Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
No, that's not what's at issue here.

What's at issue is: are the words "man"/"male" and "woman"/"female" synonymous and interchangeable (respectively) for the general "man in the street"?

If it were generally understood that, for example, "female" exclusively referred to biological sex, and "woman" exclusively referred to gender, then transgender legislation could itself make that distinction: e.g. it would then constitute an offence to call a trans woman a "man", but it would not be an offence to call a trans woman a "male".

But as things stand in 2020, the words are interchangeable for most of the general public. And in turn, this means that the law must take that into account when framing legislation. Thus the law can (currently) effectively - and correctly - consider it an offence whether someone harasses (say) a trans man with either "You're a woman!" or "You're a female!".
Click to expand...
The law can be an obstacle a lot of the time with the social side of things tbh. Not a huge amount of point worrying about it as it is written by self interested idiots trying to outlook good each other.

A woman is a woman. A trans woman is a she. Same for blokes and trans blokes with he.

But a female and male will always be separate no matter how much people with agends try to purposefully connect them.
 
Olmstead said:
The diagnosis vs. self-declaration thing is kind of silly. What is the doctor going to say?

"No Sir, you do not have gender dysphoria, you are delusional. I will schedule some therapy that will disabuse you of that notion."

Self-declaration is literally all that matters. I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad, but it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...


I hadn’t thought of it that way before. We do use the medical professionals as “gate keepers” in this matter but it is only one way, after all your GP is not going to tell you at your next visit for your flu jab, “By the way I’ve changed your sex as I thought you are better off being the opposite sex”.
 
LondonJohn said:
But one cannot support the validity of transgender identity without thinking along the lines of "trans women are women". It's axiomatic.

This at the very heart of what transgender identity actually means. If you say "trans women are men who think they're women", then you do not support the validity of transgender identity.

So it's not simply an issue around the definition of terms: rather, the definition of terms essentially IS the debate.

Those who do not or will not support the validity of transgender identity believe - by definition - that "male" and "man" are always synonymous, as are "female" and "woman". Under their belief, for example, there's actually no such thing as a "trans woman" per se: instead, there's simply a man who thinks that he would like to be a woman. So under their belief, there's just no need to separate gender and sex: all biological males are men, and all biological females are women.


(Just as plenty of reactionary bigots used to argue that there was no such thing as a homosexual man per se: rather, there was a "normal" (ie heterosexual) man who - on account of deviancy or other psychiatric disorder - thought other men to be sexually desirable to him....)
Click to expand...

you really should reconsider using gay people to defend trans identity. it makes you look like an unserious person who thinks making specious arguments fool people. they don’t. also, bigotry is a dumb characterization of and a false charge against any of the anti-tra people here.

if you want to believe in silly axioms that are trivially false statements because you get a nice warm feeling inside that you’re a HR activist on the right side of history despite how harmful what you’re supporting is — fine. but don’t expect that bull to convince people ppl who’ve seen first hand how harmful trans is to ppl who identify that way and to their families. don’t expect that to convince anyone who’s seen prominent, not random nuts, people who are actually and literal representatives of trans, rape women because he wanted “theybies”.

it’s clear from all of your posts on this you have no idea what goes on in trans or nb spaces, or the academic literature that influences what is said and how things are thought about in them. go get educated. Do the work. Don’t just make a bunch of fallacies as arguments over and over, go actually learn something
 
Darat said:
I hadn’t thought of it that way before. We do use the medical professionals as “gate keepers” in this matter but it is only one way, after all your GP is not going to tell you at your next visit for your flu jab, “By the way I’ve changed your sex as I thought you are better off being the opposite sex”.
Click to expand...

the mental health practitioners are adopting a affirmation model only wrt to this issue, this despite the evidence that model doesn’t resolve mental health issues for the trans identified person generally, and that medical transition increases suicidality and all cause mortality long term.
 
MisAndreG said:
the mental health practitioners are adopting a affirmation model only wrt to this issue, this despite the evidence that model doesn’t resolve mental health issues for the trans identified person generally, and that medical transition increases suicidality and all cause mortality long term.
Click to expand...
Hear this a lot.

With all due respect do you have some links to actual figures for trans people. Suicide and mortality.

(Not that I imagine it's easy by any means)
 
Last edited:
MisAndreG said:
the mental health practitioners are adopting a affirmation model only wrt to this issue, this despite the evidence that model doesn’t resolve mental health issues for the trans identified person generally, and that medical transition increases suicidality and all cause mortality long term.
Click to expand...
No idea what your first sentence means up to the first comma. Can you rephrase it?
 
Here is an interesting unpacking of the recent BVA decision.

https://lascapigliata8.wordpress.com/2020/09/18/sexism-in-medicine-and-policy-capture/

In my opinion this vote was a serious mistake and they are going to have to reverse it at some point. Speaking as someone who was sexually assaulted by a (male) doctor while in hospital I find the prospect of being examined by a male doctor who expects me to perceive him as female to be utterly terrifying, and you can call it moral panic all you like, that's the way it is.
 
yeah, I read to much into your post made assumptions and posted something that is kind of non-sequitorish my bad
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, that checklist would help confirm things. It's just a question of what "self-declare" means. I and Ziggurat, I think, were distinguishing self-declaration and self-experience in a way contrary to how you're using self-declaration. Self-declaration is merely stating that one is, say, a (trans) woman, being sufficient to establish same. With self-experience, presumably a doctor would still need to objectively verify things, which would include the checklist you mention. So we're using the words differently than you do.
 
By the way, I notice that Starbucks is currently running a pretty high-profile UK TV commercial campaign, based entirely on transgender identity. It's a riff around the fact that they write your name on your coffee cup: young transgender customers tell stories about how having their trans name written on the cup served as affirmation of their new identity, and so on. The handle is "Every name's a story".

https://stories.starbucks.com/emea/stories/2020/whatsyourname/

I think it's a certainty that Starbucks will have done a whole load of market research and focus groups etc before running these ads. And given this, I'd suggest that Starbucks would have had to be pretty confident that its target customer base was going to be on average broadly receptive to the message.

And I guess Starbucks can live without those (former or potential future) customers who aren't entirely enamoured of the campaign.....


ETA: Oh, I see the website release I've linked to is dated back in January 2020, and I also see that this campaign won awards in 2019. But I don't remember seeing this campaign on air until just this past week, so I don't know when they first bought media space for it.
 
LondonJohn said:
You think that if a scientist in 2020 (or 1980 for that matter) put forward a hypothesis that homosexuality is in fact the product of a mental disorder.... this would be accepted academically (or in society in general) as a reasoned and un-noteworthy hypothesis??
Click to expand...
First, let's distinguish between what would or might happen in practice and what the principles of science would offer. Science is made by humans, who will apply the principles of science imperfectly (although science is designed to correct those errors, but still . . . .).

I can imagine a scenario in which a brain researcher, perhaps looking for something else, finds something in the brain which - to the researcher's line of reasoning and evaluation the evidence, flawed though it may be - leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is a mental disorder. The researcher checks and double-checks things, and can't find a way to disprove that conclusion, even though the conclusion is false.

By putting forward that research and its conclusion, the researcher is not acting out of bigotry, but is merely doing. The researcher's claim should be taken on its merits and dismissed when the flaw in reasoning is found, or might lead to further research if no one can find the flaw.

The other option would be to shut off scientific research when the conclusions it points to are contrary to either what we already know or what we already want to be true. Neither of those sound attractive, so, at least, science moving forward in this case is the lesser of the evils.
 
Darat said:
I hadn’t thought of it that way before. We do use the medical professionals as “gate keepers” in this matter but it is only one way, after all your GP is not going to tell you at your next visit for your flu jab, “By the way I’ve changed your sex as I thought you are better off being the opposite sex”.
Click to expand...

There are problems with doctors as gatekeepers. The most obvious is that it can lead to "Doctor Shopping" to get the right diagnosis. A problem we've seen with things like opioids. (Gasp! an analogy!!!)

This is complicated by the fact that doctor shopping is also a valid way to address an issue. If I have a condition that I don't think my doctor is adequately treating or has failed to find a diagnosis for, I am certainly going to try other doctors until I can find one who can help me.

Another problem with doctors as gatekeepers is that it introduces the doctor's own biases into the mix.

Psychology is difficult, because unlike other sciences it's difficult or impossible to directly test for something. Diagnoses are often based on interpreting anecdotal evidence given by the patient. Doctors with different schools of thought or different clinical experiences can come up with different diagnoses or treatments.

On the one hand, it makes sense to find a doctor who has shown success with the condition you have. After all, that's how you would select a cardiologist or oncologist. But then, you are kind of self-diagnosing just to select the a doctor.

Self ID isn't perfect. But neither is medical diagnosis. I tend to like some sort of medical opinion to be involved, and in the UK I think that's feasible due to their medical system. In the U.S. it's more of a barrier due to our health insurance system. For example, Medicaid does not cover psychological treatment in some states.
 
Tomboy said:
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. :boxedin:



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. :o

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.
Click to expand...

I don't think you were unclear :D And I hold more-or-less the same view as you do (with minor nuances that aren't particularly material). I was simplifying the situation to point out that the reality of the views held by women aren't as clear-cut as they were being made out to be.
 
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Neither. What I said is literally what I meant. Don't put people with penises who have been put in jail for violent sexual crimes against people with vaginas in the ward that holds all of the people with vaginas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom