Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Earthborn]

And don't give me this guff about "fitting in" there. They don't fit in there.

Seani certainly does not "fit in" the ladies room, and probably realises that. If they were a transman, they would look practically identical and also not fit in. Many transwomen would fit in. I think if we are to have segregated restrooms, people should go to the place where they most fit in. You have repeatedly claimed that you disagree and expect people to segregate themselves based on other criteria.

 

[Rolfe]

If one accepts that transgender issues are genuine, and that there are people who genuinely feel that they've been born with the wrong gender...

If? This depends on what you mean by genuine. There are certainly people who insist on invading the spaces and provisions of the opposite sex, claiming that they either want to be (and so should be treated as if they are) or actually are the opposite sex. That is a genuine issue.

However, we can't even define "gender" other than as a set of regressive sexist stereotypes or as an aspect of personality. I don't see how one can be born with the wrong personality. I can see how someone may feel that they aren't attracted to the set of regressive sexist stereotypes they're expected to be attracted to, happens to most of us from time to time, but that doesn't mean we're the opposite sex.

Nobody is born in the wrong body. No matter how genuinely they think they have been. Whose body have they been born in? Where is their own body and who has it? What are you, apart from your body? The more you think about this the madder it is.

Someone may insist they're Napoleon, or Jesus Christ, or a woolly mammoth. Does that mean they actually are Napoleon, or Jesus Christ, or a woolly mammoth? No, it means they're suffering from a delusional condition. Do we treat any of these delusional conditions by re-ordering all social norms to align with the delusion? We do not. Why is this one any different?

Men are so often absolutely willing to give up women's rights vicariously to satisfy the demands of other men. But none of this makes a lick of sense. This is a matter of biological sex, not preferences for clothes or colours or makeup.

Once you let the camel's nose into the tent, as was done a decade or so ago on the assurance that there were very very few transwomen in the country and that this small concession to this tiny number of people was an acceptable infringement of women's rights because it was such a very very small number (it's all there in Hansard, go and look), very soon you find the entire camel in there. The entire camel being Jonathan Yaniv and Alex Drummond and that guy who insisted on using the female changing room in Top Shop because he claimed to be non-binary.

Somehow this tiny number of mainly white heterosexual men has managed to have its wishes prioritised over the entirety of the rights women have struggled for for generations. Repeatedly, in this thread and elsewhere, we see women's concerns being brushed aside at best and vilified at worst, while the desires of a relatively small number of men are treated as sacrosanct because their feelings have priority.

Stop it. Reverse. Men, make space for gender nonconforming men in male spaces, because they are male. Stop insisting that women give up all their rights to accommodate your misfits.

 

[d4m10n]

Okay, just one more Venn diagram. Hopefully much less confusing that the last one, which received ample justifiable criticism.



Okay, so the very dark intersection in the middle is going to be the set of traits common to just about all human beings, e.g. lungs, shoulders, knees, toes, linguistic ability, etc. Nothing much to fret over here.

The dark blue-to-purplish bit will be the physical attributes we normally associate with human females, e.g. cervices, ova, uteri, etc.

The green bit is the part that I keep asking about, and the best answer I've seen so far is that both kinds of women have a "gender identity" which makes them feel like they ought to be seen to be female by themselves and others. One major problem with this is that many women (who have no objection to being seen as such) do not necessarily have a strong sense of subjective gender identity, and may indeed see gender as something socially imposed upon them rather than something inherent to their sense of self.

 

[cullennz]

Okay, just one more Venn diagram. Hopefully much less confusing that the last one, which received ample justifiable criticism.

View attachment 43000

Okay, so the very dark intersection in the middle is going to be the set of traits common to just about all human beings, e.g. lungs, shoulders, knees, toes, linguistic ability, etc. Nothing much to fret over here.

The dark blue bit will be the physical attributes we normally associate with human females, e.g. cervices, ova, uteri, etc.

The green bit is the part that I keep asking about, and the best answer I've seen so far is that both kinds of women have a "gender identity" which makes them feel like they ought to be seen to be female by themselves and others. One major problem with this is that many women (who have no objection to being seen as such) do not necessarily have a strong sense of subjective gender identity, and may indeed see gender as something socially imposed upon them rather than something inherent to their sense of self.

Can't help thinking you are over complicating things

 

[LondonJohn]

I seem to remember a time when a vociferous group made impassioned representations about gay men using male changing rooms: "What if he comes on to us while we're undressed?!" "What if we see that he's become visibly aroused?!".

Oh and that's before we get to the whole saga about gays in the military. "We can't have gay guys serving on the front line alongside hetero guys! All manner of dreadful things might happen!!"

Fortunately, we moved on over these issues. Sounds like there's some further moving on to go wrt other matters, however....

 

[d4m10n]

Can't help thinking you are over complicating things

If you say so. Seems to be that there has to be something fairly essential in the green area if we're going to redefine "women" to be a superset of trans women and cis women in a sensible way.

 

[Boudicca90]

I seem to remember a time when a vociferous group made impassioned representations about gay men using male changing rooms: "What if he comes on to us while we're undressed?!" "What if we see that he's become visibly aroused?!".

Oh and that's before we get to the whole saga about gays in the military. "We can't have gay guys serving on the front line alongside hetero guys! All manner of dreadful things might happen!!"

Fortunately, we moved on over these issues. Sounds like there's some further moving on to go wrt other matters, however....

Yep, I'm hearing the same arguments that were used against me when I was serving. Just replace gay with trans.

 

[cullennz]

If you say so. Seems to be that there has to be something fairly essential in the green area if we're going to redefine "women" to be a superset of trans women and cis women in a sensible way.

We don't have to.

There are women and trans women.

Call both she. Everyone happy.

 

[Boudicca90]

Okay, just one more Venn diagram. Hopefully much less confusing that the last one, which received ample justifiable criticism.

View attachment 43000

Okay, so the very dark intersection in the middle is going to be the set of traits common to just about all human beings, e.g. lungs, shoulders, knees, toes, linguistic ability, etc. Nothing much to fret over here.

The dark blue bit will be the physical attributes we normally associate with human females, e.g. cervices, ova, uteri, etc.

The green bit is the part that I keep asking about, and the best answer I've seen so far is that both kinds of women have a "gender identity" which makes them feel like they ought to be seen to be female by themselves and others. One major problem with this is that many women (who have no objection to being seen as such) do not necessarily have a strong sense of subjective gender identity, and may indeed see gender as something socially imposed upon them rather than something inherent to their sense of self.

I think the problem is that everybody has a gender identity, but if your gender identity doesn't ever conflict with your birth sex, you never think about it.

Gender identity is all about how you see yourself and your gender, it is subjective and not something socially imposed (that would be more like gender roles and presentation).

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Did you mean dream, or fantasize?

Co-ed showers would work just fine for me, but I'm a guy. Having a co-ed locker room at the gym would have double benefits. Not only would I get to see naked women, but it would give me extra incentive to spend more time working out.

When a majority of women start saying that they would like or at least would not object to mixed sex showers, I would take this suggestion seriously. As it is, I think the suggestion would be much more welcomed by men than women.

Because we already live in a society where nudity is not considered natural.
Which is in turn caused by us having separate showers and locker rooms. QED.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I seem to remember a time when a vociferous group made impassioned representations about gay men using male changing rooms: "What if he comes on to us while we're undressed?!" "What if we see that he's become visibly aroused?!".

Fortunately, we moved on over these issues. Sounds like there's some further moving on to go wrt other matters, however....

The fact that we freely tolerate gays, lesbians, and bi people using the same gender's locker rooms is another argument not only why trans people in bathrooms should be totally OK, but also why the idea of separate locker rooms for men and women/boys and girls is pretty stupid to begin with.

 

[Elagabalus]

I brought this up when talking to my son that who is a daughter now,

...

I try not to be a grammar nazi but that sentence really needs a more humanizing who.

FTFY

 

[Ziggurat]

The fact that we freely tolerate gays, lesbians, and bi people using the same gender's locker rooms is another argument not only why trans people in bathrooms should be totally OK, but also why the idea of separate locker rooms for men and women/boys and girls is pretty stupid to begin with.

Well, no. That's a dumb conclusion to reach. And it runs contrary to data linked upthread that shows that women are in fact more at risk of sexual assault in mixed sex bathrooms.

 

[cullennz]

The fact that we freely tolerate gays, lesbians, and bi people using the same gender's locker rooms is another argument not only why trans people in bathrooms should be totally OK, but also why the idea of separate locker rooms for men and women/boys and girls is pretty stupid to begin with.

There is a difference to gay dudes in dudes locker rooms as there is no potential threat, and a trans woman waving their donger around in the same locker room as my young niece.

The second I am not going to be as easy going with and will stop.

 

[Rolfe]

Here's another one. Why is this not OK?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54036637

 

[Rolfe]

I think the problem is that everybody has a gender identity, but if your gender identity doesn't ever conflict with your birth sex, you never think about it.

Gender identity is all about how you see yourself and your gender, it is subjective and not something socially imposed (that would be more like gender roles and presentation).

A so-called gender identity is nothing more than one's personality traits being compared to a set of regressive sexist stereotypes. Have whatever personality traits you like, it won't change your actual sex.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Here's another one. Why is this not OK?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54036637

"The post read: "I have built my life on a violent anti-black lie.""
Ms Krug described her behaviour as "the very epitome of violence, of thievery and appropriation, of the myriad ways in which non-Black people continue to use and abuse Black identities and cultures."

Oh look, the 'words are violence' nonsense again .

 

[Earthborn]

One major problem with this is that many women (who have no objection to being seen as such) do not necessarily have a strong sense of subjective gender identity, and may indeed see gender as something socially imposed upon them rather than something inherent to their sense of self.

The real problem I see is that you confuse "gender" and "gender identity", something Boudicca also did. "Gender" is socially imposed, "gender identity" is a subjective sense of self. And yes, the word "gender" is sometimes used as a synonym for "gender identity" but if you want to make any sense of this stuff, you really should try to keep them separate.

Many people do not experience in incongruity between their (biological) sex and their gender identity and feel one is simply a natural result of the other. To them, the subjective neatly flows from the objective and those things don't seem like two different concepts. That's what being "cisgendered" means. We don't know the biological mechanisms that cause people to become cisgendered anymore than we know the biological mechanisms that cause so many people people to be heterosexual -- another thing that is highly correlated with biological sex -- but we do know that biological mechanisms can in some individuals not work quite right.

 

[d4m10n]

I think the problem is that everybody has a gender identity, but if your gender identity doesn't ever conflict with your birth sex, you never think about it.

Can we unpack this a bit? If someone hadn't heard of gender identity, how could one explain it to them without referencing gender itself? Was Ms. Cat correct to refer to it as
"...what you want other people to perceive your sex to be," or do we need something more?

The real problem I see is that you confuse "gender" and "gender identity", something Boudicca also did.

Not to mention Wikipedia, which defines gender identity^WP in terms of gender^WP, and vice-versa.

 

[Boudicca90]

The real problem I see is that you confuse "gender" and "gender identity", something Boudicca also did. "Gender" is socially imposed, "gender identity" is a subjective sense of self. And yes, the word "gender" is sometimes used as a synonym for "gender identity" but if you want to make any sense of this stuff, you really should try to keep them separate.

Many people do not experience in incongruity between their (biological) sex and their gender identity and feel one is simply a natural result of the other. To them, the subjective neatly flows from the objective and those things don't seem like two different concepts. That's what being "cisgendered" means. We don't know the biological mechanisms that cause people to become cisgendered anymore than we know the biological mechanisms that cause so many people people to be heterosexual -- another thing that is highly correlated with biological sex -- but we do know that biological mechanisms can in some individuals not work quite right.

I see gender identity as a huge part of gender, but you are right that it also encompasses things like roles and presentation, so it's not entirely the same. Before I transitioned I had a female gender identity but I presented my gender as male, now I have a female gender identity and a female gender. I think we are on the same page on this?