Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Sherkeu]

I feel you.

But I'll stick it out for a bit longer. Because the truth, however unfortunate, is that we can't make this case on our own. We need support from men. And there are several men in this thread who don't accept that sex is all made up, or that anyone who claims it can be a woman.

But I don't blame you for tapping out. I'm 100% certain that I'll need a break at some point too. I'll meet you in the ladies room!

Haha!

POC - Person of Cervix (according to CNN)

Or Poge - Person of gamete eggs

Or- Person born with the instructional DNA that should or could have, but may or may not have actually made a working uterus, cervix , and/or ovaries
(I will avoid typing that acronym)

 

[Joe Random]

This is one of those topics that, in principle, I support. In practice, however, we end up with situations like Alabama requiring counseling and invasive transvaginal imaging before a woman is allowed to have an abortion. While I would very much like it to be a fully equal approach... I'm a lot more hesitant about allowing men to have a voice over women's bodies.

I get the sentiment, I sincerely do. The problem is that when we collectively get to the 'making sausage' bit of actually writing laws I'm not comfortable with letting too much fall into the arbitrary realm of who we allow to have a voice. That way opens up the doors to even more abuse than we have now.

Take for a specific example abortion. I've had ... regrettable reactions to anti-abortion protesters when I was younger. An issue which would these days impact me not in the least is still something I have strong opinions about, opinions which actually favor women and which I have no reluctance in sharing when I see them being opposed. And take a look at this info from Pew about abortion rights : https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ According to that, about the same percentage of women oppose abortion across the board as men. So say we only let women vote on reproductive issues. Wouldn't change the results too terribly much, as the opinions seem far more based on religious or political affiliation.

If (extremely big 'if' here) a person genuinely felt that abortion was literally murder, then IMO it would be wrong to deny their voice when voting time came. And to flip it, roll time back to when slavery was legal. If any given person felt slavery was wrong, would it be appropriate to tell them 'well, you don't own slaves and never will, so your voice doesn't count?'. Not meaning to do the slavery version of a Godwin here.

Or a less weighty flipping, and not said to trivialize the actual issues at hand in the thread. Lets say men wanted to be able to jerk off in public for <insane reasons>. We won't put others in the 'splash zone', we just want to be able to vent in public so as to avoid all that damage some of us told our teen-aged girlfriends we'd suffer if they didn't let us finish. To say that only men could have a say in that would of course be insane.

Absolutely yes, the results of this sort of broader enfranchisement can and will result in bad (not using a mild term to downplay) results for people. And I do get the intellectual (if not the emotional) impact of being told what I can do with myself by someone who isn't like me. But, in my personal opinion only, it's the sort of sacrifice/compromise that simply has to happen to have a functioning society. Would that people were better than we are.

 

[Rolfe]

I feel you.

But I'll stick it out for a bit longer. Because the truth, however unfortunate, is that we can't make this case on our own. We need support from men. And there are several men in this thread who don't accept that sex is all made up, or that anyone who claims it can be a woman.

But I don't blame you for tapping out. I'm 100% certain that I'll need a break at some point too. I'll meet you in the ladies room!

I've basically had it with being "nice" and "kind". That's what got us into this. Men can't deal with gender nonconforming men, apparently can't keep them safe in men's spaces, so they want to lay the whole thing on women to deal with, with a slice of guilt on the side.

I've had it with acceding to the presence of any male over the age of about seven in women's single-sex spaces. If I genuinely can't tell that this person is male (yeah, like that happens) and they do nothing to arouse my suspicions, then what I don't know won't hurt me. But they better be extremely good. And preferably extremely shy. Because nobody born with a functional SRY gene and functioning androgen receptors has any right to be there.

The sweet, unassuming, post-op transsexuals were the thin end of the wedge. And look where that has got us. It's not possible to triage men into "real" transsexuals, fakes and wannabees, and normal men. Once you concede the camel's nose, you'll have the entire camel inside the tent. Allow the "friendly" more-or-less-sort-of-passes-in-a-bad-light-from-behind post-op transsexuals in and the rest of the trans crowd will be right behind them screaming about exclusionary policies and transphobia. If we can't challenge some of the people who look like men in dresses, we can't challenge any of the people who look like men in dresses. I'm not giving in on that one.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is one of those topics that, in principle, I support. In practice, however, we end up with situations like Alabama requiring counseling and invasive transvaginal imaging before a woman is allowed to have an abortion. While I would very much like it to be a fully equal approach... I'm a lot more hesitant about allowing men to have a voice over women's bodies.

Women support abortion restrictions in these states at similar rates to men, if not more so. Abortion restrictions aren't being forced onto women by Christian men, it's being forced on women by Christians generally, including local women.

 

[Joe Random]

Adding some probably ill-considered humor about "exploding vaginas" to hopefully take the edge out of some of the contentiousness .

TERF : why can't we say 'exploding women'?

trans-trender : stop erasing the validity of exploding LadyPenises, you bigot!

Colm Murphy : Why didn't I think of that ?!

Michael Bay : I thought of that ; why didn't I make a CGI-heavy film series out of it ?!

little old me : sounds like something from a poorly translated menu on engrish.com. Exploding vagina fermented rice (chicken or pork) -- 10.95

 

[d4m10n]

Even private organizations are constrained by law regarding the kinds of discrimination they can practice.

Not necessarily. I grew up down the road from Butler National Golf Club^WP in the Chicago metro, and to this day it remains exclusive to men.

 

[theprestige]

Not necessarily. I grew up down the road from Butler National Golf Club^WP in the Chicago metro, and to this day it remains exclusive to men.

And I firmly believe that women in our society should have a say in whether that continues to be allowed.

 

[Belz...]

Why, though? Whenever a private club (e.g. the YWCA) decides to change their eligibility requirements, only the people who are already eligible have a say.

So people who are not going to be affected by the change are making the decision for other people? Sounds like we're in agreement.

Women who want to retain single-sex spaces would benefit, if it stopped the men in dresses from constantly demanding access. (Except it wouldn't.) It would be a lot less expensive than converting everything to single-occupancy unisex provisions. (Which by the way would mean the end of the urinal and men having to queue for the loo in absolute equality with women. Now there's a thought.)

No, I mean who would benefit from the new accomodations, not the old ones.

Anyway, I thought nothing was too good for the straight white men who are also the most oppressed beings on the face of the planet?

What are you babbling about now?

You really have a chip on your shoulder about men, don't you?

 

[d4m10n]

So people who are not going to be affected by the change are making the decision for other people?

Why wouldn't existing members be affected?

 

[d4m10n]

And I firmly believe that women in our society should have a say in whether that continues to be allowed.

In the state legislature, of course.

Out of curiosity, would you advocate for a law which bars private clubs for men and women-only gyms?

 

[Belz...]

Why wouldn't existing members be affected?

Some of them won't for sure. Do you think they'll vote for a motion that'll exclude them?

 

[theprestige]

In the state legislature, of course.

Out of curiosity, would you advocate for a law which bars private clubs for men and women-only gyms?

Tell you what: Make your case, and if I disagree, I'll make my rebuttal. But this seems tangential to my point, so please make your case at least interesting even if it isn't actually relevant.

 

[d4m10n]

Make your case, and if I disagree, I'll make my rebuttal.

The case for which particular proposition?

 

[Roboramma]

In the state legislature, of course.

So you agree with theprestige.

Out of curiosity, would you advocate for a law which bars private clubs for men and women-only gyms?

This question seems pretty off-topic, and unrelated to anything anyone has said.

 

[d4m10n]

This question seems pretty off-topic, and unrelated to anything anyone has said.

Certainly I wouldn't be the first poster to point out that in the absence of public policy barring segregation by sex (e.g. most of the U.S.) private organizations and corporations will be making the decisions as to the disposition of existing sex-segregated spaces or leagues (see e.g. the original OP).

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Good luck. I've asked him three times to define "female" and he ignored me while answering my other points. He clearly doesn't think he can do it.

Apologies. I was intending to provide an answer to this, but it was a bit longer than the usual banter, and, well, I kinda forgot

I assume you're asking about this:

But biological sex is not a social aspect. How do you define "female" or "male", then?

The short answer is this: Biological sex is defined largely the way it always has been. Chromosomes and DNA, etc etc.

The longer answer is that I see this as almost begging the question. I don't think there's good reason to treat biological sex as a useful variable for ordering our society.

The prior underlying assumption is that the biological fact of sex correlates neatly with gender is obviously incorrect. Gender roles and gender presentation, be it through general behavior or sexuality, do not neatly follow the clear cut lines of biological fact. History is littered with the victims of societies trying to force a uniformity between gender and sex, and I see no good reason to continue this barbaric practice.

Looking aside from the trans issue, we see plenty of examples where the sex=gender paradigm is being eroded. Homosexuality is becoming less taboo in civilized parts of the world. The enforcement of certain gender roles (assertive, wage earning men vs. nurturing, home-keeping women) is weakening, which is a good thing. In the absence of a top down enforced gender orthodoxy, the lines start to become very fuzzy.

We are finding, more and more, that the social definition of gender is much more nuanced and ambiguous than the straight cut lines of sex.

I see no reason why, outside of strictly clinical circumstances, that sex should be a characteristic that we use to order our society, and doing so while ignoring the complexity of gender is willful bigotry.

While there are very specific issues that have no clear answers, such as how to deal with intrinsic athletic advantages/disadvantages, or how to formalize a gender change for access to gender segregated facilities, I don't see this issues as good reason to deny the validity of trans existence.

Squeegee makes a good point here. I don't think any useful conversation is really possible so long as we have to work through the TERF gish gallop of inflammatory panic mongering about the trans menace. The attempts to smear trans inclusion as some male conspiracy perpetrated against women is patently absurd.

I'm not interested in honest, open debate when there are clearly members here who think trans people are just mentally ill sex-perverts.

 

[Belz...]

Apologies. I was intending to provide an answer to this, but it was a bit longer than the usual banter, and, well, I kinda forgot

I should apologise as well. I assumed wrong.

The longer answer is that I see this as almost begging the question. I don't think there's good reason to treat biological sex as a useful variable for ordering our society.

Fair enough. However the distinction between man and male, and woman and female, still exists. Even if they are not useful for ordering society, if I talk about human males or human females, they are more clearly defined than, say, man and woman. Would you agree?

The prior underlying assumption is that the biological fact of sex correlates neatly with gender is obviously incorrect. Gender roles and gender presentation, be it through general behavior or sexuality, do not neatly follow the clear cut lines of biological fact. (snip)

Looking aside from the trans issue, we see plenty of examples where the sex=gender paradigm is being eroded. Homosexuality is becoming less taboo in civilized parts of the world. The enforcement of certain gender roles (assertive, wage earning men vs. nurturing, home-keeping women) is weakening, which is a good thing.

But is "gender" the sum total of gender roles and presentation, and sexual orientation? It's not how I understood it, no matter who tried to define it.

I see no reason why, outside of strictly clinical circumstances, that sex should be a characteristic that we use to order our society, and doing so while ignoring the complexity of gender is willful bigotry.

Not necessarily. Assuming you agree with me about sex as I outlined above, there are biological and physiological and chemical differences between the sexes that affect one's requirements and behaviour, in a way that will impact your social interactions, etc. Should that not be taken into consideration?

While there are very specific issues that have no clear answers, such as how to deal with intrinsic athletic advantages/disadvantages, or how to formalize a gender change for access to gender segregated facilities, I don't see this issues as good reason to deny the validity of trans existence.

I still don't see anyone denying that validity. The entire argument is about the nature of that existence, and the solutions to these specific issues and edge cases.

 

[Ziggurat]

Only a tiny fraction of people calling themselves transwomen go for "full surgical transition".

I have no idea what the fraction is. You might be right that it's a tiny minority. And when I said that some transwomen should be admitted to women's shelters, maybe that number is a tiny fraction of transwomen. I didn't specify, because I don't know exactly what fraction it should be. My point was simply that it probably shouldn't be zero.

There's a madness around where people on a so-called sceptics forum declare that biological sex isn't real, that feelings in a man's head make him biologically female, and that if you just reduce testosterone a wee bit, temporarily, it's fine to let Novak Djokovic play in the Ladies' Singles. It won't last, and by the end of it women are going to be more protective of their spaces, not less.

I hope you recognize that none of this describes me.

 

[theprestige]

The case for which particular proposition?

Any one you like.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

FWIW: https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/5/13/17938114/transgender-people-transitioning-surgery-medical

The 2011 National Transgender Discrimination Survey found 61 percent of trans and gender nonconforming respondents reported having medically transitioned, and 33 percent said they had surgically transitioned. About 14 percent of trans women and 72 percent of trans men said they don’t ever want full genital construction surgery.