Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Meadmaker]

I had also until recently thought that as a general rule trans women are post op, and I am learning that that’s not the case, and that many (most? Don’t know) are pre-op or not intending to operate.

That was a big realization for me, and it came to me on this forum. I think it was 2009 when I was discussing a trans-girl who wanted to use the girls' locker room, and it took me a few pages of discussion to realize what was going on and to get the lingo correct.

Growing up, I knew of what we referred to as "transsexuals", who were people who had undergone sex reassignment surgery. It took me a while to realize that "transgender" meant something different, that these were people who might have undergone surgery, but it also included people who had no intention of ever having surgery.

But what was really difficult for me to comprehend, to the extent that I really misunderstood several posts for a few pages, was that in many people's minds, it was possible to actually "be" a girl, even though you had a boy's body including a boy's sexual organs. What does that even mean?

Ten years later, I understand a lot more about transgenderism and what people want in terms of policy, and how people describe themselves and think about themselves, but when all is said and done, I still don't think that any man anywhere can get pregnant.

 

[Meadmaker]

I am coming to suspect that all the flutterly rhetoric about "you can't make us use the gents, we will inevitably be assaulted" is so much bullcrap.

I think it would have been true in the USA in my youth, but I don't think so now. However, I live and mostly exist in middle class suburbia. There might be places where it wouldn't go so well if a guy in a dress tried to use the men's room.

 

[Meadmaker]

I already think of you as a cat.

Yes. That's kind of how language works; if the words we use no longer clearly communicate the things we want to communicate, and we don't constantly want to use lots of words, we invent more specific words. It is how we get a lot of jargon terms that in everyday use often the mean the same thing, but in specific fields mean very specific and different things. Nobody demands that you call yourself "ciswoman" in everyday use, but that doesn't mean ciswomen who deal with the transgender community a lot find no use for the term.

For that reason, I sometimes use "cis". I'm not crazy about the prefix, but everyone knows what it means, so sometimes it's efficient communications.

However, I'm also sympathetic to those who refuse to use it. Language can shape thought, and that is to some extent deliberate on the part of those who advocate the use of "cis". I can see why people wouldn't want to go there.

 

[Sherkeu]

I think it would have been true in the USA in my youth, but I don't think so now. However, I live and mostly exist in middle class suburbia. There might be places where it wouldn't go so well if a guy in a dress tried to use the men's room.

I question how dangerous it is to enter the Men's room. If men are so dangerous, why do women want to have them in their own restrooms!?? Does wearing a dress and wig change things so enormously from the other penis people in the adjacent room?

It seems most violent encounters happen in bars/clubs where the transwoman is operating as a sex worker. Almost all of the deaths are from this as well- and the vast majority are black transwomen.

I havent heard very many instances outside of that scenario.

 

[Meadmaker]

I question how dangerous it is to enter the Men's room. If men are so dangerous, why do women want to have them in their own restrooms!?? Does wearing a dress and wig change things so enormously from the other penis people in the adjacent room?

It seems most violent encounters happen in bars/clubs where the transwoman is operating as a sex worker. Almost all of the deaths are from this as well- and the vast majority are black transwomen.

I havent heard very many instances outside of that scenario.

As I said, I think that's true today.

I grew up in a small town in the 1970s. I think gay guys would have encountered a great deal of harassment, and sometimes actual violence, and at the time, no one would have made any distinction between gay and transgender.

 

[Rolfe]

It seems most violent encounters happen in bars/clubs where the transwoman is operating as a sex worker. Almost all of the deaths are from this as well- and the vast majority are black transwomen.

I think that's true, and the incidents are overwhelmingly in Latin America, mainly Brazil. Mind you it's not that safe to live in Brazil in general terms anyway.

We had a "trans day of remembrance" here a little while ago. We were encouraged to think of and mourn all the murdered trans people in our community. Someone did a little research and found out that there had been no murders of trans people at all in Britain for quite a few years. A number of transwomen had been convicted of murder, but no victims.

The statistics about the "horrific rate of violence and murder" transwomen supposedly face seem all to be derived from these Latin American statistics (that's when they're not counting reading a tweet that states that women are adult human females and counting that as "literal violence against trans people".)

Meanwhile women are murdered in Britain, often by intimate partners, at the rate of about two a week.

I appreciate what Meadmaker said about effeminate gay men being harassed and assaulted in gents lavatories in the past. But they never asked for the right to use the ladies as a result of that. They worked to change society towards greater acceptance of homosexuality and to make abuse of a man for appearing effeminate socially unacceptable. This was entirely the right approach and if there is indeed any remaining hassling of feminine-presenting men (of any description) going on, this is the way to address it. Not by demanding that women should take on the burden of keeping a certain group of men safe from other men, and in particular not by insisting they accept absolutely any man at all who cares to come into their spaces.

 

[Sherkeu]

As I said, I think that's true today.

I grew up in a small town in the 1970s. I think gay guys would have encountered a great deal of harassment, and sometimes actual violence, and at the time, no one would have made any distinction between gay and transgender.

Time and place matters. We have come a long way in acceptance though. (I think! )

I wonder if gay guys would want to use the Ladies room as well if they could?
Are they not getting harassment anymore?
I dont hear anything like that coming from the gay community.

 

[Meadmaker]

Time and place matters. We have come a long way in acceptance though. (I think! )

I wonder if gay guys would want to use the Ladies room as well if they could?
Are they not getting harassment anymore?
I dont hear anything like that coming from the gay community.

Things have changed, and mostly for the better.

No one, then or now, would suggest a gay guy use the women's facilities. Back then, they might have wished to exclude a known gay guy from a locker room.


Let me emphasize why I brought this up. Rolfe referred to fear of assault in the men's facilities as "bullcrap". I think that's a bit overstated. I think there was a time, within living memory, when that fear would have absolutely been justified. Things are better today, but I'm not 100% certain that the fear is unjustified today.

ETA: However, to Rolfe's point, that doesn't mean I think the solution is letting someone into the women's room because they feel uncomfortable in the men's room.

 

[theprestige]

Not until the conversation you're having makes it useful to make those distinctions. and it's absolutely the same with "cis".

"Woman" and "transwoman" already make the useful distinction.

As Earthborn says:

That's kind of how language works; if the words we use no longer clearly communicate the things we want to communicate

The issue is that "woman" clearly communicates things some people no longer want to communicate.

 

[Rolfe]

This thing that is labelled gender identity seems itself to resolve to nothing more than regressive gender stereotypes.

I was thinking about this while driving to Ikea, and indeed it doesn't make any sense when you unpack it.

I'm a woman because my body is female. It doesn't matter whether I'm happy about that or not, it's the way it is. It's the same as observing that I'm white, and I'm 170 cm tall and I take a size 37 in shoes. The way I think about myself and the way I operate in society is informed by all of these things, because my body is me and that's what my body is like.

What if I insisited that I was "really" 185 cm? And I insisted you had to treat me as if I was 185 cm? How would that work? Maybe you'd talk over the top of my head, you could do that. Maybe I'd get all huffy if you laughed at me for wearing clothes that were way too big for me, but I'm sure you could manage not to do that. But if you were in charge of a ride where the minimum height was 180 cm, should you let me on?

I don't know what it's like to be 185 cm, or to have size 42 feet, or to be black, because I'm none of these things. I might imagine I knew, but it would only be my imagination because I have no experience of actually being that way, nor can I have. I don't see how believing you're the opposite sex is any different.

You like frilly blouses and makeup and high heels and nail varnish? News flash, that just means that you like frilly blouses and makeup and high heels and nail varnish. Lots of women don't. They're still women. Some men do like these things, they're still men.

I don't know what else there is. There is no "essence of womanhood" that is separate from actually living in a body that is female, just as there is no essence of height that is separate from living in a body that's a certain height. Liking things you perceive are popular with taller or shorter people doesn't make you a different height. Liking things you perceive are popular with women doesn't make you a woman.

Absolutely everything anyone has ever claimed as "evidence" that they were allegedly born in the wrong body, or are in some way "really" a woman, boils down either to this nonexistent "essence of womanhood" or to the regressive gender stereotypes of categorising women as people who behave in a certain way or like certain things.

Women would rather like to get away from these stereotypes, where they're not expected automatically to be kind, caring, nurturing, passive, to put men first, to like dressing up in a certain way and to have certain colour or other preferences. They'd like to be themselves, as they are, and particularly not to be criticised for being themselves in a way that would not be criticised in a man. (We're back to an assertive girl is bossy but an assertive boy is the boss.)

Gender ideology is the most regressive, stereotyping thing there is. It couldn't exist without these restrictive boundaries society imposes on females (and males, come to that - big boys do cry). The sooner everyone is free to have whatever personality and preferences they like without being judged and pigeon-holed because of them, the better.


ETA: Not that long ago, in Britain, a woman politician was asked to define "woman". She came out with a load of sexist, regressinve crap about a woman being someone who is kind, caring, nurturing, blah blah blah. Do I even have to point out the ridiculousness of that? What about women who aren't these things? Are they men? What about men who are - and thankfully despite this woman's idiotic outlook, very many men are. Should we change all their birth certificates to say they were born as girls? And then there's the delicious irony that very many transwomen appear to be none of these things.

 

[Cavemonster]

Just in reading the trans literature/articles/forums etc... As with many 'woke' things, I do not see it in my real life either. But these things start somewhere, right?

Can you link to an article or something you have in mind?

The internet is a big place, and I'm sure anything we can imagine SOMEONE has said it. But unless I'm missing something big, there is no sizeable push to use "trans" or "cis" in context where the distinction is not important. In fact, making the distinction where it isn't relevant goes pretty directly in opposition to the interest of all the trans people who are trying to be recognized as just "men" and "women" in the large majority of contexts.

 

[smartcooky]

I was thinking about this while driving to Ikea, and indeed it doesn't make any sense when you unpack it.

I'm a woman because my body is female. It doesn't matter whether I'm happy about that or not, it's the way it is. It's the same as observing that I'm white, and I'm 170 cm tall and I take a size 37 in shoes. The way I think about myself and the way I operate in society is informed by all of these things, because my body is me and that's what my body is like.

What if I insisited that I was "really" 185 cm? And I insisted you had to treat me as if I was 185 cm? How would that work? Maybe you'd talk over the top of my head, you could do that. Maybe I'd get all huffy if you laughed at me for wearing clothes that were way too big for me, but I'm sure you could manage not to do that. But if you were in charge of a ride where the minimum height was 180 cm, should you let me on?

I don't know what it's like to be 185 cm, or to have size 42 feet, or to be black, because I'm none of these things. I might imagine I knew, but it would only be my imagination because I have no experience of actually being that way, nor can I have. I don't see how believing you're the opposite sex is any different.

You like frilly blouses and makeup and high heels and nail varnish? News flash, that just means that you like frilly blouses and makeup and high heels and nail varnish. Lots of women don't. They're still women. Some men do like these things, they're still men.

I don't know what else there is. There is no "essence of womanhood" that is separate from actually living in a body that is female, just as there is no essence of height that is separate from living in a body that's a certain height. Liking things you perceive are popular with taller or shorter people doesn't make you a different height. Liking things you perceive are popular with women doesn't make you a woman.

Absolutely everything anyone has ever claimed as "evidence" that they were allegedly born in the wrong body, or are in some way "really" a woman, boils down either to this nonexistent "essence of womanhood" or to the regressive gender stereotypes of categorising women as people who behave in a certain way or like certain things.

Women would rather like to get away from these stereotypes, where they're not expected automatically to be kind, caring, nurturing, passive, to put men first, to like dressing up in a certain way and to have certain colour or other preferences. They'd like to be themselves, as they are, and particularly not to be criticised for being themselves in a way that would not be criticised in a man. (We're back to an assertive girl is bossy but an assertive boy is the boss.)

Gender ideology is the most regressive, stereotyping thing there is. It couldn't exist without these restrictive boundaries society imposes on females (and males, come to that - big boys do cry). The sooner everyone is free to have whatever personality and preferences they like without being judged and pigeon-holed because of them, the better.


ETA: Not that long ago, in Britain, a woman politician was asked to define "woman". She came out with a load of sexist, regressinve crap about a woman being someone who is kind, caring, nurturing, blah blah blah. Do I even have to point out the ridiculousness of that? What about women who aren't these things? Are they men? What about men who are - and thankfully despite this woman's idiotic outlook, very many men are. Should we change all their birth certificates to say they were born as girls? And then there's the delicious irony that very many transwomen appear to be none of these things.

 

[Sherkeu]

Can you link to an article or something you have in mind?

The internet is a big place, and I'm sure anything we can imagine SOMEONE has said it. But unless I'm missing something big, there is no sizeable push to use "trans" or "cis" in context where the distinction is not important. In fact, making the distinction where it isn't relevant goes pretty directly in opposition to the interest of all the trans people who are trying to be recognized as just "men" and "women" in the large majority of contexts.

Mostly blogs and articles which would take a lot of time to sift through to recall which and where.

The main one I have in mind is from my State of Calif. It was recommendations for education of children by the " Board of Educators". I swear, there were words in there I had to look up because they were like intersectional gobbledygook. the gender stuff of course made its appearance but most was racial.
I can't seem to find it now since there is so much and I do not recall the date. It was recent, but pre-covid. I'll try harder to find it!!
It was quite shocking. Makes me appreciate the private education system. I'd sell my blood every week to keep my kid there if I had to (and I might...eventually!).

 

[Earthborn]

This thing that is labelled gender identity seems itself to resolve to nothing more than regressive gender stereotypes.

True to some extend. Especially for "people who transitioned MtF over 20 years ago, part of the transition was rigorous psychological therapy which grounded the patient in the reality that they were not female and even surgery wouldn't make them female" whose therapists often looked for rather regressive gender stereotypes to determine what their patients' gender identity was, and their patients often tried hard to fit in to those stereotypes in order to get treatment. The goal was to get people to fit in as nicely as possible into a very narrow binary gender role. Slowly, and not very surely, that is beginning to change by allowing patients to be more free in how they express their gender.

 

[Earthborn]

Women would rather like to get away from these stereotypes, where they're not expected automatically to be kind, caring, nurturing, passive, to put men first, to like dressing up in a certain way and to have certain colour or other preferences. They'd like to be themselves, as they are, and particularly not to be criticised for being themselves in a way that would not be criticised in a man.

Transgender activists want the same thing.

The sooner everyone is free to have whatever personality and preferences they like without being judged and pigeon-holed because of them, the better.

Except I assume when it comes to where to pee... because then being judged and pigeon-holed suddenly becomes super-important.

 

[Sherkeu]

Transgender activists want the same thing.Except I assume when it comes to where to pee... because then being judged and pigeon-holed suddenly becomes super-important.

This is an interesting observation because no one yet has brought up what happens when the trans women are fully accepted pre-surgery.

If we put urinals in the womens room, would they use them?
Are they ashamed of having a penis as a '100% real woman'?
Would they still actively try to hide having a penis?

Essentially, they wouldnt have to put on the act anymore at all. The culture would just change to accept it as a new norm.
But I suspect that most transwomen would still want to hide their true former identity, and their true genitals, no matter the acceptance, because they want to be treated as if they had a vagina. (exhibitionists excluded)

Am I wrong here?

 

[Cavemonster]

Mostly blogs and articles which would take a lot of time to sift through to recall which and where.

The main one I have in mind is from my State of Calif. It was recommendations for education of children by the " Board of Educators". I swear, there were words in there I had to look up because they were like intersectional gobbledygook. the gender stuff of course made its appearance but most was racial.
I can't seem to find it now since there is so much and I do not recall the date. It was recent, but pre-covid. I'll try harder to find it!!
It was quite shocking. Makes me appreciate the private education system. I'd sell my blood every week to keep my kid there if I had to (and I might...eventually!).

Since it's pretty easy to find lots of people talking about use of the word "cis" but apparently not so easy to find a source saying that it should be used outside of making the distinction from trans, that suggests to me that if anyone IS demanding it, their view is not particularly widespread or popular. For this to be something you truly feel pressured to do, I would expect it shouldn't be too hard to point to at least one person saying it.

And I'll be honest with you. While I wouldn't be too surprised for a government document to have some dumb stuff in it, the fact that you refer to it as "intersectional gobbledygook" suggests to me that it might be more likely that you misinterpreted the intent of what you read.

 

[Sherkeu]

Since it's pretty easy to find lots of people talking about use of the word "cis" but apparently not so easy to find a source saying that it should be used outside of making the distinction from trans, that suggests to me that if anyone IS demanding it, their view is not particularly widespread or popular. For this to be something you truly feel pressured to do, I would expect it shouldn't be too hard to point to at least one person saying it.

And I'll be honest with you. While I wouldn't be too surprised for a government document to have some dumb stuff in it, the fact that you refer to it as "intersectional gobbledygook" suggests to me that it might be more likely that you misinterpreted the intent of what you read.

The issue is that the insinuation is not the main part of any article discussing it. It is perhaps one or 2 lines within a broader topic. So yeah, I am not going hunting for what I have read over years.
You think I have made it up whole cloth?
I dont have enough interest in this specific subject to go that heavy into subversion.
Maybe someone else has the time for it. It would be a LOT of re-reading.

 

[Rolfe]

Transgender activists want the same thing. Except I assume when it comes to where to pee... because then being judged and pigeon-holed suddenly becomes super-important.

No, that's not quite true. Transgender activists don't just want to be who they want to be, they want to be accepted into the sex category they aren't.

And yes, when it comes to situations where biology is important, then it's biology that is important. It's akin to the five-foot-tall customer insisting on being allowed on to the ride where the minimum height is five feet six. I'll talk six inches above your head and try not to laugh at you because you're wearing clothes that are much too big, but where real height is the criterion, it's your real height that matters.

 

[Earthborn]

If we put urinals in the womens room, would they use them?

No. Some ciswomen might.

Are they ashamed of having a penis as a '100% real woman'?

Yes.

Would they still actively try to hide having a penis?

Yes.

The culture would just change to accept it as a new norm.

In the "West" that is already the norm. Always has been.

Am I wrong here?

No.