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

[TragicMonkey]

More to the point, it's pretty universal for people to describe their own point of view and their own experience to contribute to debate. To reject this on the grounds that "your experience is not universal" and so it has no value, is bad logic.

So far, this looks like a bunch of women trying to articulate why they and many people they know are upset by what is going on, and being rebuffed with "but not everybody feels like that". While at the same time reports of hurty feelz from a few trans people are elevated into some sort of universal truth that must be respected and legislated for regardless of any other perspective on the issues.

But your entire second paragraph can be inverted to legitimately describe you yourself doing exactly to trans people what you're accusing them of doing to women. Are you not taking "reports of hurty feelz" from a few women and "elevating them into some sort of universal truth that must be respected and legislated for regardless of any other perspective on the issues"?

 

[Rolfe]

I'm trying to articulate the case against the introduction of self-ID on the grounds that if will eliminate all women's rights to privacy, modesty, comfort, fair sporting competition, sex-specific awards and a whole bunch of other stuff. You are acting as if only one side of the debate has legitimate points to make and declaring that women who won't shut up and accept the abolition of their rights deserve to be excoriated as bigots.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm trying to articulate the case against the introduction of self-ID on the grounds that if will eliminate all women's rights to privacy, modesty, comfort, fair sporting competition, sex-specific awards and a whole bunch of other stuff. You are acting as if only one side of the debate has legitimate points to make and declaring that women who won't shut up and accept the abolition of their rights deserve to be excoriated as bigots.

Then I apologize. I mistakenly thought you posted a bunch of paranoia about men pretending to be women so they could "colonize" women's bathrooms in order to steal discarded used sanitary products from the trash. Because that would be a very bizarre thing for someone to have said, and might well have been evidence of bigotry.

 

[llwyd]

I've already said I favour medical diagnosis and a long period of living as the gender you wish to become. What's wrong with that approach?

Yeah, I this is eminently sensible. I have worried about mere self-identification as the criteria as it can be so easily abused. The hurdle should be higher. Eventually one hopes it will be totally irrelevant to everyone, but we are not there yet.

 

[Meadmaker]

The new season of South Park was TOTALLY on the cis vs trans sports issue, by the way, in this episode, Board Girls, aired I think last week:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_Girls

I saw some headlines that called it hateful.


Imagine. South Park was hateful and insensitive. How could such a thing happen?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yeah, I this is eminently sensible. I have worried about mere self-identification as the criteria as it can be so easily abused. The hurdle should be higher. Eventually one hopes it will be totally irrelevant to everyone, but we are not there yet.

The issue currently is that it is a difficult and potentially expensive process to jump through the hoops.

But it's also a separate one to toilets and changing rooms.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm trying to articulate the case against the introduction of self-ID on the grounds that if will eliminate all women's rights to privacy, modesty, comfort, fair sporting competition, sex-specific awards and a whole bunch of other stuff. You are acting as if only one side of the debate has legitimate points to make and declaring that women who won't shut up and accept the abolition of their rights deserve to be excoriated as bigots.

Given that self-ID doesn't affect any of the above I can't see how you have gotten from point A to point B.

 

[theprestige]

But your entire second paragraph can be inverted to legitimately describe you yourself doing exactly to trans people what you're accusing them of doing to women.

It could, but that would oversimplify the discussion. The thesis is that we should listen to transwomen over ciswomen on this issue. The antithesis would be that we should listen to ciswomen over transwomen. Rolfe is arguing for synthesis: We should listen to both transowmen and ciswomen on this issue. Rolfe is arguing against the double standard, against erasing ciswomen's concerns in order to simplify the problem transwomen face.

Do you think that synthesis - listen to both sides - is the right approach? Do you agree with Rolfe that it's not fair to privilege transwomen's feelings, while dismissing ciswomen's feelings?

 

[theprestige]

No it didn't. One of his paragraphs started with "changing rooms". I assume the subsequent "such as" meant "including but not limited to".

I mentioned changing rooms.

My bad. I missed that. Thanks for the correction.

My interest is primarily changing rooms and other similar spaces. Not spaces that fully segregate at a level of individual privacy.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It could, but that would oversimplify the discussion. The thesis is that we should listen to transwomen over ciswomen on this issue. The antithesis would be that we should listen to ciswomen over transwomen. Rolfe is arguing for synthesis: We should listen to both transowmen and ciswomen on this issue. Rolfe is arguing against the double standard, against erasing ciswomen's concerns in order to simplify the problem transwomen face.

Do you think that synthesis - listen to both sides - is the right approach? Do you agree with Rolfe that it's not fair to privilege transwomen's feelings, while dismissing ciswomen's feelings?

Okay. But from what I've seen the opposite is not being proposed: Rolfe et al want to privilege ciswomen feelings while dismissing transwomens'.

 

[theprestige]

Sorry, the trans-vs-restroom proposed changes.

I suspect they'll probably make things worse. But I guess we'll find out.

Ok sorry wrong post, then. I know I was repeating something you said, but the gist of my comment was what followed:

Okay.

You can do bullet points if you want.

"If." This has already been addressed.

You can acknowledge the existence of trans women, support them, treat them like anyone else, and work to find solutions to their unique issues without agreeing that they are, in fact, women.

What if I do agree that they are, in fact, women, but also think this doesn't actually simplify anything, and doesn't actually do anything to solve the unique issues?

 

[theprestige]

Okay. But from what I've seen the opposite is not being proposed: Rolfe et al want to privilege ciswomen feelings while dismissing transwomens'.

That's not what I've seen. In the post you quoted, for example, Rolfe is calling out the double standard and protesting it. She's saying ciswomen should have the same standing in this debate as transwomen. This is only problematic because transactivists have established the standing of transwomen as being able to dismiss the concerns of ciswomen on this issue.

But let's set aside what you've seen. What do you want to see? Do you agree that transwomen and ciswomen should both be heard? That's what I'm proposing. So now you've seen it. And now that you've seen it, do you agree with it?

 

[theprestige]

I can't understand any fuss about Darat's "official gender" proposal.

If I go back 20 years, a biological male discovered in the women's bathroom would be evicted/beaten up/arrested, or some combination thereof, with no recourse. There weren't guards or genital checkers or anything else. However, on incredibly rare occasions, someone accused someone of being the wrong sex for their location.

The only change Darat's proposal makes is that it gives the biological male a way to demonstrate that she has a legal right to use the space. That's a step up from days of yore.

The only alternative would be to just allow anyone to use any bathroom, with no possibility of challenging their presence. Some people might like that, but others do not.

I see a couple difficulties in this approach.

On the one hand, it's bound to have a chilling effect on legitimate challenges. Is that a cisnormative transwoman, or an abusive cisman? Doubt on this point is going to deter some women from speaking up when they should.

On the other hand, it's not going to make women's spaces very welcoming to transwomen. Some women will speak up even when they shouldn't. Transwomen will still have to bring their Papers Please, and risk humiliation every time they enter such a space.

It's a step up, but it's still an ugly, awkward, and painful solution, for both cis- and trans-women.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's not what I've seen. In the post you quoted, for example, Rolfe is calling out the double standard and protesting it. She's saying ciswomen should have the same standing in this debate as transwomen. This is only problematic because transactivists have established the standing of transwomen as being able to dismiss the concerns of ciswomen on this issue.

I disagree. The notion of "transactivists" dominating the rest of women is part of the conspiracy theory peddled by transphobic women who wish to frame the issue as an attack upon women rather than the civil rights of a small minority. It is a common tactic for the oppressors to play the victims. I don't buy it here.

But let's set aside what you've seen. What do you want to see? Do you agree that transwomen and ciswomen should both be heard? That's what I'm proposing. So now you've seen it. And now that you've seen it, do you agree with it?

Oh yes, both should be heard. And when either side repeatedly strays into hysterical theories they should be called on it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay. But from what I've seen the opposite is not being proposed: Rolfe et al want to privilege ciswomen feelings while dismissing transwomens'.

Speaking as part of al, I would say you are not entirely wrong. At some point, a decision has to be made. The desires of the people involved are incompatible. The transgirl wants full, unfettered , access to the girls' locker room. There are cis girls who say no. Both sides can't be happy. I will go with the cis girls.

And?

I'm willing to compromise, though. Darat's suggestions are a compromise.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Speaking as part of al, I would say you are not entirely wrong. At some point, a decision has to be made. The desires of the people involved are incompatible. The transgirl wants full, unfettered , access to the girls' locker room. There are cis girls who say no. Both sides can't be happy. I will go with the cis girls.

And?

I'm willing to compromise, though. Darat's suggestions are a compromise.

If this were a bunch of white girls objecting to a black girl using the room how would you side?

 

[theprestige]

If this were a bunch of white girls objecting to a black girl using the room how would you side?

If this were a bunch of ciswomen objecting to a cisman using the room how would you side?

Do you think gender is analogous to race in all comparable social situations?

---

Or we can get rid of the questions, and re-cast your post as an actual argument: "We allow black women unfettered access to women's spaces, and condemn as a bigot anyone who would object. By analogy with black women, we should allow the same level of access to transwomen, and apply the same condemnation to those who object."

 

[Darat]

They already have that right, a GRC gives you that right. What you are suggesting is a tightening of the current law (to put in surgery as a requirement) rather than the current self-ID proposal to widen the current law (to remove the psychological medical requirement). Not saying that your proposal is bad or anything, just pointing out where it stands in relation to both current law and the proposed self-ID change.







As I understand it, that position would make you "truscum" (true scum, people who believe that transgenderism has a medical/neurological basis). It definitely makes you a "TERF" though.

People may call me whatever they like, doesn't change the facts and my ideas.

 

[Darat]

Yeah, I this is eminently sensible. I have worried about mere self-identification as the criteria as it can be so easily abused. The hurdle should be higher. Eventually one hopes it will be totally irrelevant to everyone, but we are not there yet.

It is often the case that extremists wish to act as if the world is as they want it to be. But any solution for any social issue has to take as a starting point the actual state of society rather than what we would like society to be.

 

[Darat]

The issue currently is that it is a difficult and potentially expensive process to jump through the hoops.



But it's also a separate one to toilets and changing rooms.

Why is it expensive?