Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[JihadJane]

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....

None of that explains why you are against women having safe, sex-segregated spaces.

Do you believe that transwomen with a penis should be free to undress and shower in a communal changing room with teenage girls?

(the Helen Staniland question)

 

[LondonJohn]

None of that explains why you are against women having safe, sex-segregated spaces.

Do you believe that transwomen with a penis should be free to undress and shower in a communal changing room with teenage girls?

(the Helen Staniland question)

I believe she should be free to use the women's changing room in a way which is respectful and fair to other women who are also present. In practice, this would probably mean taking care to use a towel in order to prevent the exposure of her genital area, and only to shower if there were separate shower stalls with doors.

Does that help to answer your question?

(Btw, I've already expanded on this issue, in precisely this manner, elsewhere in the thread - as you'll see if you read the last few pages or so...)

 

[theprestige]

I'm not advocating checking drivers licences or birth certificates before using any restrooms or locker rooms, and it wouldn't be useful anyway, since someone with a driver's licence here in CA with the gender marker X instead of M or F wouldn't belong in either that way.

And gender dysphoria was already recognized as a mental illness before, when it was called Gender Identity Disorder. I don't want that at all. We have thankfully moved away from that, much like we did demonizing homosexuality.

Nobody has to medically transition if they don't want to, I've never supported that.

I meant at least begun transitioning as in living as the gender they see themselves as. Hormones and surgery aren't for everybody and aren't necessary.

One way to handle this would be to recognize gender dysphoria as an illness. Anyone presenting a document from their physician verifying their condition and confirming transgender expression as part of their treatment, can gain access to gendered spaces on that basis.

Another way to handle this is to let anyone gain access to whatever they want based purely on their say-so. For example:

"You can't use the ladies' locker room; you're obviously a dude."

"I've begun transitioning to living as a lady, since that's how I see myself."

"Oh, that's okay then."

Is that what you have in mind?

 

[LondonJohn]

One way to handle this would be to recognize gender dysphoria as an illness. Anyone presenting a document from their physician verifying their condition and confirming transgender expression as part of their treatment, can gain access to gendered spaces on that basis.

Another way to handle this is to let anyone gain access to whatever they want based purely on their say-so. For example:

"You can't use the ladies' locker room; you're obviously a dude."

"I've begun transitioning to living as a lady, since that's how I see myself."

"Oh, that's okay then."

Is that what you have in mind?

Oh yes - I'd assume that 1) it would be a generally-agreed principle that transgender access to the relevant area should only be for those who have formally consulted with an appropriate medical professional and who have had their transitioning "rubber stamped" (as it were), and 2) any transgender people who were challenged on the basis of their access to those areas should be ready and willing to show some form of documentary evidence to this effect.

And I don't think that such a system should be seen as offensive or discriminatory by transgender people (or trans-activists, for that matter), nor should it be seen as an unreasonable burden. I suggest rather that it should be seen as a reasonable negotiation towards a fair solution to a tricky issue which respects all parties as much as is both possible and practical.

 

[MisAndreG]

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

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

It’s interesting.

On Woke Earth-2 men can become women, but a white person can never become a black person because of the different way they think about these identities. So, they think woman and man are social terms that refer to social roles enforced by oppressive systems. (Think of their phrase “Gender is a social construct.”) You and I think, and most people think, that woman = female and man = male which are terms of biology — that we are a sexually dimorphic, sexually reproducing species that is organized for reproduction in two ways, male and female, and that woman and man refer to this biological organization.

Wokes think of these identities as separate from biology and that woman and man are terms of social location, and that those identities are fluid. For them someone talking about biological women or men is a bit like someone talking about biological presidents or prime ministers — this is why they will say things like “people who menstruate” when talking about periods and women’s health, because to them men can have periods and vaginas because man is just a role that is divorced from biology.

All of this nonsense comes out of Queer Theory; its proponents and adherents think these identities are like identity prisons that need to be deconstructed, so that they can be so fluid and meaningless that anyone can be anything they want, no matter their biology. Trans is thought about as liberation from the identity prison of gender and oppressive systems. So trans is perfectly in line with how they think about those identities.

The way they think bout race is different. They think it is a social construct but that you can’t deconstruct race to make it fluid because racism is a regular, permanent part of life, so it is not possible to do that. They also think that skin color confers a knowledge of racial oppression and that access to knowledge makes it so whites for example can never know what it is to be black. So a white person can never be black because they would not have the access to a knowledge of racial oppression that a black person does. Instead what they want to do is accept the racial categories but do liberation politics with them.

Wrapping this up - they think you can destroy identity categories like man and woman, that this is freeing people from the constraints of the roles assigned to those identity categories, and that trans is a way to do that. So a man can become a women. However they think it’s not possible to destroy racial categories and that racial identity confers a knowledge of racial oppression that can’t be transferred to another racial identity category because of they way they think about racism, so a white person can never become black.

Yes, I know how crazy this all sounds, how incoherent it is, and how unhinged it makes me look typing it out, but that’s what they think.

 

[Rolfe]

Loving* all these men solemnly pontificating about just which men they'll allow into women's spaces. Thanks guys, appreciate your concern.

You still don't get it. None of that would ever be enforceable. We've tried it, and while it worked for a little while, it didn't hold. There has been a concerted (successful) campaign over about the past 15 years to have the delusion about being the opposite sex removed from the list of mental illnesses, and medical involvement deemed as unnecessary and indeed oppressive and intrusive. "Self-identification" is now the name of the game. If he says he has lady feelz then he's a woman and nobody has any right to question or challenge that. Even if he's a convicted child rapist who wants a transfer to a women's prison.

The trans lobby will never agree to trans identity being a psychiatric diagnosis again and they will never agree to any restrictions on who can call themselves a woman, whether it be shaving, dressing or surgery. This is the reality in 2020, and people with no skin in the game describing the situation as it was in the 1980s and 1990s and saying look it would be fine if it was done this way, simply have no idea.

The attitude that the hurt feelings of transwomen are far more worthy of consideration than the safety (or indeed the hurt feelings) of women and girls is something that some men can't seem to relinquish. Maybe they should try.

*not loving

 

[LondonJohn]

It’s interesting.

On Woke Earth-2 men can become women, but a white person can never become a black person because of the different way they think about these identities. So, they think woman and man are social terms that refer to social roles enforced by oppressive systems. (Think of their phrase “Gender is a social construct.”) You and I think, and most people think, that woman = female and man = male which are terms of biology — that we are a sexually dimorphic, sexually reproducing species that is organized for reproduction in two ways, male and female, and that woman and man refer to this biological organization.

Wokes think of these identities as separate from biology and that woman and man are terms of social location, and that those identities are fluid. For them someone talking about biological women or men is a bit like someone talking about biological presidents or prime ministers — this is why they will say things like “people who menstruate” when talking about periods and women’s health, because to them men can have periods and vaginas because man is just a role that is divorced from biology.

All of this nonsense comes out of Queer Theory; its proponents and adherents think these identities are like identity prisons that need to be deconstructed, so that they can be so fluid and meaningless that anyone can be anything they want, no matter their biology. Trans is thought about as liberation from the identity prison of gender and oppressive systems. So trans is perfectly in line with how they think about those identities.

The way they think bout race is different. They think it is a social construct but that you can’t deconstruct race to make it fluid because racism is a regular, permanent part of life, so it is not possible to do that. They also think that skin color confers a knowledge of racial oppression and that access to knowledge makes it so whites for example can never know what it is to be black. So a white person can never be black because they would not have the access to a knowledge of racial oppression that a black person does. Instead what they want to do is accept the racial categories but do liberation politics with them.

Wrapping this up - they think you can destroy identity categories like man and woman, that this is freeing people from the constraints of the roles assigned to those identity categories, and that trans is a way to do that. So a man can become a women. However they think it’s not possible to destroy racial categories and that racial identity confers a knowledge of racial oppression that can’t be transferred to another racial identity category because of they way they think about racism, so a white person can never become black.

Yes, I know how crazy this all sounds, how incoherent it is, and how unhinged it makes me look typing it out, but that’s what they think.

But there IS a difference between your two comparators.

The difference is that there is now a good body of medical evidence which supports the validity of mis-gendering and the wish to gender-transition. By contrast, there's no evidence (that I know of) which supports the validity of "mis-ethnicity-ing".

In turn, this is exactly - and solely - why courts and official records accept the right of trans women to identify as women (and vice versa).

 

[LondonJohn]

Loving* all these men solemnly pontificating about just which men they'll allow into women's spaces. Thanks guys, appreciate your concern.

You still don't get it. None of that would ever be enforceable. We've tried it, and while it worked for a little while, it didn't hold. There has been a concerted (successful) campaign over about the past 15 years to have the delusion about being the opposite sex removed from the list of mental illnesses, and medical involvement deemed as unnecessary and indeed oppressive and intrusive. "Self-identification" is now the name of the game. If he says he has lady feelz then he's a woman and nobody has any right to question or challenge that. Even if he's a convicted child rapist who wants a transfer to a women's prison.

The trans lobby will never agree to trans identity being a psychiatric diagnosis again and they will never agree to any restrictions on who can call themselves a woman, whether it be shaving, dressing or surgery. This is the reality in 2020, and people with no skin in the game describing the situation as it was in the 1980s and 1990s and saying look it would be fine if it was done this way, simply have no idea.

The attitude that the hurt feelings of transwomen are far more worthy of consideration than the safety (or indeed the hurt feelings) of women and girls is something that some men can't seem to relinquish. Maybe they should try.

*not loving

I don't remember any "solemn pontificating" - maybe you could link to some of it?

Likewise, I don't remember any suggestions which take the feelings and considerations of trans women into account but do not similarly take the feelings/considerations of cis* women into account. Again, if you could link to any examples...?


* no other way to make the distinction in this context

 

[MisAndreG]

I don't remember any "solemn pontificating" - maybe you could link to some of it?

Likewise, I don't remember any suggestions which take the feelings and considerations of trans women into account but do not similarly take the feelings/considerations of cis* women into account. Again, if you could link to any examples...?


* no other way to make the distinction in this context

You really didn’t need the cis idiocy there, everyone knows the distinction between trans women and women.

 

[MisAndreG]

But there IS a difference between your two comparators.

The difference is that there is now a good body of medical evidence which supports the validity of mis-gendering and the wish to gender-transition. By contrast, there's no evidence (that I know of) which supports the validity of "mis-ethnicity-ing".

In turn, this is exactly - and solely - why courts and official records accept the right of trans women to identify as women (and vice versa).

 

[LondonJohn]

Nice emoji - but I'd (genuinely) be interested to hear a fuller response from you on this matter.

 

[Earthborn]

None of that explains why you are against women having safe, sex-segregated spaces.

Nobody here is against safe spaces. Sex segregation doesn't make them safe. Safety makes them safe.

Do you believe that transwomen with a penis should be free to undress and shower in a communal changing room with teenage girls?

No, I think communal changing rooms should be banned.

Anyone presenting a document from their physician verifying their condition and confirming transgender expression as part of their treatment, can gain access to gendered spaces on that basis.

Did you miss the part where I explain transpeople chose restroom based on what is least likely to out them as trans?

"You can't use the ladies' locker room; you're obviously a dude."

"I've begun transitioning to living as a lady, since that's how I see myself."

Someone who started transitioning would look less like "obviously a dude" and more like "that lady looks like she might be a dude".

Yes, I know how crazy this all sounds, how incoherent it is, and how unhinged it makes me look typing it out, but that’s what they think.

Do you think there should be segregated restrooms for black and whites?

Loving* all these men solemnly pontificating about just which men they'll allow into women's spaces.

These "women's spaces" couldn't exist without restrictive boundaries society imposes on females (and males, come to that - big boys do cry).

"Self-identification" is now the name of the game.

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

The attitude that the hurt feelings of transwomen are far more worthy of consideration than the safety (or indeed the hurt feelings) of women and girls is something that some men can't seem to relinquish.

I have been assured by someone that in the 21 century West, restrooms are super safe. Is that not true?

 

[Mycroft]

Loving* all these men solemnly pontificating about just which men they'll allow into women's spaces. Thanks guys, appreciate your concern.

Calling trans-women men is the fallacy of begging the question.

The attitude that the hurt feelings of transwomen are far more worthy of consideration than the safety (or indeed the hurt feelings) of women and girls is something that some men can't seem to relinquish. Maybe they should try.

Maybe it's just my circle of friends, but the vast majority of cis-women and cis-girls I know don't mind sharing bathrooms with trans-women.

Also, your assertion that trans-women are more dangerous than cis-women is nothing short of bigotry.

 

[Boudicca90]

Here is my experience as an example.

Transitioning takes quite a while both physically and mentally, and when I first started, it was a gradual process. I started to gradually wear more feminine clothes and makeup in public, but until the hormones kicked in, I still looked like a guy wearing makeup and women's clothes.

So I still used the men's restroom at first, and gradually started using the women's restroom as I transitioned, but I was still really nervous so I would wait until it was empty or nearly empty so I wouldn't potentially alarm anybody. The more I felt like I belonged in the women's restroom physically, the more comfortable I became, until I used the women's room exclusively and stopped using the men's because I no longer belonged there.

That's why "Where we most fit" is the best way to go about it, because gender isn't always binary. There are plenty of people who would fall through the cracks if it was.

I heard a great line that sums it up: Transpeople are like spiders, we are more afraid of you than you are of us.

 

[theprestige]

Did you miss the part where I explain transpeople chose restroom based on what is least likely to out them as trans?

Yeah, but I can't figure out how to make sense of it in the context of this conversation. It doesn't actually provide a criteria for deciding who gets access to what. Unless you're saying that whatever the criteria is, it can't be something that outs someone as trans. As far as I can tell, that boils down to:

- cisnormativity is the absolute standard
- only transsexuals that can successfully pass as cisnormal can cross over into gendered spaces
- all transsexuals must strive to stay closeted if they want to publicly cross over
- anyone who can't pass is SOL.

This is actually pretty close to my hypothesis about what gender dysphoria actually means. But it seems at odds with trans activism and with social justice principles in general.

 

[theprestige]

Calling trans-women men is the fallacy of begging the question.

Not even remotely. It's an axiom: Biological males are men.

 

[Boudicca90]

Yeah, but I can't figure out how to make sense of it in the context of this conversation. It doesn't actually provide a criteria for deciding who gets access to what. Unless you're saying that whatever the criteria is, it can't be something that outs someone as trans. As far as I can tell, that boils down to:

- cisnormativity is the absolute standard
- only transsexuals that can successfully pass as cisnormal can cross over into gendered spaces
- all transsexuals must strive to stay closeted if they want to publicly cross over
- anyone who can't pass is SOL.

This is actually pretty close to my hypothesis about what gender dysphoria actually means. But it seems at odds with trans activism and with social justice principles in general.

There is no definite criteria, that's the point, and what you are describing is definitely at odds with what "trans activists" want (or just transpeople in general.)

What you are describing is what we want to move away from, even your use of "transsexual" is an older term that more specifically applied to transpeople who have transitioned medically and/or surgically (the term isn't really used anymore.) I never use that term when describing myself.

Transgender means anybody who isn't cisgender, which is a much wider spectrum, and doesn't necessarily include medical or surgical transitioning. You and Rolfe want us to go back to how it used to be, back when it was considered a mental illness, but that isn't going to happen.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah, but I can't figure out how to make sense of it in the context of this conversation. It doesn't actually provide a criteria for deciding who gets access to what. Unless you're saying that whatever the criteria is, it can't be something that outs someone as trans. As far as I can tell, that boils down to:

- cisnormativity is the absolute standard
- only transsexuals that can successfully pass as cisnormal can cross over into gendered spaces
- all transsexuals must strive to stay closeted if they want to publicly cross over
- anyone who can't pass is SOL.

This is actually pretty close to my hypothesis about what gender dysphoria actually means. But it seems at odds with trans activism and with social justice principles in general.

Huh??

I'd say the (optimal) approach is more like this:

- the observance of respect, decency and safety (emotional, but also of course physical) to the largest amount of people is the overall objective
- all transgender people can cross over into gendered spaces, regardless of what their genitals, mammary glands and body hair might look like; BUT the onus is then on them to ensure that they either eliminate or minimise showing any parts of their bodies which might reasonably offend others of the same gender within that space;
- if transgender people do not exercise this duty of care, they should be deemed to have broken the social contract which forms a part of the desire to have them accepted and welcomed;
- all transgender people have the right to be exactly who they want to be - provided that they don't cause what would be deemed offence to a reasonable person in the process (and note: declarations of transgender identity, or the wearing of clothing that would otherwise be deemed acceptable for others of the same gender, do not count as "unreasonable")

 

[d4m10n]

...the onus is then on them to ensure that they either eliminate or minimise showing any parts of their bodies which might reasonably offend others of the same gender within that space...

I don't think you'll find any social activists on board with this approach, whether 2nd wave feminists or pro-trans intersectionalists. The former want to exclude males from female spaces, the latter want total acceptance without such burdens.

 

[Boudicca90]

I don't think you'll find any social activists on board with this approach, whether 2nd wave feminists or pro-trans intersectionalists. The former want to exclude males from female spaces, the latter want total acceptance without such burdens.

It fits my view, and I am a pro-trans intesectionalist. You are right that the second-wave feminists (or TERFs specifically, since not all feminists are like that) want to ban us completely though. But I recognize there is a social obligation on us, since I don't want to make anybody uncomfortable.