history.

This makes me curious about the following:

1. Do you regard racial segregation in American history as a bad thing?

2. Do you regard sex segregated rest rooms as a bad thing? That is to say, are you opposed to all "Men's" and "Women's" rooms and would prefer only unisex unrestricted rest rooms were ever available?

3. If your answers to the above two questions were not both "no" or both "yes," what was your point in making the comparison?

I have to ask because I've read your posts in this thread back quite a few pages, and I haven't been able to glean from this what your actual position or opinion is on anything being discussed in this thread. I'm only seeing pot-stirring and policing of people's word choices. (Including, bizarrely, the Massachusetts state legislature's.) So I hope you can answer the above clearly, to help aid my obviously deficient reading comprehension.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
No it doesn't, a "non sexed" toilet doesn't out anyone.
Click to expand...

It is for trans people and not for cis people so it certainly does when it is a 3rd or 4th option. To make straights feel safe we could make it legally mandated for the whole LGBT+ community.
 
caveman1917 said:
No they didn't, gay people did not have the right to marry but heterosexual people did have the right to marry. So clearly they did not have the same rights as everyone else. Trans people, on the other hand, already do have the same rights as everyone else.
Click to expand...

But they did have exactly the same rights, they could marry anyone of the opposite sex and same race. They just rejected this equality and demanded special treatment like the trans people are, just because they wanted to do something different. As long as they married people of the opposite sex there was no bar to gay people getting married at any point. But they didn't want to and it was their want that people seemed to think was some kind of oppression even though they already had exactly the same rights as everyone else.

Trans people and gay people were unhappy with this already existing equality before the law.
Or are you claiming that cisgender and agender males are allowed to use the female facilities but not transgender males?
Click to expand...

No I am stating that these laws require trans men to use the women's bathrooms, and as such the people advocating for this should be fine with some muscular bearded guy going in because he is probably trans, and doing exactly what the law requires of him.
 
caveman1917 said:
Ah yes, a male who goes into a gender-neutral facility outs themselves as transgender but a male who goes into the female facility does not out themselves as transgender. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, people may or may not guess the trans woman is trans but using the transgender bathroom outs her. Also trans men as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom