Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Don't put people with penises, who are in jail for having raped people with vaginas with their penises, in the ward that contains people with vaginas. Is that really too much to ask for?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I guess my approach is different. I take a sub-issue: whether


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.

I previously listed some ways doctors might distinguish sincere reports versus other reports beyond just comparing sincere and non-sincere reports:
Doctors are not at the complete mercy of the patient's report, even though some patients might successfully fool the doctor.
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.
Or, the devil is in the details.

It seems trivial to say that having a condition is not the same as reporting having a condition. Feeling depressed is not the same as saying 'I feel depressed' So the foundation of a condition cannot be the reporting.

But the doctor has no access to your experience and can only go on what you tell them. They can ask questions to elicit more reporting from you, they can look and see if you reported it before, if you reported it to others, but ultimately the diagnosis is 'based on what this person is reporting, which of my possible diagnoses do these reports fit best with?'

Absent any physical signs what else could it possibly be based on but self-reporting?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

What are you basing this assumption on? Are you aware that just imagining something doesn't actually make it true?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Except for the actually documented case of a transwoman actually doing exactly that!

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.

Well, it's nice that you're willing to allow female prisoners to be protected from male sexual offenders. Very magnanimous of you.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Don't put people with penises, who are in jail for having raped people with vaginas with their penises, in the ward that contains people with vaginas. Is that really too much to ask for?

It saddens me that people reduce the world to 'people with penises' and 'people with vaginas' ... but does this logic work for anything else?

Don't put black people who murdered white people in a prison with white people?

Here come the analogy police.....

 

[Earthborn]

Don't put people with penises, who are in jail for having raped people with vaginas with their penises, in the ward that contains people with vaginas. Is that really too much to ask for?

Don't put people, who are in jail for having raped people, in a cell that contains other people. Is that really too much to ask for?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

There is not an eye-rolling smiley big enough for this statement from you.

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.

Sweetheart, females have been losing this battle to males for time immemorial. I'm glad that you feel affirmed by doing your part to make sure that females continue to be second class to the desires and whims of males.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Except for the actually documented case of a transwoman actually doing exactly that!

Yes anecdote trumps data. I forgot that!

Well, it's nice that you're willing to allow female prisoners to be protected from male sexual offenders. Very magnanimous of you.

It's great to see your logic and sound arguments in full flow. Your people skills are lovely as well. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to take your concerns seriously when you express them so delightfully.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It saddens me that people reduce the world to 'people with penises' and 'people with vaginas' ... but does this logic work for anything else?

Given that the terms "women" and "men" have now been stripped of any meaning at all... and that activists are in the process as redefining biological sex as a "social construct", what the hell else am I supposed to fall back on at this point? FFS, females of the species are already being recast in literature as "people with cervixes" and "uterus-havers" and "people who menstruate". It's hard to get a lot more dehumanizing that literally referring to half the species by a body part.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What are you basing this assumption on? Are you aware that just imagining something doesn't actually make it true?

I heard an anecdote on Twitter from an academic. Don't try to silence me! How dare you harass me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Don't put people, who are in jail for having raped people, in a cell that contains other people. Is that really too much to ask for?

You'd think that would be a sensible approach, and I would certainly support that approach. But that's not how it's currently done. And at least in the UK, a person's self-identification without having legally changed their gender was sufficient to get them transfer to the female ward despite the fact that Karen White was in jail for having raped females with her penis.

I don't know how anyone could rationally expect that females would NOT be deeply offended and threatened by that decision.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes anecdote trumps data. I forgot that!

Me: People who self-identify as women, with a history of rape, got put in the female prison ward on their declaration of being a woman... at which point they raped female inmates.

You: Well, that doesn't really happen... dismiss the concern, you're overreacting, no big deal

Me: No, that's actually something that literally actually happened.

You: [sarcasm] Anecdote trumps data! Lol [also providing no data]

 

[Paul2]

It seems trivial to say that having a condition is not the same as reporting having a condition. Feeling depressed is not the same as saying 'I feel depressed' So the foundation of a condition cannot be the reporting.

This only came up when this happened:

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.

I merely mis-spoke (mis-typed?).

But the doctor has no access to your experience and can only go on what you tell them. They can ask questions to elicit more reporting from you, they can look and see if you reported it before, if you reported it to others, but ultimately the diagnosis is 'based on what this person is reporting, which of my possible diagnoses do these reports fit best with?'

Absent any physical signs what else could it possibly be based on but self-reporting?

First of all, I don't know whether doctors have any way to get information that isn't self-reported, I'm not a doctor, but I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to assume that there is no other source.

That doesn't mean, though, that any self-report need be taken at face value. Remember my post about having pain that's a 9 on a scale of 10? Perhaps you'd agree that self-reports can be critically examined?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Me: People who self-identify as women, with a history of rape, got put in the female prison ward on their declaration of being a woman... at which point they raped female inmates.

You: Well, that doesn't really happen... dismiss the concern, you're overreacting, no big deal

Me: No, that's actually something that literally actually happened.

You: [sarcasm] Anecdote trumps data! Lol [also providing no data]

Can you quote where I said it didn't happen? Go on. Humour me.

Maybe you would see a lot less dismissal and insult if you interacted with what people actually said rather than what you imagine they said?

 

[d4m10n]

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

Soy Puertorriqueño Americano but for purposes of Six Nations Rugby, I identify as Irish. [emoji1081]

To be fair, I have argued against transition for minors, and I believe a few other people have as well.

Ya tú sabes. I'd've hoped we'd've taken it as read that irreversible body modification is a bad idea for people who aren't yet old enough to vote.

Maybe include more trans and/or non-binary people in the people you ask.

Will do, but (TBH) this isn't the sort of thing I like to discuss IRL, w/o rules and mods.

Pssst... not the flag Archie identifies with.

I nonswear to ungod (PBUH) that I searched for a Scotland emoji.

ETA: ****!*[emoji1022]

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This only came up when this happened:

I merely mis-spoke (mis-typed?).

First of all, I don't know whether doctors have any way to get information that isn't self-reported, I'm not a doctor, but I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to assume that there is no other source.

That doesn't mean, though, that any self-report need be taken at face value. Remember my post about having pain that's a 9 on a scale of 10? Perhaps you'd agree that self-reports can be critically examined?

Yes for sure, but ultimately it's going to be more self-reports that result.

Where were we going with this again?

 

[Paul2]

Yes for sure, but ultimately it's going to be more self-reports that result.

Where were we going with this again?

But you agree that doctors might not be limited to self-reports, and self-reports can be critically examined. Yes?

I'd get this resolved before moving on to "where we [might] be going with this." But, if that approach is not your cup of tea, that's fine: no harm, no foul.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And at least in the UK, a person's self-identification without having legally changed their gender was sufficient to get them transfer to the female ward despite the fact that Karen White was in jail for having raped females with her penis.

This is INDEED an awful example of the harm of the Self-ID laws in the UK which should be immediately repealed.

Narrator: The UK does not have 'Self-ID' legislation in place.

Incidentally the MAJORITY of women in the UK support Self-ID

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...gender-people-boris-johnson-gra-a9616136.html

ETA: Further amused that the only groups that show a greater tendency to oppose Self-ID are a) Tories and b) Brexiteers. Or cretins as the general public know them as.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But you agree that doctors might not be limited to self-reports, and self-reports can be critically examined. Yes?

I'd get this resolved before moving on to "where we [might] be going with this." But, if that approach is not your cup of tea, that's fine: no harm, no foul.

I think unless there is physical evidence to look for then doctors are limited to self-reports but that yes they can be analytical about using those reports.

It's not just a case of someone rocking up, saying 'I feel depressed doc' and getting an armful of Prozac.

Equally if you call the Samaritans and say you need to talk to someone because you feel suicidal they aren't going to ask for your depression recognition certificate from your doctor before they help you.

 

[Paul2]

I think unless there is physical evidence to look for then doctors are limited to self-reports but that yes they can be analytical about using those reports.

It's not just a case of someone rocking up, saying 'I feel depressed doc' and getting an armful of Prozac.

Equally if you call the Samaritans and say you need to talk to someone because you feel suicidal they aren't going to ask for your depression recognition certificate from your doctor before they help you.

I had also previously noted that cost/benefit aspect, especially pertinent if the doctor is going to approve surgery or hormones.

Actually, I want the term "cost/benefit" to be modified to "cost/benefit/risk" ratio, as the odds of achieving the benefit have to be figured in, too.

Lemme get back to your other question in a second.