Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Ziggurat]

Well, it's the foundation of the condition. What a doctor might do, that I listed above, is merely the confirmation of the condition, the objective confirmation, to a greater or lesser degree, of the internal, subjective feeling. If I say I have searing pain, 9 on a scale of 10, and yet I appear like someone who has no paid (not screaming, crying, hopping up and down, etc.), we doubt, based on objective indications, whether that pain is real. But pain is still a completely internal, subjective experience.

No, self-declaration is not the foundation. As you describe it here, self-experience is the foundation of the condition. These are not the same thing. The difference matters.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It might be worthwhile to look into what they experienced, rather than just "doubting" it because that's not what you imagine to have happened.

If I have to look at one more 'academic crucified by the naughty wokes who won't let me spout my objectively true hate drivel' story my brain will melt. Is that what happened to you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It's not a lie. Self-id essentially eliminates any meaningful measure of sex or gender.

You insist it's a legal process - which is true. But you also insist that it applies only to transpeople. This is where you seem to be missing the problem with self-id, so let me spell this out via illustration.

Imagine that a male person, Pat, goes to the legal office and changes their legal gender to F. This legal change does NOT require that Pat has undergone any counseling or treatment, and does not require that Pat have a diagnosis. It is entirely at Pat's personal discretion. More to the point - any questioning of Pat's claim of being a woman is considered highly offensive and is tantamount to hate speech.

Legally, that person is now entitled to be treated like a woman in every instance. Pat now has the legal right to enter female changing rooms and sex-segregated spaces without challenge; failure to allow Pat into those spaces is legally considered discrimination. Pat has the legal right to enter female-designated domestic violence and rape shelters. Pat has the right to apply for and receive female-designated scholarships and grants, and to be counted as female for short-lists and diversity quotas.

Now for the tricky part: Pat is 6'2", 200 lbs, heavily muscled, with large hands and feet. Pat has a deep voice, a prominent adam's apple, and dress and presents as a traditional man. Pat wears male clothing, and is very comfortable peeing alongside the road when the need arises. Pat has taken no hormones, and has had no surgeries, and does not intend to do either of those things, because Pat claims that he does not have physical gender dysphoria, but rather has social gender dysphoria, although Pat does not have a diagnosis for that self-claimed medical condition. Pat is a physically intact specimen of very stereotypical male anatomy. Pat is sexually attracted to females.

Is Pat a cisman or a transwoman?

 

[Ziggurat]

You better get used to us around you in single-sex spaces, because we aren't leaving and you can't make us.

Emily has talked at length about how her concerns are ignored by trans activists. This is a textbook example. Instead of conveying the message that you pose no threat, your final words are instead a declaration that there's nothing she can do about that threat.

Do you really think this approach is the optimal one for gaining acceptance? Or is it simply that you're so assured of victory you don't feel any need to win over more people?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, self-declaration is not the foundation. As you describe it here, self-experience is the foundation of the condition. These are not the same thing. The difference matters.

Unless a doctor has access to your self-experience (they don't) then self-declaration is certainly the foundation of the diagnosis.

 

[Paul2]

And this illustrates why I'm done with you people.

You like to mock and make fun of us like this because you consider us delusional, like the other bigot who keeps trying to say we are like a person who thinks they are Napoleon. The fact that you can't see how insulting and demeaning that is to us says it all. Transphobia seems to be the last bastion of acceptable hate and discrimination anyway (even though you are just stealing your arguments from the homophobes.)

Have fun trying to prevent us from gaining equal rights, since you are rightfully losing that battle. You better get used to us around you in single-sex spaces, because we aren't leaving and you can't make us.

Boudicca90, that might be mockery, but it might be something else, too. It might be a reductio ad absurdam: a logical principle in which one takes the implications of a position to their logical conclusion, and if that logical conclusion appears absurd, then the position is absurd.

Of course, when a position is made into a reductio, and that position concerns something near and dear to one's heart, I can see how the absurdity of the reductio translates into insult or mockery.

So, was E.C.'s scenario a reductio, mockery, or both?

 

[theprestige]

I thought we were talking about Self-ID?

We'r talking about whether self-ID should be the sole basis for getting access to sex-segregated safe spaces.

No I don't think that should be policy. I think for example that if a women's refuge required women to be able to provide documentary evidence that they are women before allowing them in then that might be an unnecessary hurdle in women gaining access to that service. It would also seem if nothing else quite impolite to ask.

If you are going to allow transwomen access to women's safe spaces then requiring a legal gender change seems unnecessary, if you aren't wishing to allow them access then it's a moot point anyway.

I wish to allow transwomen access to women's shelters. I wish to deny access to abusive cismen who want to access women's shelters so that they can find their victim and continue to abuse her (and find other women who might be similarly at risk of victimization).

Making self-ID the sole standard for access does not grant my wish.

I also wish for someone who advocates for self-ID as the sole standard to propose a solution to the above dilemma. But I don't see that wish getting granted, either. Maybe you can be my fairy godmother* in this?

---
*Fairy godfather? Does it matter? Is there anything wrong with a dude being a godmother if he wants?

 

[Paul2]

No, self-declaration is not the foundation. As you describe it here, self-experience is the foundation of the condition. These are not the same thing. The difference matters.

Point taken. More later, perhaps.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unless a doctor has access to your self-experience (they don't)

But they do, and Paul2 even detailed some of the ways. It's not total access, it's not foolproof access, but it is still access.

then self-declaration is certainly the foundation of the diagnosis.

It's the beginning of the diagnosis. If you make it the totality of the diagnosis, then the diagnosis is meaningless.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If by "condition X" you mean gender dysphoria (previously known as GID) that's not an answer to the question, clearly, since cis women don't have it.

Even worse that that though. It's not that any of us think that gender dysphoria doesn't exist. It clearly does. But there are two questions that are relevant:

1) Should a person be allowed to diagnose themselves with this condition without the assistance of a qualified medical person?

2) Is the diagnosis reflective of objective reality? In other words, is the internal feeling of being of the opposite sex the result of a physical condition which is strong enough to override the reality of biological sex?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not overly familiar with Title IX but my understanding is that it does not specify that it only applies to natal women but in any case, what transpeople are arguing for is not to be discriminated against by e.g. being excluded from being treated like women because they are transwomen.

It doesn't apply to "natal women" or "natal men". Title IX applies to sex. Physical biological sex. Transwomen are currently excluded from protections set aside for females, because transwomen are not female.

 

[Paul2]

Unless a doctor has access to your self-experience (they don't) then self-declaration is certainly the foundation of the diagnosis.

Doesn't the self-declaration depend on, and flow from and after, the internal experience, though?

ETA: at least, authentically and sincerely?

 

[Joe Random]

And this illustrates why I'm done with you people.

<...>

THAT was mockery. As best as I can tell, EC hasn't mocked anyone in any iterations of this thread, or at least that I can recall. Instead she's been called a bigot, condescended to, and (never thought I'd use this word unironically) mansplained to about what a woman really is.

Nice way to end the post on a not-so-thinly veiled threat, though. "you can't stop our LadyPenises from barging into your locker rooms". How very ... feminine.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Most probably wouldn't mind getting rid of the sex/gender discrimination all together.

I'm sure that most people would also like to get rid of racial discrimination. I'm not sure how allowing white people to access scholarships and grants set aside for black people helps accomplish that, nor how counting white people toward racially-defined shortlists and quotas is going to help attain that goal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

If the medical profession says that chronic pain is a thing... why on earth would anybody object to allowing people to self-diagnose as having chronic pain, without the requirement of them seeing a doctor? Why would anyone object to people who self-diagnose being entitled to opiate prescriptions at their discretion, without the oversight or treatment of a medical professional?

 

[Boudicca90]

Emily has talked at length about how her concerns are ignored by trans activists. This is a textbook example. Instead of conveying the message that you pose no threat, your final words are instead a declaration that there's nothing she can do about that threat.

Do you really think this approach is the optimal one for gaining acceptance? Or is it simply that you're so assured of victory you don't feel any need to win over more people?

Ultimately it's not about winning over more people, it's about winning over the right people. And that's why these discussions are so futile, because we don't have to win over a majority to be accepted. We gays gained the right to marry not through democracy, but through the Supreme Court, and people are still butthurt about that.

It doesn't matter how we gain equal rights, just that it happens. And anybody who doesn't like it can go to hell.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Self-ID in the context of this thread involves filling out a government form in which one has to swear they intend to live permanently as the other sex. I think that might count as a "legal process".

What constitutes "live as the other sex"? Does anyone check in on them to ensure that their intent is being honored?

 

[Boudicca90]

Boudicca90, that might be mockery, but it might be something else, too. It might be a reductio ad absurdam: a logical principle in which one takes the implications of a position to their logical conclusion, and if that logical conclusion appears absurd, then the position is absurd.

Of course, when a position is made into a reductio, and that position concerns something near and dear to one's heart, I can see how the absurdity of the reductio translates into insult or mockery.

So, was E.C.'s scenario a reductio, mockery, or both?

It is ALL mockery. Trying to couch your bigotry in "logic" doesn't work, sorry.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ultimately it's not about winning over more people, it's about winning over the right people.

For someone demanding inclusion, you seem remarkably... exclusive.

And anybody who doesn't like it can go to hell.

Mmmm... gotta love that sweet, sweet tolerance.

 

[Agatha]

Dial down the personalisation, name-calling and insults. Address arguments made, and do not attack the arguers.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha