Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Agatha]

I'm putting this thread on moderated status while I try to clean it up a bit. While it's on moderated status, will you all kindly be even more mindful of your MAs when submitting your posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Emily's Cat]

The idea that how people identify is up to them isn't all that hard to accept as valid

I'm not sure I entirely agree here. It makes a nice sentiment, but I think there are problems. Is there a limit to what a person can identify as and have the expectation that everyone else should be obligated to honor their self-identification?

There was a fair bit of push-back against Elizabeth Warren identifying as native american, even though there wasn't really any material impact for her from it. If my sister identifies as jewish, should she have access to scholarships? If I identify as thin, should it be reasonable for me expect that people perceive me as sexy in a bikini?

Even in cases where there's no material difference in treatment, there's still the underlying concept that people are being asked to accept as true that a person's internal feeling about themselves is of more importance than objective reality. It places feelings about an ephemeral state that is separate and distinct from physical reality above observable facts.

To some degree, I'm perfectly willing to go along if it makes someone feel better about themselves... but there's a limit to what I think I should be expected to accept as true when it contradicts reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As is typical in these discussions, people like to pretend that transmen don't exist.

Not at all. But there do seem to be behavioral differences between transmen and transwomen that make the discussion moot. Transmen don't, in general, feel that it is necessary to insert themselves into every aspect of male interaction. Nor are they trying to redefine "man" to include a vagina and boobs. And so far as I know, there aren't any transmen who have insisted that they should be accepted as just as much of a man as a natal man despite them continuing to present as female in every way. There's a collection of behavior that seems to be very much focused on transwomen.

 

[d4m10n]

And that's the possibility I'd like to see Squeegeee and arth address at some point.

Judging by Seani's social media, it's a strong possibility in this particular case.

Bound to happen sooner or later, given the premises of self-i.d.

 

[The Atheist]

I didn't mean you could tell women from men, only augmented breasts from unaugmented breasts.

I'm surprised there isn't keyhole surgery for it, because the scars are generally quite large. Stick 'em in a crease all you like, but they're very obvious. A lot of trans women go for DDDDD size as well, which accentuates it even more.

That person looks like a man. The only indication we have that they don't believe themselves to be a man is their testimony. If I saw that person on the street with no other information at all, I would identify that bloke as a dude.

A long way back someone raised the point of the revolting racist filth, Lauren Southern, who is legally male.

I'll bet you a million bucks to a piece of dog poop that she doesn't use the mens' toilets.

If Seani and other similarly situated adult males (who've chosen not to physically transition) do not gain access to women's bathrooms/changing rooms/sports leagues, that puts them at risk of suicide?

C'est la vie. We don't cater for everyone's wants or I'd be allowed to kill a long list of people.

As is typical in these discussions, people like to pretend that transmen don't exist.

Nope - I've mentioned them several times, including the fact that when it comes to bathrooms, they have the exact opposite situation to trans women - they are the ones at risk.

A couple of people have rightly noted that men being scared of trans men in the bathroom is pretty rare.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It doesn't actually need to be credible in order to discuss whether hypothetical individuals who look like beardy blokes should henceforth be allowed unchallenged in spaces formerly reserved for females.

Of course, you can discuss whatever hypotheticals you like. This was not that, this was a claim that it was genuine. I don't think I'm remiss in asking for evidence that it actually is genuine.

And, even absent the argument of basic scepticism, you know why that's a good idea? Because, if it is genuine, then perhaps they have written something about it which could help understanding. I think the first step should be finding out what that individual actually thinks, don't you? Wouldn't discussing what actual "individuals who look like beardy blokes" think be better than discussing what "hypothetical individuals who look like beardy blokes" think? Because, if nothing else, absent the former all you can do is guess and make insinuations. Which, frankly, is useless if your intent is to actually understand anything.

 

[d4m10n]

Of course, you can discuss whatever hypotheticals you like. This was not that, this was a claim that it was genuine. I don't think I'm remiss in asking for evidence that it actually is genuine.

The individual in question is genuine and does appear to use she/her pronouns.

I think the first step should be finding out what that individual actually thinks, don't you? Wouldn't discussing what actual "individuals who look like beardy blokes" think be better than discussing what "hypothetical individuals who look like beardy blokes" think?

I'm relatively unconcerned with what Seani thinks, TBH. I am much more concerned with how people ought to react when people who look like me (untransitioned adult males) show up in spaces formerly reserved for females.

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't know if this will be much help but Seani Needham is indeed a moderator of the GLT Pride Group on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/gltPride/

GLT Pride is a subgroup of the main GLT group (Girls Love Travel) as "part of the LGBTQ community or supporting as an ally".

Girls Love Travel is a group explicitly for "womxn travelers" - they welcome "any individual who identifies as female/femme/womxn, non-binary, trans, genderqueer, agender, or any combination of the above", so presumably Seani must identify as one of those.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm relatively unconcerned with what Seani thinks, TBH.

That seems a little like wanting to have a conversation about what it's like to live in Japan, yet not thinking it relevant to hear what anybody who has set foot inside the country thinks.

I am much more concerned with how people ought to react when people who look like me (untransitioned adult males) show up in spaces formerly reserved for females.

How frequently do you believe this happens? Is it just this one alleged incident with this one individual?

Either way, I'd have thought that it's best to consider the rights, thoughts, and wishes of everybody in a potential conflict. How reasonable each person's position is would seem to be important, and it doesn't seem to me like it's possible to evaluate someone's position without actually knowing what that position is and how they justify that position.

FWIW, social dysphoria is clinically recognised as part of gender dysphoria, and the one doesn't necessarily imply the other.

 

[d4m10n]

How frequently do you believe this happens?

No idea. How often do you think it ought to happen? Now that the possibility looms, what is the best path forward in your considered opinion?

Is it just this one alleged incident with this one individual?

I don't know about any incidents with this particular individual.

I'd have thought that it's best to consider the rights, thoughts, and wishes of everybody in a potential conflict.

In a potential conflict between persons for whom a space has been set aside, and persons who are attempting to gain admittance thereto, I'd say we have to ask ourselves why the space in question was set aside in the first place. In the case of rugby, for example, women's leagues were created to promote fairness and opportunity for a set of people who generally couldn't compete in the existing leagues.

How reasonable each person's position is would seem to be important, and it doesn't seem to me like it's possible to evaluate someone's position without actually knowing what that position is and how they justify that position.

This is why I'm asking you for your position. Should folks like Seani be freely allowed into women's leagues and locker rooms?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No idea. How often do you think it ought to happen? Now that the possibility looms, what is the best path forward in your considered opinion?

I don't have enough information to have a considered opinion.

I don't know about any incidents with this particular individual.

Okay, you're strictly talking about physical spaces, rather than referring back to the first post you made about her.

In a potential conflict between persons for whom a space has been set aside, and persons who are attempting to gain admittance thereto, I'd say we have to ask ourselves why the space in question was set aside in the first place.

Which is exactly why there is a debate about who is and is not a member of the groups for whom those spaces are set aside.

In the case of rugby, for example, women's leagues were created to promote fairness and opportunity for a set of people who generally couldn't compete in the existing leagues.

Sport is a whole other debate that I've had out fairly recently on this board and I don't have the will to get in to again.

This is why I'm asking you for your position. Should folks like Seani be freely allowed into women's leagues and locker rooms?

Here you're literally quoting me saying that I don't have enough information to take a position on this matter, and responding by asking me to voice that opinion. My answer is "I don't know. Because I don't have enough information yet".

 

[d4m10n]

My answer is "I don't know. Because I don't have enough information yet".

This really shouldn't be all that tricky, and you needn't dig further into the background of any particular individual to decide.

A) Females should be expected to tolerate adult males who present as males coming into sex-segregated spaces set aside for women.

B) Females should not be expected to tolerate adult males who present as males coming into sex-segregated spaces set aside for women.

Personally, I'm content to leave it up to the women for whom the spaces were originally set aside.

 

[theprestige]

That seems a little like wanting to have a conversation about what it's like to live in Japan, yet not thinking it relevant to hear what anybody who has set foot inside the country thinks.



How frequently do you believe this happens? Is it just this one alleged incident with this one individual?

Either way, I'd have thought that it's best to consider the rights, thoughts, and wishes of everybody in a potential conflict. How reasonable each person's position is would seem to be important, and it doesn't seem to me like it's possible to evaluate someone's position without actually knowing what that position is and how they justify that position.

FWIW, social dysphoria is clinically recognised as part of gender dysphoria, and the one doesn't necessarily imply the other.

We are not debating about how often it happens. We are debating whether we should adopt a policy of normalizing the occurence. It doesn't happen a lot right now, because it's not normalized. Most people feel confident in enforcing the taboo against it, and their confidence is backed by law and custom.

It's good that you want to consider the rights, thoughts, wishes of everybody in the conflict. Based on your considerations so far, what do you currently think is the right course of action? Do you think we should try to normalize it? Or do you think we should continue to uphold the taboo against it?

 

[theprestige]

No idea. How often do you think it ought to happen? Now that the possibility looms, what is the best path forward in your considered opinion?

I don't have enough information to have a considered opinion.

What information do you need, and how would it affect your consideration?

It seems to me that a lot of policy questions can - and should - be considered hypothetically. We don't need to know how many murders or thefts or breaches of contract are occurring, to consider whether we want policies that normalize those things.

In this particular case, you can consider a couple of hypotheticals:

One, it's not happening very much at all. Okay. On that basis, do you think we should continue to uphold the taboo in law and custom? Why or why not?

Or two, it's already happening a lot more than you thought. Okay. On that basis, do you think we should continue to uphold the taboo in law and custom? Why or why not?

You're the one that brought up the question of how often it's currently happening. Presumably the answer to this question will affect your policy preference. Can you tell us how the answer matters to your consideration?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This really shouldn't be all that tricky, and you needn't dig further into the background of any particular individual to decide.

A) Females should be expected to tolerate adult males who present as males coming into sex-segregated spaces set aside for women.

B) Females should not be expected to tolerate adult males who present as males coming into sex-segregated spaces set aside for women.

Personally, I'm content to leave it up to the women for whom the spaces were originally set aside.

If only real life were as simple. But since you claim that you originally posted the image in order to spark a discussion on the linguistics of the word "woman", then I think you know that the question here - with both A) and B) - is what the definition of "females" and "males" actually is.

There seems to be a suggestion that it's necessarily linked to the physical, but there are a number of academic papers and references which maintain that social dysphoria can be had without body dysphoria, and that both are gender dysphoria. There seems to be an even stronger suggestion that social dysphoria either isn't real and people are just pretending, or that it doesn't matter. But I've seen research which suggests that of the two it's social dysphoria that causes by far the most amount of distress to transgender and non-binary people. And I think that declaring the field of psychology to be wrong on any particular issue really requires more than incredulity or ridicule.

So what are the various viewpoints, and how is it possible to reach a solution that caters to everybody's needs? I don't know. I do know it's not as simple as you're presenting it to be.

Even you know it's not as simple as you're presenting it to be, at least if you read your own link. The whole thing apparently started because the individual in question was welcomed into a women's only group and one member wasn't happy about it. It seems that the other members were. So what does that mean for "leav[ing] it up to the women for whom the spaces were originally set aside" (assuming by that that you mean cis women)? How many women have to object for it to become not okay? How do you avoid the tyranny of the majority whichever way the chips fall?

 

[Ziggurat]

If only real life were as simple. But since you claim that you originally posted the image in order to spark a discussion on the linguistics of the word "woman", then I think you know that the question here - with both A) and B) - is what the definition of "females" and "males" actually is.

There seems to be a suggestion that it's necessarily linked to the physical

The definition of male and female are indeed linked to the physical. That’s just what the words mean. Don’t try to change those definitions for political purposes.

but there are a number of academic papers and references which maintain that social dysphoria can be had without body dysphoria, and that both are gender dysphoria.

We can take that as true, and it won’t make a lick of difference to the definition of male and female.

There seems to be an even stronger suggestion that social dysphoria either isn't real and people are just pretending, or that it doesn't matter. But I've seen research which suggests that of the two it's social dysphoria that causes by far the most amount of distress to transgender and non-binary people. And I think that declaring the field of psychology to be wrong on any particular issue really requires more than incredulity or ridicule.

The reality of a condition doesn’t dictate any particular societal accommodation. You have jumped over a whole bunch of steps necessary to prove your argument as if they simply didn’t exist.

 

[Meadmaker]

The definition of male and female are indeed linked to the physical.

Either that, or they are completely meaningless.

That's another one of those points that comes around again and again, but which is just never acknowledged by those who insist that trans-people really are their chosen sex/gender/whatever.

And yet, a recent ruling of the 11th circuit said that a Georgia school's refusal to allow a trans-boy to use the boy's restroom and locker room was unconstittuional. Naturally I picked up the constitution and turned to the section on transgender rights, and was a bit puzzled. However, I know that opinions don't really work like that, so I looked into what the three judge panel wrote to see what section of the Constitution applied. I didn't read the opinion itself, but the news article about the opinion said that the school district's policy of who could use what restroom was "arbitrary".

In a world where learned people can declare biology is arbitrary, and thus policies based on biology are prohibited by the constitution, we are truly through the looking glass. Definitions? Schmefinitions. Who cares? The law is what we want it to be and we can change definitions if need be to get the desired result.

And if you don't agree, that's hatred. And by the way, hatred isn't protected in the constitution.

 

[Earthborn]

In a world where learned people can declare biology is arbitrary, and thus policies based on biology are prohibited by the constitution, we are truly through the looking glass.

Nobody declared biology as arbitrary. The rules on who can use what restroom were declared arbitrary; probably because those rules were not based on biology.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And if you don't agree, that's hatred. And by the way, hatred isn't protected in the constitution.

Certain types of hatred is indeed protected in the Constitution, at least in latter amendments.

Discrimination on the basis of sex is unconstitutional, and there's reams of interpretation of this relatively brief amendment for how that applies in daily life. Whether or not discrimination against trans people is covered by that amendment is still a largely open legal question.

 

[Lithrael]

You guys arguing against TM talk a good game about how thourough and instinctual people’s ability to evaluate gender signals is, but actual people who are not trying at all to be gender benders get misgendered by strangers all the time, often because of one fashion or physical signifier that overrides everything else. A boy dressed like other boys, with long hair. A woman dressed like other women, with an angular face. I’m only a little bit of a tomboy, but if I tuck my hair under my hat, waitstaff have been known to call me ‘sir.’