Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Olmstead]

What is a man that performs the stereotypical social roles of a woman, acts in line with the stereotypical behaviour of a woman, even thinks and experiences emotions like a stereotypical woman, but is very much convinced that he is a man?

I'd say that he is a man, which would mean that you can go on about gender roles and similar issues all you want, but the only thing that really matters is the internal perception (which might be biological or psychological). Hence, anything other than the internal perception of a person is meaningless for a discussion on gender.

Of course, there are two other explanations:

- Such a person couldn't exist.
- Such a person is in denial.

I don't agree with those.

 

[Robin]

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

OK, then the most direct way for me to explain this is for you to answer the.question.explicitly:

Are you a type A person or a type B person, or are you somewhere in between? Or, perhaps are you neither a type A person nor a type B person?

Remember my clear definitions:

A type A person is someone with type A attributes and behaviours.

A type B person is someone with type B attributes and behaviours.

So can you answer the question?

If so, can you give reasons for your answer?

If not then, given my clear definitions, why not?

 

[sphenisc]

What is a man that performs the stereotypical social roles of a woman, acts in line with the stereotypical behaviour of a woman, even thinks and experiences emotions like a stereotypical woman, but is very much convinced that he is a man?

I'd say that he is a man, which would mean that you can go on about gender roles and similar issues all you want, but the only thing that really matters is the internal perception (which might be biological or psychological). Hence, anything other than the internal perception of a person is meaningless for a discussion on gender.

Of course, there are two other explanations:

- Such a person couldn't exist.
- Such a person is in denial.

I don't agree with those.

The other explanation is that you assumed the answer at the start of your question, thus coming to a rather predictable conclusion.

 

[Tanja]

If we were to agree that
- there is such a thing as biological sex that makes people biologically male or female
- that gender relates to how people feel or identify about who they are

Then:
- I still strongly support the idea that anyone can identify with any gender they want, present as they want, wear the clothes they want, choose a name they want, not be harassed at work if they decide to transition etc.
- but I just don’t understand why gender would then even be a relevant consideration, let alone a major determinant, let alone the sole determinant, of what kind of naked bodies I should be sharing a changing room with, or who should compete in women’s categories in sport. At the very minimum, both of these debates need to take into account both sex and gender very very carefully, not just talk about gender identity as if it somehow completely trumps sex, and completely ignore the freaking massive elephant in the room that is biological sex as if it’s irrelevant to the discussion. It’s central to those discussions.

 

[Olmstead]

The other explanation is that you assumed the answer at the start of your question, thus coming to a rather predictable conclusion.

Nah, that is just what underlies my rhetoric. It doesn't make the answer any less valid. It just means that I started with the answer and then created the question to make a point. Anyone is free to challenge that point, but in order to do that they either have to challenge the logical consistency of the question and answer and what they imply or they have to come up with a different answer that makes sense.

 

[lionking]

If we were to agree that
- there is such a thing as biological sex that makes people biologically male or female
- that gender relates to how people feel or identify about who they are

Then:
- I still strongly support the idea that anyone can identify with any gender they want, present as they want, wear the clothes they want, choose a name they want, not be harassed at work if they decide to transition etc.
- but I just don’t understand why gender would then even be a relevant consideration, let alone a major determinant, let alone the sole determinant, of what kind of naked bodies I should be sharing a changing room with, or who should compete in women’s categories in sport. At the very minimum, both of these debates need to take into account both sex and gender very very carefully, not just talk about gender identity as if it somehow completely trumps sex, and completely ignore the freaking massive elephant in the room that is biological sex as if it’s irrelevant to the discussion. It’s central to those discussions.

Well said.

 

[cullennz]

If we were to agree that
- there is such a thing as biological sex that makes people biologically male or female
- that gender relates to how people feel or identify about who they are

Then:
- I still strongly support the idea that anyone can identify with any gender they want, present as they want, wear the clothes they want, choose a name they want, not be harassed at work if they decide to transition etc.
- but I just don’t understand why gender would then even be a relevant consideration, let alone a major determinant, let alone the sole determinant, of what kind of naked bodies I should be sharing a changing room with, or who should compete in women’s categories in sport. At the very minimum, both of these debates need to take into account both sex and gender very very carefully, not just talk about gender identity as if it somehow completely trumps sex, and completely ignore the freaking massive elephant in the room that is biological sex as if it’s irrelevant to the discussion. It’s central to those discussions.

This is basically what I think, but am a bit to dim in the old word department to put it so succinctly and come across not confusing what I am trying to say.

 

[Rolfe]

You could just identify as a man for the time between entering the bathroom and exiting it. Problem solved.

That encapsulates a huge problem area in all this. Nobody can know how someone else identifies other than being told by that person. Apparently. It's not at all about conforming to some sort of stereotypical sexist performance role. It's not about what people wear or how they act, so it can't be reliably deduced simply by observing their appearance or behaviour.

It's entirely governed by what people say they are, and their declaration is not to be challenged or even questioned. Even a raised eyebrow may well bring the wrath of the transphobia thought police down on you.

Therefore, nobody can ever be challenged in any (formerly) sex-segregated space. Robert Black, Ian Huntley, Jimmy Savile, any creepy child-raping murdering pervert can go anywhere they like and all they have to do is say the magic words "I identify as a woman" or even "I am a woman you transphobe" to receive all the protection the law and authority affords.

I don't understand why the politicians don't see the problem with this.

 

[LondonJohn]

If we were to agree that
- there is such a thing as biological sex that makes people biologically male or female
- that gender relates to how people feel or identify about who they are

Then:
- I still strongly support the idea that anyone can identify with any gender they want, present as they want, wear the clothes they want, choose a name they want, not be harassed at work if they decide to transition etc.
- but I just don’t understand why gender would then even be a relevant consideration, let alone a major determinant, let alone the sole determinant, of what kind of naked bodies I should be sharing a changing room with, or who should compete in women’s categories in sport. At the very minimum, both of these debates need to take into account both sex and gender very very carefully, not just talk about gender identity as if it somehow completely trumps sex, and completely ignore the freaking massive elephant in the room that is biological sex as if it’s irrelevant to the discussion. It’s central to those discussions.

Yes, but......

I disagree with some of your final bullet point. Within that bullet point, I am in agreement over the women's sport issue (as I've made clear several times before) - this is clearly an issue where trans women would stand to hold an unfair advantage on account of aspects of their biology and associated physiology.

But let's unpack the old "communal changing rooms" issue. You seem to say that at least you personally would not wish to share a communal changing facility with a trans woman. The first question would be: do you believe that transgender people should be able/allowed to use facilities which involve communal changing rooms? My own firm opinion is that the answer to that question should be "yes". If that is your opinion as well (and of course, it might not be your opinion), we must move on to the second question: which changing facilities should these transgender people use? Should a trans woman - who identifies as a woman and who might well also have had medicinal/hormonal treatments or surgery to make her more physically resemble a woman - use the men's changing rooms? What might the repercussions be if that were the case? Should a trans woman have to change in the lavatory....?

You say you deserve the right to know "what kind of naked bodies I should be sharing a changing room with". I presume this is predicated upon the idea that the vision of some naked bodies - in this case, the bodies of trans women - might offend, upset or shock you? So, to extend the argument along these lines: should a (cis) woman with severe limb deformities related to Thalidomide use be allowed to reveal her naked body in front of you in the women's changing rooms? Should a (cis) woman with an abnormally large clitoris and excessive body hair be allowed to reveal her naked body in front of you in the women's changing rooms? Should a (cis) woman with a very visible cancerous tumour in her abdomen be allowed to reveal her naked body in front of you in the women's changing rooms?


See, nobody disputes that ALL people have certain rights not to be offended/shocked/upset. But....... there are times and places where those rights are not inviolable, and where concessions need to be made in order to come to an equitable, fair and respectful outcome. I completely agree that these are issues which require discussion and negotiation. But (to take the changing room issue) I can't see there being any outcome which is a) workable in practice and b) doesn't require inevitable compromise on the part of (cisgender) people, in order to show appropriate respect and sensitivity.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think I need educating, but I'd like to hear your viewpoint, so if you're capable of expressing it I'll do my best to understand what you're saying with an open mind.

You don't need to give the many and various examples, just one or two would be fine.


I think I missed that, could you quote or give a post number so I could go back and read it? Thanks.

ETA Lion analogy was quoted by Olmstead, I'm reading it now, so ignore my last request there.

I could cut and paste the entirety of the ONS article, because it explains in depth exactly the same understanding that I have, and I suspect it may be what you're looking for from me...... but that would fall foul of the forum rules on excessive pasting. And you're clearly searching for a detailed explanation; that article provides a whole lot of detail, and (as I say) it chimes exactly with my own thoughts and beliefs.

So all I can suggest is that you click on this link and read all of its contents, because that's my answer:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

 

[cullennz]

No offense LJ but she ain't rocket science to know the difference between a slightly different person of the same sex who may have a deformity and a trans women who is obviously a dude in body.

 

[LondonJohn]

OK, then the most direct way for me to explain this is for you to answer the.question.explicitly:

Are you a type A person or a type B person, or are you somewhere in between? Or, perhaps are you neither a type A person nor a type B person?

Remember my clear definitions:

A type A person is someone with type A attributes and behaviours.

A type B person is someone with type B attributes and behaviours.

So can you answer the question?

If so, can you give reasons for your answer?

If not then, given my clear definitions, why not?

Let me ask you this:

What makes a horse a horse? What is the essence of a horse's "horsiness"?

And what makes a cow a cow? How is a cow different from a horse?

(And consider these questions without reference to genomes, but rather base them on observed behaviours and attributes)

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah, but in recent years lion society has become rather progressive, and so none of them really cares whether a lion or a lioness hunts at night, so now a lion can remain a lion, retain the lionish gender, and go hunt at night.

No, because even though lion society has indeed become more progressive, tolerant and understanding, the situation remains that the vastly prevailing majority of lions exhibit lionish behaviours and traits, and the vastly prevailing majority of lionesses exhibit lionessish behaviours and traits. So it's still a notable exception when, for example, a lion identifies as lionessish. Fortunately, lion society - on account of its progressive, tolerant and understanding nature - accepts that this particular lion identifies as lionessish, and encourages that lion to embrace lionessish traits (such as hunting at night).

 

[cullennz]

Let me ask you this:

What makes a horse a horse? What is the essence of a horse's "horsiness"?

And what makes a cow a cow? How is a cow different from a horse?

(And consider these questions without reference to genomes, but rather base them on observed behaviours and attributes)

This isn't the same questions

What makes a mare a mare and a stallion a stallion

And what makes a cow a cow and a bull a bull

 

[cullennz]

With the cow and horse they are different species

 

[cullennz]

Can a bull do what a cow does? No (No matter how much it wants to be a cow)
Can a Stallion do what a mare can? No (No matter how much it wants to be a mare)

Should we respect their needs to call them the one they aren't. Personally think yes, but this doesn't change the first two things

Disclaimer: Unless they are *********** and I will wind them up

 

[Earthborn]

Nothing can be done for the Jazz Jenningss or Jackie Greens of this world now.

Googling their names only tells me about some perfectly well adjusted young transwomen. Not sure why you would choose examples of teen-transitioning success stories as examples of ruined lives. "Nothing can be done" ? How about respecting the choices they made in their lives?

Their chance of a normal life is gone and their lives have been ruined. There are hundreds, probably thousands of young women trying to pick up their lives as young women, but with no breasts, deep voices, receding hairlines and the need to shave daily.

That's what you are proposing to do to young transwomen.

There are going to be some very acrimonious lawsuits coming out of this, and I think some of them have started already.

If there are cases where insufficient care was taken to determine whether a person's gender identity was persistent, I would agree that there needs to be legal action.

It's actually our sex-segregated spaces and provisions that Boudicca wants to invade and occupy as of right.

You wouldn't have any problem with it, as you said:

The very few who can "pass" in a female-only space without setting off anyone's antennae on this are not the problem, and they aren't going to be noticed anyway.

 

[Earthborn]

It's the same as calling a black person a non-white.

No, it is more similar to calling a black person black. In the contexts the cis- prefix is meaningful, the alternative would be to call someone non-transgender.

At least some (and I would suggest many) people I refer to as trans activists insist on the cis prefix whether you like it or not.

Only in contexts where they think there needs to be a distinction between transgender and cisgender people. Those contexts are limited.

But to speak for myself only, I want to be referred to as a man not as a cis man.

That is fine.

 

[Ziggurat]

Googling their names only tells me about some perfectly well adjusted young transwomen. Not sure why you would choose examples of teen-transitioning success stories as examples of ruined lives. "Nothing can be done" ? How about respecting the choices they made in their lives?

The choices Jazz Jennings made? Yeah, no. Don’t kid yourself. You are looking at the choices their parents made. Even leaving aside the question of transition, the manner of his public sexualized exploitation for money is sick, and will probably doom him later in life, as it has even with many non-trans child actors.

 

[d4m10n]

The California Gender Recognition Act (SB 179): https://transgenderlawcenter.org/resources/id/ca-sb179

More specifically dealing with restrooms: https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-gender-and-restrooms

This is more in-depth about the effects of the law: https://ogletree.com/insights/an-in...-restroom-access-pronoun-preference-and-more/

Which one of those sources helps us reach the following conclusion?

...if I entered the men's room, a man (either trans or cis) would be perfectly in their rights to tell me to get out because I don't belong in there.

An excerpt would be especially helpful here. AFAICT, CA law doesn't have an exception which allows anyone to tell anyone else to get out.