Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[JihadJane]

I absolutely do have the right to be in there, as I am a woman.

I live in California and I am legally a woman, where the law is that I do have the right to be in there. And the sky isn't falling here or anywhere else that has such protections and laws.

Here is the relevant legal info (which I agree with and support): https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1ac6ffa8-6ebd-4185-bfae-7ad54e005780

No, "Boudicca90", you're not a woman. You're a man. Only men can be transwomen.

Gaslighting is a particularly insidious and harmful form of psychological abuse. Please stop.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, "Boudicca90", you're not a woman. You're a man. Only men can be transwomen.

Gaslighting is a particularly insidious and harmful form of psychological abuse. Please stop.

I'm afraid that (mainstream) medicine and the law both disagree with you. And neither of those constituencies tends to reach conclusions on any issue without first carefully assessing all the available evidence in a balanced and objective manner.

 

[Manger Douse]

I'm afraid that (mainstream) medicine and the law both disagree with you. And neither of those constituencies tends to reach conclusions on any issue without first carefully assessing all the available evidence in a balanced and objective manner.

Do you have examples of mainstream medicine saying this because I suspect there's a *

 

[Rolfe]

I think LondonJohn needs to more information and education about "policy capture".

 

[JihadJane]

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

Vacuous, circular sloganeering on a par with the mind-numbing "transwomen are women" mantra.

Sex segregation is one of the most effective ways of reducing the risk of sexual harassment and sexual of abuse of women and girls. Women fought hard to establish sex-segregated spaces, the lack of which previously excluded them from public life (e.g.the "urinary leash").

https://www.lse.ac.uk/women-peace-security/assets/documents/2019/LSE-WPS-refugees-camp.pdf

 

[Olmstead]

Huh?

My argument is that the mainstream medical profession has, for some time now, understood and accepted that transgender issues are a real thing - as opposed to being the product of some sort of mental illness.

By contrast, I'm 100% certain that the mainstream medical profession has never either understood or accepted that the issue of a person of one ethnicity believing that they're of another ethnicity... is anything other than the product of some sort of mental illness.

And this informs my own belief and argument.

[bolding mine]

What does that even mean? Mental illness is real. It's not something that a person imagines or can think away and usually there are real physical/chemical issues in the brain. How exactly is gender dysphoria different?

 

[JihadJane]

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...)

No. What is respectful about disrespecting women's wishes for dignity and privacy?

If women and/or girls don't want someone with a penis in their female changing room, towel or not, there is no respectful way for that person to be in their sex-segregated space. The respectful thing to do would be to KEEP OUT.

 

[LondonJohn]

[bolding mine]

What does that even mean? Mental illness is real. It's not something that a person imagines or can think away and usually there are real physical/chemical issues in the brain. How exactly is gender dysphoria different?

No. If something is the product of a mental illness, then - by definition - it cannot be said to be valid in the generally-accepted sense. You may be conflating "mental illness" with "mental process".

Example:

"I believe that I'm a good musician" - this, in fact, is an abstract concept for which there is no evidential "right" or "wrong". But it's the product of a mental process for which there is some supporting evidence, and it cannot (take my word for it ) be described as delusional.

"I believe I am the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte" - this is, by any measure, the product of delusion; therefore, it's the product of a form of mental illness.

And when a trans woman says "I believe I am a woman", this claim fits into the former category, not the latter.

 

[JihadJane]

I'm afraid that (mainstream) medicine and the law both disagree with you. And neither of those constituencies tends to reach conclusions on any issue without first carefully assessing all the available evidence in a balanced and objective manner.

No, mainstream medicine does not disagree with me.

Being unable to accurately identify and distinguish between the sexes can have fatal consequences in medicine.

When the law says it will treat men as if they are women it is known as "legal fiction" (a legal term). It is not a statement about material reality.

 

[Earthborn]

a) A person born male, with male anatomy and male appearance who in his head identifies as a man, walks into a women's changing room where he undresses in front of teenage girls and sees them undress.

b)The same person, with the same male anatomy and male appearance, who in her head identifies as a woman, walks into a women's changing room where she undresses in front of teenage girls and sees them undress.

How about:

c)The same person with female anatomy and male appearance, who in his head identifies as a man, walks into a women's changing room.

Are you saying it is difficult for you to understand why a teenage girl, or any woman, would have a problem with either of these cases?

Of course not. It is quite easy to understand.

Do you think it's only a valid concern in scenario a and not b?

It is a valid concern in scenarios a, b and c. The issues are exactly the same:

1. The facility offers insufficient privacy.
2. The person involved is probably quite aware of their appearance, and the fact that their appearance makes them not fit in. It is unlikely they would enter on purpose.
3. If this person does enter on purpose, these teenage girls may experience that as disruptive and are perfecty within their right to ask this person go to the men's changing room instead, because that is a better fit for this person's appearance.

 

[LondonJohn]

No. What is respectful about disrespecting women's wishes for dignity and privacy?

If women and/or girls don't want someone with a penis in their female changing room, towel or not, there is no respectful way of for that person to be in their sex-segregated space. The respectful thing to do would be to KEEP OUT.

Oh boy.

It would of course be remiss and unfair of me to reproduce that final paragraph of yours, but to substitute "white people" for "women and/or girls", "black people" for "someone with a penis", and "race" for "sex", and transfer the setting to (say) Alabama in the 1950s. But nevertheless.....

 

[Rolfe]

When the law says it will treat men as if they are women it is known as "legal fiction" (a legal term). It is not a statement about material reality.

We were all managing to rub along together until the trans activists started demanding that a legal fiction originally intended to apply only to a very small number of people should instead be regarded as defining reality.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think LondonJohn needs to more information and education about "policy capture".

LondonJohn is always open to both information and education on any topic in which he has an interest. And he's also always open to having his opinion challenged, particularly when it's challenged in a well-reasoned, evidence-based and constructive manner.

 

[Manger Douse]

I'm afraid that (mainstream) medicine and the law both disagree with you. And neither of those constituencies tends to reach conclusions on any issue without first carefully assessing all the available evidence in a balanced and objective manner.

Does anyone have an example of mainstream medicine saying that transwomen are women (without a *)?

 

[LondonJohn]

No, mainstream medicine does not disagree with me.

Being unable to accurately identify and distinguish between the sexes can have fatal consequences in medicine.

When the law says it will treat men as if they are women it is known as "legal fiction" (a legal term). It is not a statement about material reality.

You're confusing "sex" and "gender". And the fact that your doing so immediately makes me sceptical as to the basis upon which you're supporting your opinion on this issue (and attacking mine)....

 

[LondonJohn]

Does anyone have an example of mainstream medicine saying that transwomen are women (without a *)?

Well, it might be of benefit to read these links, for example:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160620-the-complex-circumstances-that-defined-your-gender

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/


And (though not from a primary medical perspective) this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/trans-women-feminism.html

 

[JihadJane]

You're confusing "sex" and "gender". And the fact that your doing so immediately makes me sceptical as to the basis upon which you're supporting your opinion on this issue (and attacking mine)....

In what way am I confusing sex with gender?

 

[LondonJohn]

Plus you may be aware of the fact that in many modern liberal democracies - including the US and UK - trans women are legally women if they so elect.

And then it would be relevant to consider how legislators and courts arrived at that point (it wasn't on a hunch, or under misapprehensions created by "woo science"...)

 

[LondonJohn]

In what way am I confusing sex with gender?

Sex is to do with prevailing biology. Gender is to do with identity.

So, for example, even trans women who have undergone every possible surgical and hormonal/chemical procedure to remove the visible signs of "maleness" are still male by sex. But they're women by gender.


(And if you've gone this far in your participation in this debate without knowing or recognising this, then - as I said - it would seem to bring into question the very basis upon which you're constructing your arguments)

 

[Olmstead]

No. If something is the product of a mental illness, then - by definition - it cannot be said to be valid in the generally-accepted sense. You may be conflating "mental illness" with "mental process".

Example:

"I believe that I'm a good musician" - this, in fact, is an abstract concept for which there is no evidential "right" or "wrong". But it's the product of a mental process for which there is some supporting evidence, and it cannot (take my word for it ) be described as delusional.

"I believe I am the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte" - this is, by any measure, the product of delusion; therefore, it's the product of a form of mental illness.

And when a trans woman says "I believe I am a woman", this claim fits into the former category, not the latter.

... Why?

The only reason you think it fits more in the former category is because of some mental gymnastics that have changed the definition of "woman". I could perform the same mental gymnastics to change the definition of "reincarnation" and "Napoleon Bonaparte", but I still wouldn't consider Mr "Bonaparte" to be an authority on early 19th century French politics.