• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boudicca90 said:
I didn't feel that way before, but the more this conversation goes on, the more I realize even people who we would consider strong allies always seem to have somewhere where they draw the line. When we are saying there is no line to draw.
Click to expand...

There is never no line to draw. If you think there isn't, then you just haven't thought hard enough about the subject.

I respect anybody who tries to respect us, but if you call us all the correct pronouns but still support segregating us in any way (and I think I have shown I am more than willing to compromise to a certain degree), then you really don't support us.
Click to expand...

Who exactly is "us"? Is Jessica Yaniv part of "us"? Is Zuby part of "us"?
 
Boudicca90 said:
I honestly do.

I didn't feel that way before, but the more this conversation goes on, the more I realize even people who we would consider strong allies always seem to have somewhere where they draw the line. When we are saying there is no line to draw.
Click to expand...

I draw the line where the undefined and unexplainable gender that you identify as crosses into the biological sex and lived experience of females. And hell, I'm perfectly willing to share most of that with you.

It's your repeated insistence that the issues that females raise are either nonexistent or insignificant that causes me to back away from supporting you. I mean, rather than just dismissing females out of hand... how about you go ahead and provide your reasoning for which of the mentioned items below are "not real" and which are merely "insignificant" for females?

In terms of safety, privacy, and independence, Self-Id of transwomen and forced acceptance into female spaces has resulted in:
- a genitally intact transwoman being allowed into a domestic violence shelter where that person proceeded to masturbate over the sleeping body of her female room mate
- a genitally intact transwoman sexual predator being placed in a female prison ward where she raped female prisoners with her female penis
- middle school and high school swim team members taking turns changing in a much smaller locker room because the genitally intact transwoman's right to be naked in the ladies locker room (regardless of any discomfort it caused) was viewed as more important than the girls right not to have male bodies in their locker room
- Several aestheticians being sued for refusing to wax a transwoman's balls and handle her penis

In terms of undermining progress, transwomen in general want
- to have access to scholarships and grants set aside to address inequities toward females in society
- qualify for female recognitions like "woman of the year" and similar accolades that bring attention to the value of females in the world
- count toward female quotas set by affirmative action and diversity objectives in areas where females are significantly underrepresented
- re-introducing the concept of "lady brain" which has been used to discriminate against women in science and business for hundreds of years, based on flimsy and immaterial science that has repeatedly shown to be non-determinitive and non-predictive of gender
- to compete against biological females in sports where physiology confers an unassailable advantage

In terms of erasing female identity, trans activists insist:
- sex is a social construct
- biological sex has nothing at all to do with a female identity
- the lived experience of females is unimportant as an aspect of female identity
- that the "essence of womanhood" is something internally felt that defies explanation and cannot be described or elaborated upon, but which overrides the descriptions provided by natal women
- redefined the term "woman" so that it holds no meaning at all
Click to expand...
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think there are some differences. We can measure sexual attraction. The observable effects of physical arousal are fairly well documented. The claim to be attracted to people of the same sex can be observed as true by anyone at all. The argument given for homosexuality being classed as a deviancy was that it was "unnatural", not that it wasn't observable fact.

Additionally, the cultural change required to stop stigmatizing homosexuality was minimal. It required protection against discrimination in employment and services (which should be available to anyone on pretty much any attribute or belief), it required a removal of religious perspective from the definition of marriage from a legal viewpoint.

It did not require removing a definition of sexuality, or a redefinition of attraction at all. It didn't obligate other people to change their beliefs. It didn't require other people to accept an internal feeling that was in opposition to observable reality.

In contrast, gender identity cannot be measured. And the physical indicators of sex, which are measurable, must be ignored and made unimportant for gender identity to be accepted. It relies on an internal view that is undefined and cannot be explained in any objective fashion.

Transgender people should have legal protection from discrimination in employment and services. But that's not all that is being asked for.

The definition of gender adopted by trans activists requires that the definition of "woman" have no meaning. It requires enforcement of language use. It requires that everyone alter their beliefs and their understanding so that male-bodied people who present as male be accepted as "just as much of a woman" as a female-bodied person who presents as female.

Affirmation of your internal identity requires me to erase my identity as female.
Click to expand...


In the bad old days, nobody but the worst kinds of bigots and deniers were claiming that, for example, homosexual men were pretending to be sexually attracted to other men.

Rather, the claim was that a) homosexual men were genuinely sexually attracted to other men, but that b) this (genuine) same-sex attraction was the product of a mental disorder or deviancy.

In other words, those men were mentally ill, and their mental illness was manifesting itself in making them believe they were sexually attracted to other men. In other words, these were simply "normal" (ie heterosexual) men who had unfortunately become ill*.

And of course, under that misguided "analysis" of homosexuality, your tests regarding sexual arousal would indeed show that (eg) the homosexual man was genuinely sexually aroused by other men. The problems arise when it comes to ascribing those desires: in a modern, enlightened age, we now recognise that those genuine desires are an authentic, valid condition in themselves; in a previous, unenlightened age (which was not so very long ago, remember), they believed those genuine desires to be nothing but the product of a mental disorder.



* Much the same as the man believing he is King Henry VIII: it may be undeniable that the man does genuinely believe himself to be that long-dead English monarch, but in that case it's also a total certainty that this belief is the product of a mental disorder.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Do you believe that a female biology and the lived experience of being a female in this society has nothing at all to do with gender?
Click to expand...

I think she pretty much has to: She never lived as a woman, but still knew she was one. She never had female biology, but knew she was a woman.

Not only that, but I think she also would have to deny (or ignore) any science that might result in fact-based gatekeeping. For example, if research into chimerism reveals that some people really do have a female brain in a male body, what does that say about all the self-diagnosed transwomen who *don't*?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
In the bad old days, nobody but the worst kinds of bigots and deniers were claiming that, for example, homosexual men were pretending to be sexually attracted to other men.

Rather, the claim was that a) homosexual men were genuinely sexually attracted to other men, but that b) this (genuine) same-sex attraction was the product of a mental disorder or deviancy.

In other words, those men were mentally ill, and their mental illness was manifesting itself in making them believe they were sexually attracted to other men. In other words, these were simply "normal" (ie heterosexual) men who had unfortunately become ill*.

And of course, under that misguided "analysis" of homosexuality, your tests regarding sexual arousal would indeed show that (eg) the homosexual man was genuinely sexually aroused by other men. The problems arise when it comes to ascribing those desires: in a modern, enlightened age, we now recognise that those genuine desires are an authentic, valid condition in themselves; in a previous, unenlightened age (which was not so very long ago, remember), they believed those genuine desires to be nothing but the product of a mental disorder.
Click to expand...

Contrast this with transgender people.

The claim is that transwomen genuinely are 'women', and that they genuinely 'identify as' female in their minds. Nobody can describe what 'women' means that includes both ciswomen and transwomen but does not include either cismen or transmen. Nobody can directly observe or measure the identity in question. This gender identity causes distress in people who have this inside-the-mind view of their male bodies as hosting a female identity. The treatment for his inside-the-mind disconnect between the mind and the body frequently includes dressing as the opposite sex to that of their body, adopting the stereotypical gender roles of the opposite sex, altering their bodies through significant hormone treatment which creates a life-long drug dependence, and undergoing highly invasive surgery to alter the physical appearance of their sex.

Most people agree that the distress is a real genuine experience. Most people accept that the medical transitions are the best way to alleviate that distress, and that the inside-the-mind disconnect cannot be cured.

It is insisted that it is not a disorder.

Now we're also being told that some people don't have a disconnect between their mind and their body, they have a disconnect between how other people perceive their body and how they want other people to perceive their body. We;re told that having a male body, with male phenotypical physique, and presenting as a male does not make one a man, and that a person who wishes to can obligate others to think of them as a woman in order to alleviate their social distress.
 
A few questions for everyone and anyone:

1) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by gender? If so, what and why? If not, why not?

2) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by sex? If so, what and why? If not, why not?
 
But....

..... there's also objectively no way of falsifying - or, for that matter, proving - the (now-discredited) model of homosexuality which holds that:

a) homosexual people have genuine sexual desires for other people of their same sex,

but that

b) those sexual desires are the product of a mental disorder (rather than being a genuine, valid condition in themselves)


You can empirically measure (a) - thought it's actually irrelevant.

What you cannot measure empirically is (b) - which is the only measure that counts.


So, one might ask: what was it that made the accepted explanation of same-sex desires change from the above model, to the one we accept today - in which those desires are explained not as the product of a mental disorder, but instead as genuine, valid desires in themselves?

And there's no other way to consider that question other than by employing the same sorts of methods by which the model of explaining transgenderism has now evolved (i.e. to the point where mainstream mental health expertise considers it to be an authentic, valid condition rather than the product of a mental disorder).
 
TomB said:
A few questions for everyone and anyone:

1) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by gender? If so, what and why? If not, why not?

2) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by sex? If so, what and why? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

1) Yes. Competitive sports. For biological and sociological reasons which have been discussed at length already and which I won't bother to re-hash again right now.

2) Yes. Gender. For biological and sociological reasons which have *not* been discussed at length, but have been discussed in brief, and which I might go on to develop here but I'm not making any promises.
 
TomB said:
1) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by gender? If so, what and why?
Click to expand...
Yes. My local big box stores have separate clothing depts. for feminine and masculine clothing, and this strikes me as convenient for nearly everyone. A separate area for clothing especially tailored for those pursuing unisex and/or non-binary fashions would be appreciated as well.

TomB said:
2) Do you think there are things that should be segregated by sex? If so, what and why?
Click to expand...
Yes. The most obvious example would be women's health clinics which specialize in OB/GYN, e.g. Whole Woman's Health or comparable clinics dedicated to men's health issues. Other examples would be Women's Rugby and the WNBA in North America, because a single open class for top-level sport would exclude most female competitors.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
But....

..... there's also objectively no way of falsifying - or, for that matter, proving - the (now-discredited) model of homosexuality which holds that:

a) homosexual people have genuine sexual desires for other people of their same sex
Click to expand...

LOL wut
 
d4m10n said:
Yes. My local big box stores have separate clothing depts. for feminine and masculine clothing, and this strikes me as convenient for nearly everyone. A separate area for clothing especially tailored for those pursuing unisex and/or non-binary fashions would be appreciated as well.

Yes. The most obvious example would be women's health clinics which specialize in OB/GYN, e.g. Whole Woman's Health or comparable clinics dedicated to men's health issues. Other examples would be Women's Rugby and the WNBA in North America, because a single open class for top-level sport would exclude most female competitors.
Click to expand...



I'm in agreement with all of this.

And incidentally - as I've stated before - I also believe that those competitive sports* in which anatomy and/or physiology play a competitive factor** should be sex-segregated. I know that this is not Boudicca90's position, though I'm not sure whether or not there's any difference of opinion on this matter within either the transgender community or those lobbying for transgender rights. I do however believe it very highly likely that the bodies administering all of the relevant sports will - sooner or later - instigate measures to exclude transgender competitors.


* Though only for mid-level (eg local region, state) and high-level (national, international) sports - outside of these levels of competion, I believe transgender people should be encouraged to compete in sports with their trans gender, and that they should be welcomed and accepted for it.

** As I've already argued: I believe it to be obvious that someone who has, for example, gone through childhood and adolescence as a cis male has already developed, on average, a comparatively advantageous (compared with female cis women) anatomy - bone size, bone strength, bone density - and physiology - heart size and strength, lung size and strength, muscle mass/nature/strength). And none of these biological areas of competitive advantage will be significantly altered by any form of gender transition.
 
d4m10n said:
LOL wut
Click to expand...



Perhaps you ought to include all of what I've written, when considering your response.

(Particularly, of course, the Part (b) which you omitted. But also the explicit clarification elsewhere within my post)

LOL, indeed :rolleyes:


ETA: oh, and my prior post #26, which explains things further stlll...
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Can we agree that there are relatively objective ways of objectively measuring sexual excitement in (gay) men?
Click to expand...



Errr.... yes.

Once again: read my post. Properly this time. Together with what I wrote a mere handful of posts upthread.

You'll find that I explicity make this very point. More than once.

You'll also find that the part I'm saying cannot be measured objectively is the underlying driver of that same-sex sexual excitement. So, in the case of gay men, one cannot empirically measure whether that (genuine, provable) same-sex sexual attraction is or is not either a) the product of a mental disorder, or b) an authentic, valid condition in and of itself.


If you'd only read my post(s) properly in the first place, this to-and-fro need never even have been required.


ETA: You might wish to consider the line in my post where I write (my bolding for emphasis):

"You can empirically measure (a) - thought it's actually irrelevant."

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn - Did you not mean this part of your post to apply to part (a) of said post:
LondonJohn said:
there's also objectively no way of falsifying - or, for that matter, proving
Click to expand...
If you did, why? If not, seems a bit confusing as written. What makes any given disorder valid or invalid?

ETA: Proposition (a) is about real world responses to stimuli, but (b) looks like a cultural value judgement to me. Mind the is/ought gap.

ETA2: Which real world people actually claim (b) is true? I'm not sure James Dobson even goes this far.

ETA3: If everyone here agrees on (a) why bring it up?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
LondonJohn - Did you not mean this part of your post to apply to part (a) of said post:

If you did, why? If not, seems a bit confusing as written.
Click to expand...


Only in your own misplaced reading of what I wrote, and your selection of only part of it. Jesus.

Once again, what I wrote was this:

..... there's also objectively no way of falsifying - or, for that matter, proving - the (now-discredited) model of homosexuality which holds that:

a) homosexual people have genuine sexual desires for other people of their same sex,

but that

b) those sexual desires are the product of a mental disorder (rather than being a genuine, valid condition in themselves)


You can empirically measure (a) - thought it's actually irrelevant.

What you cannot measure empirically is (b) - which is the only measure that counts.



There is not one iota of ambiguity there - unless you read it in a faulty way, that is.

In addition to everything else I've written in response to you on this, you might also want to consider my use of the word "but" in the middle of (a) and (b). This is in fact a useful "signifier" word. Had I used "and", the overall meaning could have been interpreted in a different way. But I didn't.

And.... you might, once again, want to consider the bit immediately below, where I explicitly explain that while you can measure (a) - the validity of same-sex sexual desires - you cannot measure (b) - the underlying reasons why homosexuals hold such desires (which, as I point out, is the only important thing when trying to consider the underlying psychosexual reasons behind homosexuality)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom