Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Roboramma]

No. Of course not. It's a dichotomy: if you truly support transgender adults, then you must necessarily support a trans woman's right to identify as a woman.

It's possible to support a person's right to identify as a woman, and still understand that she's not a woman.

Why do you ask? Do you think it's possible for that statement to hold logically?

Of course it is.

 

[The Atheist]

Do you think it's possible to say "I support transgender adults, but I don't believe a trans woman is a woman"?

Yeah mate, count me in.

And just for emphasis, this took my eye a couple of pages back:

Yes, we are somewhat different than cisgender women, but we are still women as much as they are...

What the actual ****?

I know I'm different.

But I'm the same.

As you say, the looking glass is in the rear vision mirror now.

 

[d4m10n]

What are cis women getting out this "give and take" which they didn't have before, back when changing rooms were segregated by sex rather than gender?

I've already explained that: cis women are getting the agreement of trans women a) not to expose their (trans women) genitals wherever reasonably possible, and b) not to stare at them (cis women) when they (cis women) are in a state of nudity.

I've highlighted why your explanation doesn't work. Cis women aren't getting something they didn't have before, back when no one was exposing male genitals to them or staring at them in the nude. There is no give-and-take here, women simply must adapt best as they can to new sets of norms and expectations.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. Of course not. It's a dichotomy: if you truly support transgender adults, then you must necessarily support a trans woman's right to identify as a woman.

What does that even mean? What constitutes identifying as a woman? It seems to me that you are hiding obligations you want to place on others under a label of what one chooses for oneself. And there is no universal agreement over what those obligations should be even within the trans community.

So no, it isn't logically a dichotomy. It isn't even properly defined.

 

[caveman1917]

And just for emphasis, this took my eye a couple of pages back:



What the actual ****?

I know I'm different.

But I'm the same.

As you say, the looking glass is in the rear vision mirror now.

That was my first thought too, but it makes sense if you consider the set of women to consist of two subsets, cis-women and trans-women. So you can have both "trans-women are different from cis-women" and "trans-women are just as much women as cis-women." It's not necessarily a self-contradiction.

 

[caveman1917]

What does that even mean? What constitutes identifying as a woman? It seems to me that you are hiding obligations you want to place on others under a label of what one chooses for oneself. And there is no universal agreement over what those obligations should be even within the trans community.

So no, it isn't logically a dichotomy. It isn't even properly defined.

The hidden obligation is at least the requirement to 1) actually believe a trans woman to be, in fact, a woman and 2) promoting said belief towards others:

If Rowling did - in spite of her tweets and other comments on this issue - actually support transgender issues..... would it not seem strange that she never stated, anywhere, something like "I believe trans women are women"?

Note how LondonJohn switched out "to believe a trans woman has the right to identify as a woman" for "to believe trans women are women" when he was pressed to defend it, typical Motte & Bailey.

 

[Boudicca90]

Do you think it's possible to say "I support transgender adults, but I don't believe a trans woman is a woman"?

I think it's possible to SAY that, but it's a lie. People who say things like that only tend to support equal rights for us up to a certain point. Since anybody who believes we are less of a woman than cisgender women will naturally place a limit to how far they will support us.

Either they are fine with us in women's restrooms, but not in locker rooms. Or they are fine with both, and don't support us competing with other women. Or they are fine with all that, but don't support us in prisons. And on and on...

Everyone seems to draw a different line in the sand. And they can do so because we aren't considered women by certain people.

 

[Boudicca90]

That was my first thought too, but it makes sense if you consider the set of women to consist of two subsets, cis-women and trans-women. So you can have both "trans-women are different from cis-women" and "trans-women are just as much women as cis-women." It's not necessarily a self-contradiction.

Exactly. That is what I've been saying this entire time.

Cisgender women are no more or less woman than transgender women, we are just different subsets of women. Just like there are masculine and feminine women out there, but they are both subsets of women.

Just like Megan Rapinoe and Angelina Jolie are both women, so are Laverne Cox and Angelina Jolie.

 

[lionking]

Yeah mate, count me in.

And just for emphasis, this took my eye a couple of pages back:



What the actual ****?

I know I'm different.

But I'm the same.

As you say, the looking glass is in the rear vision mirror now.

Yeah, me too.

As I said long ago in this thread or maybe a related one, most people in Australia would not object to transwomen who presented as women. However this is not enough for trans activists. The conversation has gone along these terms:

"I am a trans woman"

Public "Good for you, enjoy your life"

"And I am a true woman in every way"

Public "Hang on, what does this even mean?"

"It means what I say it means. I also demand you accept my self identification"

Public "What the ****?"

"And I also demand to use women's toilets, locker rooms and shelters based solely on my self identification"

Public "Oh, piss off, you can't be serious"

"And I demand to play women's sports even if cis women can't compete"

Public "What??? And what is this cis crap?"

Can I respectfully suggest that this is not necessarily the best way for trans activists to win hearts and minds. But never mind, just refer to people who don't accept all these demands as TERFs and bigots.

 

[Arcade22]

Do you think it's possible to say "I support transgender adults, but I don't believe a trans woman is a woman"?

There's no difference between this kind of mindset and that of the spineless homophobes who are unwilling to endure the negative effects of publicly opposing same-sex marriage yet refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriages as actually valid.

It's still transphobic to wilfully refuse to acknowledge them as women, especially since you clearly lack any good reason for not doing so. Why is treating and considering transwomen go be actual women just too much, when you have no calms about discarding millennia of traditional marriage?

Why is this exclusionist definition of "woman" so important?

 

[caveman1917]

I think it's possible to SAY that, but it's a lie. People who say things like that only tend to support equal rights for us up to a certain point. Since anybody who believes we are less than a woman than cisgender women will naturally place a limit to how far they will support us.

Either they are fine with us in women's restrooms, but not in locker rooms. Or they are fine with both, and don't support us competing with other women. Or they are fine with all that, but don't support us in prisons. And on and on...

You keep saying "us" as if all male people who identify as women think and act exactly the same. Would I support your placement in the female prison? Probably, you've shown respect and consideration for others' comfort such as in the discussion of covering up male genitals in the presence of teenage girls, so I have no doubt you won't go bother the female prisoners or something. Would I support Karen White's placement in the female prison? Hell no, that's stupid and extremely irresponsible.

Everyone seems to draw a different line in the sand. And they can do so because we aren't considered women by certain people.

You can hardly expect others to consider you a woman if you can't or won't define what a woman is and if, by the mainstream definition, you're demonstrably not. And appealing to the consequences of disbelieving "trans women are women" does not constitute an argument for "trans women are women." Simply expecting people to accept a claim you are unwilling or unable to support is a quite authoritarian mindset.

 

[caveman1917]

Exactly. That is what I've been saying this entire time.

Cisgender women are no more or less woman than transgender women, we are just different subsets of women. Just like there are masculine and feminine women out there, but they are both subsets of women.

Just like Megan Rapinoe and Angelina Jolie are both women, so are Laverne Cox and Angelina Jolie.

Well yeah I understand your categorization of people into different sets, I just disagree with it because it is either internally inconsistent or ill-defined depending on how exactly the set of "women" is defined - or is not defined, as the case may be.

 

[TomB]

I've already explained that: cis women are getting the agreement of trans women a) not to expose their (trans women) genitals wherever reasonably possible, and b) not to stare at them (cis women) when they (cis women) are in a state of nudity.

In return, they "give" the right of trans women to share their changing rooms.


Incidentally, I'd say that the tacit system of social contract agreements is probably already in use wrt people such as a Thalidomide-affected women with severely deformed limbs, or women with abnormally large clitorises and excessive body hair (both of which I've also mentioned before as examples). Both such women, if/when nude, clearly might potentially cause some level of distress or discomfort to other women; as a result, I'd think that both such categories of women would also generally take the kinds of reasonable steps which I've mentioned, as a quid-pro-quo of being able to share the women's changing rooms*


* In fact, some years ago a member of the same gym as me in West London was a veteran of the Iraq conflict; he'd lost one lower arm and suffered extremely severe lacerations and gouges into his abdomen, when his troop carrier was attacked by a roadside IED. His torso (front and back) was a pretty bad sight - the wounds had healed of course, but the scarring and the results of tissue loss had taken a very big toll. He always changed for the gym in a closed shower cubicle, and he never used the swimming pool. I got talking with him a few times, and he volunteered to me that he took those steps precisely because he didn't want other people either a) becoming distressed at the appearance of his naked torso, or b) pointing at him as some sort of "freak" on account of the appearance of his torso.

It just hit me...you really don't get it. You actually don't understand what the women on the other side of the argument are talking about.

How can you possibly put forth an argument without trying to understand what you are arguing about?

I'll try to outline it as best as I can, but to be honest I don't entirely understand it either. I just try to listen to what people are actually saying. This is not necessarily my viewpoint. It's my interpretation of the viewpoint I've seen expressed here regarding locker rooms and restrooms and is open to correction.

First of all, women are not generally disgusted by penises or the male body. So you can knock off all the BS about disfigured and scarred people.

Second, it's also not a fear of being seen naked. At least not casually. They aren't terminally shy shrinking violets who are ashamed of their bodies, though yes, there is an element of socially imposed propriety involved.

Third, it isn't even really about trans women. They (or at least most of them) do not consider trans women to be dangerous sex perverts who are out to rape them, though they are concerned about sexual violence.

Apparently women view these spaces differently than men. I see the bathroom as a place to pee and a locker room as a place to change clothes and/or shower after a workout. Women regard these as safe spaces where there are no men. Why do they want a space free of men? Read through any feminism page. See the complaints about men? Those. All of them. Not just the possibility of sexual assault, but all the other stuff too. They can let their guard down and relax. It's a refuge. They can take care of personal hygiene matters which outside that room are referred to in whispers or euphemisms.

Trans women do not in and of themselves change this. That's why they generally don't seem to have a problem with the Blaire Whites or Boudicca's sharing their spaces. But when they see someone that they perceive as male in these spaces it breaks the sense of comfort and safety from us men. Again, I'm not just talking physical safety.

Now, they have, as Rolfe pointed out in these threads months ago, accepted trans women into their spaces for years by informal agreement. Codifying self-id breaks that. In the past (current?) system the possibility of consequences, social and legal, did a fair job of keeping males out. This aided the perception of trans-women who came into their spaces as being sincere. (It also encouraged discretion.)

Self-ID creates a loophole. And yes, that loophole is probably rarely exploited. But its existence reduces the sense of those spaces being safe spaces because it changes the perception of who they might be in the room with. (I'm not referring to women cis or trans here.) Think of the African American student (can't say where it was) who stood up in a space allocated for "multicultural" use and pointed out her discomfort that there were far too many white people there.

It's less about trans women and more about men.

You were asked what women got in the compromise you propose. You offer discretion as an item of compromise. Like that is something generously given. But its not, really. Especially when you don't recognize what it is these cis-women believe they are being asked to give up.

Now, is this fair? Of course not. There really is no solution that is fair to all. I mentioned that as a male, I see these rooms in more of a utilitarian way. So for me, non-gendered rooms with private changing booths/showers/etc. sounds like a good solution. But I'm not looking for a safe space. I'm looking for a place to change my clothes. I don't have a solution.

Now, I'm going to reiterate that I'm not advocating a position. It's also likely that this I don't have it entirely correct. (It's not my position I'm describing.) I just think that people need to take time and try to figure out what people on the other side are actually arguing before telling them that they are wrong.

A more interesting exercise would be for the people on each side to try to argue, or at least articulate, the opposite point of view.

You can't effectively make a case for your point of view when you don't understand that of your adversary.

 

[cullennz]

No. Of course not. It's a dichotomy: if you truly support transgender adults, then you must necessarily support a trans woman's right to identify as a woman.



Why do you ask? Do you think it's possible for that statement to hold logically?

??

It ain't that hard a concept.

Someone who isn't a jerk says they think are a woman and want to be addressed as if they were. Respect them enough to treat them like one in most cases.

But they aren't a woman.

They are a trans woman.

 

[Robin]

Oh, I thought I'd already made my position very clear.

(Not with specific regard to that question, though )

Do you mean the "Type A/Type B" question?

You said you didn't understand why I felt the definition for gender was meaningless and I clarified using an identical definition but with different terms substituted.

Any attempt to answer my question would have completely clarified why I had a problem with the gender identification.

You do not have to answer my question if you don't want to, but you can appreciate that it feels to me that you don't really want to understand my point.

 

[Robin]

With respect to JK Rowling, I find one thing annoying that she insists that treatment of trans gender children is being driven by homophobia.

In other words she is suggesting that there is a sizable body of parents who would be horrified to find that their children were gay, but would be totally OK with them being transgender.

Does anyone really believe that?

For someone to seriously suggest that this is the case seems like either insanity, stupidity or dishonesty.

It seems clear that JKR is neither insane nor stupid.

 

[cullennz]

With respect to JK Rowling, I find one thing annoying that she insists that treatment of trans gender children is being driven by homophobia.

In other words she is suggesting that there is a sizable body of parents who would be horrified to find that their children were gay, but would be totally OK with them being transgender.

Does anyone really believe that?

For someone to seriously suggest that this is the case seems like either insanity, stupidity or dishonesty.

It seems clear that JKR is neither insane nor stupid.

Do you have a link to her saying this?

 

[Robin]

Do you have a link to her saying this?

Have a look at this twitter thread for example:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1279756114981240834

She talks about trans gender medical intervention as being a new form of conversion therapy for young gay people and that medical interventions are driven by homophobia.

I am assuming from the blue tick that this is her real account.

 

[Robin]

Have a look at this twitter thread for example:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1279756114981240834

She talks about trans gender medical intervention as being a new form of conversion therapy for young gay people and that medical interventions are driven by homophobia.

Quotes in this thread "These concerns were explored by the recent BBC documentary about the Tavistock Clinic. Whistleblowers were talking about transitions driven by homophobia. "

or: "As I’ve said many times, transition may be the answer for some. For others, it won’t – witness the accounts of detransitioners.
“The system sees surgery as the easy fix to girls who do not conform.”"

Again, I wonder if she really believes any of that.

 

[Roboramma]

With respect to JK Rowling, I find one thing annoying that she insists that treatment of trans gender children is being driven by homophobia.

In other words she is suggesting that there is a sizable body of parents who would be horrified to find that their children were gay, but would be totally OK with them being transgender.

Does anyone really believe that?

For someone to seriously suggest that this is the case seems like either insanity, stupidity or dishonesty.

It seems clear that JKR is neither insane nor stupid.

I agree with you that that's a pretty weird idea. Based on the overlap between LGBT viewpoints, I doubt there are many people who would prefer their child to be trans than homosexual. There are probably plenty of people who wouldn't be particularly bothered by either, and many others who would be bothered by both. I suspect there are still many who'd be more concerned if their child turned out to be trans than if they were gay, but not so much the other way around.

So, yeah, that seems like an odd viewpoint.

But a lot of people believe weird things. Actually I think most people believe one or two weird, nonsensical things. I'm not convinced about the "insane, stupid, or dishonest" comment.