Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[JoeMorgue]

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?

Objection? No.

But distinctions without differences that are never explained don't sit well with me.

I mean yeah it's like hearing someone switch what Star Sign they are. I don't object, but I don't have any proper context to do anything but "not care."

 

[Ron Obvious]

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.

No different in other words to changing your birthdate on your say so and thereby claiming social security early it seems to me. I know, it's been tried.

I'm sure I'll be told that would be different because "reasons", but I'm damned if I can see a substantial difference.

Can't wait for the Furries to get their time in the spotlight next.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

Neither Ziggurat nor yourself mentioned anything about passports until about 2 posts ago. You guys were blethering on about changing rooms and toilets. Some people even denied it was a legal process at all.

The requirement is to provide a legal undertaking that they are trans and intend to live permanently in the gender they wish to be recognised as. The specific wording varies from place to place no doubt.

Can we agree what Self-ID step 1?

2nd step if you object to it, what is your objection? what service is being done by making it more difficult?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Objection? No.

But distinctions without differences that are never explained don't sit well with me.

I mean yeah it's like hearing someone switch what Star Sign they are. I don't object, but I don't have any proper context to do anything but "not care."

Not caring is fine provided you aren't objecting to people making changes to the things you don't care about.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No different in other words to changing your birthdate on your say so and thereby claiming social security early it seems to me. I know, it's been tried.

I'm sure I'll be told that would be different because "reasons", but I'm damned if I can see a substantial difference.

Can't wait for the Furries to get their time in the spotlight next.

More or less no different than the multitude of other things that we accept self-declaration on legally, yes.

When you submit your taxes that's self-declaration.

When you make your social security claim that is self-declaration. Yes.

Making false legal declarations can have legal consequences. That's a given. But the government doesn't say that your tax return has to be signed off by one of a short list of recognised tax accountants. And there's more impact on society of fiddling income tax than there is changing your gender legally.

 

[caveman1917]

Neither Ziggurat nor yourself mentioned anything about passports until about 2 posts ago. You guys were blethering on about changing rooms and toilets. Some people even denied it was a legal process at all.

This is the first thing I said about this thread tangent:

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.

The requirement is to provide a legal undertaking that they are trans and intend to live permanently in the gender they wish to be recognised as. The specific wording varies from place to place no doubt.

What does "living in a gender" mean? Can you give some examples?

 

[Ziggurat]

Neither Ziggurat nor yourself mentioned anything about passports until about 2 posts ago. You guys were blethering on about changing rooms and toilets. Some people even denied it was a legal process at all.

I've never denied that there is a legal process for changing your legal gender. But not everything about "self identification" is about the legal process, and even with the legal process, if there are no requirements other than your own declaration, well, that's not much of a process at all, and certainly not much protection against abuse of that status.

The requirement is to provide a legal undertaking that they are trans and intend to live permanently in the gender they wish to be recognised as.

"Permanently". Until you change your mind. And what does it even mean to "live in the gender they wish"? If you're a male claiming to be a woman, does this mean you can't grow a beard? Will they fine you if you do?

So many questions, so few answers.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Not caring is fine provided you aren't objecting to people making changes to the things you don't care about.

*Sighs* And we're right back at the beginning.

No it's not enough. I've been told that multiple times. It's not "good enough" until I go "No I literally consider you the other gender" or at least pretend that's what I think.

Treating transgender people as the other gender (even via just not treating the genders differently in the first place) isn't enough, you have to literally think of them as the other gender.

 

[Aber]

More or less no different than the multitude of other things that we accept self-declaration on legally, yes.

When you submit your taxes that's self-declaration.

When you make your social security claim that is self-declaration. Yes.

Making false legal declarations can have legal consequences. That's a given.

Again an analogy fail.

Taxes and social security can be factually checked and audited.

Self-ID is based on internal feelings.

 

[Paul2]

ETA: ninja'ed.

More or less no different than the multitude of other things that we accept self-declaration on legally, yes.

When you submit your taxes that's self-declaration.

The analogy to taxes and social security doesn't work, I think.

(1) There is potential process to confirm your taxes on objective evidence, which is missing from trans self-id.

When you make your social security claim that is self-declaration. Yes.

(2) Your age, however, is also confirmed through a process that goes all the way back to your birth certificate, exceptional cases acknowledged. Age is the crucial determiner for how much SS benefits you get.

Making false legal declarations can have legal consequences. That's a given.

But there's no way self-id as trans can be a false legal declaration.

And there's more impact on society of fiddling income tax than there is changing your gender legally.

If attention to policy was a zero-sum game on this forum, you'd have a point that we should pay attention to policies that produce the greatest impact. But it's not a zero-sum game. If I break my leg and also suffer a laceration to my arm, my leg might hurt more but that doesn't mean my arm doesn't hurt, too.

 

[theprestige]

Are you arguing that your self-identity should be defined by whether other people accept it? Or agree with it?

If you want other people to accept or agree with your self-identity, this necessarily means they will have input into the definition of that identity. We're not talking about how you identify yourself to yourself. We're talking about how you identify yourself to others, and what they should do with that information (if anything).

Or that your self-identity and where you feel you belong doesn't matter?

It matters, but it is not the sole or overriding factor in all cases.

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?

It depends on the feelings. Opinions are one thing. Feelings that are not consistent with reality are something else - usually a problem that needs to be solved, not a personal reality that should be catered to.

Put aside the complex subject of trans issues.

Heh.

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.

It depends on the special activity, and whether the people organizing it intend it to be exclusive.

If the activity is voting in in Scottish elections, your belonging to the Scottish group has very little to do with your feelings, and very much to do with whether other people actually recognize you as Scottish.

If the people running the Australian government think you're Australian, you not feeling Australian won't exempt you from their sanctions on not voting in Australian elections. Self-identity only goes so far - only as far as the end of your nose, in fact. Beyond that, how other people identify you is going to be a big factor in determining how you interact with society, and how society interacts with you.

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

Clearly.

What I'm not getting is any attempt to answer this question: To what extent is trans-identity a matter of doing whatever you want based on how you perceive yourself, versus doing whatever society allows you to do based on how society perceives you?

Put it another way: Why does Boudicca, a transwoman, believe she doesn't belong in male spaces?

 

[Paul2]

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.

I don't know what it can possibly mean to live like a woman if there are no preconditions on it?

 

[theprestige]

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.

Again, we're not debating current laws and norms. We're debating whether the laws and norms should be changed.

Do you think self-ID should be used for accessing sex-segregated spaces? Yes or no?

 

[JoeMorgue]

And 13 pages into the 4th continuation of just the most recent thread about this exact same topic we've managed to... wind up exactly where we started.

A: "Should we expect men and women to live differently?"
B: "Of course not."
A: "But a man who deciding to 'live as a woman' is a meaningful distinction we have to acknowledge?"
B: "Yes."
A: "What's the difference?"
B: *Silence if we're lucky, getting called a homophobe bigot if we're not.*

 

[Lithrael]

*Sighs* And we're right back at the beginning.

No it's not enough. I've been told that multiple times. It's not "good enough" until I go "No I literally consider you the other gender" or at least pretend that's what I think.

Treating transgender people as the other gender (even via just not treating the genders differently in the first place) isn't enough, you have to literally think of them as the other gender.

If you mean you are willing to use the pronouns a person is aiming for, if grudgingly (but not sarcastically): For the vast majority of trans people I think that’s honestly all they expect of anyone, and while it might not be all that they wish for, it is certainly ‘enough.’

It seems like a lot of people here take a handful of negative or defensive reactions to the kind of fully stated opinions most people don’t air to one another’s faces, as grounds to throw their hands up and call the whole group unreasonable.

I might think womens’ basketball is a joke but if I say that to the face of a fan or a player or a player’s family, or in a discussion about the state of womens’ basketball, and a couple people say I’m a poster boy for internalized misogyny, I don’t start walking around going OoooOoooOOOHHHHhhhh WELL!! I see what YOU GUYS are like!! I guess I’m just not allowed to be over here existing and not appreciating womens’ basketball!

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you mean you are willing to use the pronouns a person is aiming for, if grudgingly (but not sarcastically): For the vast majority of trans people I think that’s honestly all they expect of anyone, and while it might not be all that they wish for, it is certainly ‘enough.’

Literally the only admitted transgender in this thread is the one who's saying it's not good enough, so that poses a problem.

I have to work with the information I have and as of now from the only data point that matters I'm a bigot.

 

[theprestige]

And 13 pages into the 4th continuation of just the most recent thread about this exact same topic we've managed to... wind up exactly where we started.

A: "Should we expect men and women to live differently?"
B: "Of course not."
A: "But a man who deciding to 'live as a woman' is a meaningful distinction we have to acknowledge?"
B: "Yes."
A: "What's the difference?"
B: *Silence if we're lucky, getting called a homophobe bigot if we're not.*

Yeah, but this time we're here with AGG, who hasn't been following the last three threads and is still enjoying these fresh-to-him arguments.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

*Sighs* And we're right back at the beginning.

No it's not enough. I've been told that multiple times. It's not "good enough" until I go "No I literally consider you the other gender" or at least pretend that's what I think.

Treating transgender people as the other gender (even via just not treating the genders differently in the first place) isn't enough, you have to literally think of them as the other gender.

How would anyone know? If you don't care you aren't going to go around expressing your thoughts on it are you? In fact if you don't care why would you even have thoughts on it worth expressing?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Again an analogy fail.

Taxes and social security can be factually checked and audited.

Self-ID is based on internal feelings.

Which makes no difference. Self-Id could be audited as well if you wanted to. Send 5% of applicants at random to be diagnosed by a doctor. It would seem pointless to do it though.

 

[JoeMorgue]

How would anyone know? If you don't care you aren't going to go around expressing your thoughts on it are you? In fact if you don't care why would you even have thoughts on it worth expressing?

Because I won't lie if asked directly and it's naive to think it will never come up. And according to the only transperson in this discussion so far, I can't do that. If I don't literally think of her as a woman I will eventually turn into a bigot.

And as with the "What's the big deal?" argument that question can be directed at the trans-community with equal validity.