Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
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

You were the one who wanted to rank people and argue that one group can discriminate against another provided they are sufficiently subjugated.

You've managed to go full circle though, not only do you not understand the arguments other people are making, you don't even understand your own!

Typical right-wing oppose anything progressive bluster at its most awesomely illustrated.
 
You say this as if Seani is the only one fraudulently pretending to be a woman.
I didn't accuse this person of fraud. Also, Seani is not "pretending to be a woman" as she does not present as a woman. It is more accurate to say that she is pretending to be a man.

How many Seanis do there need to be for cis women to justly worries about self identifying trans women?
If facilities offer sufficient privacy, their number is quite irrelevant. Unless Seanis demand access to women's facilities, their number is irrelevant. If facilities are made accessible and safe to all irrespective of gender expression, their number is irrelevant.
 
I didn't accuse this person of fraud. Also, Seani is not "pretending to be a woman" as she does not present as a woman. It is more accurate to say that she is pretending to be a man.

Wow. The English language no longer has meaning.
 

That is not the same thing and you know it. I have already pointed out that gender indeterminate babies makes it difficult if not impossible to record (not “assign”) sex.

My point is that it’s only a matter of time before a doctor or nurse is sued for “misassigning” a genetic baby boy or girl.
 
That is not the same thing and you know it.
The "gender assignment at birth" terminology comes from discussions about intersex individuals, only to be co-opted in discussions about transgender individuals. Whether you like it or not, if someone talks about "gender assignment at birth" this is exactly what they are talking about.

I have already pointed out that gender indeterminate babies makes it difficult if not impossible to record (not “assign”) sex.
Sex indeterminate babies. And the indeterminacy is not impossible to record, doctors can just describe what condition the baby is in. The only thing that is difficult if not impossible is pigeonhole the baby in one of two categories. "Assign a gender" to what they observe.

My point is that it’s only a matter of time before a doctor or nurse is sued for “misassigning” a genetic baby boy or girl.
Which is exactly what this case is about: a genetic baby boy being misassigned to be a girl.
 
The "gender assignment at birth" terminology comes from discussions about intersex individuals, only to be co-opted in discussions about transgender individuals. Whether you like it or not, if someone talks about "gender assignment at birth" this is exactly what they are talking about.

Sex indeterminate babies. And the indeterminacy is not impossible to record, doctors can just describe what condition the baby is in. The only thing that is difficult if not impossible is pigeonhole the baby in one of two categories. "Assign a gender" to what they observe.

Which is exactly what this case is about: a genetic baby boy being misassigned to be a girl.

Your use of a minuscule birth probability is really quite ridiculous. You know what I’m talking about. A clear sex reported only for the doctors to be sued for “missaigning”. It will come I’m certain.
 
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.

What you are describing is not self-identification but other-identification (in the sense that it is the people on the board identifying you as either deserving or not). Self-identification would go like this: Any person walks into the room, says "I identify as black", and gets granted the scholarship (assuming other conditions are fulfilled of course).
 
And UK response to Gender Recognition Act consultation is out:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/response-to-gender-recognition-act-2004-consultation

tl;dr

Online forms; reduced fees; more clinics, but no major legal changes.

We have also come to understand that gender recognition reform, though supported in the consultation undertaken by the last government, is not the top priority for transgender people. Perhaps their most important concern is the state of trans healthcare. Trans people tell us that waiting lists at NHS gender clinics are too long. I agree, and I am deeply concerned at the distress it can cause.
 
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.

Why is an attempt to transition a factor in your decision? Why isn't it sufficient that Seani professes to believe it in her heart?

How much of an attempt is required? Who judges the attempt? If Seani puts on lipstick and a dress, should she be treated as a woman in those examples? Or does someone get to stand in the locker room doorway and say, "sorry, you're not trying hard enough, come back when you can be more convincingly sincere"?

(If she puts on lipstick and a dress, can she be blocked from the men's locker room?)

(Are we even still clinging to the quaint notion of "lipstick and a dress" being "womanly"? Can't men appear that way too, if they want?)

(Am I misgendering Seani by using feminine (female?) pronouns? Is she he Are they not trying hard enough to be entitled to pronoun change?)

(Wait, why does anyone have to try at all to be entitled to a pronoun change? Why can't any of us change our pronouns whenever we want, for any reason we want? Do we even have to tell anyone the reason?)
 
Last edited:
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.

Statement of the analogy:
blacks are to whites
as
trans are to cis

In both cases, one oppressed group gains a civil right, the other group loses something.

So if whites lost a segregated society so that blacks could gain civil rights (desegregation), it is appropriate that cis people might have to lose something so that trans folk can gain civil rights due them.

However, what whites lost - a segregated society - was something that they were not legitimately due. Segregation is based on stereotypes and racism. Yes, whites lost something, but they lost something that wasn’t really theirs legitimately to begin with. And that is the reason why whites losing a segregated society was appropriate.

Analogously, are females claiming something that isn’t really theirs legitimately when they want to be defined and treated separately - segregated (maybe physically?) - from trans women?
 
You were the one who wanted to rank people and argue that one group can discriminate against another provided they are sufficiently subjugated.

You've managed to go full circle though, not only do you not understand the arguments other people are making, you don't even understand your own!

Typical right-wing oppose anything progressive bluster at its most awesomely illustrated.

Cullennz doesn't strike me as all that right wing, but I digress.

In the hope that you might understand my argument, here is the logical explanation I promised earlier.


Here is my explanation of the logic of why I think private spaces and sports should be segregated by biological sex, and not based on any behavior associated with gender or declarations of gender identity.

Before I begin, a reminder of why this post exists. Archie Gemmel Goal made a comment saying that facts and logic were unpersuasive to many, and I suggested that there really wasn't a whole lot of logic being employed by him and people on "his side". I followed that up asking what parts of my arguments were illogical. AGG noted, correctly, that my post contained no logic, so I'm providing that logic here.

The actual argument spans several paragraphs. I'm going to put it in a spoiler, leaving the summary easily read.

Regarding private spaces where people are normally disrobed, partially or fully, but more so than they would normally be in a public space.

The primary consideration is privacy rights. People tend to want control over who sees them naked, or who sees them in minimal clothing or in clothing that is normally not meant to be seen. (Do I have to spell this out? Just in case, yes. Women don't normally walk around with just a pair of panties covering up their private parts.) This is particularly true if the observers are of the opposite sex. Being exposed, especially to the opposite sex, creates anxiety. (Obvious exceptions apply, but people want to be very careful about when to use those exceptions, and with whom.) This feeling of anxiety is generally more severe among women.

This feeling associated with being unclothed, especially in the presence of men, is sometimes termed "modesty", and it is a deeply rooted psychological reaction. I do not believe that it is fully created by society. I believe it is rooted in instinctual behavior. It is shaped, molded, and intensified by society, but I believe it is a natural phenomenon deeply rooted in the human psyche, related to ways in which sexual signaling is performed by human beings.

Part of this, but not all of it, is related to a legitimate fear of sexual assault. Men are generally bigger and stronger, and capable of rape. From time immemorial, rape actually happens to women. Once again, I believe this fear is not something created by society, nor is it an objectively rational evaluation of actual risk. There is an instinctive fear created by disrobing in the presence of someone who is capable of rape. That fear can be controlled, modified, or intensified by societal pressure or by conscious effort on the part of the person affected, but it perfectly normal and understandable. If a woman feels anxiety disrobing in the presence of a man, this is not a failure on her part. It is perfectly normal, and it is actually wise of women to pay attention to that anxiety, and not try and minimize it, because the threat of rape is very real, and women ought to be aware of that possibility at all times where it exists.

Note that I am talking about anxiety related to the fear of assault, and I am saying that this anxiety is natural, and should not be dismissed, even in cases where some sort of measures make assault extremely unlikely. For example, it seems almost impossible to think that a single, unarmed, young man, would rape a woman in a high school locker room when several young women are present and observing. Even in that situation though, a women would naturally feel uneasy disrobing in the presence of the man, and those feelings should not be dismissed or ignored.

To protect women both from a legitimate risk of rape, or from the anxiety that has its roots in a fear of assault, even if the actual risk is minimal in the specific circumstances present, areas where people are disrobed are segregated so that the disrobed women are only observed by other women.

If a male is allowed into those spaces, he will be perceived as a man, and those anxieties will be triggered. It does not matter what the internal state of mind of the male is. It is his presence as a male that causes the anxiety. If the person is bigger and stronger than the woman, and has the sexual equipment necessary to penetrate and/or impregnate a woman, then all of the elements are present to create a reasonable fear of disrobing in the presence of that male. Therefore, segregation by "gender" is inadequate to protect women. To the extent that the vulnerability to actual assault exists in those places, it can be perpetrated by a transwomen as easily as by a man. Likewise, even if the actual risk of assault is minimized by whatever means available, the associated anxiety is still triggered, just as if an "actual" man were present.

In other words, all arguments for excluding men from female spaces apply equally to trans-women.


Fear of sexual assault, whether an instinctive fear or an objective assessment of risk is not the only element involved in the desire to avoid disrobing in the presence of the opposite sex. Other elements involved are an anxiety about body judgement, and presence of concerns about attempts to engage people in erotic activity, i.e. flirting, being "hit on", or being "checked out". In the interests of brevity, I won't elaborate on those at this time. I'll just reserve comments until later. These issues can affect both men and women, but differently.

Finally, it may also be said that the transwoman may experience anxiety if required to use all male facilities. This can be avoided by providing a separate facility that can be accessed by the small number of transpeople who use those facilities. That solution is often rejected on the grounds that it is somehow unfair to treat transwomen differently than cis-women. In the interests of the reader's time, I won't give a lengthy argument about that at this time, but I will be succinct to the point of bluntness. I don't care. I care about safety, privacy, and access to facilities, but that's about the limit of my interests. If desired, I can elaborate and explain why, logically, I don't think I ought to care, but I will leave that for another time.

Also, I will be brief in commenting about sport. Sports have two important functions in society, which are entertainment and inspiration. People enjoy watching them, and they serve to promote healthy athleticism among spectators and competitors. In order to best fulfill those functions, the competitions must be among the best, most athletic, participants. A highly athletic well conditioned and well trained woman will generally lose to a much less athletic male. The presence of transwomen in women's sports means that the participants are not the most athletic or healthy competitors possible, and thus detract from enjoyment and inspirational value of both spectators and participants.

To summarize the logic:

Segregated locker rooms exist in order to avoid triggering fear of sexual assault among women. That fear is triggered by the physical characteristics of men, not by their internal thoughts. Therefore, segregation must be based on those physical characteristics, i.e. by biological sex, in order to achieve the objectives of the segregation.

I will add that completely private facilities for each individual would solve all of these concerns , but might present practical problems, i.e. cost, that prevent their implementation. I can elaborate further if desired.

Other considerations also exist, and those can affect both men and women, but I haven't elaborated on them.

I earlier requested that you comment on what in my argument was illogical. I'll repeat the request.
 
Statement of the analogy:
blacks are to whites
as
trans are to cis

In both cases, one oppressed group gains a civil right, the other group loses something.

So if whites lost a segregated society so that blacks could gain civil rights (desegregation), it is appropriate that cis people might have to lose something so that trans folk can gain civil rights due them.

However, what whites lost - a segregated society - was something that they were not legitimately due. Segregation is based on stereotypes and racism. Yes, whites lost something, but they lost something that wasn’t really theirs legitimately to begin with. And that is the reason why whites losing a segregated society was appropriate.

Analogously, are females claiming something that isn’t really theirs legitimately when they want to be defined and treated separately - segregated (maybe physically?) - from trans women?

It's not fair to try to unpack and examine the relationships in the analogy. You're just supposed to accept "Civil Rights Good" as a complete package and apply it, unopened, to trans rights. If you're going to make AGG stop and explain exactly what illegitimate privilege women are losing, the advantage of the analogy as a labor-saving device is lost. /s
 
Lionking said:
I have already pointed out that gender indeterminate babies makes it difficult if not impossible to record (not “assign”) sex.


That's not really true any more, except in countries where people have limited or no access to modern genetic and biochemical testing methodology.
 
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.

That's a bait-and-switch. Throughout all of recorded history, up until the last few decades, gender has been completely synonymous with sex. They were never based on a person's internal feeling of how they want other people to treat them, it was always based on sex.

Up until people very recently decided to redefine common words into new and exciting vagaries... Man meant an adult male human, and Woman meant and adult female human.
 
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.

That's baloney. Utter baloney. There are a very, very, very few individuals with hermaphroditism who are androgynous enough to be uncertain of... but there is a plethora of secondary sex characteristics in phenotype between males and females of the human species. It is possible, with extremely high accuracy, to determine a clothed male from clothed female, without ever having to probe their nethers.
 
Before I answer none of these things have to do with GRA or Self-ID can we agree that?
No. Self-Id is a massive part of the problem. I would venture to say that self-id is the single biggest problem that most natal women have with trans-activism. So no, we cannot agree that self-id has nothing to do with these issues - it has everything to do with them.

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?
Well, I dunno. If you are having a problem with your testicles, and need to describe the sensation that you're feeling, and how it's affecting you... do you think it might be important to have a doctor who knows what the hell testicles feel like in the first place? Would you rather have your balls handled and firmly squeezed by someone who has balls of their own and knows how to make sure not to hurt you... or are you fine with it being anyone rolling them around in a clinical setting?

I mean, you might not care, but the majority of females care quite a bit about whether or not the person sticking up speculum up their coochie has an understanding of how painful that is. It's rather nice when you're getting a breast exam to know that the person massaging around your nipples know how delicate and painful areolas can be.

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.
I don't disagree with you here, but it comes back to the specific phrase that you used above: "genuine transwomen". That's where self-id becomes a very serious problem for natal women. If "I say so" is the threshold for "genuine", then "genuine" has no meaning at all.

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.
Alright. I appreciate the recognition that there might need to be an increase, but let's explore this a bit.

Let's talk about diversity. The objective of diversity goals is to bring different perspectives and concerns into the mix, would you agree? Thus, it's important to have representation from a variety of races that are present in the customer base be represented, so you don't inadvertently disadvantage of offend those customers. It's also important to have a diversity of genders, so that the experiences and concerns of those genders are taken into consideration.

Step back from that a moment, and think about what gender means in that context. We have traditionally considered gender to be a more polite word for biological sex, as well as a way to differentiate biological sex from the act of sexual intercourse.

Now, let's say a company wants to increase their gender diversity, so they have decided that at least 3 out of 10 positions on their diversity council should be filled by women. Now, let's provisionally say that this company holds the view that transwomen are women, period. So out of 10 positions on the committee, 7 are filled by cismen of various ethnicities and sexual orientations... and the three remaining positions are filled by transwomen.

All of those positions are now filled by males. None of the members has an understanding of the biological realities of females. None of them have the lived experience of being female in society. None of them have experienced the social pressures and expectations placed on females that are distinct from those placed on males. None of them has any basis for thinking about how their decisions affect female bodies, the social relationship with females, or even affect implicit biases against females. None of them have a good understanding of what life is for a female... because not a single one of them is female.

Is it your opinion that transwomen - who have male biology, the childhood conditioning of males, and largely have the lived experience of males - should count as women in that context?

Is it your opinion that a transwoman can be a true and effective representation of the concerns, issues, and desires of women?
 
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.

While I don't think it's an entirely inappropriate analogy, I actually did address this several pages ago in post 227:
Actually, the flaw in your analogy is different than what has been pointed out.

The civil rights movement in the 1950s sought to end segregation. It did so by showing that segregation was both unfair and unjustified.

The current topic wants to maintain segregation, but alter the reasoning and the parameters of the segregation.

In this discussion, neither side wants to get rid of segregation. There are a few people who have suggested replacing segregated spaces with unisex spaces and both sides have objected.

One side wants to keep the segregation for what they believe to be the original reason, which they consider to still be valid.

The other side wants to maintain the segregation, but alter the parameters and modify the justification.

It's significantly different from your analogy. Both sides favor a segregated bus.
 
1.Self-ID relates to the process of changing your gender legally.

No - this is what YOU keep viewing self-id as. That's not what most of us view self-id as.

In the real world, when we talk about "self-id" we're not talking about a law that allows a person to change their legal sex without a diagnosis - that's part of it, but that's not the problem. When we talk about self-id, we're talking about the activist push that any person should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they are a man or a woman, without ever having seen a doctor about it at all, and without any transition-related activity on their part... and by dint of their declaration, they demand to be recognized as a woman and gain access to female spaces.

We're talking about the impact that has on society. We're talking about the decision to declare oneself to be a woman regardless of ones anatomy, and thereby insist that others must treat you as a woman at risk of being labeled a bigot. It's the demand that a person who bears no resemblance in any way to a woman gains the power to obligate other people to use female pronouns for them at risk of it being considered hate speech. It's the idea of making gender identification on the basis of self-declaration alone be a protected class that overrules the biology of sex and infringes upon the rights of women.

That is what almost all of the other participants in this thread consider "self-id" to mean.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom