Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nope, not too much to ask.

What's your view on untransitioned transwomen:
- competing in female sports?
- performing intimate medical and person treatments on females when the female has requested a female doctor/nurse/aide?
- being housed in female prisons?
- qualifying for female shortlist positions or being counted as females for quotas?
- having access to female scholarships and grants?

The discussion always gets dragged back to toilets and changing rooms. Can we just set those aside as a case where there's probably a reasonable compromise available... and maybe focus on the areas where there is a real issue of safety and rights?

Before I answer none of these things have to do with GRA or Self-ID can we agree that?

Sports - There are sports were transwomen and ciswomen can play alongside each other. Others where it probably doesn't make sense. My general approach would be to look at whether there are ways to include both and then exclude transwomen where it is necessary based on a specific criteria

Doctors - I'm 50/50 on this. On one hand I believe that the medical profession should generally try to cater to people to make them as comfortable as possible. On the other hand if someone asked for a white doctor they should be told where to go. I'd generally say a transwoman doctor should be considered a female doctor for all intents and purposes. Incidentally if the female doctor was a lesbian would it make a difference?

Prisons - I don't think this is anywhere near as much of an issue as people suggest. But it seems that we could come up with some rules here that would allow the majority of genuine transwomen to be housed in women's prisons while segregating anyone that might be a real risk. For example, I'm not sure that people should be able to change their gender after they are convicted/imprisoned. it may be wise to segregate sex offenders from ciswomen.

Quota/Shortlists/Scholarships - Again it seems like there are ways around any issues and I'm not sure how big an issue it is going to be. These could be opened up to transwomen, maybe with a few tweaks on numbers to account for the increased population and if it was felt that abuse of the system was happening then steps could be taken to eliminate that abuse.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

?

All people considered in the past was sex. XX/XY. Hence, any segregation was based on sex.

They never considered it at all. Thus any segregation was based on never having thought about it in the first place. Certainly wasn't based on XX/XY since that specific distinction wasn't a thing.

The reality is that it is not possible to determine someone's XX/XY status before using a toilet, therefore the segregation cannot and could not ever have really been based on that in practice.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Do you see a problem with the highlighted? Because I don’t.

I kind of do, actually.

But what I was doing was showing the comparison of how both situations removed 'rights' from one group to benefit another. Can we agree on that before we move on to this new subject?

On the subject of 'rights' can we also think of any other examples where we remove rights from one group ('transwomen/men') because of a perceived threat from another group ('cismen')?

There must be some I guess but can't think of any.

 

[lionking]

Before I answer none of these things have to do with GRA or Self-ID can we agree that?
Sports - There are sports were transwomen and ciswomen can play alongside each other. Others where it probably doesn't make sense. My general approach would be to look at whether there are ways to include both and then exclude transwomen where it is necessary based on a specific criteria

Doctors - I'm 50/50 on this. On one hand I believe that the medical profession should generally try to cater to people to make them as comfortable as possible. On the other hand if someone asked for a white doctor they should be told where to go. I'd generally say a transwoman doctor should be considered a female doctor for all intents and purposes. Incidentally if the female doctor was a lesbian would it make a difference?

Prisons - I don't think this is anywhere near as much of an issue as people suggest. But it seems that we could come up with some rules here that would allow the majority of genuine transwomen to be housed in women's prisons while segregating anyone that might be a real risk. For example, I'm not sure that people should be able to change their gender after they are convicted/imprisoned. it may be wise to segregate sex offenders from ciswomen.

Quota/Shortlists/Scholarships - Again it seems like there are ways around any issues and I'm not sure how big an issue it is going to be. These could be opened up to transwomen, maybe with a few tweaks on numbers to account for the increased population and if it was felt that abuse of the system was happening then steps could be taken to eliminate that abuse.

I’m not Emily’s Cat, but I think self identification (as the lone criterion) is central to many of these issues. A trans woman who makes attempts to present as female and undergoes hormone treatment would be better accepted in sports (along with meeting other prescribed levels) than some of the muscled, bearded trans women we have seen.

You mightn’t like it, but it’s a valid point of view.

 

[lionking]

I kind of do, actually.

But what I was doing was showing the comparison of how both situations removed 'rights' from one group to benefit another. Can we agree on that before we move on to this new subject?

On the subject of 'rights' can we also think of any other examples where we remove rights from one group ('transwomen/men') because of a perceived threat from another group ('cismen')?
There must be some I guess but can't think of any.

I’ve said this many times, but I reckon self identified trans women being allowed to compete in professional women’s sport will deny many cis women the right to earn an income.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I’m not being funny either. Don’t you support self identification to be enough for someone to be a trans woman? And that self identified trans women should have access to places previously reserved for cis women?

What I support is neither here nor there with regards to the law.

I'll go through this one more time:

1.Self-ID relates to the process of changing your gender legally.

2.Your legal gender is NOT what determines your access to segregated spaces.

3.What determines your access to segregated spaces is anti-discrimination law.

4.Anti-discrimination law says that if you are trans REGARDLESS of what your legal gender is then you should have access to the segregated spaces which suit your declared gender UNLESS the space has valid reason to exclude you.

5.Changes to self-ID/GRA don't impact anti-discrimination law which already exists.

Do you dispute any of the above? Do you not understand any of the above? Is any of it unclear or confusing? From a legal point of view?

The outcome of dropping Self-ID from the GRA (and I admit I haven't even looked at what changes the Tories have reportedly made to confirm exactly but I'm going on report that say Self-IF has been dropped) means it will be more difficult than it otherwise would have been to legally change gender, and exactly the same level of difficult to enter a women's changing room or toilet.

Please note here we are discussing matters of fact (in so much as the law is a fact) rather than opinion or interpretation. in terms of the law, I would say that the real argument should be about the 'good reason to exclude' provisions in anti-discrimination law rather than the complete red-herring of self-id.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I’ve said this many times, but I reckon self identified trans women being allowed to compete in professional women’s sport will deny many cis women the right to earn an income.

But I don't think that's an example of what I asked for and in any case it's not current law.

It's something we can discuss if you like though. For me, I don't think it will happen and in any case I'm not sure anyone has a 'right' to earn an income from a particular field, otherwise I am being denied my right to earn an income from marathon running.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I’m not Emily’s Cat, but I think self identification (as the lone criterion) is central to many of these issues. A trans woman who makes attempts to present as female and undergoes hormone treatment would be better accepted in sports (along with meeting other prescribed levels) than some of the muscled, bearded trans women we have seen.

You mightn’t like it, but it’s a valid point of view.

It's NOT a valid point of view because Self-ID doesn't change any of that. You clearly don't understand the laws we are talking about and I'm not sure how to get beyond that with you because you seem to refuse to take on board the new information you are being given.

It's akin to saying that you disagree with raising the speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80mph because we need to exclude drunk drivers from speeding on the motorway - the two issues are tangentially linked in terms of road safety, but are two legally and causally separate issues.

It's a valid viewpoint perhaps to believe that transwomen should be excluded from women's sport in some or all circumstances. It is NOT valid to say that we need to remove Self-ID from the GRA to ensure it, or that somehow removing Self-ID is a win in achieving it.

 

[lionking]

It's NOT a valid point of view because Self-ID doesn't change any of that. You clearly don't understand the laws we are talking about and I'm not sure how to get beyond that with you because you seem to refuse to take on board the new information you are being given.

It's akin to saying that you disagree with raising the speed limit on motorways from 70 to 80mph because we need to exclude drunk drivers from speeding on the motorway - the two issues are tangentially linked in terms of road safety, but are two legally and causally separate issues.

It's a valid viewpoint perhaps to believe that transwomen should be excluded from women's sport in some or all circumstances. It is NOT valid to say that we need to remove Self-ID from the GRA to ensure it, or that somehow removing Self-ID is a win in achieving it.

Since when is this thread exclusively about UK law? Personally I don’t give much of a **** about UK laws. As you have said yourself, UK lawmakers at the moment are buffoons.

I and others are talking about things like women’s vs trans women’s rights. These things can and have been debated without reference to laws in certain countries. I don’t believe I’ve referred to Australian laws in this thread at all.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Since when is this thread exclusively about UK law? Personally I don’t give much of a **** about UK laws. As you have said yourself, UK lawmakers at the moment are buffoons.

I and others are talking about things like women’s vs trans women’s rights. These things can and have been debated without reference to laws in certain countries. I don’t believe I’ve referred to Australian laws in this thread at all.

The posts you were responding to were specifically about UK law. That was the topic of this particular little exchange. I don't think you are arguing honestly anymore.

 

[cullennz]

Since when is this thread exclusively about UK law? Personally I don’t give much of a **** about UK laws. As you have said yourself, UK lawmakers at the moment are buffoons.



I and others are talking about things like women’s vs trans women’s rights. These things can and have been debated without reference to laws in certain countries. I don’t believe I’ve referred to Australian laws in this thread at all.

This is an issue I that I have noticed a few times now on this type of thread.

People tend to try to make points by saying their understanding of law as evidence.

People seem to forget they are talking to multiple posters reading from loads of different countries with loads different laws from them.

So it just turns a bit silly. And you might as well just ignore posts referring to some law someone is talking about.

Which is a bad thing as if they lose the law bit their points might be easier to get.

 

[lionking]

The posts you were responding to were specifically about UK law. That was the topic of this particular little exchange. I don't think you are arguing honestly anymore.

Nonsense. I was responding to one aspect of an amended UK law in the context of many, many posts clearly not specifically UK laws. You chose to make recent exchanges exclusively about UK laws. I don’t have to play that game.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is an issue I that I have noticed a few times now on this type of thread.

People tend to try to make points by saying their understanding of law as evidence.

Laws are evidence of what the law is and what it does and doesn't allow. When people are talking about changes in those laws it's important to know what they mean.

People seem to forget they are talking to multiple posters reading from loads of different countries with loads different laws from them.

So it just turns a bit silly. And you might as well just ignore posts referring to some law someone is talking about.

Which is a bad thing as if they lose the law bit their points might be easier to get.

Yes, if the law being discussed in a particular post isn't of interest to you then ignore it and talk about something else. Don't try to pretend that you understand it or that it doesn't say what it says.

I've noticed this a lot here. It's completely dishonest. When people are pinned down on a specific topic rather than engage with it they jump to another topic which is only tangentially related.

If you are opposed to Self-ID laws then you should be aware of what those laws do and say. If you are opposed to transwomen competing in women's sport then make your case for that. If you are opposed to Self-ID laws because they will allow transwomen to compete in women's sport then you are probably very confused.

If you don't care about Self-ID laws, don't discuss them.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I'm expecting a less than stellar response from the people who believe trans women are actual women and should enjoy the exact same rights.

The sport alone is a no-brainer, as evinced by the alleged greatest woman tennis player of all time being trounced by a drunken Kraut who rated 203 in men's tennis. There are hundreds of men who could put on a dress and win every women's tournament.

well

1) Many transactivists (and not just the extremist ones) actually think the sport one is not a no-brainer.

2) Many people have already provided full responses.

3) If you happen to be referring to me personally (and your comment about the "sport alone" would suggest that you are), I only didn't go further down the list because it was late and I didn't have the time; I'll be considering all of them later today, in order to give what I feel is the best response to reflect my position.

4) The very fact that you appear to be implying that people in this thread in favour of transgender rights would either be unwilling or unable to address those points..... reflects rather more upon your thinking and your position than upon those of the people at whom your accusations are aimed. In my opinion.

 

[lionking]

Laws are evidence of what the law is and what it does and doesn't allow. When people are talking about changes in those laws it's important to know what they mean.



Yes, if the law being discussed in a particular post isn't of interest to you then ignore it and talk about something else. Don't try to pretend that you understand it or that it doesn't say what it says.

I've noticed this a lot here. It's completely dishonest. When people are pinned down on a specific topic rather than engage with it they jump to another topic which is only tangentially related.

If you are opposed to Self-ID laws then you should be aware of what those laws do and say. If you are opposed to transwomen competing in women's sport then make your case for that. If you are opposed to Self-ID laws because they will allow transwomen to compete in women's sport then you are probably very confused.

If you don't care about Self-ID laws, don't discuss them.

Or alternatively you can discuss self-identification without reference to laws. Which I have been doing for pages before you so recently re-appeared.

Many laws, like Australia’s, bend over backwards to accommodate trans women without regard to the effects on cis women. The guidelines to gender recognition laws in Australia has this:

The Australian Government recognises that individuals may identify and be recognised within the community as a gender other than the sex they were assigned at birth

Sex isn’t “assigned” at birth (ignoring the minuscule indeterminate sex babies) it is recorded as a fact. Wording like that leads to flawed laws and the threats to cis women we see outlined in this thread.

So, no I’m not really interested in debating numerous laws, but on the impact of the “trans women are really women” mindset these laws facilitate. You know, real life impacts outlined by many cis women participating in this thread.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course it did. It took away the right of white people to feel safe in their own spaces away from black people. And many others.

Exactly.

Personally, I find the continued resistance to this analogy - resistance which is seemingly based on the stubborn insistence that black civil rights reforms did not place any other group into a position of potentially increased danger as a direct consequence - to be interesting and instructive in itself.

 

[cullennz]

Exactly.



Personally, I find the continued resistance to this analogy - resistance which is seemingly based on the stubborn insistence that black civil rights reforms did not place any other group into a position of potentially increased danger as a direct consequence - to be interesting and instructive in itself.

Probably because it is a false equivalence.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Exactly.

Personally, I find the continued resistance to this analogy - resistance which is seemingly based on the stubborn insistence that black civil rights reforms did not place any other group into a position of potentially increased danger as a direct consequence - to be interesting and instructive in itself.

I would love someone to actually engage in the analogy and explain the differences rather than just dismiss it as a bad analogy.

The best I can do is something like:

1. We know it's wrong to discriminate against black people so the people doing it back then were wrong so it doesn't count, or

2. Black people weren't really a threat so nothing was lost by allowing them into white spaces.

But none of them really work as justifications for me.

I don't think we will get an honest engagement on the analogy though because my observation is that the most prominent anti-trans posters on this thread are incapable or unwilling to engage in honest discussion on specifics.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Probably because it is a false equivalence.

Go for it then. Point out the differences. Address the points made rather than just insisting 'it's not the same'

Give us something we can actually discuss rather than soundbites.

 

[cullennz]

I struggle to understand how it is so hard.

You are talking about a group of subjugated people (in the US blacks) striving to get equal rights as the most powerful (whites). And arguably achieving it.

And the subjugated people (women) who achieved it who worked for a long long time to get the same thing with the most powerful (men) and a few people who want to undo it by letting biological dudes in everywhere they have worked for.