Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[lionking]

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

With massive qualifications you ignore.

Give up on this line, it looks increasingly silly.

 

[Elaedith]

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

That's because most people when they hear 'transgender' think 'transsexual' (which always meant somebody who has had or is intending to undergo sex reassignment surgery). They haven't grasped yet that the new definition means somebody who discovered their true 'innate gender' mismatches what was 'assigned at birth', and that the definition is divorced from any diagnosis and does not necessarily involve any form of medical transition.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

There seems to be an issue in that the survey on self-ID is a separate one and they've snuck the results in here. Not sure if that is affecting things or not but it could be a possible reason for some disconnects.

But putting that aside....

the majority of women are in favour of Self-ID
the majority of women agree that transwomen are women
the majority of women seem to believe it's OK for transwomen to access female-only spaces but not female sports
it's only when specifically prompted to consider genitalia that support drops off and changing rooms becomes an issue.

And its not being female or male that is the deciding factor its whether you are old, a Tory or a Brexiteer that are the main determinants.

 

[d4m10n]

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

This seems like the sort of statement which needs to be backed up by a scientifically designed randomized survey of public opinion at some particular time and place. Am I asking too much?

 

[Tomboy]

Is Boudicca wanting cismen to stop her at the door to the men's locker room, saying, "sorry, you present as a woman, you need to go down the way to the women's"?​

Semi-applicable anecdote being told for no reason other than it's semi-applicable: Something similar happened to me. I was in my teens or early 20s, shopping in the men's department and wanted to try on some clothes. Biologically female, identify as female, but very much a tomboy and preferred the styles in the men's department and enjoyed being able to pass as a boy on occasion. The men's changing room was closer so I tried to go in there and was stopped by an employee and told I had to go to the women's changing room in the women's department on the other side of the store. So I did.

Not trying to make a point or a comparison or anything. Just sharing a story.

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.

Using your statement as a jumping off point even though I'm saying something a little different. Not attempting to change your words or imply you said something you didn't. Apologies in advance. I may not be communicating well.

This is about where I am on the issue. I support transwomen living, dressing, and presenting themselves however they want. I support everyone doing that, for that matter. When it comes to bathrooms and changing rooms and other female segregated spaces, I care much much less about whether or not a transwoman is in the there with me, and much much more that signs like this (and corresponding rules, laws, self-ID systems, etc.) mean that a man with nefarious intentions can enter and there's nothing that a biological woman can do to make him leave. In other words, with regards to that sign, I'm not worried about the people who know they belong. I'm worried about the people who know they don't belong but will enter anyway because they now know no one can stop them.

I'd think that this would be something that would concern transwomen as well, at least enough that they'd be willing to work towards some sort of solution that would keep female segregated spaces safe for all of us. If there's no way to keep female segregated spaces at least as safe as they are now for all people who identify as women, then I support keeping them as female segregated spaces for biological women only. I'd much rather work together towards a solution that will include all of us and won't leave some of us worse off than we are now, though.​

 

[TomB]

ETA

There seems to be an issue in that the survey on self-ID is a separate one and they've snuck the results in here. Not sure if that is affecting things or not but it could be a possible reason for some disconnects.

But putting that aside....

the majority of women are in favour of Self-ID
the majority of women agree that transwomen are women
the majority of women seem to believe it's OK for transwomen to access female-only spaces but not female sports
it's only when specifically prompted to consider genitalia that support drops off and changing rooms becomes an issue.

And its not being female or male that is the deciding factor its whether you are old, a Tory or a Brexiteer that are the main determinants.

Except that a pluralities of Remain voters (non-brexiteers), Lib-Dems, and women all felt that those who had not has surgery should not be allowed in changing rooms. For women, this hold for bathrooms as well.


ETA: Also, none of the groups favored allowing trans-women to participate in male sports.

The point is that support depends on the exact context.

(Also: are tories and brexiteers not allowed to have opinions?)

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

No it's not. Otherwise, logically, there would be two sets of (eg) changing rooms:

1) Changing rooms which can be used only by women

2) Changing rooms which can be used by a) all men, and b) those women who choose this option.


Maybe ask yourself why there are male-only changing rooms.

I wouldn't disagree that one of the reasons for gender segregation is the one you've stated. But logic suggests that it's not the main one...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Wasn't he serious?
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.
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.

OK maybe I misunderstood.

What do you mean by objective verification? It would seem we can get objective measures from self-declaration yes. For example, you can have a checklist of reported symptoms and if you tick 8 out of 10 then you get diagnosed. That would be objective.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

I might be wrong here, but you seem to be implying that a) males tend to be either proven rapists of females or wannabe rapists of women; and b) no women pose a sexual (or sexual violence) threat to other women.

 

[caveman1917]

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

How would you know? You wouldn't know logic if it were standing on a hill with a big sign saying "Logic here." Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument form. Unlike argument by analogy, or appeal to consequences or ad hominem for that matter.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

No.... only when they haven't been specifically prompted to think about whether gender reassignment surgery has been performed or not and told it hasn't been.

 

[LondonJohn]

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


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

There are many, many documented cases of females raping males, often forcefully. And of females committing acts of extreme sexual violence against other females.

What are we to make of that?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

With massive qualifications you ignore.

Give up on this line, it looks increasingly silly.

You're right. I'll just post random anecdotes and claim to speak for all women all of the time. That won't look silly.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Yes.

Emily's Cat also seems to be pretty keen on ignoring the fact that the very medical and legal/political bodies which are advocating these sorts of rights for transgender people..... are themselves almost certainly representatively (or pretty close to representatively) stocked with females.

(And it is - I would suggest - pretty difficult for anyone (even Emily's cat) to claim that the large contingents of women on those bodies are insufficiently informed on the matter at hand...)

 

[Sherkeu]

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.

When you say she speaks for 'all women' what do you mean by that word ....'women'?
I think if you can answer that, we can get closer to speaking on the same terms.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

When it comes to bathrooms and changing rooms and other female segregated spaces, I care much much less about whether or not a transwoman is in the there with me, and much much more that signs like this (and corresponding rules, laws, self-ID systems, etc.) mean that a man with nefarious intentions can enter and there's nothing that a biological woman can do to make him leave. In other words, with regards to that sign, I'm not worried about the people who know they belong. I'm worried about the people who know they don't belong but will enter anyway because they now know no one can stop them.

Not trying to be funny but you know the sign is not the factor here and I think you also know what the intent of the sign is.

It's an unfortunate reality of life that a man with truly nefarious intentions can generally enter wherever they like and do whatever they like and there is little anyone can do to stop them regardless of any signs or self-ID rules or otherwise.

 

[caveman1917]

Glad we agree.

Just out of interest, what proportion of those academics pontificating on biology are biologists? roughly?

IIRC we had at least 3 biologists in this thread stating that 1) biological sex is real and 2) transwomen are of the male sex. I remember even giving links to dozens more biologists stating the same thing.

 

[LondonJohn]

When you say she speaks for 'all women' what do you mean by that word ....'women'?
I think if you can answer that, we can get closer to speaking on the same terms.

Firstly, he wrote "a lot of all women", actually.

That doesn't equate to "all women". It equates to "a significant proportion of all those people who are women"

And for the purposes of his argument, it's not materially important whether he meant women in the strictly precise definition (wrt discussions around transgender identity) "those who identify as women" or in the more everyday definition "females". The former would include (a currently extremely small proportion of) trans women, while the latter would include (a currently extremely small proportion of) trans men. His statement is essentially the same either way.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There are many, many documented cases of females raping males, often forcefully. And of females committing acts of extreme sexual violence against other females.

What are we to make of that?

God.... it's complicated but I think you can't make a case that women on women or women on male sexual violence is anywhere near as prevalent as man on woman.

I think the only takeaway from this point should always be not to rely on examples and anecdotes as evidence or data.

Not that I can win anyway, because even if I agree that we should look at whether there is a risk of sexual violence being perpetrated on women prisoners I just get abused. But nonetheless I personally would doubt the sincerity of a convicted rapist who got sentenced to 10 years in a ********* prison who then suddenly decided that they were transgender and only just realised.

Call me an old cynic.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

When you say she speaks for 'all women' what do you mean by that word ....'women'?
I think if you can answer that, we can get closer to speaking on the same terms.

This is an easy one...... I mean.... if I was to go into a room full of people and shout... could all the women stand up please... the one's standing up. They're women.