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

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think you're assuming something broader than is likely reality.

I suspect that if a 6'2" person, wearing mens clothing, with an obviously masculine build, and with a full beard showed up and said "I'm an abused woman I want to stay here", they wouldn't just be let in to the general population with no skepticism at all. Sure, maybe the get let in to a separate area, or maybe they take the question to the other women there and get a consensus with whether they're okay with it. But I really doubt that the claim alone with no other evidence to support that claim would be an instant pass into women's shelters.

I also don't think it should be an instant pass into women's shelters.

Nobody has an instant pass into women's shelters. Everybody is assessed on an individual basis.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What part of it is a straw man?

The part where you made up an opinion and attributed it to me.

If I have incorrectly interpreted your position, please correct me.

Why? Arguing about arguing is tiresome, and evidence suggests that it won't prevent you from continuing to attribute opinions to me that I don't hold and have not voiced.

As for the rest of it, I don't think you don't care about women being raped. I do, however, think that you care less about cis-women being raped in prison than about transwomen being raped in prison.

Exhibit A.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But, as you point out... misgendering someone is a huge deal. It clearly merits far more social awareness and activism than sexual assaults against women and the judgement we face for daring to speak out about it.

You do understand that this isn't a zero-sum game, right? It's possible to care about misgendering trans women and the sexual assault of cis women. Not to mention everyday sexism, objectification, the wage gap, etc., etc.

You don't have to pick one or the other and then entrench yourself behind your banner, hunkered down, lobbing grenades at the perceived enemy.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You may have missed the sarcasm in that post. However, for some people it does appear to be.

More straw manning. Lovely.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It was tongue in cheek though. I try very hard to use whatever gender any given person prefers, but at the end of the day I just don't think it's a massive deal if I get it wrong or forget on occasion.

I don't think anybody reasonable would object to the occasional slip or mistake. I certainly wouldn't.

In this thread, though, I don't think anyone has purposefully misgendered anyone, so it seems rather moot.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And that’s the point. I just asked my wife if she ever heard of the cis prefix and if she knew she was a cis-woman. She looked at me if I had lost my mind and asked where on earth this came from and why on earth should she be referred to as such.

I had no good answer.

Am I a misgenderer? Probably. Do I care? No.

I will take this as a "no" on being able to quote me demeaning people I disagree with by calling them TERFs,then.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry

How is it needed?

Women:
Gender = women
Sex = Female

Trans women:
Gender = woman (unless they are a jerk)
Sex = male

You already have the term "trans woman" for trans women. Normally, the term "woman" refers to an adult human female, so I've no problem using the full term for trans people instead.

 

[lionking]

I will take this as a "no" on being able to quote me demeaning people I disagree with by calling them TERFs,then.

You have already been so quoted. Own it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You have already been so quoted. Own it.

Really? Because you've not quoted me at all, and when asked you simply referenced an entirely different one to the one that D4m10n quoted. And my response to his response still stands.

You cannot substantiate your accusation, and you didn't check that it was true before making it. Own that.

 

[lionking]

Really? Because you've not quoted me at all, and when asked you simply referenced an entirely different one to the one that D4m10n quoted. And my response to his response still stands.

You cannot substantiate your accusation, and you didn't check that it was true before making it. Own that.

Huh? You didn’t say this?

Rowling was being stupid and, judging by her history of being a TERF, she was also being bigoted

Hmmm, demeaning people you disagree with by calling them TERFs? Guilty as charged.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Huh? You didn’t say this?

I did indeed say that. And I've gone through

Hmmm, demeaning people you disagree with by calling them TERFs? Guilty as charged.

I've already responded to all that, and explained why that one instance of referring to someone's behaviour doesn't fit the characterisation of me as someone who "uses TERF to demean people who disagree with him". #3094. Not that I expect you to have the intellectual honesty to engage in a fair-minded manner.

And the question remains - if that is what you were referring to, then why when asked to provide a quote did you give the post number of a different post entirely?

You have two choices - either you were being deliberately dishonest and unfair, or you hadn't actually bothered to check whether your accusation was true before making it. You have to own one or the other. I expect you will either ignore it like you tried to do this morning, or you will continue to bluster as you have done since first being asked to substantiate your claim.

 

[d4m10n]

I've already responded to all that, and explained why that one instance of referring to someone's behaviour doesn't fit the characterisation of me as someone who "uses TERF to demean people who disagree with him". #3094.

If you provided examples of Rowling trying to exclude transwomen from ciswomen's safe spaces, I missed the examples. If you did not, it seems odd to say we're talking about a pattern of behaviour.

ETA: Calling someone "bigoted" doesn't strike me as merely descriptive and non-demeaning, but to each their own I suppose.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[lionking]

I did indeed say that. And I've gone through



I've already responded to all that, and explained why that one instance of referring to someone's behaviour doesn't fit the characterisation of me as someone who "uses TERF to demean people who disagree with him". #3094. Not that I expect you to have the intellectual honesty to engage in a fair-minded manner.

And the question remains - if that is what you were referring to, then why when asked to provide a quote did you give the post number of a different post entirely?

You have two choices - either you were being deliberately dishonest and unfair, or you hadn't actually bothered to check whether your accusation was true before making it. You have to own one or the other. I expect you will either ignore it like you tried to do this morning, or you will continue to bluster as you have done since first being asked to substantiate your claim.

Hilarious. I only said it once, so I didn’t say it....

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you provided examples of Rowling trying to exclude transwomen from ciswomen's safe spaces, I missed the examples.

Why would I need to provide examples to you of anything?

If you did not, it seems odd to say we're talking about a pattern of behaviour.

Why would it be odd for me to have formed an opinion on someone's behaviour without justifying it to you first?

I mean, I suppose you could argue that I've done the same, but I think that since it's a characterisation of my pattern of behaviour that I've asked lionking to justify (and that you gleefully jumped on, for reasons best known to yourself), I think that the circumstances are somewhat different.

ETA: Calling someone "bigoted" doesn't strike me as merely descriptive and non-demeaning, but to each their own I suppose.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to establish a pattern of behaviour for me doing that, too.

It's probably a better tactic to look at the evidence and form an opinion from that, rather than making (or reading) an accusation and then scrabbling desperately to try to massage the evidence into supporting it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Hilarious. I only said it once, so I didn’t say it....

Yes, that's the stuff. Fits both criteria at once. Well done.

 

[d4m10n]

Why would I need to provide examples to you of anything?

You have no need to do so, unless you are hoping to persuade other people that it makes sense to characterize Rowling as bigoted and dismiss her as such. So far as I can tell, she fears transwomen no more than she fears human males and none of us are saying she is bigoted against cis dudes.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You have no need to do so, unless you are hoping to persuade other people that it makes sense to characterize Rowling as bigoted and dismiss her as such.

I have never said I was intending to persuade other people that my opinion of Rowling is one they should share. I have no idea where you got that idea from. In fact, in the entire post that is being presented as oh so damning my opinion of the basis of Rowling's beliefs is an aside at the end. The substance of the post is how, even absent any consideration of trans people or issues surrounding trans people, her opinion was stupid and wrong.

Nor have I dismissed her because of my opinion of her. What I said was that her past behaviours have meant that I no longer give her the benefit of the doubt and instead assume that her opinions stem from bigotry.

If I'd dismissed her by calling her a TERF, I'd simply have called her a TERF and not engaged with her statements at all. Instead the bulk of what I said was addressing her statements. That those statements were stupid and wrong is down to her, not me.

 

[d4m10n]

I have never said I was intending to persuade other people that my opinion of Rowling is one they should share. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Possibly because you took the trouble to type it out on a discussion forum.

Surely you must be aware that labeling someone as "bigoted" tends to have a predictable effect on those who find such a labeling persuasive? I mean, why bother engaging with bigots? We know they are being irrational, by definition, no need to quote what they said or seriously engage their ideas.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Possibly because you took the trouble to type it out on a discussion forum.

All I can conclude from this is that you haven't read the post you're talking about.

Surely you must be aware that labeling someone as "bigoted" tends to have a predictable effect on those who find such a labeling persuasive? I mean, why bother engaging with bigots? We know they are being irrational, by definition, no need to quote what they said or seriously engage their ideas.

...and you're posting this about a post I wrote in which I did engage with her ideas, at length.

Perhaps you could stop trying so hard to fit me into a predetermined box and instead start paying attention to what I have and am saying? It'd save both of us a lot of time and effort.

 

[Meadmaker]

Evidence?



Actually, the research I cited indicated that the women in women's shelters don't perceive trans women in this way - and that's not just the testimony from the women who run women's shelters, but also attested to the fact that they are currently legally allowed to exclude trans women on the basis that they are trans if they do make the other women uncomfortable and not a one of them has ever had cause to use that exemption.

So, yes, all the actual evidence that I've seen suggests that most women are fine with the idea of trans women in women's shelters, and that is borne out by the actual experiences of people running women's shelters. Which, in case I need to remind you, already operate on a basis of self-identification.

"Well, my mate thinks..." and "it stands to reason..." are not counter-arguments, I'm afraid.

If the general case isn't working, switch to the specific. If the specific case isn't working, switch to the general. Above all, keep switching so that there's never an actual claim to be defended.

I bring up the point that allowing sperm producing people into women's only spaces erodes the system of women's only spaces, and you ask for evidence. Huh? It's kind of a definition thing. Oh, wait. There's the problem. You're not much into definitions. Definitions of words like "man" or "woman" just make the issue so cloudy.

People don't perceive transwomen "in this way". What way? Bigger, stronger, with penises? If they aren't perceived that way, then soemone needs better perception, because transwomen tend to be bigger and stronger than "cis-women", and they have far more penises. Or do you mean that the transwomen aren't actually perceived as creating discomfort? Well then, why are we having this conversation?

But of course, transwomen in female only spaces do cause the women in those spaces discomfort. Show me a transgirl in a girls' locker room, and I'll show you a set of girls trying to keep her out. Some will say "him", and some will say "her", but they will all agree that the transgirl has a penis, and the girls would prefer it if they could use their locker room as it was intended without the presence of the sperm-producer. It's almost as if the girls think of the penis as not just a body part, but as a very significant body part. It's almost as if genitals matter to people.

So the people who run women's shelters report that they could accept trans-women, but they don't, therefore....what conclusion do we reach? That the women in the shelter don't have any issues? Then where comes the controversy? Does this apply to prisons and sporting events and bathrooms too? Because it seems to me that an awful lot of women are arguing about this sort of thing. Somebody must have some sort of opinion on the subject. I think an awful lot of women have issues with males in their female only spaces, and that's why it's a controversial issue.

Quick. Say, "Evidence?" It makes you look smart.


ETA: As for shelters, specifically, I'm all for giving the people who run the shelters discretion in the matter. For prisons, what's most important is that males cannot be in a position where they can overpower and rape females. Also, women should only have to undress in the presence of persons of the same sex. That's "sex". The same applies to men, but it's not as important.