Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Rolfe]

Just in case it matters, I want to say that without your writings, I doubt I would have known about it, and even though other people use the word "discredited" a lot when talking about it. I even went and checked Amazon to see if there are authors who cater to this "discredited" group. I'm pretty sure no one would be writing those books if no one were reading them.

So, you have done your part to put the "E" in JREF, and later in ISF.

The trans lobby is very good at creating the body of literature it wants, to present its own view of the universe as valid and any opposing view as "discredited". This being so, it's very easy for posters here with an agenda to rustle up a few links and scream "discredited!" about anything they don't like. They're so vehement and so blinkered about this that it's hardly worth debating with them.

Nevertheless it's undeniable to anyone who has actually observed human behaviour that autogynaephilia is a thing. It's a complex mental condition which unfortunately carries a lot of shame and embarrassment with it. I mean, just look at the literature, from the Lumberjack Song to the Rocky Horror Show. Thus the fact that there's a lot of denial about isn't surprising. The innumerable accounts by the wives of these men, describing an almost cookie-cutter series of events, are also striking. As is the testimony of men who are not in denial and acknowledge the category as describing them.

However, it appears that autogynaephilia itself is indeed immutable, and presents as part of the man's sexual make-up from puberty. Part of the presentation appears to be denial and concealment and possibly over-compensation, until in at least a proportion of individuals the compulsion is too strong and they "come out". At least in the past this has often been in later life. I understand some work is being done into how to manage being an autogynaephile without breaking up your marriage and becoming a figure of fun, but as with all of these situations, the person has to want to take that route.

I merely present the phenomenon of the late-transitioning man, who could have transitioned at any time if the politically-correct lie about the "authentic self" was actually true, as apparent evidence of the mutability of gender identity. If you reject the explanation of the typical progression of autogynaephilia at first repressed and over-compensated-for but eventually becoming so compelling that the man begins to wear his feminine clothes and present as female in public, then it looks as if gender identity is something that can come on in middle age,

 

[Belz...]

ETA: Also, if you recollect, my personal experience was in response to you having dismissed actual statistics because they 'set off alarm bells' for you...

I dismissed the precise numbers cited, not the idea that a large number of women have been sexually abused or assaulted. I'm very well aware of that. My point is that if you ask 100 people and 40 tell you that, yes, they've had that experience, you can't extrapolate it to the whole population, just like I can't say that, if my poll gets 2 out of 100, it applies to anything but that group. You need a much wider and more randomised sample.

My issue with the statistics is that the last time I heard the 1-in-3 (or 1-in-4, depending on who you ask) stat, it was for college campuses, and the way the cases were tallied involved quite a bit of cheating; including as I mentioned 'regretting sex after the fact' as 'rape'. That's why I'm being cautious.

 

[Rolfe]

On the other hand women are remarking that if you drill down into the experiences of many women you find incidents which were indisputably sexual assault, but which, because little trauma was involved, the women themselves wouldn't immediately volunteer if asked "have you ever been sexually assaulted". We need better-defined terms on all sides here.

Also we need to check if reading a tweet that refers to Jonathan Jessica Yaniv as "he" is counted as being the victim of a hate crime.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, I admit I forgot to take into account the fact that we can't discuss the real problem because some of the people who claim to have the real problem are fakers.

I don't think that recognizing that it's not immutable is the same thing as saying it's fake. Lots of anxiety and depression is not immutable - it will go away at some point. That doesn't mean it's fake though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

On the other hand women are remarking that if you drill down into the experiences of many women you find incidents which were indisputably sexual assault, but which, because little trauma was involved, the women themselves wouldn't immediately volunteer if asked "have you ever been sexually assaulted". We need better-defined terms on all sides here.

I think it's also influenced by the fact that it's so common for women to experience, that we don't necessarily rank it among the "worst" experiences. Most of us know someone who has experienced something much worse, compared to which our experiences simply pale and aren't worth mentioning.

I think that if most of those relatively minor events that women experience fairly regularly were to happen to a man, it would be much more noteworthy for them. Even if they're not traumatic, they'd stand out as being very uncommon.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think that recognizing that it's not immutable is the same thing as saying it's fake. Lots of anxiety and depression is not immutable - it will go away at some point. That doesn't mean it's fake though.

Many desistors talk about real distress when the people who supported them while they were identifying as trans then turn on them and call them fakes when they decide to detransition. They didn't think they were faking anything at the time.

There's also real confusion. People confronting their therapists saying, but you assured me I was trans at the time and I believed you. You said I met all the criteria. You opened every door for me. How can you now say I was never trans? What is "being trans" if it isn't sincerely believing you're trans, and I most certainly sincerely believed it at the time.

 

[Belz...]

On the other hand women are remarking that if you drill down into the experiences of many women you find incidents which were indisputably sexual assault, but which, because little trauma was involved, the women themselves wouldn't immediately volunteer if asked "have you ever been sexually assaulted".

Like what, for instance?

 

[Rolfe]

I think it's also influenced by the fact that it's so common for women to experience, that we don't necessarily rank it among the "worst" experiences. Most of us know someone who has experienced something much worse, compared to which our experiences simply pale and aren't worth mentioning.

I think that if most of those relatively minor events that women experience fairly regularly were to happen to a man, it would be much more noteworthy for them. Even if they're not traumatic, they'd stand out as being very uncommon.

I have not yet encountered a single woman who has said, no nothing like that has ever happened to me, when I asked them about these less serious "touching-up" incidents.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Maybe that question is at the root of the issue, but it's already been answered. I'm pretty sure that even Rolfe has stipulated that it's an immutable characteristic worth protecting. We've moved on to the following questions: What is the nature of this experience, and what protections make the most sense?

I get that it's easier to argue over stuff that's already agreed.

It's obviously not immutable.

:

 

[Emily's Cat]

Like what, for instance?

Like... having a guy pin you in a corner at a party and repeatedly try to kiss you (and possibly succeed) even when you've made it clear you're not interested.

Like... having a stranger cop a feel of your butt in a crowd.

Like... having a guy you only barely know put his arm around your waist a bit lower than it ought to be and pull in toward him at a social function, as if he were a significant other.

Like... having a guy "hug" you much more personally than you want, making sure your boobs are pushed up against his chest, and making sure his crotch is pressed against you.

Like... having a stranger stroke his crotch while leering at you in a public place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think you're doing Rolfe a bit of a disservice here. She did say it wasn't immutable, she didn't say it wasn't worth protecting. Her post, which you snipped, contained a fair bit of expressed sympathy for the distress involved, and she clearly recognizes it as a real thing that some people experience.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think you're doing Rolfe a bit of a disservice here. She did say it wasn't immutable, she didn't say it wasn't worth protecting. Her post, which you snipped, contained a fair bit of expressed sympathy for the distress involved, and she clearly recognizes it as a real thing that some people experience.

???

I quoted the entirety of that post

 

[Belz...]

Like... having a guy pin you in a corner at a party and repeatedly try to kiss you (and possibly succeed) even when you've made it clear you're not interested.

I'd definitely call that harrassment at the very least.

Like... having a stranger cop a feel of your butt in a crowd.

Definitely assault.

Like... having a guy you only barely know put his arm around your waist a bit lower than it ought to be and pull in toward him at a social function, as if he were a significant other.

I'm not sure that one qualifies, but it sure is inappropriate.

Like... having a guy "hug" you much more personally than you want, making sure your boobs are pushed up against his chest, and making sure his crotch is pressed against you.

Like... having a stranger stroke his crotch while leering at you in a public place.

Again, agreed.

But, would women not normally think of these as assaults or harrassment? It's the dichotomy that I'm wondering about. Maybe it's a difference in cultures here.

 

[Rolfe]

I think you're doing Rolfe a bit of a disservice here. She did say it wasn't immutable, she didn't say it wasn't worth protecting. Her post, which you snipped, contained a fair bit of expressed sympathy for the distress involved, and she clearly recognizes it as a real thing that some people experience.

I'm not even sure about the "worth protecting" part. I'm against anyone being bullied or discriminated against for any reason at all. I don't think anyone should be mocked, laughed at, pilloried or beaten up, even if they do look like an absolute chookie in a mini-skirt and high heels. I'm outraged. But am I particularly outraged because the person is trans, in the way I would be outraged if the attack was a racist one? No, I don't think so.

And if "protecting" then develops into giving people carte blanche to trample over the rights of another disadvantaged group, then no, I'm not in favour at all. I support the right of gender nonconforming people of both sexes to have absolutely all the human rights proper to their biological sex, including the right not to be bullied or harrassed or assaulted or discriminated against in any way. But then I support these rights for everyone.

 

[Rolfe]

But, would women not normally think of these as assaults or harrassment? It's the dichotomy that I'm wondering about. Maybe it's a difference in cultures here.

I don't think it's cultural, I think it's a question of perception. I think most if not all women would regard these incidents as harrassment. I think many might not automatically categorise them as sexual assault, within the meaning of the act. We're kind of used to it, to having to protect ourselves from this, to extricating ourselves from the situation with dignity and, God help us, doing it without making a scene that would embarrass everyone and possibly lead to an escalation of the situation.

But sexual assault is what that is. (Dammit, one of the charges in the ALex Salmond trial was an allegation that he put his hand on the knee of a woman sitting next to him in the back seat of a car. Another was that he put his hand on the back of a woman who was climbing a staircase in front of him. I think another involved an arm around a shoulder.)

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think that recognizing that it's not immutable is the same thing as saying it's fake. Lots of anxiety and depression is not immutable - it will go away at some point. That doesn't mean it's fake though.

Same with some physical handicaps. Immutability isn't a prerequisite for accommodation. And some immutable characteristics cannot be accommodated. We don't give good people drivers licenses. That is discrimination. But it's justified.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think it's cultural, I think it's a question of perception. I think most if not all women would regard these incidents as harrassment.

I worded that wrong perhaps. What I mean is that from my experience most of the women I know would make their displeasure known immediately, and there would be no ifs or buts about it. But I come from Québec, which is not the US or, say, Australia or Japan. So not only can the reaction be different, but the interpretation and the likelihood that a man would engage in such acts may be different as well.

I think many might not automatically categorise them as sexual assault, within the meaning of the act. We're kind of used to it, to having to protect ourselves from this, to extricating ourselves from the situation with dignity and, God help us, doing it without making a scene that would embarrass everyone and possibly lead to an escalation of the situation.

To a degree men have to deal with some stuff of this nature as well, but the power dynamic may be different. When sexually-charged acts come from women and its unwelcome, however, it's not necessarily a good idea to speak out either.

 

[d4m10n]

We don't give good people drivers licenses.

I'm assuming you meant "blind people" but I've been to DMVs where the above felt true.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm assuming you meant "blind people" but I've been to DMVs where the above felt true.

Yes. God damn phone typing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm pretty sure that, in the UK, under self ID laws, that wouldn't be acceptable.

Then you are wrong.

For a start, the Equality Act of 2010 already means that trans people have the right to access single-sex services without a gender recognition certificate, or any medical intervention - which means self-assessment. The women who run the shelters say that any law requiring that kind of thing wouldn't change how they operate anyway, because they simply don't ask.

The same act allows them to turn away any trans person for any reason, as long as it's not a disproportionate action and it has a legitimate aim. Exactly what those terms mean is up in the air because they have never been tested.