Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[d4m10n]

Thats bullying - creating an actual hostile environment - on top of being incorrect. People not playing pretend with grown ass adults by using incongruent pronouns while not bullying them should be cool.

Honestly I don't think a typical HR dept. would see this as a distinction worth a difference in outcomes. Consistently misgendering someone (whatever their sex and gender) would likely be seen as hostile.

Maya Forstater did not 'misgender' anyone at work though.

I wasn't addressing her case though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So I have to ask, how do you want others to refer to you? How do you want your "honorific" characterized... by gender or not.

I guess what am asking is, do you think we ought to drop honorifics altogether - no more Mr or Mrs or Miss...so you would never be known as Mrs E. Cat, or Miss E. Cat or Ms E. Cat - just E.Cat? Is there any necessity to know what a person's gender is? Does it matter if Dr. Jamie Smith is a man or a woman? (note: I don't think it does except in certain circumstances).

ETA: Please note, I'm not trying to take the mickey here, these are genuine questions.

I don't care about what honorific people use. I like the idea of honorifics, as a sign of respect for expertise, and I kind of wish there were a bit more formality in the business world. I don't really have any hangups about whether someone uses Ms or Mz or Miss or Mrs They're all fine. Technically, it should be "Fellow Cat", but that always seems awkward.

I would very, very much like for it NOT to matter whether a given person is a male or a female. Just as I would like it to NOT matter whether a person is black or white. Unfortunately, we're not there yet.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think we need to be clear here about the distinction between 'trans people' and transgender activists (the fundamentalists, who are the only ones who generally get heard), not all of whom are transgender.

Activists are pushing an ideology that the concept of biological sex is either socially constructed or meaningless, and should be replaced with the concept of self-declared gender identity. Ultimately this would lead to the abolition of biological sex as a protected characteristic, since it is redundant, and hence the elimination of sex-based legal protections. This is what critics of gender identity ideology are opposing.

Transgender people are just an excuse for those pushing this ideology. By re-framing criticism of gender identity ideology as attacks on transgender people themselves, it is possible to cow most critics into silence and push this ideology without having any argument, logic, evidence or being willing to engage in debate. Not all transgender people agree with gender identity ideology, and they are not exempted from bullying and silencing tactics employed by the trans cult.

That's very true, and an excellent point.

It's a tough distinction to make. I am very supportive of transgender people having access to needed services and support, and being treated with dignity.

But I am very much against the ideological insistence that sex isn't real, and the devaluation of the entire word "woman". It has broad ramifications for women, and they're not good ones.

 

[The Atheist]

I've missed a few pages, but I just wanted to thank you for a hearty morning laugh:

... Or sue gynecologists for discrimination when they refuse to give her an appointment for a screening of an organ she doesn't possess?

The image immediately sprung to mind of a trans woman demanding a pap smear.

 

[theprestige]

I've missed a few pages, but I just wanted to thank you for a hearty morning laugh:



The image immediately sprung to mind of a trans woman demanding a pap smear.

We've already discussed the pregnant woman who had an adverse medical outcome because she told the hospital she was a man and they triaged her on that basis.

 

[Paul2]

I think we need to be clear here about the distinction between 'trans people' and transgender activists (the fundamentalists, who are the only ones who generally get heard), not all of whom are transgender.

Activists are pushing an ideology that the concept of biological sex is either socially constructed or meaningless, and should be replaced with the concept of self-declared gender identity. Ultimately this would lead to the abolition of biological sex as a protected characteristic, since it is redundant, and hence the elimination of sex-based legal protections. This is what critics of gender identity ideology are opposing.

Transgender people are just an excuse for those pushing this ideology. By re-framing criticism of gender identity ideology as attacks on transgender people themselves, it is possible to cow most critics into silence and push this ideology without having any argument, logic, evidence or being willing to engage in debate. Not all transgender people agree with gender identity ideology, and they are not exempted from bullying and silencing tactics employed by the trans cult.

Ninja'ed, but I'll add my praise to the distinction you made between the ideologues and trans folk themselves (admitting overlap).

 

[lionking]

My attitude is, was, and always will be what functional difference that isn't purely semantics (and yes I put pronouns in the "purely semantic" category) this even means.

If I don't treat men and women differently I can't treat a "Woman who identifies as a man" differently and I keep getting told I have to with equal passion that I'm NOT being told what the difference is.

I don't care where you pee, I don't care what you wear, I don't care in what combination you and any other consenting adult(s) rub their genitals together.

But I already don't care about that outside of gender roles. So I've got nowhere to go.

So I keep doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I don't care that there's a vagina in the bathroom stall next the bathroom stall I'm sitting in. But I'm supposed to care differently whether that vagina is attached to someone who identifies as a man or identifies as a woman as and I... just... can't.

Outside of periodic detours into "We have to protect the womenfolk from men" territory I'm as lost as to what I'm supposed to actually functionally do now as ever.

Do you care about women’s sport? Because I do, having daughters and granddaughters. Allowing unfettered access to trans women based on self identification alone will destroy women’s sport. Why do you think women’s sport exists in the first place?

You will probably say that you don’t care about sport and that this is a marginal issue. Not to biological women who play sport it isn’t.

 

[The Atheist]

You will probably say that you don’t care about sport and that this is a marginal issue.

Whether you like sports or not, the idea that they're worthless or marginal is destroyed simply by the economics of it, regardless of whether you adhere to the doctrine of Bill Shankly.

Somebody said that football's a matter of life and death to you, I said 'listen, it's more important than that'.

Not to biological women who play sport it isn’t.

That's exactly why I started the thread all those posts ago.

A young woman trains for her entire life and gets beaten by a bloke who claims to be a woman*.

It doesn't amuse me at all how many second-rate men's athletes have suddenly realised they were really women once they recognise they're at their peak performance and it's not good enough to compete against men.

And if you think that's a bad thing, you're a TERF, a transphobe or misandrist.

*I've been working with a young woman on sponsorship deals who's at the very elite level of her sport, working towards (barring injury) her certain selection for the NZ Olympic team. She is a brilliant athlete, stunningly intelligent, the hardest-working person I've ever met, and a superb leader - former Head Girl, winner of various female leadership awards, etc, etc.

The idea that because she's in a strength event, she could have the opportunity snatched away if one of the male competitors turns up in a dress and claims the women's title frankly disgusts me, and it's already happened with NZ women's mountain biking as I've stated earlier.

 

[LondonJohn]

Whether you like sports or not, the idea that they're worthless or marginal is destroyed simply by the economics of it, regardless of whether you adhere to the doctrine of Bill Shankly.





That's exactly why I started the thread all those posts ago.

A young woman trains for her entire life and gets beaten by a bloke who claims to be a woman*.

It doesn't amuse me at all how many second-rate men's athletes have suddenly realised they were really women once they recognise they're at their peak performance and it's not good enough to compete against men.

And if you think that's a bad thing, you're a TERF, a transphobe or misandrist.

*I've been working with a young woman on sponsorship deals who's at the very elite level of her sport, working towards (barring injury) her certain selection for the NZ Olympic team. She is a brilliant athlete, stunningly intelligent, the hardest-working person I've ever met, and a superb leader - former Head Girl, winner of various female leadership awards, etc, etc.

The idea that because she's in a strength event, she could have the opportunity snatched away if one of the male competitors turns up in a dress and claims the women's title frankly disgusts me, and it's already happened with NZ women's mountain biking as I've stated earlier.

Personally, I suspect that in time (and after negotiation and a process of iteration), all those sports where physical attributes are a factor will ultimately arrive at a situation where only cis men are allowed to compete in men's events (at any significant competitive level), and only cis women are allowed to compete in women's events. Whether there are then separate competitions for trans men and trans women, I wouldn't be so sure (if only because of the fact that, almost by definition, the participant pool for any given sport would be very small).

I suspect that right now, nobody wants to plant a flag in the sand (so to speak), because we're - rightly - at a delicate stage in transgender rights in general, and also because the issue of trans women in women's sport has only relatively recently become a globally-significant issue.

Incidentally, I think we saw the exact same process of negotiation and iteration take place with respect to intersex/hormone-imbalance participants in elite female sports (Caster Semenya being the most high-profile case). And that is, if anything, an even more difficult issue to get right: after all, women with intersex characteristics (or, for example, excessive testosterone production) were still born women.

These are really difficult things to get right - and they have to be right in a legal sense, a moral sense, and a "fairness" sense. But, as I said at the start, I can't see any sport not ultimately reaching a solution which excludes transgender participants from all significant competitions. And I absolutely do not consider that solution to be in opposition to transgender rights.

 

[Rolfe]

Point of information. Caster Semenya is genetically male, but was wrongly assumed to be a girl at birth. It's a no-win nightmare for everyone but basically they need to confront this issue and insist on genetic testing for all promising girls while they're still juniors to allow cases like this one to be steered away from elite athletics, sensitively and with appropriate counselling.

A lot of the trouble in the past was in fact the lack of sensitivity and appropriate counselling. They absolutely destroyed a number of girls in the 1990s by telling them bluntly that they were male and offering no support or back-up. When they were rightly criticised for this, instead of realising that a complete change in attitude to be sensitive to athletes' feelings and mental health was required, they cravenly decided just to let any male with ambiguous genitalia who had been mistakenly raised as a girl to compete in the women's events. Result, predictable.

Let it be clearly understood that eligibility for women's events absolutely depends on having no functional SRY gene, or no functioning androgen receptors. Any junior girl who is headed for the big time should be tested early enough so that she can choose another life path if the result is unwelcome. Testing should be private and confidential and an expert team of mental health professionals should be on hand to support in these cases. And maybe be a bit more sensitive than they were with Erik Schinneger.

Also, referring to women as "cis" is just as offensive to many women as so-called "misgendering". If you believe misgendering to be rude and so you wouldn't do it, drop the "cis".

 

[d4m10n]

Also, referring to women as "cis" is just as offensive to many women as so-called "misgendering". If you believe misgendering to be rude and so you wouldn't do it, drop the "cis".

Is there a similarly efficient way to denote women who were born female?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Rolfe]

Yes. Women. All women are born female.

 

[d4m10n]

Yes. Women. All women are born female.

By implication, trans women aren't women.

(This feels like an attempt to win the entire argument by simply taking offense.)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[LondonJohn]

By implication, trans women aren't women.

(This feels like an attempt to win the entire argument by simply taking offense.)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

True. But then - by very dint of the "cis" and "trans" prefixes - there are two separate categories of women already in any case.

A delicate process of negotiation and iteration is likely to need to happen over many years, I suspect (just as in respect of trans women in sport).

I could certainly see things ultimately arriving at a situation where, if you like, there is a set (in mathematical terms) comprising "women", entirely within which there sits a smaller subset comprising "trans women".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is there a similarly efficient way to denote women who were born female?

Nope. That's sort of part of the problem. The term that should be used is "women", but that has been redefined to a tautology that includes anyone who claims to be a woman. We're left with having to refer to ourselves as "females" as if we are livestock, and reducing our being to that of our reproductive capacity, or having to excuse our existence by appending a "cis" in front of it to distinguish ourselves from people who are male but who wish to be perceived as women.

 

[Emily's Cat]

True. But then - by very dint of the "cis" and "trans" prefixes - there are two separate categories of women already in any case.

A delicate process of negotiation and iteration is likely to need to happen over many years, I suspect (just as in respect of trans women in sport).

I could certainly see things ultimately arriving at a situation where, if you like, there is a set (in mathematical terms) comprising "women", entirely within which there sits a smaller subset comprising "trans women".

If we're honest about the nature of reality, it would be a subset of men that are labeled as transwomen.

But "cis" and "trans" are a social conceit that I'm willing to tolerate for the sake of clarity and general good manners.

 

[Rolfe]

See the title of the thread. It is accurate. Transwomen are not women. Transwomen are a subset of men.

Many women are deeply offended and hurt by the use of "cis". If people are not willing to tolerate a male being referred to as "he" then they should not be willing to tolerate women being demeaned by this usage.

 

[lionking]

If we're honest about the nature of reality, it would be a subset of men that are labeled as transwomen.

But it's "cis" and "trans" social conceit that I'm willing to tolerate for the sake of clarity and general good manners.

It’s still ridiculous. Why should anyone be required to identify themselves as someone they are not?

 

[Rolfe]

It's nonsense. It's a misusage of terms from organic chemistry. Most people don't have the first clue what these terms mean.

 

[d4m10n]

Many women are deeply offended and hurt by the use of "cis".

In my experience those women are vastly outnumbered by people who are offended and hurt by statements like "Transwomen are not women. Transwomen are a subset of men."

That said, I'm not interested in conceding the semantic argument to whichever side seems more currently numerous or more deeply offended. We need a working vocabulary which hinges on other considerations than these.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk