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

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's simply not true. You're making the same mistake as the "they're coming to steal our jobs!" crowd, who forget that the immigrants, through their own purchases, are creating demand and thus jobs. You don't think that there are people who pay more in taxes than they get in services? If that were true the economy would be unsustainable

No, again. The statement I made is true. You are adding context to it which is great. I agree with you. But there is nothing in the statement that isn't true. That's the point I am making to you. I agree. There is more to it that the statement doesn't include. And that's why it is a misleading and potentially problematic statement. But it is not an untrue one.

Dog whistles don't need to be true to begin with. They just need to communicate subtly.

They don't have to be but they can be.

In any case, what they communicate is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that we withhold important truths because some people might interpret it wrong or be offended by them?

No, I never said anything of the sort. I simply stated that a true statement can be problematic and demonstrate prejudice. Because that point seemed important to you somehow. Even though I don't see it as relevant to the specific case here.

Now you're bordering on the dishonest. We were doing fine up to that point, so I can't understand why. The part that "wasn't there" was included in MY reasons for disagreeing with you. It wasn't something that I read between the lines.

No, it's something that wasn't there in the true statement. I agree with your reasons for disagreeing with the statement. All I am saying is that the statement in and of itself is true. Go through it word by word and point out which word is false. There aren't any. But it's not the whole story? Absolutely.

Wasn't the 350bn bus thing simply not true?

It was true. But not the whole story.

You know, for someone who said just a few posts ago that they don't agree with speaking for other people you have a knack for telling me what my point is.

No, I'm explaining what MY point is. I thought that is what you wanted to know.

Sure.

That has no bearing on the discussion.

It has bearing on the point. I want you to accept the logic. Because it appears that you don't.

Interesting that you switch from two obvious, specific examples of bigotry to a general claim about Rolfe's post without quoting a specific example to demonstrate your claim in the actual case we're discussing.

No let's be clear. This is about accepting the logic.

What did she say, specifically, that you interpret as transphobic and that she attributes to most/all women?

I'm happy to do this, but I would like to be clear if you are accepting the logic first.

IF what Rolfe said is transphobic then attributing it to all women is attributing transphobic views to all women. And she doesn't need to specifically have said 'all women are transphobic' for that to be the case. And that attributing transphobic views to all women would be prejudice against women and therefore misogyny. Even if she thinks it is good to be transphobic (which is neither here nor there)

That is the discussion I was attempting to have. And you raised several objections to this logic. Which I have tried to address with examples. And please note that whether Rolfe was or was not transphobic is separate to the logic.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

All of those concerns apply equally to people of both sexes so segregation according to sex wouldn't help to avoid them.

And segregation by sex isn't going to stop two kids banging if they want to do it either. It's a completely invented complaint

If we knew of one of the girls who had a transmissible disease, it would make sense to keep her separate from the others, for instance. But not knowing that any of them do, I'm not sure what steps could be taken to avoid that particular harm, except perhaps all members of the group having their own separate rooms.

And if you are making a genuine assessment of risk then which scenario is most likely, what are the risks involved, and what actions can be taken to mitigate them would be all good things to consider. But it doesn't look like any of that has been done here. It's just a jump to determining that trans people are a risk and something needs to be done to mitigate that risk. But there is no logic as to why that risk is important or has to be mitigated while others don't.

 

[Roboramma]

And segregation by sex isn't going to stop two kids banging if they want to do it either. It's a completely invented complaint

In that case we shouldn't segregate by sex. That's an entirely reasonable avenue to at least consider.

My point is that if there are valid reasons for segregation by sex then they apply based on sex, not gender.

 

[cullennz]

Is it only trans people that need special permission to be treated the same as anyone else or are there other groups you want to single out too?

If there was a tick box to ask are you happy to room with someone of another race or religion would that be ok?

Not sure what your point is.

There are plenty of ads in papers saying "We want a flat mate. Must be non smoker and a chick"

At least where I live anyway

 

[cullennz]

TBF they usually say female not chick

 

[cullennz]

https://www.flatfinder.co.nz/newflatmate.asp?City=&Area=

Must be options


male
female
gay
vegetarian
couple
non-smoker
student
professional

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

In that case we shouldn't segregate by sex. That's an entirely reasonable avenue to at least consider.

My point is that if there are valid reasons for segregation by sex then they apply based on sex, not gender.

And if there are valid reasons for segregation by race, religion, sexual preference ,etc then you are OK with that too?

Is 'being uncomfortable around people of type X' a valid reason in your opinion?

What's the barrier for being a valid reason? And how would we determine that being concerned about a trans person making your daughter pregnant is a more valid reason than being concerned that the roommate might be HIV positive and transmit the virus to your daughter somehow? Or any other 'valid reason'

Because at the minute it seems a lot like working back from the conclusion that transgirls should be kept separate from other girls and then trying to justify it.

 

[cullennz]

And segregation by sex isn't going to stop two kids banging if they want to do it either. It's a completely invented complaint



And if you are making a genuine assessment of risk then which scenario is most likely, what are the risks involved, and what actions can be taken to mitigate them would be all good things to consider. But it doesn't look like any of that has been done here. It's just a jump to determining that trans people are a risk and something needs to be done to mitigate that risk. But there is no logic as to why that risk is important or has to be mitigated while others don't.

You seem to be determined to look at it from one view point.

The trans person being a risk, without proof presumably, and I agree this is unfair.

But you seem to not understand some girls may just be uncomfortable sharing a space with a person with a dudes body, be it through personal harrowing experience or pure self lack of confidence in the chance of an awkward situation

 

[cullennz]

And if there are valid reasons for segregation by race, religion, sexual preference ,etc then you are OK with that too?

Is 'being uncomfortable around people of type X' a valid reason in your opinion?

What's the barrier for being a valid reason? And how would we determine that being concerned about a trans person making your daughter pregnant is a more valid reason than being concerned that the roommate might be HIV positive and transmit the virus to your daughter somehow? Or any other 'valid reason'

Because at the minute it seems a lot like working back from the conclusion that transgirls should be kept separate from other girls and then trying to justify it.

I'm beginning to wonder if you know the difference in the human psyche between just coming from a different racial background and a different biological sex

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But you seem to not understand some girls may just be uncomfortable sharing a space with a person with a dudes body, be it through personal harrowing experience or pure self lack of confidence in the chance of an awkward situation

And some girls would be uncomfortable sharing a space with a Muslim, or a black person. And we wouldn't accommodate that. Some girls are going to be uncomfortable with any social interaction with anyone whatsoever.

And further than that it suddenly becomes not necessarily about the girls level of comfort but the parents level of comfort. If they are being asked to give permission or given the opportunity to object.

Can any girl or parent request not to room with any other person for any reason? Because Alice smells? Because Sally doesn't wear the right brand of clothes? Because Jenny has cooties? Because Tracy wears too much makeup?

Or are we saying that unique amongst all things its OK to exclude transpeople? What message does that send?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm beginning to wonder if you know the difference in the human psyche between just coming from a different racial background and a different biological sex

No I don't. Please explain. With proper evidence and data.

 

[cullennz]

And some girls would be uncomfortable sharing a space with a Muslim, or a black person. And we wouldn't accommodate that. Some girls are going to be uncomfortable with any social interaction with anyone whatsoever.

And further than that it suddenly becomes not necessarily about the girls level of comfort but the parents level of comfort. If they are being asked to give permission or given the opportunity to object.

Can any girl or parent request not to room with any other person for any reason? Because Alice smells? Because Sally doesn't wear the right brand of clothes? Because Jenny has cooties? Because Tracy wears too much makeup?

Or are we saying that unique amongst all things its OK to exclude transpeople? What message does that send?

Again

You do understand the difference between actual biological sex and brands of clothes?

 

[Roboramma]

And if there are valid reasons for segregation by race, religion, sexual preference ,etc then you are OK with that too?

Is 'being uncomfortable around people of type X' a valid reason in your opinion?

What's the barrier for being a valid reason? And how would we determine that being concerned about a trans person making your daughter pregnant is a more valid reason than being concerned that the roommate might be HIV positive and transmit the virus to your daughter somehow? Or any other 'valid reason'

Because at the minute it seems a lot like working back from the conclusion that transgirls should be kept separate from other girls and then trying to justify it.

We already have a situation where girls and boys are kept separate. I'm entirely happy to consider to possibility that that's not a good idea. It seems to me that there have been some valid reasons for that practice in the past, and they weren't based on fear of transpeople. Rolfe has outlined some of those reasons in this thread, and I found some, but not all, to be reasonable.

However, I'm not entirely convinced either way. What doesn't make sense to me is continuing to segregate, but doing so based on gender rather than sex.

 

[cullennz]

No I don't. Please explain. With proper evidence and data.

One is rooted in what original environment your people evolved best too, depending on climate etc, shade of skin etc, but all the same otherwise, the other is basic, man, women makes a crying lots little thing which we call a baby that usually looks like their olds.

 

[Roboramma]

ETA I thought I should address the specific questions asked:

And if there are valid reasons for segregation by race, religion, sexual preference ,etc then you are OK with that too?

That seems like an odd question: if there were valid reasons, then the reasons would be valid. I'm having a hard time seeing what valid reasons there would be, though.

Is 'being uncomfortable around people of type X' a valid reason in your opinion?

Potentially, but only if that discomfort is based on something real.

What's the barrier for being a valid reason?

I think that's a discussion we should be having in this thread.

And how would we determine that being concerned about a trans person making your daughter pregnant is a more valid reason than being concerned that the roommate might be HIV positive and transmit the virus to your daughter somehow? Or any other 'valid reason'

Again, I think those are both valid concerns. If you have some policy that could help prevent the latter it might be worth implementing, depending on it's costs relative to benefits.

Because at the minute it seems a lot like working back from the conclusion that transgirls should be kept separate from other girls and then trying to justify it.

Well, that's certainly not my perspective.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Again

You do understand the difference between actual biological sex and brands of clothes?

No, please explain with reference to proper evidence and data.

 

[cullennz]

No, please explain with reference to proper evidence and data.

You want me to provide stats to prove that race is looks and sex making babies?

Because if so that would highlight a bit

 

[cullennz]

But Iam happy to to do it if you don't understand

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

One is rooted in what original environment your people evolved best too, depending on climate etc, shade of skin etc, but all the same otherwise, the other is basic, man, women makes a crying lots little thing which we call a baby that usually looks like their olds.

What has that got to do with the psyche? Or anything actually? I was hoping for something a bit better than that to be honest.

I mean I am genuinely trying to parse your point.

One is based on biological differences that you say don't make a difference?
And the other is based on biological differences that you say do make a difference?
Because babies?

So anyone who is infertile for example would have no reason to complain or to be complained about? No reason to feel uncomfortable?

No I am really struggling here. It feels like you are just asserting that they are different because they are different.

 

[Belz...]

No, again. The statement I made is true. You are adding context to it which is great. I agree with you. But there is nothing in the statement that isn't true. That's the point I am making to you. I agree. There is more to it that the statement doesn't include. And that's why it is a misleading and potentially problematic statement. But it is not an untrue one.

I think you mistakingly posted several versions of your answer to me at the same time.

I think I've made a solid point against your claim that every individual is a burden. At this point I'm going to have to ask you to demonstrate that claim.

I simply stated that a true statement can be problematic and demonstrate prejudice.

Can. So it may, or may not. Isn't that true of every statement? That's not very informative.

It was true. But not the whole story.

I'll take your word for it, as I'm too lazy to check back.

No let's be clear. This is about accepting the logic.

I believe I've been clear about the fact that I don't agree, and why.

IF what Rolfe said is transphobic then attributing it to all women is attributing transphobic views to all women.

In a broad way, maybe. However both of your premises are wrong so it's not very relevant to discuss the logic.

And please note that whether Rolfe was or was not transphobic is separate to the logic.

How about that specific example, now?