Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Manger Douse]

She just happens to have some anger issues

Like Fallon Fox

 

[theprestige]

I just wanted to make my position clear, some replies were assuming I was on one particular side or the other, i'm not.

If you are putting my position at a third extreme, I don't get it unless the bell curve is a pair of tits curve and I'm at the cleavage?

The way I see it, there are two extremes:

Treat transsexuals according to their preferred gender, everywhere, all the time. Gender-segregated spaces? Yes. Gender-segregated sports? Yes. Gender-segregated anything? Very yes. All the time, everywhere, full stop.

OR

Treat transsexuals according to their biological gender, everywhere, all the time. Basically the opposite of the above extreme.


Your position is, "if they want to be treated as such then i'm perfectly fine with that". To me, that seems like the first extreme. There's no nuance, no compromise, no qualifications or exceptions. When it comes to women's locker rooms, you offer no compromise at all.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

I fully support unisex/inclusive restrooms and such - for non-binary, genderqueer, and everybody else who doesn't easily fit into a gender binary. But it would be discrimination to force us to use it, because we are women, period.

Who exactly is "we"? Anyone who says they are a woman? You didn't seem to like that answer when it came to someone playing the system for better car insurance. In fact, you thought they should be criminally prosecuted, even though they committed no crime. So what's the standard? Who qualifies as a woman, and who doesn't?

 

[Boudicca90]

Who exactly is "we"? Anyone who says they are a woman? You didn't seem to like that answer when it came to someone playing the system for better car insurance. In fact, you thought they should be criminally prosecuted, even though they committed no crime. So what's the standard? Who qualifies as a woman, and who doesn't?

In my case I had to sign a court order stating I am the gender I say I am when I got my name and gender changed, I figured there would be some penalty for lying about that in my case and therefore others.

A woman is anybody who states they are a woman and have at least begun the steps to legally change their gender (it can take a while.) There are people who fit elsewhere on the gender spectrum that are not strictly male or female and for them, I say whatever best fits their presentation.

 

[Meadmaker]

I fully support unisex/inclusive restrooms and such - for non-binary, genderqueer, and everybody else who doesn't easily fit into a gender binary. But it would be discrimination to force us to use it, because we are women, period. But we are just a very small number of people, so as you say, our concerns can be ignored without upsetting you. Clearly it's okay to discriminate against people if their numbers are too small to effectively fight back against it.

And as far as men, i'm talking about transphobic men, whos transphobia stems from those issues and are a threat to me and my safety.

The word "discriminate" is sort of a pet issue with me. It's another one of those words that is used to mean "It's something bad one group does to another." That isn't what it means at all, though. It means to separate, or to draw a distinction. And yes, I do draw distinctions between men and women. And I do draw distinctions between transwomen and ciswomen. I do so based on anatomy, and I don't intend to stop doing it. It isn't a case of the numbers being too small, though. It's a case of whether I think the discriminant, i.e. the manner of separation into groups, is relevant and purposeful, and I do believe that discriminating between biological males and biological females is relevant and purposeful.

One of the things that is so common in our world today is people just think that if they can pull out the right label, it wins an argument automatically. Saying "discriminate" is one of those labels. You accuse me of discriminating and roll your (emoji) eyes, and think that's a substitute for an argument, but it isn't. Yes, I am discriminating. On purpose. Now, if you want me to stop, please explain why I ought to stop.

Some stupid people sometimes jump in at this point and say, "So, you must think it's ok to say black people and white people can't get married, since it's ok to discriminate." That's a fallacious argument. More than that, it's just stupid, so I would appreciate it if no one did that. It gets tedious explaining it, especially to people who I'm sure are not interested in actually understanding an argument, and are only capable of parroting the appropriate talking points.

As for "we are women, period." I get that you believe that, but I'm not going to change what I have been saying for three continuations of thread just because it is asserted again, this time by a transwoman. In order for me to decide whether transwomen are women, period or otherwise, I have to have a definition of "woman". I have one definition of woman, but it excludes transwomen. To return to a theme that comes up again and again and again, all the definitions I have seen that include transwomen are circular. The simplest variant is "Identifies as a woman" or, slightly more complicated, "Identifies as female." It gets longer from there, but they all seem equivalent to me. Those are circular, so I don't know what they mean.

I'm willing to treat transwomen as women in many circumstances, but not all, because "period", well, another sense of that word is in fact what distinguishes, i.e. discriminates, between men and women, and it's closely related to why this stuff actually matters. If you think I should expand the range of circumstances where I treat transwomen as women, by all means put forth an argument. Mere assertion, though, isn't persuasive. Nor is any argument based on "I feel" or "I want".

And as far as men, i'm talking about transphobic men, whos transphobia stems from those issues and are a threat to me and my safety.

Definitions again. I don't know exactly what you mean by transphobic, but a lot of people call me transphobic. Maybe you include me in that group. You know what I believe. I can tell you that my beliefs regarding transgender people don't stem from perceiving any threat to "those issues" , i.e. threats to masculinity or heterosexuality, and I am no threat to your safety. I'm not sure if I could be a threat to "you" if I'm not a threat to "your safety", but here we are at definitions again. I don't want to put words in your mouth, though. If you want to try to explain who is and isn't a threat to you and/or your safety, I will try and understand your position. Mere assertion though will not increase my comprehension level.

 

[p0lka]

The way I see it, there are two extremes:

Treat transsexuals according to their preferred gender, everywhere, all the time. Gender-segregated spaces? Yes. Gender-segregated sports? Yes. Gender-segregated anything? Very yes. All the time, everywhere, full stop.

OR

Treat transsexuals according to their biological gender, everywhere, all the time. Basically the opposite of the above extreme.


Your position is, "if they want to be treated as such then i'm perfectly fine with that". To me, that seems like the first extreme. There's no nuance, no compromise, no qualifications or exceptions. When it comes to women's locker rooms, you offer no compromise at all.

Or so it seems to me.

ah that makes sense.
I was thinking of the two extremes in slightly different terms, for example the OP,
transwomen are not women and should be treated as not women,
or
transwomen are women and should be treated as women.

they are the two extremes.

My position is transwomen are not women, but I will treat them as women if they want, that position I would put between both extremes.

Oh, I should probably add the word 'generally' in between 'I will' and 'treat', again my position is between the two extremes.

 

[Ziggurat]

In my case I had to sign a court order stating I am the gender I say I am when I got my name and gender changed, I figured there would be some penalty for lying about that in my case and therefore others.

There is no penalty for lying, because there is no mechanism or standard to determine that you lied. Anyone can say that, and no one can say otherwise.

A woman is anybody who states they are a woman and have at least begun the steps to legally change their gender (it can take a while.)

The guy you want imprisoned did that. I don’t think you are actually satisfied with that standard. I’m certainly not.

I believe Jessica Yaniv did the necessary legal steps too. Should Yaniv be allowed to force women to wax her lady testicles or lose their business?

 

[The Atheist]

I fully support unisex/inclusive restrooms and such - for non-binary, genderqueer, and everybody else who doesn't easily fit into a gender binary.

Apologies in advance if you've already answered these questions, but I'm not keeping up with the thread lately as I'm a bit busy.

That's the move I favour - a third set, as in Samoa's third gender.

But it would be discrimination to force us to use it,...

Define how think you'd be forced to use it any more than a man is forced to use the men's. It's simple cultural norm as far as I can see.

... because we are women, period.

That's the nub of the issue - as the thread title says - and it was me that started the original thread.

Please keep in mind that I:

1 - have acted as an advocate for trans in the workplace, delivering anti-discrimination and positive discrimination programs.
2 - am pansexual and have had two trans girlfriends in the past. (not at the same time!)
3 - have trans of both M->F and F->M as frequent guests in my home as my daughter is friends with one of each in friendships that go back to early childhood.
4 - am married to a woman who is a lifelong feminist, so I'm pretty well up on women from any angle you like.

I like the way you either deliberately or Freudianly state "We are women, period." because the last word is a pretty sharp divider between women and trans women. Trans men can stop having periods, but trans women cannot start having them and it's a constant reminder for women that they are, in fact, women.

No matter how womanly you feel - and I'm not disputing any of that - you will never have that one thing. You also won't ever have to undergo the awful procedure euphemistically referred to as a Pap smear, and you will never need to worry about having to have a hysterectomy.

Why do you think it's so important to be accepted as women? You gain nothing by it and it seems to be trans women have picked an unwinnable fight for no good reason. I don't know whether you know anything about Samoa's third gender, the fa'afafine, and they insist that they're neither women n or men, but their own gender - different from the two main ones, and with elements of either or both as they prefer.

What's wrong with that?

And as far as men, i'm talking about transphobic men, whos transphobia stems from those issues and are a threat to me and my safety.

If you acknowledge them as a threat, can you see why women see "pretend" trans women as a threat also?

 

[theprestige]

That's your personal compromise, not a compromise position for public policy. So it solves your personal problem, but doesn't actually address the policy problem we're discussing.

Let's ignore your personal preference. What's your public policy compromise?

 

[d4m10n]

But it would be discrimination to force us to use it, because we are women, period.

No

This has been asked before, but what definition of "women" are we dealing with here which encompasses my butch lesbian neighbors and my femme transwomen friends? It is a social category based on intersubjective consensus? An entirely subjective and personal feeling of femininity?

A woman is anybody who states they are a woman...

In a spreadsheet or a computer program this sort of blatant recursion would just error out.

 

[Boudicca90]

Apologies in advance if you've already answered these questions, but I'm not keeping up with the thread lately as I'm a bit busy.

That's the move I favour - a third set, as in Samoa's third gender.



Define how think you'd be forced to use it any more than a man is forced to use the men's. It's simple cultural norm as far as I can see.



That's the nub of the issue - as the thread title says - and it was me that started the original thread.

Please keep in mind that I:

1 - have acted as an advocate for trans in the workplace, delivering anti-discrimination and positive discrimination programs.
2 - am pansexual and have had two trans girlfriends in the past. (not at the same time!)
3 - have trans of both M->F and F->M as frequent guests in my home as my daughter is friends with one of each in friendships that go back to early childhood.
4 - am married to a woman who is a lifelong feminist, so I'm pretty well up on women from any angle you like.

I like the way you either deliberately or Freudianly state "We are women, period." because the last word is a pretty sharp divider between women and trans women. Trans men can stop having periods, but trans women cannot start having them and it's a constant reminder for women that they are, in fact, women.

No matter how womanly you feel - and I'm not disputing any of that - you will never have that one thing. You also won't ever have to undergo the awful procedure euphemistically referred to as a Pap smear, and you will never need to worry about having to have a hysterectomy.

Why do you think it's so important to be accepted as women? You gain nothing by it and it seems to be trans women have picked an unwinnable fight for no good reason. I don't know whether you know anything about Samoa's third gender, the fa'afafine, and they insist that they're neither women n or men, but their own gender - different from the two main ones, and with elements of either or both as they prefer.

What's wrong with that?



If you acknowledge them as a threat, can you see why women see "pretend" trans women as a threat also?

I mean we are women, not men who think we are women or men pretending to be women, our gender is female. Thee are biological differences between us and ciswomen, but we are women just the same and should be legally considered as such with exception only when justified. Jessica Yaniv's demand that she be waxed when she still had a penis is a good example of an unreasonable one.

And it is very important for me and transgender people in general to be accepted as the gender we are. That means socially and legally. I don't consider myself any kind of third gender so I wouldn't support putting us in some separate category.

 

[The Atheist]

I mean we are women, not men who think we are women or men pretending to be women, our gender is female. Thee are biological differences between us and ciswomen, but we are women just the same and should be legally considered as such with exception only when justified. Jessica Yaniv's demand that she be waxed when she still had a penis is a good example of an unreasonable one.

Then you've bitten off more than you can chew, I'd say.

Women aren't going to give up without a fight and there a few more of them than you, bringing immense political power to the scrap.

Good luck and all that, but your very good extreme example should be a reminder of why the fight will be both difficult and dirty - every one of those cases weakens your case and they will be highlighted every time.

 

[Ziggurat]

I mean we are women, not men who think we are women or men pretending to be women, our gender is female. Thee are biological differences between us and ciswomen, but we are women just the same and should be legally considered as such with exception only when justified.

But that is precisely what this fight is about. People don’t agree on what exceptions are justified, and under what conditions.

 

[Boudicca90]

Then you've bitten off more than you can chew, I'd say.

Women aren't going to give up without a fight and there a few more of them than you, bringing immense political power to the scrap.

Good luck and all that, but your very good extreme example should be a reminder of why the fight will be both difficult and dirty - every one of those cases weakens your case and they will be highlighted every time.

None of my views are extreme in the trans community, all my transgender friends say the same thing as far as wanting legal and social acceptance.

Women aren't giving up anything in the first place, the table is big enough for all of us. I do question your "allyship" since you seem to view this as a battle between cisgender and transgender women when it's a battle between bigoted cisgender women and transgender women with our cisgender allies. To use a question I hear often from the other side: Why should our rights be infringed just because a few people feel uncomfortable?

 

[cullennz]

None of my views are extreme in the trans community, all my transgender friends say the same thing as far as wanting legal and social acceptance.



Women aren't giving up anything in the first place, the table is big enough for all of us. I do question your "allyship" since you seem to view this as a battle between cisgender and transgender women when it's a battle between bigoted cisgender women and transgender women with our cisgender allies. To use a question I hear often from the other side: Why should our rights be infringed just because a few people feel uncomfortable?

Yes they are in sport.

Their earning potential.

Because in most professional sports women will always lose to someone who CHOSES TO COMPETE IN PROFESSIONAL SPORT as a trans woman

 

[The Atheist]

None of my views are extreme in the trans community, all my transgender friends say the same thing as far as wanting legal and social acceptance.

NZ, having the largest population of Samoans in the world, tends to have a more fa'afafine outlook, so that's why I don't see that here so much.

Women aren't giving up anything in the first place, the table is big enough for all of us.

That's not correct - women are giving something up: the right to get changed without penises being in the same room. They're being told to open their rooms to anyone who claims to be a woman, regardless of their genital, surgical, medical or psychological history.

I do question your "allyship" since you seem to view this as a battle between cisgender and transgender women when it's a battle between bigoted cisgender women and transgender women with our cisgender allies.

Nope, and it may be the way I put it, but I think trans have chosen the battle - I'm just saying what I see. Women have been putting up with male privilege for millennia and I can see they feel this is just another round in that battle, so I don't agree with your assessment that any bigotry is needed. There are definitely bigots, but they are a minority.

To use a question I hear often from the other side: Why should our rights be infringed just because a few people feel uncomfortable?

Unfortunately, it looks like one of those cases where no answer will satisfy everyone, so I'll stick with the majority holding sway. If that means some trans women are upset, c'est la vie.

 

[Meadmaker]

Why should our rights be infringed just because a few people feel uncomfortable?

I can take a stab at that question.

I will ignore the assertion of "rights" because that can go on forever. See the religion and philosophy section. However, I think a shorthand on that is that if you wish to do something, and someone won't allow you to do it, then your rights are being infringed.

So, a transwoman wants to use the women's locker room. Some cis-women want to use the women's locker room, but they want it to not have anyone of the male sex in it. Not everyone can be happy. How do we choose.

There's no blanket rule that lets you decide all of these conflict or rights cases but there are two rules of thumb that I tend to use.

1) How many people are impacted? In general, if is better to deny rights to a few rather than to many.
2) How severe is the impact?
3) Is the complaint "legitimate"? Do I take one side's issues more seriously than the other?

So, on point 1, I believe that more than "a few" would be made uncomfortable. If you could convince me it is only a few, I would be less inclined to support cis-women who favor segregation based on sex.

On points 2 and 3, things get complicated. I will be brief, and if it is too brief to understand, we can explore in greater depth later.

Basically, I would say that i take very seriously access to facilities and the right to privacy, in this case being free of the male gaze when disrobed. A separate changing room available to transgenders solves both problems, so that is why transgenders ought to accept that solution.

The calculation changes for locker rooms where no separate facility exists, or for public bathrooms. In such cases, I would be more willing to compromise.

Basically, there's no good reason for transwomen to get bent out of shape about being asked to keep clothing on around cis-women, as long as there is a reasonable way to access the functional facilities (i.e. gym, pool, etc). The best way to come closest to preserving everyone's rights is to provide a separate changing room for transgenders. (Or a unisex facility, but with all the caveats previously discussed.)


Note: At this point, stupid people frequently make bad analogies to situations that are not comparable. Often they use the phrase "separate but equal". Please don't. It's tedious, and proves the writer doesn't understand the origin of the phrase anyway.)

 

[JihadJane]

I mean we are women, not men who think we are women or men pretending to be women, our gender is female. Thee are biological differences between us and ciswomen, but we are women just the same and should be legally considered as such with exception only when justified. Jessica Yaniv's demand that she be waxed when she still had a penis is a good example of an unreasonable one.

And it is very important for me and transgender people in general to be accepted as the gender we are. That means socially and legally. I don't consider myself any kind of third gender so I wouldn't support putting us in some separate category.

This is delusional nonsense! The categories male and female are sex categories, not gender categories. Your feelings do not change fundamental biological reality. Replacing sex with gender as the marker that differentiates between men and women undermines all of women's sex-based rights and protections. You haven't expressed a single iota of concern about this (instead, you call them "sore losers"), so we can presume you don't care about women at all, that class of human you claim to belong to.

Only men can be transwomen. Like the lovely hero of Canadian trans rights, above, 80%+ of the transwomen demanding the right to share intimate spaces with teenage girls have penises.

 

[caveman1917]

It seems like you view gender as something society puts on you rather than something that is inherent to a person. I developed the same way socially despite societal pressure to conform to "male" traits and expectations.

I see gender as who you are, not what society tells you you are. There are a lot of biologically-female aspects of life that I missed out on, having lived the first 30 years of my life as a man. But that doesn't mean I WAS a man during that time.

And for TERFs, i'm talking people who try to couch their hatred to us in their brand of outdated feminism. They are gender essentialists who will never see us as the gender we are due to their own sexism. They use their hatred and mistrust of men and project it onto us women, because we are all the same to them.

Seems like you are the gender essentialist here.

 

[Boudicca90]

Seems like you are the gender essentialist here.

Gender is biopsychosocial in nature. It is not entirely biological or something society puts on you, but rather a feedback loop where your biology influences your psychology and how you react and interact with society, which then influences your biology through brain development and epigenetics.

At least that is my theory, we are still learning about and studying the intricacies of gender so that may change with new research.