• 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.
"Best Medical Practice" can't be obviously sacrosanct and unquestionable when the "Accepted Best Medical Practice" for all of this would have been declaring it a mental disorder within many of the people in this discussion's lifetimes.
 
JoeMorgue said:
//ETA: Thread moved faster than I anticipated. Adding quote to clarify who I was responding to//

"Live as the other sex" means nothing in a society that doesn't force the sexes to live differently.
Click to expand...

Possibly. But most people on this thread seem to agree that there are differences between the experiences of being a woman and a man in the current society.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Possibly. But most people on this thread seem to agree that there are differences between the experiences of being a woman and a man in the current society.
Click to expand...

Yes but those experiences are manufactured, forced, and most of them are negative. "Roles put on the genders by society" is rarely if ever presented as a positive. We shouldn't be propping them up just so some people can use them in non-traditional ways.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
If we don't disagree what was the point of your previous post? Other than to just say 'yes i agree'
Click to expand...
We certainly disagree on whether anyone here has argued that gender dysphoria isn't an actual condition. We also appear to disagree on whether anyone has been arguing for treatments other than transition, in this forum.
 
Let's be honest here though. Is "Transgenderism" really being presented as some temporary solution put into place until we get around to dealing with gender roles? Because that's never the impression I've gotten from it.

It's always presented as being transgender would still be something exist in a world where the physical, biological sexes where treated 100% identically.

So this is kind of starting to seem like a red herring.
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
If someone can show that it would be significantly harmful to allow transwomen access to women's changing rooms then it would be justified to exclude them. Has that been done?
Click to expand...

Again, have you actually read this thread? There have been cases mentioned repeatedly.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yes but those experiences are manufactured, forced, and most of them are negative. "Roles put on the genders by society" is rarely if ever presented as a positive. We shouldn't be propping them up just so some people can use them in non-traditional ways.
Click to expand...

Again I don't disagree. But I've not been trying to do that. Quite the opposite in fact.

The statement 'I agree to live like a woman' sets no preconditions to what 'live like a woman means'. It's not generally the pro-trans side that are trying to set limits on what it means to be a woman or to police whether people are 'sufficiently womanly' to be acceptable.
 
lionking said:
Again, have you actually read this thread? There have been cases mentioned repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Anecdotes yes. What does that prove?

Oh and for the record, I missed large swathes of these threads when I took a self-imposed exile from having to deal with the narrow minded bigotry of certain members of this forum on certain topics.
 
d4m10n said:
We certainly disagree on whether anyone here has argued that gender dysphoria isn't an actual condition. We also appear to disagree on whether anyone has been arguing for treatments other than transition, in this forum.
Click to expand...

Well you argued that it might not be the best treatment. What was the point of that exactly?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Let's be honest here though. Is "Transgenderism" really being presented as some temporary solution put into place until we get around to dealing with gender roles? Because that's never the impression I've gotten from it.
Click to expand...

Transgenderism is being treated as a recognised medical condition with specific treatment steps recommended

It's always presented as being transgender would still be something exist in a world where the physical, biological sexes where treated 100% identically.

So this is kind of starting to seem like a red herring.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think you could make a case either way on whether transgenderism would exist in a world where sex/gender was truly irrelevant. For sure it would be difficult to discriminate against trans people in such a world I think. However we don't live in that world and it's unlikely we ever will. It's not even clear that people want to or that it would necessarily be better.

A red herring indeed. The discussion is about how to address the bigotry and discrimination faced by transpeople today.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The discussion is about how to address the bigotry and discrimination faced by transpeople today.
Click to expand...

Well yeah all that does is take back to the "Does this requires us to literally conceptualize gender the way they want us to" and we're back at square one, ready to start the discussion over the 50th billionth time.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'm not sure which specific post you're referencing here, but you don't need an MD to realize that there is no single "best treatment" for everyone. Can we at least agree that transition wasn't the best treatment for a (relatively small) handful of detransitioners?
Click to expand...

No more than chemotherapy wasn't the best treatment option for people who died of cancer anyway. Medical decisions have to be made with the information you have available, not with the benefit of hindsight.
 
Roboramma said:
I would like to weigh in on the subject of analogies briefly to note that while Ziggurat and theprestige have argued that analogies fail to convince people with observational evidence ("Have you ever seen someone change their mind based on an argument by analogy"), to simply note that in general, at least on this forum, people seldom change their mind based on any type of argument.

The correct conclusion isn't that argument by analogy always fails, but that argument in general always fails.

I don't think that's actually true, I've often been convinced by arguments made on this forum, but usually in regards to subjects that I hadn't already formed strong conclusions about. Usually if people are at the point of engaging in the argument, it's pretty hard to change their minds, with an analogy or other form of argument.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
When I have seen arguments succeed is usually when the argued presents truly new (at least to the other person) information. But analogies are a bad way to present new information. They are primarily a tool for framing existing information.
Click to expand...
I think both of you have very good points. In general, I think Roboramma is correct about arguments here in general. Like the pirate's code, my rule is more of a guideline. Where other arguments might succeed, the analogy is almost certain to fail.

Anyway, there are analogies to be drawn between trans rights and other rights. They're both rights, and rights have some properties in common that we should try to apply consistently.

This does not mean, however, that trans access to gender-segregated safe spaces can be proven by analogy to black access to seats at the front of the bus. If for no other reason than that the women who depend on these spaces will not agree that sex is analogous to race, and that men vs women is analogous to black vs white.

If you can't get agreement on those two points, then any argument by analogy from those two points will not convince.

Arguing by analogy to race, in this case, is a cheat. You're presuming agreement on the key supports for your argument, and then simply deploying the analogy as if it automatically prevails. This is lazy. Back up, get agreement on your supporting assumptions, and then try to build your argument on those supports.

Or, just argue in terms of sex, and in terms of men vs women, and save yourself some time. After all, if your argument can be proven by analogy, it can also be proven in its own terms. And that's the end goal anyway. The analogy looks like a short cut, but it's actually the long way around. When it isn't just a road to nowhere.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
In fairness if that's the bar then all attempts to argue by any method seem to be pretty futile. Certainly using facts and logic have failed to convince anyone here.
Click to expand...

"Having failed to convince anyone with facts and logic that males should have access to female safe spaces on self-id alone, I will now deploy an analogy that is even less likely to succeed."
 
Here's also an issue.

We all get the being transgender in order to get around societal gender roles... like makes no sense right?

I'm fairly certain we all get that the people mad that Biological Female A isn't barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making them a sammich aren't exactly going to be welcoming to them going "Oh you see I shouldn't be in the kitchen barefoot, pregnant, and making you a sandwich because I identify as a man!"

Like the spread on people who are actually more welcoming of transgenderism of a concept than traditional gender roles as a concept can't exactly be high.

As always I really, really want to drag this discussion out of an almost philosophical plane and back into the real world of how any of this is actually supposed to work.
 
d4m10n said:
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:
Click to expand...
"Why don't you belong [in male-segregated spaces]?"​

This question was in response to Boudicca, a transwoman, saying she should be barred from entering male spaces, as she doesn't belong there.

It seems to me there's a lot to unpack in her answer. I think there's an entire worldview that I can barely see, let alone comprehend. I would very much like to know more about the thought process and value system that leads to that conclusion. Why doesn't a self-ID'd transwoman get to use male spaces? Is this their own personal standard? Is this the standard they wish society to adopt? Is Boudicca wanting cismen to stop her at the door to the men's locker room, saying, "sorry, you present as a woman, you need to go down the way to the women's"?

Or is it moot, as Boudicca would never try to get into the men's room anyway? And anyone who does try obviously identifies as man enough to be entitled to go in? But that seems to render the entire concept of "belonging" entirely pointless. Boudicca won't go in because she doesn't think she belongs. But nobody else can decide for her whether she belongs. So why does she appeal to "belonging" at all?

It's a small question, but a deep one, I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom