Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Ziggurat]

Sure. But just like intersex conditions, let's remember that most intersex people do NOT identify as trans. And most trans people are NOT intersex.

Mixed sex chimerism can be different than intersex. Visible sexual characteristics and organs may be fully developed as one sex or the other. People with chimerism don't always know they're chimeras.

Chimerism in rare

Yes, although we don't have good statistics on how rare.

and really not supporting evidence for trans identification, nor an argument against it.

Sure. I'm not intending it to be.

 

[d4m10n]

(again, with the proviso that everyone's reasonable concerns are addressed with dignity and respect)

Suppose that a handful of young women are taking second or third place to untransitioned trans girls in, say, high school short track events. How would you address their reasonable concerns?

 

[caveman1917]

Interesting choice on labeling trans-acceptance a matter of orthodoxy by ideologues. Meanwhile the anti-trans case against the CT school district is brought by Alliance Defending Freedom, and Christian nonprofit that wants to reassert Christian hegemony over the country.



https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom

Champions of individual liberty and free thought.

Wow... I read the whole thing and it just confirms how easy it is to use propaganda against us to make a potential ally hate us.

All it took were the actions of one woman who does not represent all of us and who's actions have been reprehensible to turn her. And linking the trans rights movement with Naziism and the Holocaust?! Absolutely deranged.

Ironically, her attitudes towards us became much more Nazi-like after she came to this "revelation" about us. But history has shown how easy it is to get the oppressed to hate the oppressed when they are different.

Either of you care to actually comment on some of the statements made in that quote and how they relate to discussion here? I get it, outrage is fun and all, but this being a skeptics forum (at least it should be) let's focus on the argumentation, reasoning, and fallacious thinking parts. I've highlighted some points that I think are quite relevant to the discussion as it takes place in this thread:

I found this article from a former ideologue interesting.

"When asked why I believed transwomen were, in fact, women, I asserted that some boys and girls are “born in the wrong body,” and that our brains are gendered (thus, transwomen had a male body, but a “woman’s brain”). When asked to elaborate, I pointed to vague notions of “knowing” and “feeling,” rather than terms that were rooted in science and could be operationalized. When asked to explain further, I resorted to circular reasoning: some men feel like women, and only women can feel like women, therefore some men are women. When pushed on the question of how it is possible to “feel like a woman,” I’d argue that because I “felt” like a woman, it must be true. Other times I resorted to name-calling, labeling women who said transwomen were male “bigots” who were “stuck in the ‘50s,” and didn’t believe in civil rights. If all else failed, I’d mention my PhD. Then, I would end the conversation, as I did not believe I needed to reflect upon this further. After all, I had federal law backing me. Clearly I was on the right side of history. And so, instead of listening, I kept climbing my personal peak, feeling more righteous the higher I went."

"Now, when I reflect on my “switch” from being an unrelenting trans activist/“ally” to being critical of gender identity ideology and legislation, I’m chilled at how easy it was for me — a psychologist (now retired), ostensibly trained to understand the human mind — to become so caught up in the momentum of “trans rights” that I avoided critical thought, much like a new member of a cult. And, while I’m reluctant to call trans activism a “cult,” I’m aware of many disconcerting similarities: the absolute refusal to allow anyone to criticize issues; silencing, smearing, and ostracizing those who do ask questions (in this case, labeling them “transphobic”) about the ideology of transgenderism; and pressuring individuals (from parents to health professionals) to blindly adhere to the view that some people are “born in the wrong body,” and that the only way to “fix” this error is through medical intervention, such as puberty-suppressing drugs, cross-sex hormones, and various surgeries, rather than with psychological intervention. And, much like in a cult, those who push gender identity ideology discourage independent thought, and instead respond to requests for evidence and facts to support their beliefs with platitudes, mantras, and scare tactics, repeated over and over, until they become reality."

Several people over the past day have expressed similar concerns, such as here:

Honestly, there's no point arguing this. It's like talking to a religious person.

I agree. It's like expecting to have a rational debate with religious fundamentalists.

It insults mine as well, and it is particularly baffling to hear this sort of waffle on a forum that is intended to be for sceptics and pro-science. Sadly, it's not alone in that these days.

Don't you think it might be helpful if you two, or either of you, were to address said concerns instead of - or at least in addition to - just launching into your newest "look there, transphobes!" spiel? Even if it were Hitler himself pointing out that your argumentation is crap it wouldn't make your argumentation any less crap, and making that excuse is crap argumentation itself. Where are the days when anarchists were trained in Hyde Park to hold their own against a hundred skeptics...yes I know neither of you are anarchists, still, close enough with the SRA and libertarian-marxist thing.

 

[TomB]

Exactly. The two were never distinguished against in the past, it was all considered a perversion regardless of the motivation for cross dressing. And it was always considered at least part of the reason why they were murdering, raping, etc.

It's a trope that needs to die, but people like Rowling want to keep it alive because it feeds into her hatred of us and our views.

Most of the murder mystery type shows I can think of where a man dressed as a woman, the perpetrator was not presented as a cross-dresser. Dressing as a woman was just a disguise that allowed him to commit crimes without being identified. They didn't really have anything to do with transgenderism.

(Of course, Silence of the Lambs was different, but based on a composite of real serial killers apparently.)

I'm curious how you view the movie White Chicks. The way I see it, it doesn't ridicule cross-dressing. The costumes are just tools to set up the culture shock of seeing a different perspective. (And of seeing their own behavior from this alternate perspective.

 

[TomB]

Wow... I read the whole thing and it just confirms how easy it is to use propaganda against us to make a potential ally hate us.

All it took were the actions of one woman who does not represent all of us and who's actions have been reprehensible to turn her. And linking the trans rights movement with Naziism and the Holocaust?! Absolutely deranged.

Ironically, her attitudes towards us became much more Nazi-like after she came to this "revelation" about us. But history has shown how easy it is to get the oppressed to hate the oppressed when they are different.

Really?

I got something different from it. The way I read it, it wasn't JY's behavior that caused the switch. It was the prominent person in the trans-rights movement comparing a discussion/presentation to the beginnings of the Holocaust. Hyperbole that hit a nerve for her given her cultural background.

 

[Paul2]

That's fair, and there is probably plenty of real issues to discuss around very specific problems, such as perhaps any unfair athletic advantages, that honest people could disagree with in good faith.

I find the dark shadow of extremist bigotry makes such discussion dubious. I've noticed there is often a reluctance of some to distance themselves from such people. The CT case was mentioned here, but I see no mention that it is being spearheaded by a explicitly bigoted anti-queer group that would likely systematically sterilize, imprison, or outright murder gay and trans people if they had their way, and is doing their best to criminalize their day to day lives using the legal system.

Perhaps I am wrongly perceiving hostility where this is none, but the lack of outrage over these types of groups being involved in the anti-trans movement makes me very suspicious. Anyone willing to make common cause with these people are moral degenerates.

Do you mean join forces operationally to achieve a common end, or merely have the same common end but not work together?

 

[zooterkin]

I don't believe that trans women should be permitted to compete in high- or medium-level sports (strictly speaking, those sports in which anatomy and/or physiology play an advantageous role).

Furthermore, I don't believe that trans women will ever be allowed to compete in those competitions/sports as described above.

And pursuant to that, I think that all moderate transgender people or moderate trans-activists will accept this as a reasonable push-back point.

So you don't think that trans women are women?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, I'm only a man so anything I say can be safely ignored, but I'm not seeing anything terribly offensive there. But I'm sure someone will be along to explain why I'm wrong.

Well, I'm only a woman, and I don't see anything terribly offensive either.

But what do I know? I got accused of misgendering someone (and therefore got called a TERF and a bigot) for acknowledging that their sex is male.

 

[The Atheist]

I suppose it is much more similar to your country, as the whites (transphobes and TERFs in this analogy) who want segregation ARE a minority, and you ARE losing.

Nope. If it were only a minority of women who have a problem, you'd be right.

It isn't and you're wrong.

 

[MisAndreG]

Duplicate

 

[MisAndreG]

a bit off topic. i don’t know what transphobe means anymore. it’s been stretched so far beyond any diagnostic usefulness it’s meaningless. Similarly I don’t know what terf is supposed to mean either. they just seem to mean “ppl not showing sufficient obeisance to trans identity”

 

[LondonJohn]

Honestly, there's no point arguing this. It's like talking to a religious person.

"Transwomen/transmen are women/men."

"God exists."

It's a central tenet that cannot be questioned.

Researchers are not allowed to ask: "Are transwomen women? Why or why not?"

Researchers must concede that transwomen are women and then ask: "How do we make this true?"

It insults my intellect.

1) "Homosexual men have authentic identities as men who have sexual desires for other men"

It's a central tenet that can't be questioned. Researchers are not allowed to ask "Are homosexual men actually straight men who are suffering from a disorder which makes them think they have sexual desires for other men? Why or why not?"

Researchers must concede that homosexual men are men who have authentic identities as men who have sexual desires for other men, and then ask "How do we make this true?"*


2) Fortunately for the debate on transgender identity and gender dysphoria, the expert body which represents the global mental health care community has done the job of looking at the actual evidence of the work done with trans gender people...... and they have now come to the carefully-considered conclusions - and directives for the whole World's mental health professionals - that a) transgender identity is an authentic condition, and b) gender dysphoria is now considered not to be a disorder (or the product of a disorder).

As far as the World's mental health practitioners go: a (properly diagnosed) trans woman is a woman. Full stop.

Oh, and these conclusions - which, remember, now inform the directive for the entire World's mental health practitioners regarding assessment, diagnosis and guidance - have now rightly been adopted by many of the World's major countries (including the USA and the UK), and they have been enshrined into law.

As far as many of the World's major nation states go: a (properly diagnosed) trans woman is a woman. Full stop. A trans woman's passport will define her as a woman. The law regards her as a woman. The law provides protection for her from the type of discrimination - including deliberate mis-gendering - that is so unpleasantly prevalent among a certain cadre within this very thread.


Yeah..... it really does insult my intellect.



* I think it's interesting that certain people airily dismiss the analogy of homosexuality as a failed comparison. My thesis on this is that (fortunately) even bigots now understand that it is a fixed and inarguable truth that homosexuals really do have authentic sexual desires for other members of the same sex - as opposed to, say, believing that homosexuals are nothing more than heterosexuals who are suffering from a mental disorder.

I suspect that even bigots don't stop to think how/why this position (and public perception) on homosexuality actually came to be how it is. They perhaps forget that it was even against the law to be homosexual in most countries (including the US and UK), right up until the 1960s. So what changed, and why?

Well, what actually happened - during the first six decades or so of the 20th Century in the case of homosexuality - is that the experts in the field of mental health used the combination of their expertise/experience and their own pooled research data to form the conclusion that homosexuality should be regarded as an authentic feeling and identity, rather than a delusion or the product of a mental disorder. And this, coupled with pressure from Gay Rights groups, was what led most "westernised" nations to a) repeal the laws which had made homosexuality illegal, and b) ensure that the rights of homosexual people was enshrined in law.

I wonder if this might provide a teachable example when it comes to the way we ought to consider transgender people........?

 

[Emily's Cat]

How about this: go outside to some well trafficked public area and then at first try to determine whether the people you see look like a male or a female human, then afterwards ask them whether they are male or female.



Practically speaking here, people who are trans try to look and act like people of the opposite sex tend to do. Obviously females tend to look and act in many different ways, and yet it is also obviously true that they tend to look and act in a certain general way compared to males. That's why we usually don't need to inspect people genetials to determine their sex.

You keep pushing this false dichotomy between either treating "woman" as a synonym for someone of the female sex or it being just a completely meaningless label that can be applied to anything. There's no reason to limit yourself to those options.



Except that these "gender critical" feminists tend to have a lot of very strong opinions about how transwomen do not meet their standards of what a woman should look like and how transwomens appearance is an outrageous defilement of womanhood.

Okay, I'm going to dig in on this some. Because in one sense your statements are fairly accurate... but the conclusions you're drawing are not.

Yes, it is almost always (like 99.9%) really easy to distinguish a male from a female adult human. We have different phenotypes. We are physically built different, with a constellation of sex-differentiated physical characteristics. Our overall size, size of feet and hands, shape of jaw line, shape of brow ridge, shape of eyes, shape and tilt of hips, degree of musculature, distribution of fat deposits, presence of facial hair, density of arm and leg hair, and some muscle attachment points differ between males and females as a result of sex.

Just so we're clear, we're talking about physical differences that are a result of sex.

A transwoman can't necessarily alter all of those factors. Fat distribution and overall muscle density can be affected by persistent hormone therapy, which can also grow breasts. Electrolysis and laser hair removal can help with facial and body hair. Facial and tracheal sculpting can reshape brows and jaws and adam's apple.

But big hands and feet, broad shoulders relative to hip width, general v-shaped torso, hip tilt, and many other elements of phenotype cannot be changed, no matter how strongly someone identifies as a woman. Because they are still male.

What you really seem to be overlooking is that there is now a strong push for self-identification alone to be sufficient for someone to gain access to all things female. And that includes people with full beards, no hormone therapy, and intact genitalia.

I (and many other women) are just fine with accepting transwomen as women in *most* situations. And the more your phenotype approaches that of a female, the more likely I am to accept you without question. But I do not think it's reasonable or equitable for women to be expected to move over, shut up, and make room for people who are unquestionably male to enter our private spaces, dominate our sports, and gain access to our scholarships and recognition.

Even more than that, I don't think it's even remotely 'progressive' for cismen to drown out our voices and call us names if we don't kowtow to the males who identify as women.

 

[caveman1917]

As far as the World's mental health practitioners go: a (properly diagnosed) trans woman is a woman. Full stop.

If the World's mental health practitioners go: "2 + 2 = 5. Full stop." that still doesn't make it true, it only makes it true that "the World's mental health practitioners" say it is.

As far as many of the World's major nation states go: a (properly diagnosed) trans woman is a woman. Full stop.

If many of the World's major nation states go: "2 + 2 = 5. Full stop." that still doesn't make it true. It only makes it true that "many of the World's major nation states" say it is.

A trans woman's passport will define her as a woman.

So all undocumented people are, what, non-binary?

The law regards her as a woman.

On the other hand, the law also claims that there are invisible people among us, so...

Yeah..... it really does insult my intellect.

That which doesn't exist can not be insulted.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I find a woman like this especially sad, since I've noticed internalized transphobia like this is especially prevalent among older transgender people. They bought into the old dangerous and destructive idea of GID and the Benjamin SOC and can't see themselves as they truly are. I've seen this also with gay people who have internalized homophobia and do everything possible to sabotage gay rights.

That's transphobia? What the heck is dangerous and destructive about it? Most of the older transgender people that you're so critical of are actually living happy, well-adjusted lives. Shouldn't that be the goal?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Self ID is the law in a number of places right now, like here in California, with no issues. Hell, you don't even have to travel very far from the UK, look at Ireland: https://www.thejournal.ie/transgender-laws-in-ireland-explainer-4453493-Jan2019/

I fully support it and it doesn't affect women's rights one bit except help protect us transgender women under those same rights as cisgender women. Giving and protecting rights for one group doesn't take them away from another.

Okay. Tell me how allowing white people to identify as black, and gain access to scholarships, grants, and recognition that are intended to address inequities in society aren't reduced?

 

[d4m10n]

As far as the World's mental health practitioners go: a (properly diagnosed) trans woman is a woman. Full stop.

Did the practitioners who made this statement take the trouble to define the key terms?

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Sex is real" is a common way transphobes like to tailor their arguments to make them seem more appealing to the masses. It is saying "It doesn't matter how you feel or what you consider yourself to be or what you look like - Ultimately you will always be a man." and that view is used to deny us equal rights as women.

What rights are you lacking? What rights are you asking for?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think you can have one that excludes some trans people based on their genitals and that is acceptable, like a gay man who wouldn't want to have sex with a man with a vagina. I know I would be hesitant to, since vaginas are not my preference and would limit what I would be able to do sexually. But if that same gay man wouldn't have sex with a man with a penis because he was born female, I see that as discriminatory.

Okay, we're gonna get a bit graphic here... but it seems like there should be some consideration for the fact that a man who was born female, but now has a penis... well, there are going to be things that he can't do. His neopenis doesn't function the same way that a natural penis does. A neopenis doesn't ejaculate, or tumesce, or throb. Neoscrotum don't contract during arousal.

I'm not entirely sure why it wouldn't be acceptable for a gay man to be just as disinterested in a neopenis as he might be for a person with a vagina wearing a strap-on who likes it through the backdoor.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You do know that human beings parse and analyse words and phrases every single day, in order to interpret their intended meaning. Don't you?

Or maybe you don't know.

Or maybe because a) you do that sort of thing numerous times a day without even thinking about it, and b) you're, shall we say, not particularly inclined to want to do it in this particular instance.... it's easy for you to reach the above conclusion?

At the moment, I'm parsing your phrases as being highly condescending and insulting to several people.