Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

A semantic one, yes. A practical one, not so much.

Hmm. That would imply that a 15 year old male, who is physically, hormonally, and biologically male, would be entitled to share the same locker room and showers in high school as a 15 year old female... on the basis of that person having self-identified as a woman, and with no diagnosis and no medical treatment.

That would obligate all of the females who use that locker room to surrender their privacy to a male.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The difference between a trans woman and a cis man is much larger than the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman.

In what way?

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is not, one can feel "sexually excited" with a penile plethismograph showing nothing, and the thing showing huge response without a person feeling sexually excited. It is about as reliable as using a polygraph to see whether you are lying, which is also pseudoscience.

You know there are many other elements of sexual arousal than just whether or not a dude gets an erection, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Generally speaking, civil right protections are compulsory, except when exceptions are carved out for religious and other such institutions.

If it's not mandatory, it's not a protected civil right.

not sure what you mean by compulsory here. Civil rights are negative rights, not positive rights. They're protections from what other people do to you, not obligations on others to do for you.

Right to not be fired or denied employment on the basis of gender identity - check, I'm on board with that.
Right to not be denied housing or access to public services on the basis of gender identity - check, I'm on board with that.

Right to compel other people to use specific language in reference to you - not so much.
Right to compel other people to recognize your internal sense of self in contradiction to your factual sex - not so much
Right to obligate people of the opposite sex to accept you into their sex-segregated spaces - not so much

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, and they aren't shy about white knighting for the entire female gender, despite indications that their positions are not widely held by those they purport to speak for.

Once again, I will remind you that you're assuming a view not in evidence.

In generally, ciswomen support transwomen being treated as women - on the assumption that those transwomen are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, undergoing medical and hormonal treatments for that condition, and living and presenting as a woman.

The do NOT, however, support self-id ALONE granting access to male-bodied people to female services and institutions.

I've mentioned this several times, and I've provided poll data supporting this conclusion. You keep ignoring it. and repeating your false narrative here.

Sucks that bigots are uncomfortable around trans women. That's not a good reason to not protect a vulnerable population.

Yeah, **** those females. Who the **** do they think they are, thinking they should have a voice and have their concerns be taken seriously? They're just a bunch of overreacting hysterical chicks. Those bitches really ought to know their place. Males know better than them, right?

I mean, there's definitely a fantastic reason not to protect vulnerable females, when it's a male who wants their feelings affirmed, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Motte & Bailey. Make a far-going claim of fact ("transwomen are women") and then, when challenged, retreat into a much weaker moral claim ("transwomen should be treated as women for all practical purposes").

Especially when they somehow think they can bait and switch what constitutes "practical" with nobody noticing.

 

[TomB]

I would rather landlords did not have the option to discriminate against trans renters. Complexities of religious colleges and single sex dorms aside, it's perfectly lawful for bigoted landlords to straight up prohibit trans renters from ordinary rental properties.

The premise of the 80s TV show Bosum Buddies was that the main characters (Tom Hanks Peter Scolari) wanted to live in the Susan B. Anthony Hotel because the rent is cheap. The problem is that the building is female only. So they disguise themselves as women to fool the staff and residents (except for a couple who are in on the plan).

I don't know if such hotels exist, but do you say they should not? How about sex segregated flop hostels or boarding houses?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Thrash that strawman. Sure, you can nutpick somebody who claims that transwomen are identical to cis women in every literal way, but it ain't me baby.

Whole lot of nutpicking going on in this thread. Seems that finding jerks on twitter saying stupid things counts as skeptical evidence on these forums.

Nitpick. The word you are looking for is nitpick.

Okay, moving beyond that minor peeve...

You say you don't think they're identical to ciswomen in every literal way... but you DO insist that ciswomen need to treat them as identical to ciswomen in every situation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I concede it would end sex segregation, which could be replaced by gender segregation. This would satisfy the rationale for the segregation to begin with. My point is that, for all practical purposes, gender segregation that is trans-inclusive is a drop-in replacement that satisfies all the needs of current sex-segregation, and has the added benefit of protecting the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group.

Apologies that I've been a bit sloppy with semantics, which I acknowledge is important in such discussions. I'll try to be clearer going forward.

No it doesn't! The needs of sex-segregation have been spelled out repeatedly, you just keep ignoring them and pretending they don't exist!

It's a drop-in solution that affirms the feelings of transgender people at the cost of the rights, privacy, and security of females!

 

[Emily's Cat]

No.

That's because segregation is always problematic. No matter what categories of people you think up -- {black;white}, {hutu;tutsi}, {man;woman} -- or how many categories you think up -- {catholic;protestant;jew} -- there will always be people who don't fall neatly into the any of the categories and will feel confusion over which service they should use, or not have a service available to them. Also, no matter how "equal" you think you make the "separate but equal" service, there will always be people from one or more of the categories who feel they got the worst service, and often they're not wrong.

Hooray! Let's put the large number of male rapists into the female ward of the prisons! What could possibly go wrong!

 

[Emily's Cat]

As best as I can tell it's the following. We live in a society were the two sexes are expected (and socially reinforced) to behave differently. Some people internalize this to the extent that they develop something called a gender identity. In some of those people that gender identity does not map to their sex, so they want society to reinforce the behaviours expected of the other sex. For this reason they change their appearance and behaviours so as to cause people to reinforce the behaviours expected of the other sex.

Which,,, by the way, reinforces stereotypes that are generally viewed as harmful to both men and women.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It doesn't sound like that to me . it sounds like what he is saying is that the whole issue of what transwomen 'are' is neither here nor there if the problems can be solved by treating transwomen as if they are women. Certainly the example of sex-segregation that was given can be addressed by allowing trans people to use the housing of their choosing regardless of what you personally think they are or are not.

The problem is that it's a one-sided solution. It solves the problem of transwomen not feeling affirmed by society in their gender identity... but it does it by reducing the rights, privacy, and security of females.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The problem is that it's a one-sided solution. It solves the problem of transwomen not feeling affirmed by society in their gender identity... but it does it by reducing the rights, privacy, and security of females.

Yes, the most sacred right of all, the right to not be around trans people.

 

[TomB]

Religious universities already have wide latitude to ignore civil rights laws. Adding trans protections would likely do little to change that because private religious schools generally can ignore anti-discrimination law and be as bigoted as they please in these matters.

Nor am I much interested in protecting the right of religious institutions to practice bigotry under the name of orthodoxy. If it were up to me, these places would be found in violation of anti-discrimination laws for all their anti-gay and other bigoted policies, but it's not.

While most of the dorms at the University of Illinois are Coed, There are still a couple that are single sex/gender. I'm not sure exactly what coed means. When I was in school in the 80s, some floors were men, and some women (or similar arrangements). I'm not sure if that is considered coed or if the floors are now mixed. We had communal bathrooms on each floor though. If a girl was on the floor we would check that the restroom was clear and guard the door for them. It seems the trend is suites of rooms sharing a private bathroom.

So should gender are gender or sex segregated dorms OK at public universities?

ETA: Sorry, I see you addressed this in the next post. Still catching up.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

While most of the dorms at the University of Illinois are Coed, There are still a couple that are single sex/gender. I'm not sure exactly what coed means. When I was in school in the 80s, some floors were men, and some women (or similar arrangements). I'm not sure if that is considered coed or if the floors are now mixed. We had communal bathrooms on each floor though. If a girl was on the floor we would check that the restroom was clear and guard the door for them. It seems the trend is suites of rooms sharing a private bathroom.

So should gender are gender or sex segregated dorms OK at public universities?

Beats me. My college was the same way, floors were gender segregated in dorms with communal shower rooms, and mixed on floors were rooms or suites had private bathrooms.

I'm indifferent on the continued practice of gender segregated communal shower dorm floors, so long as this isn't a pretext for trans exclusion.

 

[Olmstead]

Yes, the most sacred right of all, the right to not be around trans people.

That's a little dishonest. It's the right to not be around men in certain situations, and some people consider transwomen to be men. They would be perfectly happy to be around transmen.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"I have enough in common with cis women that I should be considered the same, and my genetics and lack of reproductive capacity shouldn't be a factor."

What do you have in common with ciswomen?

Sex is ultimately irrelevant in this discussion, but they keep trying to bring it up in order to muddle things.

SEX is a protected class! It is absolutely relevant!

Just because you've repeatedly insisted that the concerns of females are either made up or overreactions, doesn't make them so.

Why exactly should females be obligated and compelled to accept you as the same as them in every way, when you dismiss our voices and deem us unworthy of your concern or consideration? You have demonstrated a complete lack of care or compassion for the problems and challenges that females face. Instead, you simply push them aside and repeat the age-old male claim that females are "overreacting", and it's "not a big deal".

You show zero support for issues and barriers faced by females... while simultaneously demanding that we subordinate our issues so that you can live a happier life.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's a little dishonest. It's the right to not be around men in certain situations, and some people consider transwomen to be men. They would be perfectly happy to be around transmen.

Would they? Including very masculine, muscular, bearded transmen that are sexually attracted to women? I find this hard to believe.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is no reliability data as there is no reliability.

"Feeling sexually excited" or "Believing the words you say" are subjective experiences and cannot have reliable objective measurements (at least not until the brain can be probed in extreme detail).

Sexual Arousal is a physical response, not a subjective psychological one. It's actually quite well studied.

 

[theprestige]

The difference between a trans woman and a cis man is much larger than the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman.

I don't see how that's physically possible in most cases. Or even socially possible.