Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[The Atheist]

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

That is truly breathtaking arrogance.

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.

There's no irony in trans women - who claim they are exactly the same as women, despite admitting to differences - using toxic masculinity to make a point.

If there's a battle, count me in. I'd have been prepared to sit on the sidelines and watch, but against that kind of attitude, I will be 100% with women - that: "You can't stop us!" is sickening and smacks of the identical toxic culture men used for centuries to stop marital rape and spousal violence being crimes.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

Agree on the first point there. But Self-ID is about paperwork not surgery. That's one of the reasons I try to be specific about these things because otherwise it becomes a mishmash of different arguments. It seems to be a deliberate strategy on behalf of some people to be honest.

I don't think anyone (well there's always SOMEONE but you know what I mean) that advocates gender reassignment surgery without consulting a doctor prior to the treatment. I'm not sure it's even possible to achieve such a thing.

I've not been through the process but I would hope it's collaborative in the aim of finding the best solution for the patient rather than the doctor acting as a gatekeeper to find out if you REALLY need the surgery.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That is truly breathtaking arrogance.

There's no irony in trans women - who claim they are exactly the same as women, despite admitting to differences - using toxic masculinity to make a point.

If there's a battle, count me in. I'd have been prepared to sit on the sidelines and watch, but against that kind of attitude, I will be 100% with women - that: "You can't stop us!" is sickening and smacks of the identical toxic culture men used for centuries to stop marital rape and spousal violence being crimes.

You seem to be making a basic mistake .... the majority of women support trans rights.

 

[Paul2]

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

Where were we going with this again?

It started all the way back here:

Which raises the qustion: Is the medical condition of gender dysphoria even real? If there's no science- or observation-based diagnostic criteria that distinguish it from other conditions, does it actually exist in any meaningful way?

If self-declaration is the only standard, and there's no independent basis for thinking it indicates a problem that needs to be solved, then why should transsexuals be entitled to any concessions from the prevailing social norms?

"I'm a woman!"

"That's nice; the men's room is over there."

"No, seriously! I have gender dysphoria and I need accommodations as part of my treatment."

"Medical science has nothing meaningful to say on the subject of gender dysphoria. Unless you have a doctor's note... The men's room is over there."

I stated that doctors can use objective evidence in these cases, at least to some extent:

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.

Then, Ziggurat caught me substituting self-declaration for self-experience as the root of being trans (read: as what the doctors would try to confirm):

I agree. But that position only holds logically if self-declaration isn't the definition of the condition.

So if we say that self-experience is at the root of being trans, and that's what doctors would investigate, then we can say that doctors can confirm that objectively to a greater or lesser degree, they are not totally at the mercy of what is reported or declared.

If you want to say that a mere declaration is sufficient to grant trans status, that eliminates the ability for any objective confirmation, greater or lesser. In that case, it's trivial to 100% confirm that someone has declared themselves trans: if the words are uttered, QED.

 

[TomB]

I'm what you might call the undecided on this issue. I see legitimate concerns on all sides. I also don't think there is one solution that works on all issues.


Are trans-women women? If we are using a social definition of gender, yes.
Are trans-women female? if we're using the term for biological sex, no.
Should trans-women be treated as women? Yes, in cases where differential treatment is based on gender, rather than sex.

Which leads to questions about segregation that I haven't seen directly addressed:

Why do we have segregated bathrooms?

Why do we have segregated locker rooms?

Why do we have segregated sports?

(And other areas, but this appears to be the big three.)

The answers to each of those questions lead to further questions for each case:

Is that segregation necessary?

If it's necessary, is the reason for the segregation best met by sex segregation or gender segregation?

If by sex, can surgery or hormones move a person to the other side for this particular issue?

If by gender, what is the dividing line between the genders...how is it determined (and verified) where a given individual falls for this particular issue?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

We've been through this claim several times. Yes, on a very high level question, women support self-id. They don't however, generally support legally changing gender without a medical diagnosis and transition. And when it is made clear that the self-id relates to physically intact people, their support for transwomen in their private spaces almost completely evaporates.

And that's something that trans&allies just don't get: The vast majority of women are perfectly willing to treat transwomen as women in most cases. But we are not willing to surrender our safety, privacy, and rights to people with penises. Treating someone with courtesy and dignity in social interactions is a wonderful thing. That courtesy, however, does not mean that transwomen are female, nor that they are entitled to sex-based protections as females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

I'm with you on this concept. But that is, pretty much, what self-id entails. No diagnosis or treatment is required for a person to legally change their documented sex. And once that is done, they become entitled to a handful of hormones, because failure to provide those hormones is considered gender identification discrimination.

It very realistically makes it a case where a person can roll up, say 'I feel like a woman', and receive a prescription for testosterone blockers and estrogen.

You can doubt all you like... but that is EXACTLY what my niece did. She literally went to her primary care doctor, declared herself to be a woman, and asked for hormones. She did NOT meet with a psychologist or mental health expert, not even once. She has NO diagnosis. She has a self-diagnosed claim of being a woman.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It started all the way back here:


I stated that doctors can use objective evidence in these cases, at least to some extent:

Then, Ziggurat caught me substituting self-declaration for self-experience as the root of being trans (read: as what the doctors would try to confirm):

So if we say that self-experience is at the root of being trans, and that's what doctors would investigate, then we can say that doctors can confirm that objectively to a greater or lesser degree, they are not totally at the mercy of what is reported or declared.

If you want to say that a mere declaration is sufficient to grant trans status, that eliminates the ability for any objective confirmation, greater or lesser. In that case, it's trivial to 100% confirm that someone has declared themselves trans: if the words are uttered, QED.

Ah right, I see where we diverged paths then. You took what theprestige wrote as a serious question. You give him more credit then I do.

I will question the bit in bold. Not requiring something is not the same as saying it couldn't be done if required.

I mean we 'could' require a doctor's certificate to confirm that someone is homosexual before we allow them a marriage license to marry a same sex partner. But we don't. We just allow anyone to rock up... say they want to marry someone of the same sex... and we just.... let them.

God my old dad (RIP) was self-certifying he was fit to drive long after he was a threat to himself and others if he went out after dark. They could have forced him to take an eye test or get a doctor's certificate... they didn't though.

So no... I'm not going to fall for 'if we allow self-certification then nothing means anything any more and we might all as well start eating soil and wearing our pants on our heads'

If nothing else I'd rather the doctors were worrying about medical issues than filing trumped up paperwork for the government.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You seem to be making a basic mistake .... the majority of women support trans rights.

It's quite interesting that with this being such a hard fact... that almost every single female who has posted in this thread supports people having the right to dress and present however they want, but does NOT support the invasion of sex-protected rights and privacy by males.

The only reason I say "almost every" is because I don't know Earthborn's sex.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We've been through this claim several times. Yes, on a very high level question, women support self-id. They don't however, generally support legally changing gender without a medical diagnosis and transition. And when it is made clear that the self-id relates to physically intact people, their support for transwomen in their private spaces almost completely evaporates.

Your argument is that women only support Self-ID because they don't understand what it is? That sounds quite.... anti-women.

And that's something that trans&allies just don't get: The vast majority of women are perfectly willing to treat transwomen as women in most cases. But we are not willing to surrender our safety, privacy, and rights to people with penises. Treating someone with courtesy and dignity in social interactions is a wonderful thing. That courtesy, however, does not mean that transwomen are female, nor that they are entitled to sex-based protections as females.

You speak a lot for all women. I would need to see more than your assertions before I believe you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Your argument is that women only support Self-ID because they don't understand what it is? That sounds quite.... anti-women.



You speak a lot for all women. I would need to see more than your assertions before I believe you.

This will now be the fourth time (I think) that I have posted this. It's also been posted by other people. So maybe, maybe at least skimming some of the prior discussion is a decent idea, seeing as you're simply declaring that you "don't believe" things that have been provided as actual evidence several times now.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

And the chart:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

As an aside, I do find it a bit contradictory that you insist on evidence and support and proof from other people, while basing your views almost entirely on what you believe and what you think makes sense.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why do we have segregated bathrooms?

Because all the original public toilets were for men only, and then women wanted to pee as well but rather than give them access to men's toilets they decided to build new ones. It could just have easily have been otherwise.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This will now be the fourth time (I think) that I have posted this. It's also been posted by other people. So maybe, maybe at least skimming some of the prior discussion is a decent idea, seeing as you're simply declaring that you "don't believe" things that have been provided as actual evidence several times now.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

And the chart:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

As an aside, I do find it a bit contradictory that you insist on evidence and support and proof from other people, while basing your views almost entirely on what you believe and what you think makes sense.

That's interesting that you find it contradictory. It could be because yet again you are imagining what I say rather than reading it.

 

[TomB]

You seem to be making a basic mistake .... the majority of women support trans rights.

I don't have time to find the post, but someone posted evidence a few days ago that this is misleading. I don't recall the specifics, I think the level of support dropped dramatically between the questions: "Do you support the right of transwomen to be treated as women?" and "Do you you think trans-women should be allowed into women's locker rooms based on self-ID alone?"

For example:

I think Emily's cat would answer "yes" to the first question, but "no" to the second.

I'll note that this poll, by the same polling company your article cited, tells a more nuanced story: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

It's true that the majority agree with the recognition issues, including self_id.
However, they disagree with making the process of changing legal gender easier. The majority believe that a doctor's approval and evidence of living in their gender for two years should be required.

The interesting thing is that they agree with self-ID, but not when applied to the legal process, which you claim is a all it is.


Further, the majority do not believe transgender women should be allowed to take part in women's sports.

Additionally, when specified that gender reassignment surgery had not been performed, a plurality of women disagreed that transgender women should be allowed to use women's changing rooms and toilets.

(Note: this may have been the poll I mentioned as cited earlier.)

Edit to fix link. Also to note that Emily linked the same poll.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's quite interesting that with this being such a hard fact... that almost every single female who has posted in this thread supports people having the right to dress and present however they want, but does NOT support the invasion of sex-protected rights and privacy by males.

The only reason I say "almost every" is because I don't know Earthborn's sex.

It's not that interesting really. This place is not representative of general public opinion.

Also you do know that the data you just posted says that women do support access of female spaces by transwomen?

 

[d4m10n]

Because all the original public toilets were for men only, and then women wanted to pee as well but rather than give them access to men's toilets they decided to build new ones.

Can you please define "men" and "women" here, for the sake of clarity?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This will now be the fourth time (I think) that I have posted this. It's also been posted by other people. So maybe, maybe at least skimming some of the prior discussion is a decent idea, seeing as you're simply declaring that you "don't believe" things that have been provided as actual evidence several times now.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

And the chart:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

As an aside, I do find it a bit contradictory that you insist on evidence and support and proof from other people, while basing your views almost entirely on what you believe and what you think makes sense.

that data shows that the majority of women support self-id and access by transgender people to sex-segregated spaces of their chosen gender.

 

[Paul2]

Ah right, I see where we diverged paths then. You took what theprestige wrote as a serious question. You give him more credit then I do.

Wasn't he serious?

I will question the bit in bold. Not requiring something is not the same as saying it couldn't be done if required.

I don't know where you get anything about something being required from the bolded part. The bolded part never mentions something being required. It's only a statement of whether objective verification is possible.

I keep on getting the impression that you want to take my statements and infer something larger conclusion from it, and I'm not trying to do that. When I want to infer a larger conclusion, I'll do so explictly.

I mean we 'could' require a doctor's certificate to confirm that someone is homosexual before we allow them a marriage license to marry a same sex partner. But we don't. We just allow anyone to rock up... say they want to marry someone of the same sex... and we just.... let them.

God my old dad (RIP) was self-certifying he was fit to drive long after he was a threat to himself and others if he went out after dark. They could have forced him to take an eye test or get a doctor's certificate... they didn't though.

So no... I'm not going to fall for 'if we allow self-certification then nothing means anything any more and we might all as well start eating soil and wearing our pants on our heads'

That escalated quickly. All I said was that it's pretty much meaningless to get objective verification from a self-declaration. That's all I'm saying. What follows from that is a different conversation. One thing at a time, and first things first. That's my approach. It's hard enough to do that.

 

[TomB]

Because all the original public toilets were for men only, and then women wanted to pee as well but rather than give them access to men's toilets they decided to build new ones. It could just have easily have been otherwise.

But why did they not want them in men's toilets? Does that reason still apply now? And is that reason best met by sex segregation of gender segregation?

 

[TomB]

that data shows that the majority of women support self-id and access by transgender people to sex-segregated spaces of their chosen gender.

Only if gender reassignment surgery has been performed. Go down further in the chart.