Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[TragicMonkey]

Well no, but as usual we have to deal with real people, not hypothetical characters. Hundreds of millions of people use social media, have smartphones, etc. And they're all connected. It's not hard for someone's tweets to be connected to a real person and address, and for some ****-face crusader to decide to cause trouble because they have, personally, labeled that person a bigot, irrespective of whether society at large agrees.

I don't think it's in society's interest to bend over backwards to try to protect stupid people from the consequences of their stupid actions. On the contrary, I think teaching people to consider what they publish globally is a good thing.

Similarily-stupid question: do you never tell anyone anything that might be interpreted as offensive to anyone who could hypothetically be made aware of it?

I don't publish everything I say, so I'm able to tailor my remarks to the audience I'm actually addressing. It's crazy easy to manage things that way. If I don't want Amy to know I think her wedding colors are tacky I just make sure not to say that to Amy or anybody who is likely to tell Amy what I said. I definitely don't publish it to the world and then act surprised when Amy hears it and uninvites me.

We're not talking about me, here, or about some hypothetical nonsense. We're talking about real people who have their lives torn apart because someone, somewhere, decided that their thought process was incorrect. Yeah, maybe they should be more careful about what they post, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant to this discussion. If you worry your opinion will cause you problems, you can choose to not state it openly, or you can choose to publish and face the consequences. It is whining for special privilege to insist you can say whatever you want whenever you want to and also demand total immunity from consequences you won't welcome. Actions have consequences. It's even a thing in physics.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Except that no one really cares about such cases. If they are capable of passing and they are discrete in the locker room, then it's a non-issue. I would not advocate making using the "wrong" locker room a criminal offense. As long as no one knew she was trans, no issues.

Are you sure? I think some of the posters who have been involved in these three threads do care about those cases, and would object to the person in that example being in the ladies locker room.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think it's in society's interest to bend over backwards to try to protect stupid people from the consequences of their stupid actions.

Maybe not, but my opinion is that in this social media-heavy, hypersensitive and crusading atmosphere people get punished disproportionately to their sins. I'd think we'd all be against such a situation.

I don't publish everything I say

Nor I, and despite what you might think, I go out of my way _not_ to offend people unless they're being jerks themselves.

It's not irrelevant to this discussion.

It's just as irrelevant to this discussion as what the rape victim was wearing. Sure, one can take measures to avoid risk, but it doesn't make one responsible for other people's actions.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Maybe not, but my opinion is that in this social media-heavy, hypersensitive and crusading atmosphere people get punished disproportionately to their sins. I'd think we'd all be against such a situation.

Obviously not. I think people should be generally more discreet and more sensible about what they publish. Part of maturity is accepting that one must play different roles in different places. At home in private one acts differently than at work with coworkers, and different again when in public. This blurring of line between public and private is foolish and worse, it's childish. This social media crap is turning much of the population into selfish, childish idiots.

It's just as irrelevant to this discussion as what the rape victim was wearing. Sure, one can take measures to avoid risk, but it doesn't make one responsible for other people's actions.

I reject the inflammatory analogy. People are responsible for their own actions, and such actions include publishing things they know may cause them unwelcome reaction from others.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you sure? I think some of the posters who have been involved in these three threads do care about those cases, and would object to the person in that example being in the ladies locker room.

I don't know who those people would be.

I object to people in the non-biological locker room precisely because it is known that they are the wrong sex for that locker room. If no one knows, then no one can object.

There's also something I keep forgetting. This younger generation thinks it's odd to get naked in a locker room. Damn strange behavior if you ask me, but kids these days! What are you going to do? Back in the old days, it would be pretty impossible to keep your biological sex secret in a locker room, which is why there are locker rooms.

Just to clarify. If no one knows that your are a biological male, no one will object to you using the women's locker room. They can't, because they don't know that there is anything to object to.

 

[lionking]

The tolerance for anything apart from 100% pro-transgender opinions is very low in this thread, but here goes.

My observation is that in the past 20-30 years there has been growing tolerance and acceptance of difference. We are far from perfect in Australia and there are racists, sexists and homophobes at large, but public opinion has hardened against these groups. Not too many people today oppose the non-discriminatory immigration policy, but it took time to get there. Referendums rarely get up here, but the Gay Marriage one did, comfortably. Again, it took time.

What I've seen with the transgender issue here is that the public is tolerant - up to a point.

When asked about prohibiting discrimination against transgender people, the general response has been "yeah, fair enough". And legislation is passed prohibiting this.

When asked to accept that a declaration of identity is sufficient to designate someone transgender, the response changes to "huh? what exactly does this mean?"

When it is pointed out that this may mean biological males competing in women's sports the initial response (most vigorously from female athletes) is "hell no".

When the policy changes that certain hormone levels will be required to diminish the natural advantage biological men would have on the sporting field the response again changes to "okay, let's see how it goes".

My point is that if the changes desired by transgender people are going to successfully happen, it has to be a gradual process requiring patience, data and explanation.

When people who are clearly male by appearance and physique demand immediate access to change rooms and sporting fields because of their declared femaleness, the backlash will be strong.

But nobody today seems prepared to wait for the long process of winning hearts and minds.

 

[Minoosh]

My friend who is especially attracted to trans women got heated when I mentioned this thread. I cited arguments about protecting women's spaces. He said protection is exactly what trans women are looking for and that they need it more than anybody. I didn't ask him about women's sports or changing rooms. But on the bathroom aspect he was adamant and he made a good argument. I had to remind him that I don't really have a dog in this fight, but obviously he had thought about it.

I tend to agree that if no one thought it was a big deal to change in the presence of the opposite sex it would not be the problem it apparently is. I am a cis-hetero-woman, and I (and several girlfriends) have always been modest even in the presence of other women. I ascribe this to something I call emotional privacy. It's not polite to stare. I really hope that straight cis men trying to pretend that they're pretending to not be interested in women's bodies is a vanishingly small segment of so-called humanity. Unfortunately "girls in the locker room" fantasies are a real thing for some men. I can just about get my head around the concept that it could happen. It leaves me not knowing what the best public policy would be. But I tend to agree that being ogled by anyone would be uncomfortable, and that trans women create a no greater threat to me than any other woman-identifying person.

 

[Meadmaker]

Unfortunately "girls in the locker room" fantasies are a real thing for some men.

A lot of men.

And a very, very, large number of teenage boys.

 

[cullennz]

I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but why did the last two posts miss quite a lot of women and girls like to ogle males.

This stuff is all not one way.

It is sexual biology

 

[Minoosh]

I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but why did the last two posts miss quite a lot of women and girls like to ogle males.

This stuff is all not one way.

It is sexual biology

I can only speak for myself. On the few occasions it has been possible I pointedly don't ogle people's bodies. Sizing up a man physically has never been a big deal for me. It's said that men are more "visual"; women are not interested in quite the same way. In my experience, it's true. I don't check out a guy's junk if I can possibly avoid it.

As I grew older I did notice myself noticing guys' physiques a bit more, but it really wasn't tied to genitalia. I find women's bodies more appealing, aesthetically speaking, but if I'm bi-curious, it's not a very strong trait.

 

[cullennz]

I can only speak for myself. On the few occasions it has been possible I pointedly don't ogle people's bodies. Sizing up a man physically has never been a big deal for me. It's said that men are more "visual"; women are not interested in quite the same way. In my experience, it's true. I don't check out a guy's junk if I can possibly avoid it.



As I grew older I did notice myself noticing guys' physiques a bit more, but it really wasn't tied to genitalia. I find women's bodies more appealing, aesthetically speaking, but if I'm bi-curious, it's not a very strong trait.

I missed the bit where it was only ogling genitals.

 

[Minoosh]

I missed the bit where it was only ogling genitals.

In the context of this thread, genitalia figure prominently. I can check out guys discreetly. It requires access to a men's changing room to really judge how long their dick is etc.

 

[zooterkin]

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.

You may well think that is reasonable, but it is one of the points at issue. Is self-identification enough, with or without legal declarations, to transition?

 

[The Atheist]

My friend who is especially attracted to trans women got heated when I mentioned this thread. I cited arguments about protecting women's spaces. He said protection is exactly what trans women are looking for and that they need it more than anybody. I didn't ask him about women's sports or changing rooms. But on the bathroom aspect he was adamant and he made a good argument. I had to remind him that I don't really have a dog in this fight, but obviously he had thought about it.

This is why we need an extra bathroom.

I had a trans girlfriend myself some years ago and she would have died if she'd had to go into a men's bathroom. Most people didn't realise she was trans, though, so doesn't conform at all to the "huge bloke in a dress" scenario.

I agree a trans woman using a male bathroom is at a much higher risk than women allowing trans to use theirs.

Unfortunately "girls in the locker room" fantasies are a real thing for some men.

I'd say it's more that most blokes like looking at naked women than any fantasy. Locker rooms are almost universally awful.

I can just about get my head around the concept that it could happen. It leaves me not knowing what the best public policy would be. But I tend to agree that being ogled by anyone would be uncomfortable, and that trans women create a no greater threat to me than any other woman-identifying person.

With trans women, I agree with you, but they're not the issue - the problem is men abusing the privilege by pretending to be trans.

Unfortunately, we know it happens, so it can't be ignored, but I imagine actual trans women sexually assaulting a woman is rare as hell.

 

[Belz...]

I reject the inflammatory analogy.

Inflammatory? It's a parallel between similar arguments. If you don't like one being compared with the other, instead of appealing to emotion, then maybe you should question your position on the former.

 

[Belz...]

My friend who is especially attracted to trans women got heated when I mentioned this thread. I cited arguments about protecting women's spaces. He said protection is exactly what trans women are looking for and that they need it more than anybody. I didn't ask him about women's sports or changing rooms. But on the bathroom aspect he was adamant and he made a good argument. I had to remind him that I don't really have a dog in this fight, but obviously he had thought about it.

If he thought about it did you ask him why they needed protection? And also why protecting them must lead to protecting a much larger part of the population less?

 

[Belz...]

I agree a trans woman using a male bathroom is at a much higher risk than women allowing trans to use theirs.

Are they, though? So far there seems to be no hard numbers on actual risk, one way or another.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is all true, but none of it implies that the average readers of her essay would have trouble differentiating the legal term from the usual usage of the phrase.

But it does imply that either she didn't understand what the phrase she was using meant, or that she was deliberately misusing it when referencing the case.

Under what possible definition of equivocation? The one I'm familiar with requires an intent to deceive or dissemble through the use of deliberately ambiguous phrasing.

It doesn't require intent, no. Although, as I've already said, I do lean towards this being intentional on Rowling's part, since it's an unusual phrase in the non-legal sense, since referencing the legal sense is the context in which she was using the phrase, and since she used it as part of a discussion on the importance of using specific words in specific contexts. But, as always, I concede that she may simply have been displaying her ignorance.

I would hazard a guess that she used the word "philosophical" to pick out deeply held and carefully considered beliefs as opposed to beliefs which are held casually or unreflectively.

Then your guess is that it's pure coincidence, and she had no idea that the phrase she was using had a legal meaning which was core to the case she was directly referencing. Okay.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, I'm the one asking that those who characterize her essay as a "factually inaccurate anti-trans screed" actually take a bit effort to show that the essay in question actually got at least few facts wrong.

And I have already pointed you to a long deconstruction. Which you, sceptical thinker that you are, have chosen not to read.

Stylistic quibbling isn't quite the same thing, is it?

You should probably have a word with the person who brought this point up, then. Oh wait, that was you, in order to hand-wave away the entire thread.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The challenge with those studies is that they don't really account for brain plasticity. And they assume up front that gender-specific activity is a result of the brain being different, rather than a difference in experience, preference, and exposure.

I don't see that assumption in either study.

If you want to show that there's a real difference between male brains and female brains, you're going to need to find a way to measure a baseline from newborns, prior to any gender-differentiated stimuli being introduced, and you're also going to need to control for the effect of those stimuli on brain plasticity in older children and adults.

That is what you'd have to do if you were attempting to show that there's an innate difference between male brains and female brains, present from birth. Again, that's not a claim I've seen in either study I cited.