Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[TragicMonkey]

If not thinking the phlogiston flows counterclockwise gets me called a bigot who wants trans people to kill themselves and thinking it flows clockwise gets me called a rape enabler I would care very much.

Which would be you minding that behavior, not the thought.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think common sense and context are perfectly reasonable.

As do I. And I wish everyone did. But a world where everyone does is the same world with my planet full of clones of Gal Gadot and Eva Greene where I just crashed landed my spaceship and learn that their religion is based upon learning about "This thing the Earth people call sex" from the first human male they meet.

 

[TragicMonkey]

As do I. And I wish everyone did. But a world where everyone does is the same world with my planet full of clones of Gal Gadot and Eva Greene where I just crashed landed my spaceship and learn that their religion is based upon learning about "This thing the Earth people call sex" from the first human male they meet.

So, what, then? Because you don't live in a perfect world you're not going to be the best person you can be? Just because this isn't paradise and jerks abound doesn't mean it's okay to act like a jerk.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So, what, then? Because you don't live in a perfect world you're not going to be the best person you can be? Just because this isn't paradise and jerks abound doesn't mean it's okay to act like a jerk.

Being a branded a bigot isn't just being "not perfect" Monkey, you know that.

Yeah all I can do is pick which group is going to scream "Bigot!" at me less. I'm not a bad guy for not being satisfied with that solution.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't think those three examples are the same. The first is about a person doing a thing and merely wanting other people not to prevent them from doing so. The second is asking other people to use different words, so it is a request for a behavior change from others, but it is purely lingual which seems an insignificant burden. The third, however, is demanding the power to expel other people from a location based on what you think they might feel about you. That seems rather an overrreach.

The three examples are of course intended to be different, so that's not a concern. Let's go to the third example, which is the problematic one. You said it seems an overreach to demand the power to expel someone based on what you think they might feel about you. However, isn't that the status quo? Don't we already have that?

This isn't demanding the power to expel. It's about how that power should be applied. If I go into Planet Fitness and enter the women's locker room, I will be expelled, and no one will say that doing so is an overreach.

The only question is what, if anything, ought to be required of me to allow me entrance to that room. Today, I would be expelled. What would I have to do in order to not be expelled?

Let's put it in terms of the original formulation, about kindness. If I get expelled from the women's locker room today, no reasonable person would call that unkind. Furthermore, they would call my demand to enter that room unkind on my part. So, when does that flip around? When does it become unkind to demand that I leave?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Being a branded a bigot isn't just being "not perfect" Monkey, you know that.

Yeah all I can do is pick which group is going to scream "Bigot!" at me less. I'm not a bad guy for not being satisfied with that solution.

You worry a lot about what people might say about you. That's no way to live.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The three examples are of course intended to be different, so that's not a concern. Let's go to the third example, which is the problematic one. You said it seems an overreach to demand the power to expel someone based on what you think they might feel about you. However, isn't that the status quo? Don't we already have that?

This isn't demanding the power to expel. It's about how that power should be applied. If I go into Planet Fitness and enter the women's locker room, I will be expelled, and no one will say that doing so is an overreach.

The only question is what, if anything, ought to be required of me to allow me entrance to that room. Today, I would be expelled. What would I have to do in order to not be expelled?

Let's put it in terms of the original formulation, about kindness. If I get expelled from the women's locker room today, no reasonable person would call that unkind. Furthermore, they would call my demand to enter that room unkind on my part. So, when does that flip around? When does it become unkind to demand that I leave?

I would say it's unkind to expel someone who hasn't committed any offensive behavior. Someone ogling at you in a locker room, even if they are the same sex as you, is offensive behavior. Someone simply being present and minding their own damn business doesn't strike me as offensive behavior.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not doing that. I don't care that you care or don't care. I only care about behavior and actions, not thoughts. I could have sworn you had repeatedly shared that same principle in the past, am I wrong about that?

Where do you fall when the discussion is about some people being obligated to behave or act in a specific way, based on the thoughts of other people?

 

[Emily's Cat]

What matters is still the behavior. Ms Zoltar wants to use the ladies bathroom. If you let her use the bathroom because you believe she's female, that's fine. If you let her use the bathroom because she's shrill and you just want her to shut up, that's fine. If you let her use the bathroom because you don't care, that's fine. What matters is use of the bathroom. She just needs to pee, not convert you to a philosophy.

Ms Zoltar has a penis and has the physique of a male human. Ms Zoltar wants to compete against Ms Jane in a women's league sprint. Ms Jane doesn't want Ms Zoltar to compete, because for all intents and purposes Ms Zoltar is a male person, and the women's league is for female persons. Ms Zoltar insists that Ms Zoltar is a woman who has the misfortune of having been accidentally born into a male body. But Ms Zoltar perceives herself to be female in all the ways that matter to Ms Zoltar.

If Ms Zoltar competes, Ms Zoltar has a 99.2% chance to win every single race against any of the female-bodied participants, all the time. Because Ms Zoltar has the body of a male person.

Should Ms Jane be obligated to compete against Ms Zoltar? Should Ms Zoltar's perception of herself, in contradiction to the perception of Ms Zoltar by other people, take precedent over the sex-based sport segregation that Ms Jane has been led to believe exists?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ms Zoltar has a penis and has the physique of a male human. Ms Zoltar wants to compete against Ms Jane in a women's league sprint. Ms Jane doesn't want Ms Zoltar to compete, because for all intents and purposes Ms Zoltar is a male person, and the women's league is for female persons. Ms Zoltar insists that Ms Zoltar is a woman who has the misfortune of having been accidentally born into a male body. But Ms Zoltar perceives herself to be female in all the ways that matter to Ms Zoltar.

If Ms Zoltar competes, Ms Zoltar has a 99.2% chance to win every single race against any of the female-bodied participants, all the time. Because Ms Zoltar has the body of a male person.

Should Ms Jane be obligated to compete against Ms Zoltar? Should Ms Zoltar's perception of herself, in contradiction to the perception of Ms Zoltar by other people, take precedent over the sex-based sport segregation that Ms Jane has been led to believe exists?

I don't think sports are so overwhelmingly important that all social practices must be geared towards making sports easier to administer, sorry. Sports are already very different from the rest of society: for instance, you wouldn't see any business refusing to hire someone because of their height, weight, or handicaps and getting away with it. But you can do that in sports just fine.

Ms Zoltar was born a male, had penis and testicles removed, has had hormone treatments for thirty years, and breast implants. She is exclusively interested in men. Nobody looking at her suspects she wasn't born female. She quietly changes her clothes in the ladies locker room, not looking at anybody else. Do you kick her out because you think she should be changing in the mens locker room?

 

[Meadmaker]

I would say it's unkind to expel someone who hasn't committed any offensive behavior. Someone ogling at you in a locker room, even if they are the same sex as you, is offensive behavior. Someone simply being present and minding their own damn business doesn't strike me as offensive behavior.

Ogling? Do you think I would ogle? I assure you I am perfectly capable of being in the presence of naked women without ogling. It was something I was capable of as a young man, and it has grown much, much, easier as I have grown older.

I don't think my behavior inside the locker room would be an issue. I think the offensive behavior in question would be walking through the door. It isn't my behavior that is offensive. It is my presence. It makes the ladies feel uncomfortable. As a kindness, I will not attempt to go into that room. Just in case my kindness is not enough, the management of the facility or possibly the police will assure compliance.

On the other hand, if I use the room for its intended purpose, I would still have to expose myself to them, and that, too, would cause discomfort, although the reasons for that discomfort are often misunderstood. Seeing a naked man is not something that makes women, or even girls, recoil in horror. It is just that if they, themselves, are likewise fully or partially disrobed, the presence of the man makes them nervous. If they see physical evidence that I am indeed a man, then they will not only be in the presence of a man while they are undressed, but they will be in the presence of a man who is not conforming to social conventions. If I am kind, I will not create that anxiety in them.

This comes up very often in debates around high school locker room access. Even if the girls do not see the person's penis, they will have grown up with that person. They will know that person does in fact have a penis. Fortunately, in every single case I have read about, there is a perfect solution. Since there is only one transgirl, there is a very convenient separate facility where a single girl can change clothes by herself. Using that would be kindness, on everyone's part, and yet that solution is rejected.

I can't see why it would be. It seems that to do so would be to be treating the other girls kindly, and yet, it is rejected. Perhaps someone can explain why, and use the framework of treating people kindly as part of their explanation. How can the transgirl be most kind in that situation?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You worry a lot about what people might say about you. That's no way to live.

It's easy to say that, TM. And in principle, I agree. But reality, unfortunately, is a lot less kind. Especially with social media at play. I am, in reality, quite strongly supportive of equal rights for all people, and I fully support better treatment and consideration for transgender people. But I also have some reservations - I have some particular topics where I disagree that treating transgendered people exactly the same as cis-gendered people isn't appropriate.

When I express that opinion, I have been attacked and labeled a TERF. I'm not a radical feminist by any rational notion, and I'm not trans exclusionary for the most part. But a lack of perfect agreement gets used as a reason to label me a bigot and to attack me as such.

All it takes is one overzealous person and a tiny bit of carelessness on my part... and then I get doxxed and an internet mob demands that my employer fire me for being a bigot.

There's good reason to worry at least some about what other people think about you.

 

[Belz...]

I did: I don't know, and I don't care.

If you don't care then why respond to my post in the first place?

First you mischaracterise me, then you do it again in a different way, then respond with an unrelated argument and now you don't care about it at all?

Pull the other one.

 

[Belz...]

You worry a lot about what people might say about you. That's no way to live.

Another disingenuous response.

When being labeled a bigot or transphobe can get you fired from your job and ostracised from your social circles, you bet we'll worry about it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think sports are so overwhelmingly important that all social practices must be geared towards making sports easier to administer, sorry. Sports are already very different from the rest of society: for instance, you wouldn't see any business refusing to hire someone because of their height, weight, or handicaps and getting away with it. But you can do that in sports just fine.

Ms Zoltar was born a male, had penis and testicles removed, has had hormone treatments for thirty years, and breast implants. She is exclusively interested in men. Nobody looking at her suspects she wasn't born female. She quietly changes her clothes in the ladies locker room, not looking at anybody else. Do you kick her out because you think she should be changing in the mens locker room?

Wow. You just moved the goalposts by two counties. You totally tap-danced around my questions.

Fine, let's have it your way. In your scenario, I don't think she should be kicked out... and furthermore, I doubt anyone would suggest kicking her out because she looks like a woman typically looks. Honestly, that's not what this discussion is about really. If a person looks moderately like the gender they identify as, nobody really cares, and nobody is likely to notice.

The discussion through a lot of this has been about people who have not transitioned. It's been about male-bodied people competing in women's sports, where they have a clear and definite biological advantage, and whether or not that is reasonable and fair to the female-bodied people who participate in those sports. It's been about people who self-identify as female wanting to be housed in the women's prison even though they still have penises. It's about people who look like men usually look demanding that they have access and use of women's locker rooms because they identify as women even though anyone who looks at them will perceive them as men.

So... back to your scenario which I kindly answered...

Ms Zoltar was born a male, has not had penis and testicles removed, has not had hormone treatments for thirty years, and does not have breast implants. She is exclusively interested in men. Nobody looking at her would think she was born female. She quietly changes her clothes in the ladies locker room, not looking at anybody else. Do you kick her out because you think she should be changing in the mens locker room?

What is your answer in that scenario?

 

[Belz...]

I don't think sports are so overwhelmingly important that all social practices must be geared towards making sports easier to administer, sorry.

It's only important when trans people want to participate.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's easy to say that, TM. And in principle, I agree. But reality, unfortunately, is a lot less kind. Especially with social media at play. I am, in reality, quite strongly supportive of equal rights for all people, and I fully support better treatment and consideration for transgender people. But I also have some reservations - I have some particular topics where I disagree that treating transgendered people exactly the same as cis-gendered people isn't appropriate.

When I express that opinion, I have been attacked and labeled a TERF. I'm not a radical feminist by any rational notion, and I'm not trans exclusionary for the most part. But a lack of perfect agreement gets used as a reason to label me a bigot and to attack me as such.

All it takes is one overzealous person and a tiny bit of carelessness on my part... and then I get doxxed and an internet mob demands that my employer fire me for being a bigot.

There's good reason to worry at least some about what other people think about you.

What exactly do you want? You want to be able to air opinions you know are controversial but you want to escape any negative consequences that might result? Like, a written pass granting you immunity from saying whatever you want, no matter how unpopular they are? I don't think they make those anymore. Although asking for one of those is less ridiculous than expecting everyone else to change their opinions so you don't have to worry about being disagreed with should you fail to keep yours quiet.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Another disingenuous response.

When being labeled a bigot or transphobe can get you fired from your job and ostracised from your social circles, you bet we'll worry about it.

You don't have the ability to just keep your mouth shut? What is your job that it requires discussing transsexuality? What kind of friends do you have that are so intolerant of different opinions? Maybe you shouldn't be friends if you have to hide what you actually think.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Wow. You just moved the goalposts by two counties. You totally tap-danced around my questions.

Because I don't give a **** about sports, and reject the ridiculous implication that whatever social policy affects trans people must work for sporting competitions. Competitive athletes are such a narrow subset of the general population that it's insane to try to legislate civil rights in the manner that best accommodates sporting competitions. So no, I'm not going to play suppose hypotheticals with sports. I think that's an even stupider area to focus on here than women's prisons, which is pretty damn stupid.

Fine, let's have it your way. In your scenario, I don't think she should be kicked out... and furthermore, I doubt anyone would suggest kicking her out because she looks like a woman typically looks. Honestly, that's not what this discussion is about really. If a person looks moderately like the gender they identify as, nobody really cares, and nobody is likely to notice.

Which suggests it doesn't matter what someone is, just how they look. So a feminine-looking guy is fine in the women's locker room, but a manly-looking woman should be kicked out? That doesn't seem right. And difficult to enforce.

The discussion through a lot of this has been about people who have not transitioned. It's been about male-bodied people competing in women's sports, where they have a clear and definite biological advantage, and whether or not that is reasonable and fair to the female-bodied people who participate in those sports. It's been about people who self-identify as female wanting to be housed in the women's prison even though they still have penises. It's about people who look like men usually look demanding that they have access and use of women's locker rooms because they identify as women even though anyone who looks at them will perceive them as men.

If someone hasn't transitioned it seems unreasonable for them to expect to be treated as if they already have. Some degree of action would demonstrate committment.

So... back to your scenario which I kindly answered...

Ms Zoltar was born a male, has not had penis and testicles removed, has not had hormone treatments for thirty years, and does not have breast implants. She is exclusively interested in men. Nobody looking at her would think she was born female. She quietly changes her clothes in the ladies locker room, not looking at anybody else. Do you kick her out because you think she should be changing in the mens locker room?

What is your answer in that scenario?

I wouldn't kick them out because they haven't bothered anybody by doing anything wrong. Ditto if they were in the mens locker room.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ogling? Do you think I would ogle? I assure you I am perfectly capable of being in the presence of naked women without ogling. It was something I was capable of as a young man, and it has grown much, much, easier as I have grown older.

I don't think my behavior inside the locker room would be an issue. I think the offensive behavior in question would be walking through the door. It isn't my behavior that is offensive. It is my presence. It makes the ladies feel uncomfortable. As a kindness, I will not attempt to go into that room. Just in case my kindness is not enough, the management of the facility or possibly the police will assure compliance.

On the other hand, if I use the room for its intended purpose, I would still have to expose myself to them, and that, too, would cause discomfort, although the reasons for that discomfort are often misunderstood. Seeing a naked man is not something that makes women, or even girls, recoil in horror. It is just that if they, themselves, are likewise fully or partially disrobed, the presence of the man makes them nervous. If they see physical evidence that I am indeed a man, then they will not only be in the presence of a man while they are undressed, but they will be in the presence of a man who is not conforming to social conventions. If I am kind, I will not create that anxiety in them.

This comes up very often in debates around high school locker room access. Even if the girls do not see the person's penis, they will have grown up with that person. They will know that person does in fact have a penis. Fortunately, in every single case I have read about, there is a perfect solution. Since there is only one transgirl, there is a very convenient separate facility where a single girl can change clothes by herself. Using that would be kindness, on everyone's part, and yet that solution is rejected.

I can't see why it would be. It seems that to do so would be to be treating the other girls kindly, and yet, it is rejected.

My great-grandparents were, as was common at the time, really racist. It would have made them so uncomfortable for black people to be in the same restaurant. Their presence would make them nervous. So would you be kind enough to bar entry to a list of ethnicities? Also Jews.

Perhaps someone can explain why, and use the framework of treating people kindly as part of their explanation. How can the transgirl be most kind in that situation?

By minding her own business while she's in the locker room--the same thing the other people present should be doing.

Kindness doesn't mean you have to accommodate other peoples' unreasonable requests.