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

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, I mean, beard and all. If I, a man, went into the women's restroom, would the women's concerns there be valid?

You tell me, are you a danger to women? I assumed not.

No it isn't.

It isn't the argument? Or it isn't saying something different. Because it quite literally is saying something different.

What do you mean "turn it around"? It's the exact example I gave you!!

I'm asking you... do you think you going into a women's restroom makes it less safe? Because I can tell you, my going into a women's restroom would not make it less safe. So if someone would be concerned that my presence in the bathroom made it less safe then they would be wrong. Objectively.

 

[Strawberry]

I'm referring to different eras...the 90's to present.

It was drag queens, crossdressers, and tranvestites in the 90's. I forget exactly when transwomen became the common word for that common type of person who then began just being however womanly they wanted to be when they could be 24/7.

Ok.

Rolfe is correct when she says that wouldn't travel well.

 

[Belz...]

You tell me, are you a danger to women? I assumed not.

How would they know that? You're missing the point entirely.

It isn't the argument? Or it isn't saying something different. Because it quite literally is saying something different.

No, it isn't. It's always been about that risk.

I'm asking you...

No, you're not, because I was the one asking YOU.

Because I can tell you, my going into a women's restroom would not make it less safe.

How would they know that?

The point of not letting men into the women's restroom is not that all men are dangerous. It's that a) some of them are and b) for a host of reasons, women don't want men in their spaces.

But you know that, of course.

 

[Strawberry]

You tell me, are you a danger to women? I assumed not.



It isn't the argument? Or it isn't saying something different. Because it quite literally is saying something different.



I'm asking you... do you think you going into a women's restroom makes it less safe? Because I can tell you, my going into a women's restroom would not make it less safe. So if someone would be concerned that my presence in the bathroom made it less safe then they would be wrong. Objectively.

So do you think you personally should be allowed into the women's changing room?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The definition you're using is your own.

It's not MY definition. It's a definition which I gave as a response to a request for a coherent definition of a word.

The objection was that it is impossible to provide a coherent definition of the word and I pointed out two examples of coherent definitions that work.

Now you can say you don't like those definitions for whatever reason and we can examine those objections but when someone asks for an alternative definition of a word then it is not a sensible objection to come back with 'but that's not the definition we currently use'

Note that I haven't said these are better definitions, or that we need to accept these new definitions. Because my argument from the get-go has been that argument by definition is a red herring.

And all this continued exchange is doing is proving that point because its entirely futile.

 

[Belz...]

It's not MY definition. It's a definition which I gave as a response to a request for a coherent definition of a word.

Ok can you link to it, then?

The objection was that it is impossible to provide a coherent definition of the word and I pointed out two examples of coherent definitions that work. Now you can say you don't like those definitions for whatever reason and we can examine those objections but when someone asks for an alternative definition of a word then it is not a sensible objection to come back with 'but that's not the definition we currently use'

Of course it's sensible. You provided a definition, and they didn't like it.

 

[caveman1917]

1. A woman is any person which the law recognises as a woman - i.e. a person assigned female at birth or who was assigned male at birth but has subsequently legally changed gender.

This one's at least coherent, I'll give you that. It's also useless, because the question then becomes: how does the law define "woman"? The answer being that it depends on which system of law applies, people start and stop being women depending on where they are. What about international space? Have there been any woman astronauts yet? It's impossible to tell until a relevant legal system is established with jurisdiction over space. Yet NASA claims that some of its astronauts have been women

2. A woman is any person who consistently identifies as a woman.

This one's circular, ie incoherent.

 

[Meadmaker]

Isn't that how most things in life work actually? I mean take race. Is Barack Obama black?

this spawned a lot of talk, but I have a slightly different take on the subject than some others.


My take on it is I don't care. Is he black or not? Whatever.

I don't feel the same about whether he's a man or a woman, at least if he is in my daughter's locker room.

And I find it amusing that one side always says " restroom, restroom, restroom", but never "locker room".

I'm on a phone right now. I might address some other points later.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So do you think you personally should be allowed into the women's changing room?

I have no real wish to enter the women's changing room.

I could probably imagine circumstances where I think I should be allowed to go in, where there might be a legitimate reason to do so.

I'm sure you could too given enough thought.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sure you could too given enough thought.

Not to answer for Strawberry, but I have.

I don't care if a woman comes into the men's restroom because there's no room in hers. But I wager most women would rather not see me in their restroom, and that's completely independant of whether I'm an actual threat to them.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This one's at least coherent, I'll give you that. It's also useless, because the question then becomes: how does the law define "woman"? The answer being that it depends on which system of law applies, people start and stop being women depending on where they are.

Why is that 'useless'? It seems in fact very useful. And very clear. More so than the biological definition in fact.

Is Caster Semanya legally a woman is a question with a presumably very clear and objective answer. It would be incredibly useful to have a clear and objective answer to that question in her case. It seems that the current definition is causing a great deal of confusion in her case.

Now there are other objections to this definition, but useless is not one of them.

This one's circular, ie incoherent.

No, it isn't circular. No more so than the biological definition anyway.

I think I can understand why you might be confused here but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think it only becomes a problem if you assume that there is some other objective definition of woman that we are trying to replicate but if you do away with that presupposition and just accept the definition for what it is, it is not circular.

Again there might be legitimate objections to this definition but its not circular.

 

[Belz...]

Why is that 'useless'?

He explains it in the post you quoted.

No, it isn't circular. No more so than the biological definition anyway.

The biological definition doesn't circle back to itself. That's the definition of a circular... definition.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

this spawned a lot of talk, but I have a slightly different take on the subject than some others.

My take on it is I don't care. Is he black or not? Whatever.

I don't feel the same about whether he's a man or a woman, at least if he is in my daughter's locker room.

And I find it amusing that one side always says " restroom, restroom, restroom", but never "locker room".

I'm on a phone right now. I might address some other points later.

the question is why don't you care if he is black or not, but you do care that he is man or woman?

I don't think it matters if its a restroom, locker room, or wherever.

 

[Ziggurat]

You tell me, are you a danger to women?

How do women determine whether or not he's a danger? Can women not have concern in the absence of complete information?

 

[Strawberry]

I have no real wish to enter the women's changing room.

I could probably imagine circumstances where I think I should be allowed to go in, where there might be a legitimate reason to do so.

I'm sure you could too given enough thought.

Do you think you personally should be allowed to get changed in the women's changing room? I'm not asking if you wish to, I'm asking whether you think you should have the right to.

 

[Rolfe]

It's just embarrassing to have to explain this again. Archie's presence, as of right, in a women's single-sex space, does indeed make it empirically less safe, even though he personally has absolutely no questionable motives at all and would not dream of harming another human being (other than, obviously, being entirely OK with making women uncomfortable because they're just bigots and deserve it).

We do not know which males are dangerous and which not. They do not come with "rapist" or "voyeur" or pederast" tatooed on their foreheads. It is not possible to tell based on what they are wearing. There's nothing, until they do something, and then it's too late.

If males are barred by law and custom from entering these spaces, experience has taught us one thing. The harmless, decent guys don't go in. If they do it's by accident and they rapidly reverse out with profuse apologies. So we know immediately who is potential trouble, and more importantly they have no right to be there. We can ask them to leave. We can call the management. We can beat a hasty retreat while we still can, and perhaps call the cops. This is as safe as we can reasonably achieve.

If however males are not barred by law and custom, this ability to police our space breaks down. First, we can't identify who should be regarded as potential trouble. We don't know this isn't Archie Gemmell Goal, all-round good guy, until he's made his move, and by then it will be too late. And second, we can't meaningfully police the space. If we're a bit suspicious we can't ask him to leave, or call the management. The best we can do is get the hell out as fast as we can. And forget calling the police, unless we want to be charged with a hate crime.

This space is no longer safe

This basically adds up to women self-excluding from their own spaces. Women watching to see if the coast is clear before they can go in for a pee. Women pairing up and agreeing to stand guard for each other while they go and fix their make-up. Nice sort of utopia this. If you're a man who likes being near women with their knickers down, I suppose.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

He explains it in the post you quoted.

No, he really didn't. Doesn't answer every possible question is not the same as 'useless'

The biological definition doesn't circle back to itself. That's the definition of a circular... definition.

Nor does mine. But as we saw earlier the biological one kind of does actually circle back on itself and also has the slight issue of excluding quite a few people from the definition because they don't fit.

 

[Belz...]

No, he really didn't. Doesn't answer every possible question is not the same as 'useless'

That isn't what he said-- you know, it's not just a pattern with you. It's a constant.

Nor does mine.

Sure it does. What's a woman? Whoever identifies as a woman. Ok, what's a woman? Whoever identifies as a woman! You can't identify as something that doesn't have a meaning outside the identification.

But as we saw earlier the biological one kind of does actually circle back on itself

You just said "nor does mine", which means that the biological definition ISN'T circular. Make up your mind.

How is it circular?

and also has the slight issue of excluding quite a few people from the definition because they don't fit.

Yes, that's the nature of definitions. How is that a problem?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

How do women determine whether or not he's a danger? Can women not have concern in the absence of complete information?

How do women tell if another woman is a danger?

I mean that teenage girl over there might be a psycho killer with a machete.

Or one of the 64,000 female child sex abusers in the UK.

We don't know.

How do women know if the guy talking to you in a nightclub is a nice guy or whether he is going to drug and rape you?

We don't know.

All of these are real risks, the question is how to we assess and respond to these risks.

And is the right response to say 'Sorry Caster Semanya, but I don't think you are female enough to pee next to me. You have to use the boys room. And you have to share a space with the people that we think are too dangerous for us to share spaces with.'

Because that doesn't seem like a very optimal solution either.

 

[Rolfe]

Note, the biological definition of female does not circle back on itself. There are two possible pathways of foetal development. One is taken by foetuses with a functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens. We call that one "male". The other is taken by foetuses without a functional SRY gene, or (rarely) with complete androgen insensitivity. We call that one "female".

Is that clear enough and non-circular enough?

That defines female. I can therefore say, for brevity, that a female person is someone whose body developed along the female pathway as a foetus. So quit with the unthinking and unsceptical gotchas.