Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Roboramma]

Looking at it from a utilitarian perspective, one difference between the trans situation and racial segragation is that any behavioral differences between black and white people socio-cultural in origin. If black people really did present a greater danger to white people, it wasn't because of something biologically inherent to their race. As such, segregation was actually maintaining the problem that it claimed to solve. Doing away with segregation may have exposed some white people to more danger, but it was a short term harm (to them, and accompanied by short term gains in equal treatment to black people) that can potentially lead to long term gains for everyone.

The same is not true of the trans issue, since there's good reason to think that the differences in violence between men and women are biologically based.

 

[Olmstead]

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.

I think you're overcomplicating it. What they didn't consider in the past was the modern concept of gender, because the distinction was completely based on biology (even before they knew about chromosomes). They didn't think about it because in their eyes there was no need:

penis = man
vagina = woman
anyone biologically inbetween = biological disorder
transgender = psychological disorder (not my statement, I'm making an observation about the past)

Any segregation between the sexes (whether sensible or not) was based on that worldview until fairly recently.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I struggle to understand how it is so hard.

It's hard because people keep asserting it without ever explaining it

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.

Yes. And white people were asked to give up some of their 'rights' to make it so. Something which was disputed on this thread.

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.

No. Because the subjugated people here are transpeople and the powerful are cispeople also. Nobody is asking women to give up the battle for gender equality.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think you're overcomplicating it. What they didn't consider in the past was the modern concept of gender, because the distinction was completely based on biology (even before they knew about chromosomes). They didn't think about it because in their eyes there was no need:

penis = man
vagina = woman
anyone biologically inbetween = biological disorder
transgender = psychological disorder (not my statement, I'm making an observation about the past)

Any segregation between the sexes (whether sensible or not) was based on that worldview until fairly recently.

Pretty much. Which is why it is disingenuous to claim historically things were 'sex segregated' as if it means something.

We never thought about it before. Now we are thinking about it.

 

[d4m10n]

I would have thought female prisons already have to deal with pregnancy testing and obstetrics, no?

Not nearly as often as they would with active sperm producers in gen pop.

 

[Earthborn]

We know only that Seani believes that she belongs in womxn-friendly spaces on the internet.

That would be fine. Everybody already knows there are no real girls on the internets.

As far as I can tell, such an objection would not be legal in California.

I don't think that is true. While the ACLU page claims gender identity is the only criterium, that is an oversimplification and not actually what the law says.

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't think that is true. While the ACLU page claims gender identity is the only criterium, that is an oversimplification and not actually what the law says.

A criterium is a bicycle race.

 

[cullennz]

It's hard because people keep asserting it without ever explaining it



Yes. And white people were asked to give up some of their 'rights' to make it so. Something which was disputed on this thread.



No. Because the subjugated people here are transpeople and the powerful are cispeople also. Nobody is asking women to give up the battle for gender equality.

Disagree

They both are/were. Compared to Men. One lot just got less so quicker.

And the other one expect them to give bits of the hard work up they did to make this so, by allowing biological males back into what they fought hard to get for themselves.

If you think biological males whose mind tells them by gender they are women are suddenly biologically female that is fine. But it is wrong.

 

[Tanja]

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.

The right to feel safe away from people with penises?

I see this a lot. But I cannot find any good sources to confirm or deny that these protections were ever based on sex, but rather they were based on being a 'man' or a 'woman' long before there was ever any discussion about sex/gender/trans issues.

To me, yes, the right for women to feel safe from people with penises is pretty much the crux of the matter. To put it bluntly, every sexual assault I’ve ever experienced, and any other women that I know that has been sexually harassed or assaulted has experienced, has come from people with penises. Therefore the biological aspect of sex is relevant to discussions about women’s safety. I’ve stated my opinion previously - I struggle recognising biologically male individuals who retain their male sexual organs and who continue using their penises for penetrative sex as women in any meaningful sense. That they identify as women, yes, that they dress as women, fine, that they take female names, fine. But that they ARE women? Sorry, no.

 

[Earthborn]

What's your view on untransitioned transwomen:

What exactly do you mean with "untransitioned" ? To me, untransitioned means "still in the closet". None of your questions makes sense unless someone is already started transitioning, even if only by announcing themselves to be transwomen.

Perhaps you mean someone like Seani, who identifies herself openly as tranwoman, but does not make an attempt to present as one. I think everyone would agree that it is unreasonable demand she should be treated as a woman in any of your examples.

 

[Earthborn]

Excellent point on female-only scholarships, something I hadn't thought about. How do people get on with race-based scholarships?

Basically by self-identification. Sure, if you look like a lily-white Northern European and you apply for one, you may need some arguments to explain why you think you still deserve it, unlike a darker skinned person who happens to be genetically mostly Northern European.

 

[lionking]

What exactly do you mean with "untransitioned" ? To me, untransitioned means "still in the closet". None of your questions makes sense unless someone is already started transitioning, even if only by announcing themselves to be transwomen.

Perhaps you mean someone like Seani, who identifies herself openly as tranwoman, but does not make an attempt to present as one. I think everyone would agree that it is unreasonable demand she should be treated as a woman in any of your examples.

You say this as if Seani is the only one fraudulently pretending to be a woman. How many Seanis do there need to be for cis women to justly worries about self identifying trans women?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

To me, yes, the right for women to feel safe from people with penises is pretty much the crux of the matter. To put it bluntly, every sexual assault I’ve ever experienced, and any other women that I know that has been sexually harassed or assaulted has experienced, has come from people with penises. Therefore the biological aspect of sex is relevant to discussions about women’s safety. I’ve stated my opinion previously - I struggle recognising biologically male individuals who retain their male sexual organs and who continue using their penises for penetrative sex as women in any meaningful sense. That they identify as women, yes, that they dress as women, fine, that they take female names, fine. But that they ARE women? Sorry, no.

That's all well and good. The discussion on how far your right to discriminate trumps other people's freedoms and vice versa is at the crux of a lot of social issues. What I tried to correct was the idea that this is somehow unique in this case and that nobody had to give up anything in the past to allow others equality.

Personally I don't feel comfortable with your position but at least it seems coherent. It does seem like you are throwing transpeople under the bus but at least you are being honest about it.

 

[lionking]

To me, yes, the right for women to feel safe from people with penises is pretty much the crux of the matter. To put it bluntly, every sexual assault I’ve ever experienced, and any other women that I know that has been sexually harassed or assaulted has experienced, has come from people with penises. Therefore the biological aspect of sex is relevant to discussions about women’s safety. I’ve stated my opinion previously - I struggle recognising biologically male individuals who retain their male sexual organs and who continue using their penises for penetrative sex as women in any meaningful sense. That they identify as women, yes, that they dress as women, fine, that they take female names, fine. But that they ARE women? Sorry, no.

Well said, but this will be naturally ignored by many on this thread and you will be thought of, if not openly called, a TERF.

 

[lionking]

That's all well and good. The discussion on how far your right to discriminate trumps other people's freedoms and vice versa is at the crux of a lot of social issues. What I tried to correct was the idea that this is somehow unique in this case and that nobody had to give up anything in the past to allow others equality.

Personally I don't feel comfortable with your position but at least it seems coherent. It does seem like you are throwing transpeople under the bus but at least you are being honest about it.

For a cis woman......

 

[d4m10n]

While the ACLU page claims gender identity is the only [criterion], that is an oversimplification and not actually what the law says.

Did you have a look at the last link?

The regulations require employers to allow employees to use the restroom, locker room, dressing room, or dormitory (referred to collectively as “facilities”) that corresponds to the employee’s gender identity or gender expression, regardless of the employee’s sex assigned at birth.

The regulations expressly prohibit an employer from asking for or requiring “proof” of gender prior to granting an employee’s request to use a particular restroom or other facility.

Employers may not interfere with employees’ ability to use the facilities of their choice simply because it makes other employees uncomfortable.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Disagree

They both are/were. Compared to Men. One lot just got less so quicker.

Nope you've moved the goalposts. Cis people have never been subjugated as a group. And it's not 'compared to men'

And the other one expect them to give bits of the hard work up they did to make this so, by allowing biological males back into what they fought hard to get for themselves.

Again, switching the groups. Women did not win anything from transwomen. What you are arguing is that women do not have equality with men and therefore they have a right to discriminate against transwomen? Makes no sense.

If you think biological males whose mind tells them by gender they are women are suddenly biologically female that is fine. But it is wrong.

Irrelevant to the topic

 

[lionking]

Did you have a look at the last link?

Again the “assigned at birth” ********.

I wonder if any medical staff have been sued for “misassignment” to date? It’s only a matter of time.

 

[cullennz]

Nope you've moved the goalposts. Cis people have never been subjugated as a group. And it's not 'compared to men'



Again, switching the groups. Women did not win anything from transwomen. What you are arguing is that women do not have equality with men and therefore they have a right to discriminate against transwomen? Makes no sense.



Irrelevant to the topic

Then if you get a chance do you mind drawing up a hierarchy list of which subjugated groups you think out rank other subjugated groups when it comes to rights?

Maybe give them ranking points, and if you could make sure it includes sex, gender, race, disability, disorder etc

Kind of a

white dudes - 100
white women - 99
Black men - 98
black women 97
...

Type thing then we can have a formula who gets to annoy who

Identity politics at its most awesomely illustrated

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Basically by self-identification. Sure, if you look like a lily-white Northern European and you apply for one, you may need some arguments to explain why you think you still deserve it, unlike a darker skinned person who happens to be genetically mostly Northern European.

I'm personally not clear on what the specific issue with scholarships is.

That genuine transwomen will access them? What's the problem?

That cismen will try to access them by pretending to be trans? How successful are they going to be with that endeavour?

Something else I'm missing?