• 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.
I'd heard that the cancer of "Reality is a social construct" Postmodernism has been raging at universities lately, but I always thought it was the enemy of scepticism and rational thinking and didn't expect to find it here.
 
Meadmaker said:
What I'm really wondering is where you think my thoughts are illogical. I think facilities that involve disrobing among strangers should be segregated by sex, not anything related to stereotypical gender behavior or mannerisms. I think sports should be segregated by sex. Where is the flaw in my logic?
Click to expand...
The flaw in your logic is in thinking self-segregating in facilities segregated by sex is not itself a stereotypical gender behaviour. The other flaw in your logic is in not questioning whether facilities in which people disrobe among strangers -- and are not specifically intended for people who want to disrobe among strangers -- should even exist.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Not being funny but you haven't presented any logic here. You have presented your conclusions.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. That's true. I've presented them in the past, I think most people would know what it was, but it's fair to point it out.

I don't have time right at the moment, but I'll come back later tonight and put forward an illustration of my logic that leads me to those conclusions.
 
Boudicca90 said:
And yes, anybody who does identify as a man (even if only at the time) is entitled to go in, and that does not include me. Ultimately it comes down to WE decide where we belong.
Click to expand...
By this logic, a male person who lives and presents and is completely comfortable as a man, and is sexually attracted to females can, on a whim, decide that they are a woman temporarily, in order to gain access to a space where female people are naked. And, under your logic, THERE IS NOTHING THOSE FEMALES CAN DO TO KEEP THAT PERSON OUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE CLAIMED TO BE A WOMAN AND ARE THEREFORE ENTITLED TO LOOK AT NAKED WOMEN WHENEVER THEY DECIDE TO TEMPORARILY CLAIM WOMANHOOD.

Of course, you've made it exceedingly clear that you don't believe that the discrimination, concerns regarding safety and privacy, and the issues of females are real. You've already made it clear that you think those issues don't matter, and even if a few of them might happen to be real, they're just not a big deal and females are just overreacting.

You have been very clear that the feelings of males who identify as women are more important than the right, safety, and privacy of females.

Boudicca90 said:
Yep, I don't belong in male spaces, because I am not male.
Click to expand...
You are male. You are. That is biological, scientific fact. You identify as the gender of woman, and you live as a woman and present as a woman, and I'm happy for you to do so. But you are male. You are terminally incapable of producing ova or bearing young - you do not have a uterus, you do not have 46XX chromosomes, you are not female. You are male. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, I genuinely am, but it is reality.


Boudicca90 said:
I'm pretty much done with this thread, or at least done attempting to make people see us as people and not monsters. I realized I am not getting through to anybody and all this is doing is making me wonder if I am a masochist for putting myself through the abuse directed at me and other transpeople from the TERFs and transphobes on this board. And now I see there is another anti-trans thread for them to spread their hate and bigotry.
Click to expand...

Holy cow. You are the one who has been calling people names and insulting them. You have not been subject to any abuse. You have not been subject to either hatred or bigotry.

You are not of the sex that has been repeatedly told by you and your allies in this thread that their safety, privacy, and rights are not important, that their issues are invented, and that they are overreacting. You are not of the sex that has repeatedly been told they should accept a lessening of their rights in order for you to feel more affirmed in your identity.

You are, however, the one who has repeatedly demonstrated that you do not care about females at all and consider them to be less important than you. You are, however, the one who has insisted that your feelings are more important than the rights of females.
 
Last edited:
Boudicca90 said:
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. :p
Click to expand...

You're not asking for equal rights. You're asking to gain additional entitlements by reducing the rights of females.

And just like the MRAs and the other misogynists out there, you're right - you're winning. I'm glad you'r so happy that you can take part in further oppressing and already perpetually oppressed group of people. I'm sure you're proud of how "progressive" you are.
 
Paul2 said:
Let's review what the question was:

Snipped for length and all taken on board
Click to expand...

My understanding of the broader concept was to determine whether Self-ID vs Doctor-ID was meaningful in terms of the broader issues - which I understood to be a fear of cismen self-identifying as trans, i.e. when inauthenticity was present.

It seems to me that there are 3 possible scenarios:

1. Person self reports X, correctly
2. Person self reports X, mistakenly
3. Person self reports X, dishonestly

A doctor has no access to the experience, only the report. It seems to me that the only way to distinguish these 3 scenarios is by differentiating the content of the self-reporting from what might be expected to be reported. And that a good liar could never be distinguished from an honest case.

The actual experience of the individual in question is irrelevant.

Though god knows what the point of this rabbit hole was.

Regarding medical diagnosis as a pre-requisite for legal gender recognition, I'm not all that bothered by it as a requirement if the system is there to make it practical. My main concern was that all it does is put unnecessary unhelpful hurdles in the way of people. If it was done via a 24/7 freephone number with a 30 minute consultation and the certificate emailed to you straight away then I personally would think that's a reasonable compromise.

Others might disagree.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Or.. you know... convicted rapists self-identify as women and get transferred to the female ward of the prison where they proceed to assault and rape female prisoners.
Click to expand...
Clearly the prison system is powerless to keep people who have proven themselves to be dangerous from being dangerous to each other. I mean what is the prison system to supposed to do, lock them up?
 
Apropos of nothing it occurred to me and amused me somewhat that a number of the people here insisting that a person with a penis is an unacceptable threat to women in a locker room, would be perfectly happy if a person with an assault rifle was in the same locker room.

Still I'm glad it's 'my side' that are inconsistent and illogical.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Or.. you know... convicted rapists self-identify as women and get transferred to the female ward of the prison where they proceed to assault and rape female prisoners.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of sexual assaults in women's prisons are carried out by prison staff. Male staff are the problem not transwomen.

But let me throw you a bone.... I don't personally think that a convicted rapist should necessarily be able to self-identify as a woman and get transferred to a female prison and be treated like any other woman prisoner.

Mind you, I don't personally think that it should be any different if they get a diagnosis either so again that's not an issue with Self-ID.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You're not asking for equal rights. You're asking to gain additional entitlements by reducing the rights of females.

And just like the MRAs and the other misogynists out there, you're right - you're winning. I'm glad you'r so happy that you can take part in further oppressing and already perpetually oppressed group of people. I'm sure you're proud of how "progressive" you are.
Click to expand...

Yep, I am proud of how much our rights have advanced, despite all the opposition to us. I'm not "oppressing" women at all, except in the imaginations of people like you. And if you feel "oppressed"? Well that is on you, your feelings of discomfort doesn't give you the right to discriminate against and oppress others.

Your attempt to gaslight me falls flat, I am not the bigot for calling out the bigotry against me and people like me. And I'm glad your niece is getting the help she needs without having to prove herself satisfactorily to a doctor or therapist. You might not think she is making the right decision, but what you think is irrelevant and I am glad people at any age can have the option to transition and/or live their lives authentically without having to prove themselves to other people. And if she realizes down the line that she made a mistake, it's fine as long as she wasn't converted by transphobes to hate herself, like is so often the case. Transitioning isn't for everybody and some people don't realize that until they start.

Society is becoming more and more progressive and that is definitely a good thing, but some people will always fight progress if it inconveniences them. You are rightfully fighting a losing battle. :D
 
Earthborn said:
Clearly the prison system is powerless to keep people who have proven themselves to be dangerous from being dangerous to each other. I mean what is the prison system to supposed to do, lock them up?
Click to expand...

It would appear that the answer is to make sure that the violence is confined to males and transwomen and then nobody will kick up a fuss about it?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's totally what it is. Your depiction is a spot-on illustration of people saying that biological sex is real and then being threatened with rape by male-bodied transwomen.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
My understanding of the broader concept was to determine whether Self-ID vs Doctor-ID was meaningful in terms of the broader issues - which I understood to be a fear of cismen self-identifying as trans, i.e. when inauthenticity was present.
Click to expand...
I guess my approach is different. I take a sub-issue: whether
Paul2 said:
. . . the foundation of the condition. . . .
Click to expand...

is self-declaration or self-experience, and to examine and make a conclusion about that sub-issue without regard as to how it might impact any larger consideration, just in and of itself, and then when a larger consideration is examined, let the chips fall where they may, trusting that examining the sub-issue was done properly. This prevents the larger considerations from biasing examination of the sub-issues.
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
It seems to me that there are 3 possible scenarios:

1. Person self reports X, correctly
2. Person self reports X, mistakenly
3. Person self reports X, dishonestly

A doctor has no access to the experience, only the report. It seems to me that the only way to distinguish these 3 scenarios is by differentiating the content of the self-reporting from what might be expected to be reported. And that a good liar could never be distinguished from an honest case.
Click to expand...
I previously listed some ways doctors might distinguish sincere reports versus other reports beyond just comparing sincere and non-sincere reports:
Paul2 said:
My impression - I am not a medical professional - is that doctors have a way of finding out whether someone is sincere or not, imperfect though it may be. Off the top of my head, they might look for
  • length of time the issue has been happening (self-reported, but, still . . . .)
  • how long help has been sought for the issue
  • whether anything about the issue can be verified by other people
  • whether small, initial measures did anything, and why or why not
  • there's probably an element of just reading someone who is talking to you (especially if you've had experience with people who have and have not been sincere)
  • and more.
Click to expand...
Doctors are not at the complete mercy of the patient's report, even though some patients might successfully fool the doctor.
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The actual experience of the individual in question is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Not regarding that specific point about the foundation of the condition, of which the actual experience of the individual was one of the two possibilities presented. Again, I'm looking at a narrow issue independently.
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Though god knows what the point of this rabbit hole was.
Click to expand...
Or, the devil is in the details.
 
Boudicca90 said:
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. :p
Click to expand...

Just so you know... this is exactly why females have single-sex protected spaces in the first place. Because when male-bodied people force themselves upon us, there actually is nothing we can do about it. Male-bodied people are unsurprisingly good at physically dominating and intimidating female-bodied people. And threatening female-bodied people. And insisting that female-bodied people must give way to the wants of male-bodied people... because there's nothing we can do about it.
 
Paul2 said:
The reductio is objectively a possibility, and that's all I ever made it out to be, a possibility. E.C.'s scenario fits everything a reductio needs to be, so how can that be bigotry? That it fits everything mockery needs to be, too, doesn't make it bigotry, it makes it a question as to which is which, when it fits both. So how is that bigotry, too? That is not a rhetorical question, I'm hoping I get a substantive reply.
Click to expand...

I was illustrating the absurdity of saying that everyone ought to be treated however they wish to be treated. It's a nice concept, but when that desire obligates other people to do things that they do not wish to do, when that desire overrides the rights of other people, then it's a vacuous claim that boils down to "I want it therefore you have to give it to me".

Hell, I'd like to be treated as a fully realized human being with real experiences, real concerns, and real barriers in my life that are directly related to my biological sex and my lived experience. That would be refreshing, instead of being told that I'm imagining it, and it's not a big deal anyway.

Because, you know, no female has ever been told that before...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom