Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[lionking]

Anecdotes yes. What does that prove?
.

Thank you for admitting that you dismiss the experiences of women in this thread. Very telling.

Your tactics are quite clear and it is shared by others. Dismiss everyone who does not agree with you as bigots.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Yes. The question we're debating is whether self-ID should make it legal for a man (cis or otherwise) to enter a women's changing room. This is not a question about what the law and social norms currently are. It's a question of what the law and social norms should be.

What do you think they should be, and why?

 

[lionking]

"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."

Bingo.

 

[Ziggurat]

You've been told what Self-ID means. It's a legal process.

I've also been told that it's transphobic to force trans people go through legal hoops in order to affirm their identity.

I've been told lots of things, and they aren't reconcileable.

 

[theprestige]

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+

LOL. Everything has its own letters in LBGTQ+ By the time you've accounted for every region of the queer geography, even straight cisfolk will have a letter somewhere in that expansive, all-inclusive "+".

Anyway, I always understood "queer" to be an umbrella term for everything other than "cis-straight normie", and also a catch-all term for everything that hadn't yet gotten its own distinct jargon. "I'm not exactly gay, I'm not exactly bi, I'm not exactly asexual... but I am definitely some kind of queer." I have no idea if EC is right about the distinction of "queer (lesbian)" getting subsumed into the general mish-mash of "queer (other)". It's an interesting claim, though. I'll keep an eye out for evidence of it.

Seriously though? Appealing to the LGBTQ-phabet? Might as well cite the Urban Dictionary.

 

[d4m10n]

It's a small question, but a deep one, I think.

The answer to this question will probably show us what social advantages are to be gained and/or lost (if any) by segregating by gender identity rather than birth sex or gender presentation.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is a fairly poor analogy, for fairly obvious reasons.

I was going to ask you to explain these obvious reasons, but they are just going to be the usual refusal to engage with the analogy aren't they?

Medical best practice doesn't mean 'this will work for everyone' it means 'when presented with these symptoms then this is the recommended course of action'

I've genuinely forgotten what the point of this distraction was anyway. I suspect it was just another sideline in the set of many that adds up to 'until you can answer every objection I can come up with I'm not going to change my mind that it's OK to discriminate against transpeople'

 

[theprestige]

It wasn't an attempt to answer your question, it was an attempt to discover why you think the question is so important. If the medical profession says gender dysphoria is a thing and that the treatment for it is to transition then what's to be gained by nitpicking on definitions?

Accuracy in medical treatment, obviously. It is the acme of ethical medicine to properly treat conditions that exist, and not mistreat conditions that don't exist.

If the medical profession says gender dysphoria is a thing and that the treatment for it is to transition, then people who have actually been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a medical professional should get the treatment, and society should support them in that treatment. Just like society supports people with disabled placards, or seeing-eye dogs.

Likewise, people who have not been diagnosed should not get the treatment, and should not be entitled to society's support of their transition.

You say "nitpicking", I say accuracy in medicine.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Thank you for admitting that you dismiss the experiences of women in this thread. Very telling.

Your tactics are quite clear and it is shared by others. Dismiss everyone who does not agree with you as bigots.

You accept anecdotes as evidence when they support your prejudices?

Nobody's experience has been dismissed.

Your tactics are also clear.... prattle on about being branded a bigot because you can't actually support your argument.

 

[theprestige]

This is a fairly poor analogy, for fairly obvious reasons.

"I can't believe you're equating transsexuality to cancer!"

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

"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.

Are you arguing that your self-identity should be defined by whether other people accept it? Or agree with it? Or that your self-identity and where you feel you belong doesn't matter? Why should any one not feel like they belong anywhere they want or in any group they want or not in others that they don't want?

Put aside the complex subject of trans issues.

I am Scottish. I identify as Scottish. if there is a special activity going on for Scottish people I would feel like I belong in that group.

I am also British. I don't identify as British. I don't feel British. If there is a special activity going on for British people I don't feel like I belong in that group.

Other people could feel the opposite, or feel they belong in both. None of it would be changed by what the other people in those groups felt about me.

I'm struggling to see what it is that you aren't getting to be honest.

 

[d4m10n]

I've genuinely forgotten what the point of this distraction was anyway. I suspect it was just another sideline in the set of many that adds up to 'until you can answer every objection I can come up with I'm not going to change my mind that it's OK to discriminate against transpeople'

At this point, it is incumbent upon you to show where I said anything like this, or else retract.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

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.

What, that's it? That is the great oppression and discrimination of transgender people that needs to be rectified with self-id laws, being asked a question by a customs officer?

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?

Apparently to ensure various protections (Title IX is referenced but I'm not familiar with it).

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.

Yes we've been told by Earthborn and it appears to be like Ziggurat says. Any male person can get the M on their passport changed to F based on no requirement other than declaring himself a woman.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A question posed to transpeople as to how difficult they think it should be to... I guess "prove" (not exactly the right term maybe, but close) you are about being trans is not an unreasonable one to get full and proper context here.

"Oh but they have to go through all these steps, that proves they really mean it!" without asking if the proponents think they should have to go through those steps is a less than useful piece of data.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes. The question we're debating is whether self-ID should make it legal for a man (cis or otherwise) to enter a women's changing room. This is not a question about what the law and social norms currently are. It's a question of what the law and social norms should be.

What do you think they should be, and why?

Self ID doesn't have to make it legal for a man to enter a women's changing room. Self ID is about being able to change your legal gender for the purposes of government paperwork. It has nothing to do with changing rooms.

You might as well ask whether the passport application process should make it legal for a man to enter a women's changing room. They are equally disconnected.

I don't know why this is difficult for people to comprehend. Honestly I don't.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What, that's it? That is the great oppression and discrimination of transgender people that needs to be rectified with self-id laws, being asked a question by a customs officer?

No. That's not what Self-ID addresses. I'm going to try this again slowly and see if it works.

Self-ID .... defines... the legal process.... to legally.... change your gender

All it says is that you no longer need to process to be certified by a medical professional.

Yes we've been told by Earthborn and it appears to be like Ziggurat says. Any male person can get the M on their passport changed to F based on no requirement other than declaring himself a woman.

Well no it doesn't appear to be anything like Ziggurat says. Earthborn was very clear. I have been very clear. Self-ID means removing the requirement for a medical professional to certify your legal change from one gender to another for official purposes.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A question posed to transpeople as to how difficult they think it should be to... I guess "prove" (not exactly the right term maybe, but close) you are about being trans is not an unreasonable one to get full and proper context here.

"Oh but they have to go through all these steps, that proves they really mean it!" without asking if the proponents think they should have to go through those steps is a less than useful piece of data.

How many steps did/do you have to go through to be treated like a man?

How onerous do you think it should be to change?

How many people should be prevented from doing so if they want to for reasons of money or other difficulties?

What important need is being served by making it difficult to transition gender?

 

[JoeMorgue]

How many steps did/do you have to go through to be treated like a man?

One. Have a penis and XY chromosome structure.

But again this is within the broader structure of that being the only thing that defines "maleness" so "treated like a man" outside of any context beyond that is meaningless. All the other stupid social baggage can Eff right off at high speed in any direction.

Again I'm not trying to make it difficult to change gender, I'm arguing that the entire concept is (and should be) meaningless.

But again asking me the question when my entire stance in this discussion is that the distinction is meaningless isn't going to give us any useful data.

 

[caveman1917]

No. That's not what Self-ID addresses. I'm going to try this again slowly and see if it works.

Self-ID .... defines... the legal process.... to legally.... change your gender

All it says is that you no longer need to process to be certified by a medical professional.



Well no it doesn't appear to be anything like Ziggurat says. Earthborn was very clear. I have been very clear. Self-ID means removing the requirement for a medical professional to certify your legal change from one gender to another for official purposes.

So it's exactly like Ziggurat and myself said then, any male can get the M on their passport changed to F based on no requirement other than their say so. If you disagree, list the other requirements.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

One. Have a penis and XY chromosome structure.

But again this is within the broader structure of that being the only thing that defines "maleness" so "treated like a man" outside of any context beyond that is meaningless. All the other stupid social baggage can Eff right off at high speed in any direction.

Again I'm not trying to make it difficult to change gender, I'm arguing that the entire concept is (and should be) meaningless.

But again asking me the question when my entire stance in this discussion is that the distinction is meaningless isn't going to give us any useful data.

If you think the concept should be meaningless then you have no grounds to object to anyone switching for any reason they see fit. True?

The 'having a penis is sufficient' is an interesting proposal but I think it's going to be difficult to enforce in practice as I don't think we would be able to recruit enough penis inspectors at toilets. Since I haven't seen yours yet I will have to flip a coin for now.... you've come out as woman. Take a seat, miss.