Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[Rolfe]

I don’t think Rolfe has expressed being uncomfortable around trans people because they are trans in any situation. She has expressed discomfort at being around biological males, be they trans women or cis men, in certain intimate or vulnerable contexts. But it isn’t because they are trans, it’s because they are male.

This is entirely correct. Transwomen are biologically male and absolutely nothing can be done to change that fact of nature. Women have the right to spaces, provisions and categories which exclude biological males. I don't care if you call it bigotry or not, I am against these rights being taken away from us by allowing biological males free access to these spaces, provisions and categories. Whether that's a hostel dormitory or a scholarship programme or a bicycle race or indeed a prison.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is entirely correct. Transwomen are biologically male and absolutely nothing can be done to change that fact of nature. Women have the right to spaces, provisions and categories which exclude biological males. I don't care if you call it bigotry or not, I am against these rights being taken away from us by allowing biological males free access to these spaces, provisions and categories. Whether that's a hostel dormitory or a scholarship programme or a bicycle race or indeed a prison.

I’m not with you on the scholarships, unless you mean athletic scholarships, because I don’t think scholarships in general should be restricted by sex. But that isn’t a trans issue for me.

 

[d4m10n]

Women have the right to certain spaces and protections and categories that are exclusive to the female sex.

Transwomen have the right to certain spaces and protections and categories that are exclusive to their gender.

I've seen both arguments made, but I've no idea why I should prefer one to another since the idea of rights is grounded (at best) upon general social consensus and no one is citing to sources instead of bascially just asserting how they'd like things to turn out.

 

[Meadmaker]

Who am I speaking for here?

Any time you talk about what "they" want, or what their idea is, you are speaking for them. This is especially egregious if "they" are other forum members who have voiced their opinions, and you provide an alternative which you claim better represents their thoughts.

Here are the two recent posts I was referring to:

The idea is to throw as much **** as you can and see what sticks. They are perverts, dangerous, sick, mentally ill, whatever it takes to be allowed to discriminate against them. It's always been thus.

People asking for definitions of 'women' don't actually want them or care what response they get, they simply want to exclude people based on their own prejudices and think this is some kind of gotcha.

It's pathetic really seeing otherwise sensible people reduce themselves to this kind of nonsense

 

[cullennz]

I’m not with you on the scholarships, unless you mean athletic scholarships, because I don’t think scholarships in general should be restricted by sex. But that isn’t a trans issue for me.

I agree with this for the main, except a lot of scholarships are privately funded, and if the person funding it wants it to go to a chosen group or their choice or they aren't paying for the scholarship then there is n't a huge amount of choice.

 

[p0lka]

..snip....It's almost as if men want to downgrade the particular horror of actual rape so that they can say "women can rape too!" I wonder why that would be?

Not at all from me,
I just think that having a special crime that only penis's can do is weird.

As I said earlier,
if a male cuts off their penis..then at a later date makes an artificial penis and straps it in the anatomically correct position, then goes out and does what rapists do, is it rape?

Yes would be my answer,
but legally there's a distinction without a difference, 'it's not rape because no penis was involved'.
Ridiculous.

Rape and nonconsentual penetration should be the same crime, why are penises getting special treatment.

RE:the highlighted:
What do you mean by "the particular horror of actual rape"?

are you coming from a position of all males are a threat or something?

 

[Joe Random]

Not at all from me,
I just think that having a special crime that only penis's can do is weird.

As I said earlier,
if a male cuts off their penis..then at a later date makes an artificial penis and straps it in the anatomically correct position, then goes out and does what rapists do, is it rape?
Yes would be my answer,
but legally there's a distinction without a difference, 'it's not rape because no penis was involved'.
Ridiculous.

Rape and nonconsentual penetration should be the same crime, why are penises getting special treatment.

RE:the highlighted:
What do you mean by "the particular horror of actual rape"?

are you coming from a position of all males are a threat or something?

There's an easier-to-envision comparison. I'm male. If another male drugs me and then sodomizes me with his penis is that somehow worse than if a woman drugs me then sodomizes me with a strap-on? I personally don't think it minimizes anything so say that rape should be considered to be non-consensual sex, irrespective of what the particular bits (artificial or natural) involved are.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm male. If another male drugs me and then sodomizes me with his penis is that somehow worse than if a woman drugs me then sodomizes me with a strap-on?

Probably, since there's a high likelihood of receiving an STD in the former case but not the latter case.

 

[d4m10n]

Probably, since there's a high likelihood of receiving an STD in the former case but not the latter case.

Risk is the key factor here, and the risk of expending scarce reproductive resources without consent was especially salient to those who created the common law of rape.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Women have the right to spaces, provisions and categories which exclude biological males

Why?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why?

Why do you care?

 

[kellyb]

Why?

Because.

 

[d4m10n]

Why?

Because inalienable rights from the ineffable Creator are self-evident.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why do you care?

I don't feel skepticism requires that I care to apply it to a claim.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't feel skepticism requires that I care to apply it to a claim.

Human nature does. You expended effort to ask. Not much, but maybe you don't care much. But you do care at least a tiny bit. Why?

 

[Belz...]

Oh they certainly did imply it.

I'm sorry. What I meant is that, in their minds, they didn't imply it. Of course, in your mind, they implied it because your definition of "bigot" is much broader than theirs. But you can't project said definition onto them.

 

[Belz...]

Ah, back to the word play as a stand in for debate. I did miss that.

Logical implications are not wordplay. They're the foundation of any discussion that makes sense.

Questions answered: 0
Understanding demonstrated: 0
Sense talked: 0

Yep. Thanks for your input.

Made perfect sense to me: A misogynist is someone who hates women. Bigots don't think bigotry is bad. Ergo they don't think other people being bigots are bad, and therefore can't be said to hate those people specifically for having that trait.

 

[Belz...]

And then there is the next line that says society doesn't have to recognize what you do at home.

And if you are way off base it won't fly. Silly ideas are doomed to fail.

I would like you to address this one, though:

Why does it only work for sex though? If a white person says "I know what I am, I am black, it is my right to be that", society doesn't give them a pass on that. Similarly with age, height, presence or absence of disability, all sorts of things.

 

[Belz...]

I don't feel skepticism requires that I care to apply it to a claim.

You don't feel skepticism at all.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Rolfe isn’t lying, you aren’t paying attention. People who declare themselves to have changed sex get treated as if they have changed sex even in the absence of any legal change of sex.

Which is neither here nor there with regards the point being discussed. That legally a person can change from male to female and the law recognises them as a female so by legal DEFINITION a male can change to a female.

Do you understand the point being discussed? Because I don't think you do.

The point being made is that if you want to rely on legal definitions as a go-to argument then you should be consistent. If you say women can't rape because the law says they can't. Then you should also admit that a man can become a woman because the law says they can.

If you deny that fine, but then you have thrown out any recourse to legal definitions to support your point.