Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You keep presenting this as if these professionals just spontaneously decided that they needed to change their terminology to be super explicit. You keep stating this as if there were no underlying pressure to be so explicit as a result of trans activists appropriating the commonly used term "women".

If you can find a statement from any of the authors that they were changing the terminology that they used due to pressure, I'd be interested to see it.

As it is, earlier I linked to a blog post from before all this kicked off, written by a menstrual health professional where she outlined 10 reasons why "people who menstruate" is a preferred term. Only reasons 8 and 10 referenced trans people at all.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think he's okay with lumping adult female people under the term "women", provided that adult male people can also be included in that term in all instances of its use.

Like d4m10n, you are entitled to make up whatever you wish.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You seem to believe that you've been extremely clear, and that everyone else is just trolling you or something.

I'm sorry if you keep taking this as some kind of attack, but you genuinely have NOT been clear at all. You seem to be just tap-dancing around without actually saying anything. And when asked for clarification, or to provide additional explanation, you point the finger back at the other person and put on a show of being offended while simultaneously condescending.

Nobody is asking you to jump through hoops. But it would be awfully nice if you actually said things clearly, and if you were willing to engage in actual conversation rather than accusatory insinuations.

This is coming immediately after you've attributed an opinion to me which I do not hold. You've still not retracted your accusation that I don't care about cis women being raped, either.

As I said before, your attempts to paint yourself as some kind of victim who's only interested in having an honest, rational discussion are hollow in the extreme.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It wouldn't solve the problem for women, though, as women aren't just at a height and weight disadvantage against men in terms of violence: men also have a large upper body strength advantage.

Alls I'm saying this idea that straight cis men (and let's be honest if we start pulling at the strings hard enough straight cis white men) are the only group that are supposed to just be happy with it just being assumed that they are going to turn sexually violent the moment society lets its guard down is, to the point that people react with honest confusion and even hostility when anyone doesn't just go along with it something I'm not anywhere near as onboard with as I'm being told I have to be.

"I don't want that gay man in my locker room because he might rape me" is homophobic.

"I don't want that black man in my neighborhood because he might robe me" is racist.

"I don't want that transgender person in my kids school because they might use it to sneak into the wrong bathroom and peeping Tom on my kid" is homophobic.

"I don't want that man near me because he might rape me" isn't just not sexists, it's seen as obvious, indeed self evident.

I'll grant there's legit concerns in there (and no that's not an invitation for hair splitting and drawing lines in the sand) but nowhere near enough for that kind of night and day disparage.

Yeah sure I know you have facts and figures that prove it's necessary. And like I said every racist has the "Blacks are 13.4% of the population but commit 51.1% of the murders" thing memorized too.

And no "But you just don't know what it's like being a scawwed widdle woman" isn't a valid counter to any of this.

 

[caveman1917]

"I don't want that black man in my neighborhood because he might robe me" is racist.

We talked about this Joe, if you go outside you have to robe yourself, public nudity is just frowned upon - no need to be scared of the black guy trying to robe you, he's just trying to help.

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Sighs* Yes I made a spelling error. I get it. Very funny.

 

[d4m10n]

There was nothing in there that could be considered factually incorrect, and there was no fearmongering about transpeople.

I find it telling that the people who slam Rowling for her stances on sex and gender issues have thus far avoided quoting and refuting what she actually wrote, instead claiming that the work was all done elsewhere and needn't now be reviewed with a skeptical eye.

As it turns out, you don't have to dig hardly at all into that Twitter thread before finding claims that aren't remotely backed up by evidence. For example:

https://twitter.com/Carter_AndrewJ/status/1270787945251905536

Forstater also did not "ask the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected by law".

Here is what the judgment actually says Forstater asked the judge to determine:

Whether the belief relied upon by the Claimant at paragraph 67 of her
Re-amended Particulars of Claim amounts to a philosophical belief
pursuant to section 10 EqA.

Para 67 “The Claimant believes that “sex” is a material reality which should not be conflated with “gender” or “gender identity”. Being female is an immutable biological fact, not a feeling or an identity. Moreover, sex matters. It is important to be able to talk about and take action against the discrimination, violence and oppression that still affect women and girls because they were born female”​

I leave it to you all to judge whether Rowling or Carter have more accurately conveyed Forstater's ask here.

 

[Roboramma]

Alls I'm saying this idea that straight cis men (and let's be honest if we start pulling at the strings hard enough straight cis white men) are the only group that are supposed to just be happy with it just being assumed that they are going to turn sexually violent the moment society lets its guard down is, to the point that people react with honest confusion and even hostility when anyone doesn't just go along with it something I'm not anywhere near as onboard with as I'm being told I have to be.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but just as a for instance, my girlfriend was sexually assaulted several times before finishing high school, the earliest at the age of 5, and the worst of which was attempted rape. It didn't end after she finished high school though, and she's still afraid to go outside at night or take the subway alone, because of the regularity with which she's been harassed and assaulted. I've seen this sort of thing happen with female friends and heard plenty of stories. The data also reflects that the people I know aren't outliers.

Having sex segregated spaces doesn't seem to be a huge cost if it's helping to prevent some of this sort of thing.

 

[caveman1917]

*Sighs* Yes I made a spelling error. I get it. Very funny.

It was a joke, lighten up. I thought it was quite funny, though admittedly that may have been the weed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but just as a for instance, my girlfriend was sexually assaulted several times before finishing high school, the earliest at the age of 5, and the worst of which was attempted rape. It didn't end after she finished high school though, and she's still afraid to go outside at night or take the subway alone, because of the regularity with which she's been harassed and assaulted. I've seen this sort of thing happen with female friends and heard plenty of stories. The data also reflects that the people I know aren't outliers.

Having sex segregated spaces doesn't seem to be a huge cost if it's helping to prevent some of this sort of thing.

I've been mugged 3 times. Everytime it was a black man. Do I get to be racist now? What about the 4th time? The 5th?

What's the cutoff? When does one demographic do enough bad things to me that I get to dislike the whole demographic? When does one demographic do enough things to another demographic that it becomes the norm to just assume they'll do it.

 

[Meadmaker]

"I don't want that man near me because he might rape me" isn't just not sexists, it's seen as obvious, indeed self evident.

Indeed it is.



We could argue about the meaning of "sexist" if you like. Men and women are different. If that be sexism, then let's make the most of it.

 

[Giordano]

Call me weird but I think several very simple principles apply:

1. If only for the sake of politeness, people should be referred to in the manner they themselves wish. If a Susan wishes to be called Sue, or Sam, or even Henry one should do so. If someone you believe looks very masculine wishes to be called Sue and viewed as a woman, or use the pronoun “them” fine, do so. It’s no skin off your teeth, it’s really none of your business, and most importantly it’s the polite thing to do. And surprise, Sue may be a cis-woman after all (see point 2).

2. Biological set is not binary, as explained multiple times upthread. Size and shape of genitalia, levels of sex hormones, etc, vary widely even within cis males and females.

3. When I think of my sex/gender it involves what I think. I don’t glance down to determine it, even though by convention my body more or less matches my thoughts on this. I can fully understand how some people think of themselves as a sex/gender different from what someone else might assign to them on a physical glance. Or even the number of Y and X chromosomes they have. Do we all know our own karyotype? What they think of themselves is more important than what other people think of them.

4. I don’t see how someone coming out as a trans-women diminishes in any way the “value” or “worth” of cis-women, or their struggles for equality. This reminds me too much of the old idea that gay marriages would somehow invalidate straight marriages.

There are knotter issues, involving sports competitions, etc. But I thought I would start off with the conclusions that I believe are straight-forward.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Men and women are different.

Except when they aren't and suggesting they are is sexist.

Except when they are and suggesting they aren't is sexist.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I find it telling that the people who slam Rowling for her stances on sex and gender issues have thus far avoided quoting and refuting what she actually wrote, instead claiming that the work was all done elsewhere and needn't now be reviewed with a skeptical eye.

As it turns out, you don't have to dig hardly at all into that Twitter thread before finding claims that aren't remotely backed up by evidence. For example:

https://twitter.com/Carter_AndrewJ/status/1270787945251905536



Here is what the judgment actually says Forstater asked the judge to determine:


I leave it to you all to judge whether Rowling or Carter have more accurately conveyed Forstater's ask here.

Firstly, congratulations for being the first person to actually bother to address anything in that thread, rather than just ignoring its existence.

Secondly, you've actually linked to the relevant part of the judgement, but seemingly haven't noticed the differences between that and what Rowling said.

Rowling:

[...]asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law.

The judgement:

Whether the belief [...] amounts to a philosophical belief[...]

Rowling is characterising it as a philosophical belief. The judge was ruling on whether or not it actually was a philosophical belief.

Rowling:

[...]belief that sex is determined by biology[...]

Judgement:

believes that “sex” is a material reality which
should not be conflated with “gender” or “gender identity”. Being
female is an immutable biological fact, not a feeling or an identity.

Do you notice how everything after the word "reality" is both missing from Rowling's characterisation and important?

And, yes, the core of the case was about whether or not misgendering was protected speech. That's why it was being determined whether or not it was classified as a philosophical belief under law. If it had been ruled a philosophical belief, it would have been protected.

 

[Belz...]

For millenia, people have said that women ought to act one way and men ought to act a different way. As part of the women's rights movement, people rejected the requirement that women need to act a certain way. Now, people are trying to say that anyone behaves a certain way is a woman.

Seems like even the ultra-left gender activists can't deny that there are differences between the two.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Seems like even the ultra-left gender activists can't deny that there are differences between the two.

Men and women are the same except when they aren't except when they are except when they aren't except when they are except whenever women say so.

I'm almost at the point I'm declaring the whole "sex/gender" difference a coded way to get "Women are equal to men whenever that gives women an advantage, women and men aren't equal whenever that gives men an advantage" across without being too obvious about it.

 

[Joe Random]

Call me weird but I think several very simple principles apply:

1. If only for the sake of politeness, people should be referred to in the manner they themselves wish. If a Susan wishes to be called Sue, or Sam, or even Henry one should do so. If someone you believe looks very masculine wishes to be called Sue and viewed as a woman, or use the pronoun “them” fine, do so. It’s no skin off your teeth, it’s really none of your business, and most importantly it’s the polite thing to do. And surprise, Sue may be a cis-woman after all (see point 2).

2. Biological set is not binary, as explained multiple times upthread. Size and shape of genitalia, levels of sex hormones, etc, vary widely even within cis males and females.

3. When I think of my sex/gender it involves what I think. I don’t glance down to determine it, even though by convention my body more or less matches my thoughts on this. I can fully understand how some people think of themselves as a sex/gender different from what someone else might assign to them on a physical glance. Or even the number of Y and X chromosomes they have. Do we all know our own karyotype? What they think of themselves is more important than what other people think of them.

4. I don’t see how someone coming out as a trans-women diminishes in any way the “value” or “worth” of cis-women, or their struggles for equality. This reminds me too much of the old idea that gay marriages would somehow invalidate straight marriages.

There are knotter issues, involving sports competitions, etc. But I thought I would start off with the conclusions that I believe are straight-forward.

The trouble is this is one of those issues where quite a few people (on social media or in meatspace) will take your not agreeing with them 100% as you disagreeing with them 100%. It doesn't matter how many 'I agree with you on this point' boxes you tic, once you get to one you're not settled on or disagree with, out come the 'transphobe!' accusations. "What do you mean sports is a knottier issue? Trans women are women, period, so issue settled, you bigot!"

Not everyone arguing pro-trans positions is like that, of course, but enough are or close to it that fruitful dialogue becomes difficult if not impossible.

 

[caveman1917]

Biological set is not binary, as explained multiple times upthread.

You misspelled debunked as "explained" - biological sex is binary, homo sapiens produces two types of gametes and not a spectrum of them, and is a sexually dimorphic species and not a sexually infinity-morphic species. The power of ideology to make people deny simple observable facts is astounding.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The trouble is this is one of those issues where quite a few people (on social media or in meatspace) will take your not agreeing with them 100% as you disagreeing with them 100%. It doesn't matter how many 'I agree with you on this point' boxes you tic, once you get to one you're not settled on or disagree with, out come the 'transphobe!' accusations. "What do you mean sports is a knottier issue? Trans women are women, period, so issue settled, you bigot!"

Not everyone arguing pro-trans positions is like that, of course, but enough are or close to it that fruitful dialogue becomes difficult if not impossible.

That's only a "trouble" if you care so much about what other people say about you. I believe certain principles, and some rando troll online screaming at me isn't going to change that.

You can have principles or you can be universally popular, but not both.

 

[d4m10n]

And, yes, the core of the case was about whether or not misgendering was protected speech. That's why it was being determined whether or not it was classified as a philosophical belief under law. If it had been ruled a philosophical belief, it would have been protected.

Rowling wrote that Forstater was "asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law." It doesn't really sound like you are disagreeing with her characterization here.

Nor should you, since the summary of the judgment was "The specific belief that the Claimant holds as determined in the reasons, is not a philosophical belief protected by the Equality Act 2010."

If you think Rowling was factually wrong here, which specific claim of hers are you looking at?