• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
It's amazing the amount of confusion that was introduced just by changing the definition of the word "woman". I'm sure women (by the old definition) are delighted.
Click to expand...

Note my mini-rant previously in this thread.


ETA: I wonder if black people also end up a bit miffed by the insistence of all-inclusive "people of color" language when many of the barriers that they are fighting against are specific to black people, not to hispanic or native american or asian people. I wonder if the dilution of their fight rankles a bit sometimes, even if they truly and unequivocally support equality and fair treatment for all people.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Try reading the link. It's literally 4 lines.
Click to expand...

I did. And it doesn’t actually answer my question. You aren’t supposed to lie, but what conditions would make the government conclude, or even suspect, that you lied? The link gives no indication.
 
Emily's Cat said:
ETA: I wonder if black people also end up a bit miffed by the insistence of all-inclusive "people of color" language when many of the barriers that they are fighting against are specific to black people, not to hispanic or native american or asian people.
Click to expand...
I've wondered this myself on occasion. Unlike sex, melanin levels truly are a spectrum, though. Doesn't help the situation that "whiteness" is socially constructed rather than scientifically discovered.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Where do battered men go? Is there a gender-neutral option available?
Click to expand...

There aren't enough of them to merit specific places for them to go.

Plus, very few admit to it. I can't imagine why.

Emily's Cat said:
ETA: I wonder if black people also end up a bit miffed by the insistence of all-inclusive "people of color" language when many of the barriers that they are fighting against are specific to black people, not to hispanic or native american or asian people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they do.

Taika Waititi, who's a Maori, slung in a Tweet or two on the subject and a whole lot of black Americans told him to shut the **** up, which it looks like he did.
 
Ziggurat said:
I did. And it doesn’t actually answer my question. You aren’t supposed to lie, but what conditions would make the government conclude, or even suspect, that you lied? The link gives no indication.
Click to expand...

It doesn't answer your question even worse. The link is about failing to provide your certificate when requested (ie lying about having a certificate) and not about what you asked (ie getting a certificate for malevolent reasons). The latter is, legally, a complete handwave as the government would have to show that at the time of signing you did not intend to live as your new gender (you don't actually have to do it, you merely have to intend it at the moment of signing) - that's pretty much impossible to prove, making the so-called consequences of foul play more imaginary than real.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
It doesn't answer your question even worse. The link is about failing to provide your certificate when requested (ie lying about having a certificate) and not about what you asked (ie getting a certificate for malevolent reasons). The latter is, legally, a complete handwave as the government would have to show that at the time of signing you did not intend to live as your new gender (you don't actually have to do it, you merely have to intend it at the moment of signing) - that's pretty much impossible to prove, making the so-called consequences of foul play more imaginary than real.
Click to expand...

Heh. You make it sound like it entirely dissolves Squeegee's remedy. There's no point in requiring "papers please" if the papers can be obtained by personal fiat anyway.
 
Ziggurat said:
I did. And it doesn’t actually answer my question. You aren’t supposed to lie, but what conditions would make the government conclude, or even suspect, that you lied? The link gives no indication.
Click to expand...

That would depend on the individual case, wouldn't it? Laws are written to be intentionally vague to prevent people from getting around them on a technicality by not quite fitting all the criteria.

But a) it doesn't appear to have been tested yet or, if it has that's not been reported and b) I think we can safely say that "legally changing your gender solely for the purpose of invading women-only spaces in order to physically and/or sexually assault women" would count.
 
caveman1917 said:
It doesn't answer your question even worse. The link is about failing to provide your certificate when requested (ie lying about having a certificate) and not about what you asked (ie getting a certificate for malevolent reasons).
Click to expand...

That's simply false. It covers both.
 
Incidentally, I reiterate my challenge once again - can anybody who objects to a self-identification law point to any measurable harm caused by one? If not, then can you explain why it is you object? It's not because of the women's shelter thing, since women's shelters have been admitting tans women for a long time, operating on a policy of self-identification, and therefore the law wouldn't change the status quo there.

If you can't either provide any evidence that such a law causes harm, and you can't explain what your actual objection is, then perhaps you should consider alternative viewpoints?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Incidentally, I reiterate my challenge once again - can anybody who objects to a self-identification law point to any measurable harm caused by one? If not, then can you explain why it is you object? It's not because of the women's shelter thing, since women's shelters have been admitting tans women for a long time, operating on a policy of self-identification, and therefore the law wouldn't change the status quo there.

If you can't either provide any evidence that such a law causes harm, and you can't explain what your actual objection is, then perhaps you should consider alternative viewpoints?
Click to expand...
Karen White self-identified as female, on remand for sexual offences against women, was housed in a women’s prison, and assaulted two other inmates.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ng-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
That would depend on the individual case, wouldn't it? Laws are written to be intentionally vague to prevent people from getting around them on a technicality by not quite fitting all the criteria.

But a) it doesn't appear to have been tested yet or, if it has that's not been reported and b) I think we can safely say that "legally changing your gender solely for the purpose of invading women-only spaces in order to physically and/or sexually assault women" would count.
Click to expand...

I would hope that would count, but here's the thing: I suspect that, as a practical matter, it wouldn't, if the person doing it was willing to stick to the lie. Which someone like that Yaniv monster appears to be willing to do.
 
zooterkin said:
Karen White self-identified as female, on remand for sexual offences against women, was housed in a women’s prison, and assaulted two other inmates.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ng-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison
Click to expand...

That is, again, an isolated incident. Nobody is claiming that there can't be isolated incidents, or individuals who abuse any system.

You'll note that I linked to statistics demonstrating the harm that the law as it currently stands causes to transgender people. An isolated incident does nothing to counter that. What you need to do is to demonstrate, for example, that there has been an uptick in incidents of people self-identifying as trans in order to gain access to women's spaces and in doing so harming the women who are there. As it is, all I see is people supposing that that will be the case, without actually referring to any data.

What's more, it points to a systemic failure in the prison system when it came to its decision-making, rather than the issue being with the self-identification. This is further compounded by the fact that, according to that article, she has undergone gender reassignment surgery. If the self-identification is the problem, then her now having undergone surgery should change things, should it not?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
That is, again, an isolated incident. Nobody is claiming that there can't be isolated incidents, or individuals who abuse any system.

You'll note that I linked to statistics demonstrating the harm that the law as it currently stands causes to transgender people. An isolated incident does nothing to counter that. What you need to do is to demonstrate, for example, that there has been an uptick in incidents of people self-identifying as trans in order to gain access to women's spaces and in doing so harming the women who are there. As it is, all I see is people supposing that that will be the case, without actually referring to any data.

What's more, it points to a systemic failure in the prison system when it came to its decision-making, rather than the issue being with the self-identification. This is further compounded by the fact that, according to that article, she has undergone gender reassignment surgery. If the self-identification is the problem, then her now having undergone surgery should change things, should it not?
Click to expand...

Hey, come back with those goalposts!
 
Ziggurat said:
I would hope that would count, but here's the thing: I suspect that, as a practical matter, it wouldn't, if the person doing it was willing to stick to the lie. Which someone like that Yaniv monster appears to be willing to do.
Click to expand...

Well, we can't know until and unless it's actually tested. We can say for sure that it hasn't been in the past 5 years, so any danger appears to be minimal, and should be considered relative to the harm it has mitigated.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
That is, again, an isolated incident. Nobody is claiming that there can't be isolated incidents, or individuals who abuse any system.

You'll note that I linked to statistics demonstrating the harm that the law as it currently stands causes to transgender people. An isolated incident does nothing to counter that. What you need to do is to demonstrate, for example, that there has been an uptick in incidents of people self-identifying as trans in order to gain access to women's spaces and in doing so harming the women who are there. As it is, all I see is people supposing that that will be the case, without actually referring to any data.

What's more, it points to a systemic failure in the prison system when it came to its decision-making, rather than the issue being with the self-identification. This is further compounded by the fact that, according to that article, she has undergone gender reassignment surgery. If the self-identification is the problem, then her now having undergone surgery should change things, should it not?
Click to expand...

Is this transgender assault meaningfully different than the common problem of prisons not protecting their inmates from sexual assault from other inmates and staff?

At least in the US, prison rape is a widely understood trope (and joke among the inhumane). The FBI estimated that 4% of the prison population in the US were victims of some form of sexual crime, and criticisms are leveled that this is an undercount. In one survey, 21% of inmates reported being coerced into a sexual situation.

The problem isn't trans people, the problem is the prisons neglect their duty to protect inmates who cannot protect themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Hey, come back with those goalposts!
Click to expand...

No goalpost moving, here. Re-read the challenge: "can anybody who objects to a self-identification law point to any measurable harm caused by one?"

An isolated incident is not that. An isolated incident is an isolated incident.

Are you seriously making the case that your entire objection to this law is based on that one isolated incident? Somehow I doubt it, but if you say it is, I'll take you at your word.

As for whether I was playing silly buggers, if I was doing that I'd simply have dismissed your post by pointing out that I asked for harm caused by the implementation of a self-identification law, which you did not provide. Instead I recognised that you were attempting to comply with the spirit of the request and engaged in good faith. To which you responded with dishonest, hand-waving dismissal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom