• 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.
d4m10n said:
Are you trying to say that black passengers on mass transit are indeed more dangerous than white ones? If so, then your analogy might just work, since we can (without bigotry) say that males are incontrovertibly more dangerous than females, given violent crime stats from, well, anywhere on Earth at any point in human history.
Click to expand...
Blacks couldn't control themselves. White men could.
 
Hahaha more people completely miss the point. Bravo! :thumbsup:


(Maybe read post #244 again for the explanation)
 
d4m10n said:
Are you trying to say that black passengers on mass transit are indeed more dangerous than white ones? If so, then your analogy might just work, since we can (without bigotry) say that males are incontrovertibly more dangerous than females, given violent crime stats from, well, anywhere on Earth at any point in human history.
Click to expand...


I am saying that

a) the perception among white people in the Alabama of the 1950s very much was that black people - and young black men in particular - were significantly more dangerous than white people.

b) and indeed if one were to look at conviction statistics for violet crimes in the Alabama of the 1950s, one would almost certainly find a highly disproportionate representation of black males - and it's not all that difficult to see how white people could have used those sorts of statistics to support their perception in (a) above.

So therefore

c) White people in 1950s Alabama most probably were of the belief that allowing young black males to sit right next to white girls or women was placing those white girls/women at a potential risk - where no such risk had previously existed (ie when black people had to give up the whole bench seat if a white person wanted to sit down on a crowded bus)


Ergo:

This is a situation where one group of people (here: white women) were, purely owing to black civil rights reforms - potentially being placed into situations which carried significantly higher perceived risk to them.


.....which is precisely analagous to the issues around (say) trans women in women's changing rooms. In fact, I'll repeat the previous paragraph above, with the relevant terms substituted in:


This is a situation where one group of people (here: cis women) were, purely owing to transgender rights reforms allowing trans women into women's changing rooms - potentially being placed into situations which carried significantly higher perceived risk to them.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Refresh my memory at what point in the Civil Rights movement did we go "Wait I've got, black people have to sit at the back of the bus, white people have to sit at the front of the bus, but everyone just gets to define what race they are, that's the same thing as equality right?"
Click to expand...


*sigh*

Is this the product of a) ignorance of my actual point here, or b) a desire to attack any and all posts which are trying to advance the argument for transgender rights?
 
Emily's Cat said:
:boggled: You know there are many other elements of sexual arousal than just whether or not a dude gets an erection, right?
Click to expand...
That was what I was pointing out to d4m10n.

Emily's Cat said:
Sexual Arousal is a physical response, not a subjective psychological one. It's actually quite well studied.
Click to expand...
Note that I used the word "excited" instead of "arousal" as the latter word does connote a physical response, not entirely connected to one's sexual preference. I was challenging d4m10n on their claim that sexual excitement can be objectively measured by sticking a bunch of wires to someone's little willy.

Emily's Cat said:
For goodness sake, don't you two know anything about sexual arousal at all?
Click to expand...
:blush:

erections in males and vaginal wetness in women are only one sign of sexual arousal among several, and are not always present
Click to expand...
Is that not the exact same thing I was arguing?
 
LondonJohn said:
Hahaha more people completely miss the point. Bravo! :thumbsup:


(Maybe read post #244 again for the explanation)
Click to expand...

Actually, the flaw in your analogy is different than what has been pointed out.

The civil rights movement in the 1950s sought to end segregation. It did so by showing that segregation was both unfair and unjustified.

The current topic wants to maintain segregation, but alter the reasoning and the parameters of the segregation.

In this discussion, neither side wants to get rid of segregation. There are a few people who have suggested replacing segregated spaces with unisex spaces and both sides have objected.

One side wants to keep the segregation for what they believe to be the original reason, which they consider to still be valid.

The other side wants to maintain the segregation, but alter the parameters and modify the justification.

It's significantly different from your analogy. Both sides favor a segregated bus.

The interesting thing is that if we left it at that point, the two sides are close enough together that they should be able to find common ground, in my opinion. It's really the self-ID part that is a hindrance. The first group are willing to allow trans women into their spaces as long as there is some sort of criteria as well as an effective means to challenge a violator. This is the part that you are on the same page with the first group, which is why I keep saying that you and Emily's cat are not that far apart. (You also agree on sports.)

The other part of the argument is of course terminology. There are, objectively, four groups (ignoring gender fluid/non-binary):

Group 1: sex: male identifies as man
Group 2: sex: female identifies as woman
Group 3: sex: female identifies as man
Group 4: sex: male identifies as woman

Each of these groups is valid and equal (meaning no group is lesser to another).

For whatever reason, its not acceptable to have four categories with equal value. So we have to argue about which groups get paired into sets in what circumstance and what terminology to use for the superset and subsets.

I don't care a whole lot about this, but I can understand why both sides consider it important. There's a certain word that carries heavy symbolism for both groups.
 
TomB said:
Actually, the flaw in your analogy is different than what has been pointed out.

The civil rights movement in the 1950s sought to end segregation. It did so by showing that segregation was both unfair and unjustified.

The current topic wants to maintain segregation, but alter the reasoning and the parameters of the segregation.

In this discussion, neither side wants to get rid of segregation. There are a few people who have suggested replacing segregated spaces with unisex spaces and both sides have objected.

One side wants to keep the segregation for what they believe to be the original reason, which they consider to still be valid.

The other side wants to maintain the segregation, but alter the parameters and modify the justification.

It's significantly different from your analogy. Both sides favor a segregated bus.

The interesting thing is that if we left it at that point, the two sides are close enough together that they should be able to find common ground, in my opinion. It's really the self-ID part that is a hindrance. The first group are willing to allow trans women into their spaces as long as there is some sort of criteria as well as an effective means to challenge a violator. This is the part that you are on the same page with the first group, which is why I keep saying that you and Emily's cat are not that far apart. (You also agree on sports.)

The other part of the argument is of course terminology. There are, objectively, four groups (ignoring gender fluid/non-binary):

Group 1: sex: male identifies as man = Man
Group 2: sex: female identifies as woman = Woman
Group 3: sex: female identifies as man = Trans Man
Group 4: sex: male identifies as woman = Trans Woman

Each of these groups is valid and equal (meaning no group is lesser to another).

For whatever reason, its not acceptable to have four categories with equal value. So we have to argue about which groups get paired into sets in what circumstance and what terminology to use for the superset and subsets.

I don't care a whole lot about this, but I can understand why both sides consider it important. There's a certain word that carries heavy symbolism for both groups.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem that hard to do.
 
LondonJohn said:
I am saying that

a) the perception among white people in the Alabama of the 1950s very much was that black people - and young black men in particular - were significantly more dangerous than white people.
Click to expand...
Except that the argument is not that trans people are dangerous. The argument is that males are dangerous and that self-ID creates a loophole that can be exploited to allow (non-trans) men into spaces where women currently feel safe from them. Hence the willingness to accept trans women with a diagnosis and an obvious effort at transition.

b) and indeed if one were to look at conviction statistics for violet crimes in the Alabama of the 1950s, one would almost certainly find a highly disproportionate representation of black males - and it's not all that difficult to see how white people could have used those sorts of statistics to support their perception in (a) above.[\quote]

So therefore

c) White people in 1950s Alabama most probably were of the belief that allowing young black males to sit right next to white girls or women was placing those white girls/women at a potential risk - where no such risk had previously existed (ie when black people had to give up the whole bench seat if a white person wanted to sit down on a crowded bus)


Ergo:

This is a situation where one group of people (here: white women) were, purely owing to black civil rights reforms - potentially being placed into situations which carried significantly higher perceived risk to them.


.....which is precisely analagous to the issues around (say) trans women in women's changing rooms. In fact, I'll repeat the previous paragraph above, with the relevant terms substituted in:


This is a situation where one group of people (here: cis women) were, purely owing to transgender rights reforms allowing trans women into women's changing rooms - potentially being placed into situations which carried significantly higher perceived risk to them.
Click to expand...
See the thing is, they aren't concerned about letting trans women into the changing rooms. They are concerned with letting males into women's changing rooms, but are willing to accept exceptions for trans-women who meet a criteria and show discretion in their behavior. (You know, the same thing you advocate.)
 
cullennz said:
Doesn't seem that hard to do.
Click to expand...

I was just defining the groups. I really don't care what you call them. How about Slitherin, Griffendor, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw?

Woman is a magic word that has significant value to various groups. Much more value than I place on the word "man." I'm not going to stake a position on that because to me, a word is just a representation of a concept, not a thing in and of itself.
 
TomB said:
It's really the self-ID part that is a hindrance. The first group are willing to allow trans women into their spaces as long as there is some sort of criteria as well as an effective means to challenge a violator.
Click to expand...
Unless those spaces require people to show their ID cards to enter, self-ID laws have absolutely nothing to do with them. Sex/gender segregated spaces such as public restrooms and changing rooms essentially are run on self-identification already. What the movement for self-identification for changes in civil gender is about is just the M or F on one's birth certificate and ID cards. I find it hard to believe there many people would fake their gender identity just for the privilege of having customs officers ask them "why is there a M/F on your passport when you are clearly a F/M ?"
 
Earthborn said:
Sex/gender segregated spaces such as public restrooms and changing rooms essentially are run on self-identification already.
Click to expand...

No, they are not. As a practical matter, they are mostly run on self-presentation, which isn't the same thing as self-identification.
 
Earthborn said:
Unless those spaces require people to show their ID cards to enter, self-ID laws have absolutely nothing to do with them. Sex/gender segregated spaces such as public restrooms and changing rooms essentially are run on self-identification already. What the movement for self-identification for changes in civil gender is about is just the M or F on one's birth certificate and ID cards. I find it hard to believe there many people would fake their gender identity just for the privilege of having customs officers ask them "why is there a M/F on your passport when you are clearly a F/M ?"
Click to expand...

I suspect this is where things will end up. And I'm not joking.
 
TomB said:
The argument is that males are dangerous and that self-ID creates a loophole that can be exploited to allow (non-trans) men into spaces where women currently feel safe from them.
Click to expand...
It does not create a loophole. The loophole already exists.
 
lionking said:
I suspect this is where things will end up. And I'm not joking.
Click to expand...

At my gym, you need to show ID to enter the building. They don't specifically check before you enter the changing room, but they know who you are.
 
lionking said:
This will go to higher courts without doubt.

It’s ridiculous to be fired for stating a fact and this ruling won’t stand.
Click to expand...



Well, I guess we'll see.


(I wonder if you can get fired from your job for tweeting something like "Homosexuals are unnatural and against God".......?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom