Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Belz...]

Does anyone else understand what Squeegee is saying here?

I think he's saying that he'd rather not address any arguments.

 

[d4m10n]

THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. I WISH SOMEONE WOULD ANSWER IT.

Okay, so how about personal pronouns?

In the Forstater case, she got in a spot of trouble for (among several other things) referring to a non-binary individual as "he" rather than "they." (See paragraph 89 for details.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm sorry, and yes, I'm sexist and ageist (and lookist) but if an attractive woman takes her clothes off near me, I'm going to ogle.

As discreetly as possible, of course, and with the purest of intentions, but I could no more avoid looking than I can shut my eyes while driving.

I would not consider that to be sexist or ageist. I would consider that to fall under the heading of "heterosexual human male who is not yet dead".

As long as you're discreet and aren't a lecherous creep, it's really not a big deal. I check out good looking men all the time. They're good looking. They're like mobile art with nice lats.

 

[Emily's Cat]

N
You are again moving the goalposts.

At this point, the goal posts aren't so much moving, as they're competing in an ultra-marathon.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay, so how about personal pronouns?

I've covered this. I'll call anyone what they want to be called provided I have something I can still default to when refer to someone who's preferences I don't know and I'm not crucified for making the very occasional slip up and just using the language that's good enough for 99% of the population.

But like I said how is this a... civil rights issue?(not the exact term, but close) This is on the level of Ms/Miss/Missus. Plenty of languages don't even have gendered pronouns, or indeed pronouns, or implement in widely different ways. Do trans people just not exist in... Japanese (which doesn't even have pronouns in the same sense we do) or Finnish which doesn't have gendered pronouns?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Such a solution doesn't work if the person doesn't want people to know they are trans, though. It forces them to come out, which history and current events have proven is not safe for them. Is some lady worried about a trans woman seeing her in the locker room? The trans woman is worried about getting murdered.

This is not that hard. If you look in the mirror and recognize that most people are going to look at you and assume that you're a man, use the men's restroom. If most people would think you're a woman, use the women's restroom.

If you are going to be in a space where you will be naked, and where other people are likely to see your genitalia, take that into consideration. Because guess what? If a transwoman hasn't come out as trans, but uses the women's locker room where other people see her penis and testicles, it's not just her genitalia that are out at that point.

Meadmaker is talking about someone in high school, someone who was known to many of the other kids. That person was initally raised as a girl, but in high school identified as a boy. The only way for that person to not come out as trans is to not ever identify as a boy, and to continue using the girl's restroom and locker room.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It's entirely possible that I've missed something, given that I haven't read the entirety of all three threads, and I do have a very few people whose posts I don't see.

But of the people I've been interacting with since I started posting in here, this is not the case. The issue when it comes to locker rooms and similar has been self-identification as transgender being the only requirement, even if the person in questions does not appear in any way to be their identified gender.

 

[d4m10n]

I'll call anyone what they want to be called provided I have something I can still default to when refer to someone who's preferences I don't know and I'm not crucified for making the very occasional slip up...

Sounds just fine to me.

Doesn't this count as an answer to your question, though? It's at least one way in which we are generally "supposed to treat a biological male who 'identifies as a woman' differently" from a man who does not. A relatively small thing, but it may well require overriding our subconscious algorithm for assigning gender to humans in favor of a more mindful approach.

On a bit of a tangent, I changed my surname (legal adoption) halfway through college, in an institution where young men generally referred to each other by surnames. It took some of my comrades in arms quite a while to adjust to the new name, in part because name changes were so rare in that environment. I was often annoyed with those who adjusted more slowly than most, but probably I should have been more patient, realizing that I was an exceptional case and that they had had little experience of surname changes within their age cohort.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

I think you do a good job of it. I've sometimes found you irritating and frustrating as all get out (and I'm sure the complement is true too), but I've never felt that you were being intentionally offensive or seeking to hurt anyone's feelings on purpose.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.



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.

Serious question: How do you determine which topics are allowable and which are not? Especially when it's a charged and emotional topic, or when there is more than one legitimate view?

For example, should a pro-choice person be forbidden from publishing their view on why abortion should be allowable, when they know it might cause an unwelcome reaction from people who are pro-life? Should people who support euthanasia and be forbidden to publish their views on that topic, given that so many people view life as sacred and will be offended by their view?

Who is the arbiter of what controversial viewpoint is acceptable to share with other people, and what is not?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sounds just fine to me.

Doesn't this count as an answer to your question, though?

No. Because you're not the only one, or indeed one of, the people we're talking about.

And I don't buy for a second that we are having the biggest civil rights movement since gay rights over nothing but pronouns. There's more to it than that, but what "it" is is maddenly nebulous to that point that I can almost be metaphysically certain that at least one person is going to complain that I characterized it as "Nothing but pronouns because of course there's more to it" but sure with the same metaphysical certainty that nobody is then going expand on it.

Sports, bathrooms, pronouns. You don't build an identity and a movement around this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 don't think it's intentionally glossing over the fact that ogling goes in many directions. I think it's more an outcome of the major sticking point of this topic: It's the intersection and conflict between the desires of transwomen and the desires of natal women.

That same conflict doesn't seem to exist between transmen and natal men. As a result, the intersection between female-bodied people who identify as men and male-bodied people who identify as men just doesn't get brought up.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Another odd question. You're trying really hard to create some kind of gotcha, but I don't think you really know what you're trying to achieve other than that, or how you're trying to achieve it. Instead you seem to be flailing around, hoping that you'll find something that sticks.

You do understand that "species" isn't a rigid category, don't you? That the idea of there being a single entity that is considered "the first human", born from something that was not human is nonsense. That instead it was a gradual progression from creatures that we would classify as not human into creatures that we would classify as human. Do I really have to explain this to you? I suspect I don't.

Are you actually using the argument that evolution creating speciation over hundreds of thousands of years supports your claim that sex in humans is a spectrum?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Serious question: How do you determine which topics are allowable and which are not? Especially when it's a charged and emotional topic, or when there is more than one legitimate view?

For example, should a pro-choice person be forbidden from publishing their view on why abortion should be allowable, when they know it might cause an unwelcome reaction from people who are pro-life? Should people who support euthanasia and be forbidden to publish their views on that topic, given that so many people view life as sacred and will be offended by their view?

Who is the arbiter of what controversial viewpoint is acceptable to share with other people, and what is not?

"Should"? It's up the individual, and it "should" be common sense. I'm talking about people using their heads, not advocating laws. Sheesh, what is it with the legalistic morality here? If there's not a law against it it's just fine to do something? There's no law against smearing your own face with feces at the dinner table but I doubt you'll get many invitations afterward.

If you'd like a real world test, publish something really inflammatory to Twitter using your real name, identifying your place of employment, and be sure that all the higher-ups in your company see it. What do you think will happen?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm still waiting on anyone to answer how I'm supposed to treat a biological male who "identifies as a woman" differently from either a biological male or a biological female in anyway that matters.

I answered

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Should"? It's up the individual, and it "should" be common sense. I'm talking about people using their heads, not advocating laws. Sheesh, what is it with the legalistic morality here? If there's not a law against it it's just fine to do something? There's no law against smearing your own face with feces at the dinner table but I doubt you'll get many invitations afterward.

If you'd like a real world test, publish something really inflammatory to Twitter using your real name, identifying your place of employment, and be sure that all the higher-ups in your company see it. What do you think will happen?

You're posting a lot of stuff that seems baiting and inflammatory to me at the moment.

Maybe you should... i dunno... not post?

 

[TragicMonkey]

You're posting a lot of stuff that seems baiting and inflammatory to me at the moment.

Really? What specifically have I said that would be controversial in the real world? This may astonish many, but disagreeing with particular posters here doesn't actually make an opinion shockingly controversial to the majority of the public.

Maybe you should... i dunno... not post?

Do you really not see a difference between posting on one messageboard under a pseudonym and posting on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube under one's actual name?

 

[Minoosh]

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

I think it's the "forbidden fruit" nature that some men find appealing. That and they probably manage that women get up to things like, I don't know, towel-snapping fights or soaping each other up or engaging in casual cunnilingus in the sauna. Oftentimes fantasies don't have much to do with real-life situations.

 

[Meadmaker]

(Deleted. I read a post out of context, and replied in a way that didn't make sense for that context.)

 

[Meadmaker]

I think it's the "forbidden fruit" nature that some men find appealing. That and they probably manage that women get up to things like, I don't know, towel-snapping fights or soaping each other up or engaging in casual cunnilingus in the sauna. Oftentimes fantasies don't have much to do with real-life situations.

I think that's it.

I recently saw "Animal House" for the first time in about 40 years. My reaction to the "sorority girl underwear pillow fight" scene was somewhat different than it was at that time. Now all I could think of was, "Who makes this stuff up?"