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

[d4m10n]

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

I've yet to see you quote what Rowling wrote, anywhere on this thread.

(In fairness, of course, it is possible that I just missed it. Your paraphrases of her ideas may well be spot-on and good enough for forum work, but since you're labeling her as a bigot I tend towards skepticism.)

Here is what she actually wrote, in response to an article which makes no mention of transfolks:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313

Now it seems to me that what she's getting at here is that women (in the archaic "adult human female" sense of the term) cannot be expected to rally as readily around disparities between themselves and men (in the archaic "adult human male" sense of the term) if they are being erased from the discussion by polite circumlocutions such as "people who menstruate."

Personally, I think she's overreacting a bit, but I can see where she is coming from.

 

[The Atheist]

This thread is so full of win and fail.

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

That's a win and definitely gave me my first LOL of the day.

Now it seems to me that what she's getting at here is that women (in the archaic adult human female sense of the term) cannot be expected to rally as readily around disparities between themselves and men (in the archaic adult human male sense of the term) if they are being erased from the discussion by polite circumlocutions such as "people who menstruate."

And that pretty well sums up the entire thread.

Two wins first up Saturday morning - very nice.

 

[Rolfe]

The problem with the shelters is that they're often dependant for funding on authorities with high "inclusivity" requirements, who refuse funding if the shelter doesn't commit to accepting males who claim to be women. This is certainly a problem in Scotland, where on paper the shelters are saying that it's all hunky-dory, we accept males who say they're women and it's fine, but if you dig a bit you find women self-excluding, people who run the shelters very unhappy about it, and covert attempts to place males who say they're women in accommodation separate from women.

It doesn't help that a male who says he's a woman has been appointed as head of Scottish Women's Aid. The phrase "stay in your lane" rather springs to mind here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It will? I'm not seeing the logic. Are you assuming that sexual offenders don't rape each other?

There are far, far, far fewer targets in the women's prison. About 93% of inmates are male. About 99% of incarcerated sex offenders are male. About 6% of the prison population are sex offenders, and there are about 215,000 people in federal prisons.

That works out to about 13,000 sex offenders in male prisons, and about 130 in female prisons... where the total population of female prisoners is about 15,000. So if you move all of the male sex offenders into female prisons, you'd nearly double the population in female prisons.

Even if they prey on each other as well as the non-sex-offending female inmates, there's still only a population of about 28,000 to choose from, compared to a prior population of about 200,000.

Basic math suggests that there would be fewer total victims of sexual offense in prison by moving all of the male sex offenders into female prisons. Basic human psychology suggests that with a significantly reduced pool of potential victims, fewer rapes and sexual assaults will occur.

So the total number of rapes and sexual assaults would reduce if you moved all of the sex offenders into female prisons.

Well, yes, probably. Unless we consider some rapes worse than others. If we do then it gets more complicated. Do you want to make that argument? I'm not opposed to it necessarily.

Whether we consider some rapes worse than others isn't relevant. If your ONLY goal is to reduce the total number of rapes, then moving all of the male sex offenders into female prisons will accomplish that goal.

Granted, it would increase the risk for incarcerated women from about 1% to about 50%... but it still lowers the total number of rapes and sexual offenses that occur in jail.

You might ask yourself why I'm stressing this particular point. Any reasonable person would think that reducing the total number of rapes is a good idea, right? And sure, it's a good idea. But it's an incomplete idea that leaves open some disastrous possibilities.

I suggest amending your objective to "Reduce the total number of prisons sexual assaults without increasing the risk for any group".

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's because you're still insisting on this false dichotomy.

What the hell false dichotomy?

Seriously, you're not even bothering to try to answer. Do you think I'm trying to bait you or something? I'm not. I genuinely don't know what that could possibly mean in any way that makes any sense to me. You seem to think it makes perfect sense, but instead of sharing your view and your insight... you just make vague references that insinuate that somehow I've done something bad?

Here's an actual dichotomy for you: Either you have some insight and you're refusing to share it, or you have no insight and it you can't explain what it means.

If it's the former, then it suggests that your refusal is intended to make you appear superior to someone who is less woke than you (at least in your own eyes). If it's the latter, then it suggests nothing more than empty virtue signalling.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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



Exhibit A.

Is it actually that hard for you to just correct what I got wrong?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

No. You certainly don't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Are you able to provide an example?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

It's only an isolated incident... ?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It doesn't help that a male who says he's a woman has been appointed as head of Scottish Women's Aid. The phrase "stay in your lane" rather springs to mind here.

And a transwoman in charge of a prominent MRA group. And Time naming a transwoman as Woman of the Year.

It's like the men looked around and saw that women had managed to scrape up 100 wins. Then they said "Now, girls, don't be greedy. Share those wins with Transwomen, who have none of their own." All while politely ignoring the fact that men have 10,000 wins.

It puts me in mind of politicians who pat themselves on the back for helping out low income and poverty stricken people by raising taxes on the middle class... while blithely pretending they didn't just reduce taxes on their fellow wealthy folks.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But of course, transwomen in female only spaces do cause the women in those spaces discomfort.

See, this is exactly it. I post evidence that that's not the case. You assert without evidence that it is.

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?

The conclusion I reach is that you haven't been paying attention to the conversation, or to the links I've provided. Because you're completely wrong about this. The people who run women's shelters report that they do accept transwomen, and that they have done for a long time, without any issues.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Now it seems to me that what she's getting at here is that women (in the archaic "adult human female" sense of the term) cannot be expected to rally as readily around disparities between themselves and men (in the archaic "adult human male" sense of the term) if they are being erased from the discussion by polite circumlocutions such as "people who menstruate."

Yes, and I explained why that was stupid and wrong.

Seriously, if you're going to put this much effort into having a go at me for what I've said, would it be too much to ask for you to first read what I've said?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What the hell false dichotomy?

That the two options are "wanting to pass 100% as a woman" and being "perfectly content looking like, behaving like, dressing like, and being perceived as a cis-man". Has it ever occurred to you that some people might be fine being transwomen?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is it actually that hard for you to just correct what I got wrong?

It's not hard. It's tiresome, and I doubt there would be much point.

Here is a story about a trans woman who was raped more than 2,000 times while serving a 4 year prison sentence in a men's prison. Would I be justified in saying that you don't care about her being raped, or that you care less about her being raped than you do about cis women being raped? I don't think I would. But I have no doubt that if our positions were reversed that you'd happily throw that accusation at me. How do I know? Because you've already accused me of not caring about cis women being raped, and only when when challenged more than once grudgingly revised it to me not caring about cis women being raped as much as I do about trans women being raped.

And in that context you want to play the "oh, but it's so unfair that you don't think I'm engaging in good faith" card. Well, no, I don't think you are. Because your behaviour has demonstrated that you are not. Therefore I'm not going to jump through hoops for you to fruitlessly try to get through to you why your other assumptions and inventions are wrong. I'm not keen on repeating myself endlessly, and I'm especially not keen on repeating myself endlessly to someone who isn't interested in actually listening.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No. You certainly don't.

And yet that's exactly how you approach it. Perhaps it's worth giving that some thought.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Are you able to provide an example?

I think enough people have already tried to turn the thread into being about me. I don't think I need to try to turn it into being about other people. This is especially true for people that I am choosing not to engage with.

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, and I explained why that was stupid and wrong.

No, you explained why a much less charitable interpretation of her concerns was stupid and wrong. At no point did you consider whether it matters that "women's rights" used to be a rallying point for a class of English-speaking people based on biological needs unique to adult human females.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

...the article was about menstrual health.

Again, I suggest that before critiquing what I've said that you actually read it first.

 

[d4m10n]

Perhaps you did, at some point, consider whether it matters that "women's rights" used to be a rallying point for a class of English-speaking people when discussing biological needs unique to adult human females (e.g. menstruation, birth control, etc.) but now they may no longer feel free to use such simple, unifying language.

A post number or quote should suffice to show that you are indeed aware of this aspect of the argument at hand.

 

[d4m10n]

Perhaps you did, at some point, consider whether it matters that "women's rights" used to be a rallying point for a class of English-speaking people based on biological needs unique to adult human females (e.g. menstruation). A post number or quote should suffice.