• 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.
Self i.d.

Which institutions are pushing for self-i.d. as the sole criterion?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Males, on average, have pretty comprehensive right and face little discrimination as males.

Females, on average, have limited rights (including limits on their ownership of their own bodies), and face quite a bit of every-day discrimination. They are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and harassment at rates significantly higher than those of males (outside of prisons).

Trans activists want gender identity to override sex as a protected characteristic. They want gender identity to be a more important class than sex. Transwomen, in particular, want to have all of the rights and services of females, as well as additional rights and protections as transgender people.

In order for transgender people to get what they want, females must see their rights (which are already unequal) reduced, see their security reduces, and relinquish their expectations of privacy. They must share the limited services intended to address the inequity of females with people who are not female, but who identify as women (for an undefined and inexplicable meaning of the word women).

What is it that cismen would have to give up?

And how is it the "greater good" when it's reducing the already unequal rights of half the population in order to provide entitlements to a very small portion of the population? It seems like it's really a lot more of a case of "for the greater good of transwomen, because they're greater than females".
Click to expand...

It would seem like a much more helpful route then to address and correct the issues with women's rights rather than taking out your frustrations on another disadvantaged group just to make it feel like you aren't giving something up.

Women's 'rights over their own bodies' has nothing to do with whether transwomen can pee in the stall next to you. Trying to conflate these things isn't helpful.

If real issues are created then we should address the real issues rather than legislate based on fears.

One example that comes up quite often is the admitting of transwomen to female prisons potentially posing a threat to female inmates. Other than anecdotes I have not seen any proper analysis of the statistics and whether this is a genuine threat or not. However I am aware that the VAST majority of sexual assaults in women's prisons are carried out by staff rather than other inmates. It would therefore seem that it would be much more impactful to exclude male prison officers from women's prisons than transwomen. And yet I have not seen a single person who wants transwomen excluded also ask for cismen to be excluded from working in women's prisons. Why would that be do we think?
 
LondonJohn said:
Well then, I'd be extremely interested to know why.
Click to expand...

Activist groups go into institutions organisations and ‘educate’ them about gender ideology, including a clear explanation of how any disagreement with any aspect of the ideology is ‘transphobia’ (an accusation which will destroy one’s reputation and career). Are you really asking why the organisation then adopts a policy exactly in line with what activists want in every respect?

You have already been given information about ideological capture, and about tactics used by activists on those that speak out. You have gloated about the fact that people can be sacked for disagreeing with tenets of gender ideology. It follows logically from what you yourself have said that any statement of an individual or professional body cannot be assumed to reflect the outcome of open debate and impartial evaluation of evidence (unless we are referring to an individual who cannot be ‘cancelled’, or has already been). You must assume from what you yourself have said that any statement from anyone with something to lose is probably influenced by ideological coercion, because you have acknowledged and applauded ideological coercion. There is also ample evidence of science being subverted to ideology, some but not all of which has been discussed in this thread.

If you are claiming not to understand the psychological processes involved in ideological capture and why the power of an argument is not based on the strength of the argument, I recommend this interview with Bret Weinstein (the relevant bits are 16.30 to 19.00 and 20.45 to 22.30 if you don’t want to watch the whole thing). However, since you engage in these processes yourself (wielding stigma as a weapon) I suspect that you already know this.

 
Emily's Cat said:
Interesting observation... the term "lesbian" has been being replaced with the term "queer women". It's forcibly inserting penises into lesbian sexual orientation - and yes, the pun was intended.
Click to expand...

I'm unaware of this happening on any kind of scale. Do you have evidence that shows it's a thing?

Queer and Lesbian are different things. They even have their own letters in LGBTQ+
 
Unanswered questions

Four threads and over 10k posts into this topic, some would say we've not made any headway. Personally, I think we've generated some excellent questions for further discussion.

1) The first unanswered question was basically "Why should people be denied entry to spaces which have been set aside for the other gender?" and it came up in at least two ways; firstly at thread #3 post #1503, and then again in response to this post. Here is the latter version:

theprestige said:
Serious question: Why don't you belong in there?
Click to expand...
What makes this question so insightful is that it gets to the crux of an issue which has been little addressed so far: Why segregate by gender at all, once we've given up segregating by sex? What advantages of the original scheme remain which are worth preserving given the social costs of separating everyone into two groups?

2) The next question was from too far back for me to dig up a single reference, but it was basically "What should be the inclusion criteria for women's sport?" The best answer I've seen on this one was from Rolfe (someone whom I suspect of possessing a strong background in medical science) but I'm still putting this one in the unanswered category because sporting bodies seem to be quite in flux about it themselves.

3) The last question has been asked several times, in various ways (at one point some poor misguided soul even tried to clarify the situation with a Venn diagram). Here are just two examples:

Rolfe said:
What do women have in common with transwomen that they don't have in common with the human race as a whole?
Click to expand...

Emily's Cat said:
...what are the attributes or characteristics that ciswomen and transwomen have in common, that make them parts of the set of women, but which are not shared with either cismen or transmen (and vice versa).
Click to expand...
I'm unsure how to even start unpacking this one. Lately I’ve seen at least one of our posters repeatedly referencing widely recognized expert assessments from the fields of psychiatry and psychology (e.g. DSM-5) but I remain skeptical as to whether this question has ever been addressed or even acknowledged in such sources. Perhaps someday—provided sufficiently advanced neuroimaging or other diagnostic tools—this situation will change, but for now it feels like we’re still stuck in the wheelhouse of the metaphysicians rather than the physicians.

I'm aware that the politically correct answer here is "gender identity," though that isn't an attribute to be discovered so much as an affirmation to be respected. I am also aware that the gender critical (i.e. 2nd wave feminist) answer is basically "Nothing other than gendered stereotypes," which are not so much an attribute to be observed so much as a set of social constructs to be either respected or rejected.

Do you folks have any recurring questions which you'd like to see more fully addressed?
 
theprestige said:
I wonder if porn might actually be a good benchmark. If lesbians don't want chicks with dicks in their porn, that's probably a good indicator that transwomen aren't... entirely women.

Either that, or lesbians are wrong about how sexual attraction works and what they're attracted to.
Click to expand...

I really doubt it will be much of a good benchmark of anything. If straight men enjoy watching transwomen porn does that mean they are.... entirely women?

My personal take on the whole debate is that individuals have a right to be attracted to and have sex with whoever they want and nobody can force them to change that.

On the other hand, I find anyone shouting loudly about their sexual preferences in a 'I would never touch that' kind of way to be pretty objectionable and I would wonder about their motives. if someone only wants to have sex with tall slim blonde people then that's fine for them, if they start making a point of telling people 'i'd never have sex with a black chick' that's a bit different isn't it?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
One example that comes up quite often is the admitting of transwomen to female prisons potentially posing a threat to female inmates. Other than anecdotes I have not seen any proper analysis of the statistics and whether this is a genuine threat or not. However I am aware that the VAST majority of sexual assaults in women's prisons are carried out by staff rather than other inmates. It would therefore seem that it would be much more impactful to exclude male prison officers from women's prisons than transwomen. And yet I have not seen a single person who wants transwomen excluded also ask for cismen to be excluded from working in women's prisons. Why would that be do we think?
Click to expand...

Regarding the highlighted, I haven't thought deeply about it, but that sounds like a good idea to me. I think I'd be behind that.
 
Abooga said:
Please elaborate then. What do you mean by "Self-ID"? Is it not just saying that you identify as such and such? Is it something else?
Click to expand...

lionking said:
Do you have evidence for this, because it is contrary to a lot of what I’ve read in this thread, like self-identifying trans women school athletes forcing girls to change in other smaller, not suitable rooms?
Click to expand...

I think i've been through this before but happy to do it again. You also have to note that the specifics of the laws vary from place to place. But the general principles seem to be reasonably consistent.

Self-ID is about legal recognition of your declared gender. Being able to change your birth-certificate and such like. Self-ID says that in order to do this you do not need to obtain a medical diagnosis but that it is sufficient to file the paperwork to attest to the fact that you are living as the gender you wish to be recognised as.

It is a separate issue to anti-discrimination laws. Which where they exist and protect trans people will already make it illegal to deny transpeople access to the restroom of their declared gender regardless of whether they have legally changed their gender.

Without the specifics of lionking's example I can't say for sure but it looks like 'self-identifying' is irrelevant to it and not related to the legal process of Self-ID.

In some ways I can understand the confusion but I also think it's important to understand what the laws actually say and to be clear on what you are objecting to.

Changes to Self-ID laws do NOT make it any more legal for a cisman to enter a woman's toilet (or indeed a transwoman) than it already is legally, the practical issue of not being able to reliably tell if Person X is a ciswoman, transwoman, transman or cisman already exists and for all intents and purposes seems to be overcome by the general rule that if Person X isn't doing anything odd then leave them be, if Person X is acting inappropriately then it doesn't matter a jot what gender they are.
 
Abooga said:
Please elaborate then. What do you mean by "Self-ID"? Is it not just saying that you identify as such and such? Is it something else?
Click to expand...
When it comes to "self-id" laws, it means that if you have an M on your passport, you can have that changed to F, of if you have an F on your passport you can have that changed to an M. Without the government requiring you to have any medical procedure beforehand.

caveman1917 said:
If Self-ID doesn't change anything, then why do we have a bunch of people promoting it?
Click to expand...
It does change somethings for some people. For example, for some people it will mean fewer questions from customs officers like "why is there a M/F on you passport when you are clearly a F/M ?" Self-ID will mean that question is asked to fewer trans people because it won't require medical intervention.

Of course, the real question one should ask is: why does the government need to register people as M or F in the first place?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Most people who oppose Self-ID seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it actually means.

Self-ID does not make it legal for a cisman to enter a women's changing room. Even if he says any sort of magic words.
Click to expand...

True: self-ID just means that any male who says they are a woman isn’t a cisman, so they get to enter a woman’s changing room.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm unsure how to even start unpacking this one. Lately I’ve seen at least one of our posters repeatedly referencing widely recognized expert assessments from the fields of psychiatry and psychology (e.g. DSM-5) but I remain skeptical as to whether this question has ever been addressed or even acknowledged in such sources. Perhaps someday—provided sufficiently advanced neuroimaging or other diagnostic tools—this situation will change, but for now it feels like we’re still stuck in the wheelhouse of the metaphysicians rather than the physicians.

I'm aware that the politically correct answer here is "gender identity," though that isn't an attribute to be discovered so much as an affirmation to be respected. I am also aware that the gender critical (i.e. 2nd wave feminist) answer is basically "Nothing other than gendered stereotypes," which are not so much an attribute to be observed so much as a set of social constructs to be either respected or rejected.
Click to expand...

It's curious this. Is there any other area of medicine where it's legitimate for non-experts to just argue that they don't accept condition X is really a thing? Because quite a few of the arguments on this thread seem to come down to just exactly that.

Perhaps stop worrying about why people need to justify why they should be treated as X and turn it on it's head and consider what are the justifications for not treating people as they wish to be treated, and it what point it becomes justified to discriminate against people?
 
Ziggurat said:
True: self-ID just means that any male who says they are a woman isn’t a cisman, so they get to enter a woman’s changing room.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. I don't know why it's important for people to have to outright lie about that. It's OK to be wrong, but insisting on being wrong after you have been corrected isn't OK.

You've been told what Self-ID means. It's a legal process.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Transpeople are asking not to be discriminated against on the basis that they are trans. Better?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. Seems to me that even in relatively regressive jurisdictions trans women have all the same legal rights which cis men (like myself) do. What they would like are a different set of legal rights (e.g. Title IX protections) previously reserved to natal women.

In other words, there is already discrimination happening based on sex and they would like to be part of that existing discriminatory regime, based on the sex with which they identify rather than the one they happened to have been assigned by accident of birth.
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
It's curious this. Is there any other area of medicine where it's legitimate for non-experts to just argue that they don't accept condition X is really a thing? Because quite a few of the arguments on this thread seem to come down to just exactly that.

Perhaps stop worrying about why people need to justify why they should be treated as X and turn it on it's head and consider what are the justifications for not treating people as they wish to be treated, and it what point it becomes justified to discriminate against people?
Click to expand...

Have you actually read what women like Emily's Cat, Rolfe and others in this thread have been posting?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom