Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

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.

What's the rate of violent crimes committed per capita by black people, versus crimes committed per capita by white people?
What's the rate of violent crimes committed by male people per capita, versus violent crimes committed by female people per capita?

What's the rate of sexual assaults and rapes committed by black people, compared to the rate of sexual assaults and rapes committed by white people?
What's the rate of sexual assaults and rapes committed by male people, compared to the rate of sexual assaults and rapes committed by female people?

I find it interesting that you continue to use black civil rights as an analogy for transgender rights, while blithely overlooking that fact that women are not the oppressing group here, and also ignoring the fact that yes, actually, male people do represent a real and meaningful risk to the safety of female people. You keep presenting this as if the take-away is that it's all just in the heads of females, it's made up, it's an overreaction, there's no real threat, females are just being unreasonable about it all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

You know, if you bothered to look back through the thread some, you would be able to find the reasoning given for why it's a bad analogy.

Your ignorance of topics already covered does not in any way imply dishonesty on the part of others in this thread.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

No. Just no.

The subjugated people here are females and transgender people. Get that through your head.

The people being asked to give up rights, safety, and privacy are not male people. Cismen are not being asked to give up anything at all. They have nothing at risk. Allowing the small proportion of transmen into their spaces does not present a threat to their safety at all. Allowing the small proportion of transmen to compete in their sports presents no risk and no reduction in the accomplishments of males at all. None. Zero.

The people being asked to give up rights, safety, and privace are female people. Ciswomen are being asked to give up many things. They have much at risk. Allowing the higher proportion of transwoman into their spaces does present a threat to their safety - both because many of those (especially self-declared) transwomen are male-bodied and also because self-declaration allows ANY male-bodied person to access females spaces without challenge. Allowing the higher proportion of transwomen to compete in their sports presents a very real risk of reducing the accomplishments of females.

I have said this many times. In this situation, male-bodied people are insisting that female-bodied people sacrifice their rights, their safety, their privacy to the desires and feeling of affirmation of other male-bodied people.

A fair analogy is NOT black civil rights. A fair analogy would be white people insisting that black people must sacrifice some of their gains and rights in order to make white-people-who-identify-as-black feel better about themselves.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

By transitioned, I mean taking medical steps to alter their physiology to appear more like that of a female. At a very, very minimum, hormone therapy.

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.

If everyone agreed, there wouldn't be much discussion. I'm about 99.8% certain, however, that Suburban Turkey would fall on Seani's side, as would Squeegee Beckinham. I give it even odds for Boudicca - she has previously stated that she's a no on the sports question, but that she felt anyone who identifies as a transwoman, even with no intent to transition at all, should be allowed access to shortlists etc. because they are "just as much of a woman" as a natal woman.

There are a surprising number of transwomen and transallies that want any self-declared transwoman to be treated as a woman in every way.

I specify transwoman here, because this kind of reasoning, this insistent demanding of their desires, does not seem to be present among transmen.

 

[theprestige]

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

It's weird how you keep coming back to this point even after you've been repeatedly corrected on it. What's going on?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Can you give me an example where historically, the quest for equal rights required one group of discriminated-against people without equality to give up their already-unequal position to a different group of discriminated-against people without equality?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

How do you distinguish between a genuine transwoman and a pretending cisman?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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!

We understand your argument. It's a terminally flawed argument.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Based on what? How do you determine that she's really truly a woman as opposed to a man? Is it simply because she claims to be?

I have a book. It's the word of god. I know it's the word of god, because the book says it's the word of god.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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?

Thank you, you have understood the analogy and engaged with it.

We may actually be getting towards an actual discussion.

Now on what basis do we decide if discrimination is 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate'?

Had a white person pointed out that they feel threatened and uncomfortable around black people would they have a legitimate issue?

Had a white person pointed out that black people are statistically more likely to be violent criminals or sex offenders would they have a legitimate issue?

Had a white person point to examples of gruesome crimes commited by black people against white people would they have a legitimate issue?

Had they insisted that desegregating sports would see professional sports dominated by black people would they have a legitimate issue?

You can probably make a case that none of these arguments matter because white people were in a privileged position and so all that desegregation does is level the playing field. Cool. No issue with that.

But transwomen are not in a privileged position and unless you buy into the ridiculous notion that the whole trans rights thing is just a misogynist plot to do down women you have to accept that we are now in a trade off position.

So it just comes down to what is the justification for excluding transwomen from spaces and is that justification sufficient to justify the discrimination. The answer in some cases may well be 'yes' and in other cases 'no' but from my view the onus of justification lies with those who want to deny people rights.

At least it seems we agree that people who wanted to discriminate against black people DID lose something during desegregation. That seemed to be contentious.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

While I don't think it's an entirely inappropriate analogy, I actually did address this several pages ago in post 227:

This is a difference yes, but it is an irrelevant difference because it doesn't effect anything.

It doesn't matter that it was specifically segregation, only that one group sought to deny rights to another group in some way.

 

[theprestige]

Thank you, you have understood the analogy and engaged with it.

We may actually be getting towards an actual discussion.

Here, let me help:

Now on what basis do we decide if discrimination is 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate'?

Had a white person pointed out that they feel threatened and uncomfortable around black people would they have a legitimate issue?

Had a white person pointed out that black people are statistically more likely to be violent criminals or sex offenders would they have a legitimate issue?

Had a white person point to examples of gruesome crimes commited by black people against white people would they have a legitimate issue?

Had they insisted that desegregating sports would see professional sports dominated by black people would they have a legitimate issue?

You can probably make a case that none of these arguments matter because white people were in a privileged position and so all that desegregation does is level the playing field. Cool. No issue with that.

But transwomen are not in a privileged position and unless you buy into the ridiculous notion that the whole trans rights thing is just a misogynist plot to do down women you have to accept that we are now in a trade off position.

So it just comes down to what is the justification for excluding transwomen from spaces and is that justification sufficient to justify the discrimination. The answer in some cases may well be 'yes' and in other cases 'no' but from my view the onus of justification lies with those who want to deny people rights.

At least it seems we agree that people who wanted to discriminate against black people DID lose something during desegregation. That seemed to be contentious.

I think you will find that discussion proceeds a lot faster once you strike out all the time-wasting arguments about the analogy.

 

[Sherkeu]

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.

haha.
This brings back memories of my 'fairly large' male Ob/Gyn checking for fetal growth by sticking what felt like his whole hand up there and then his other hand on top to check the size of the fetus. owwwwww

As it was, she didnt make it out the normal way, though my doc 'thought I could' even with her size. Eventually, we all gave up on baby cooperating in time and went to the OR. She was a bit over 10lbs, 21.5in long

Hard to imagine now that I was just walking around with what looked like a 3mo old baby inside my body the day before!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

I earlier requested that you comment on what in my argument was illogical. I'll repeat the request.

Thanks. Your argument is reasonably coherent and logical but unconvincing to me.

I'll explain why.

1. I am not comfortable with the idea that we discriminate against a group X because group Y has fears of them.

2. It's not clear to me that the fears are rationally grounded and that would only exacerbated my concerns in 1. Plus if it is an irrational fear then exposure to transpeople will likely reduce the fear.

3. It's not clear to me that the fears are held by a majority of the group in question (and we get into a murky area here - if 10% of Group Y fear Group X is that enough to justify excluding Group X?)

4. It's not clear to me that excluding trans people is the only solution to this problem.

5. It's not clear to me that the onus should be on transpeople to accommodate this fear, or whether the solution may be for example the people who have a problem with transpeople to find a separate space

6. It's not clear to me that it is a solution to the problem anyway. If a rapist wants to rape a woman then it seems there are ample opportunities, and access to women's facilities is going to make no statistical difference to the actual risk.

7. There is also something missing from your argument - that being that if women having a fear of men is reason to exclude transpeople then you have to think that transwomen would have reason to fear men (and in fact men would have reason to fear other men also). Your argument doesn't seem to address the rights of other groups.

The last bit is important I think. Well it all is but the last bit I think gets to the heart of something that your logic doesn't address.

Your logic is :

1. Women fear men (whether it's justified or irrational)
2. These fears can be reasonably accommodated
3. Therefore these fears should be accommodated by segregating the sexes

Until now I think we've largely got away with that because nobody lost anything. So step 2 was pretty much self-justifying. Women did their thing, men did their thing. The only men missing out are those who would want to be in a woman's space and why would they want to be in a woman's space other than for nefarious reasons? So we can ignore that group.

But once you include transpeople the maths has to change. Now someone has a claim to be losing something by being denied access to women's spaces . So you have to revisit point 2. Is it reasonable that the wish to deny access trumps the wish to have access? And I don't think you've shown that.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

Garbage. I explicitly asked for it to be unpacked. Your ill-informed commentary is not helping.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is a difference yes, but it is an irrelevant difference because it doesn't effect anything.

There are two kindergarten classes. Class "Blonde" has 90 blond kids, and 10 strawberry-blonde kids. Class "Brunette" has 98 brunette kids and 2 kids with auburn hair.

Class "Blonde" has the newest toys and games, they get 1 hour for recess, they have 8 teachers, and they get private tutors available to them. Class "Blonde" kids are expected to wear blue shirts every day.

Class "Brunette" has hand-me-down toys and games, they get 30 minutes for recess, they have 5 teachers, and they can only get tutoring if they apply for and are approved. Class "Brunette" kids are expected to wear blue shirts every day.

The redheads in school are "transclassed". The strawberry-blondes dislike blue, and really strongly want to wear red shirts. The auburn haired kids detest red, and desperately want to be seen in blue shirts. In an actof compassion, the school administrators decide that transclassed kids can choose whichever class they feel most comfortable in.

The auburn kids join Class "Blonde". They now have access to newer toys and games, so even if they end up getting the oldest of the Class "Blonde" games, they're better than the games they used to have. They now get more time with the teachers than they used to, so even if they're the last ones to get that attention, it's still a win for them. Plus, they get blue shirts. They still feel a little bit awkward, because every time there's a class photo, they stick out a bit, so both of the Auburn kids lighten their hair so that it looks more Blonde and they fit in better. All in all, they are satisfied with the situation.

The strawberry-blondes join Class "Brunette".

Two of the strawberry blonds dye their hair a nice rich brown, play with the same toys as the original brunettes, play the same games at recess, make good friends with the original brunettes, and decide that it's very unfair that Brunettes don't have the privileges and benefits that Blondes do, and think that strawberry blondes and brunettes should work together to change how the school works.

Five of the strawberry blondes dye their hair crimson, so that in black & white photos it doesn't stand out. They play with the same toys as the brunettes, but they tend to try to get the best of the old toys before the brunettes do. But they're willing to share most of the time. They get along fairly well with the brunettes most of the time, but they get offended if any of the brunettes refer to them as redheads or as strawberry blondes, but mostly just grumble. They are aware that Brunettes don't get the same privileges and benefits as Blondes, but it's not important to them and they don't care. They really just want the blue shirts, and they don't really have any interest in making the lives of Brunettes as a whole better, and they get annoyed when Brunettes talk about the disparities they face relative to Blondes.

Three of the strawberry blondes decide they like their hair as it is, but they still want people to refer to them as brunettes. They think it's a horrible insult to be referred to as strawberry blonde, and they think anyone who uses that term is a bad person who shouldn't be allowed to have recess or play with any of the toys. They liked the toys that the Blondes had, so they push ahead of other kids in class and take the best of the old toys for themselves. Because they felt mistreated by the Blondes, they believe that Brunettes should give them the best toys and games to make up for it. They think education is important, and they got their parents involved with the school to ensure that they get as much time with the Brunette teachers as they used to. They acknowledge that this means the original brunettes will get less attention from teachers, but they feel they are entitled to high-quality education, so if the brunettes are unhappy about it, oh well. They can find a different class. The school administration said they could join whichever class they wanted, so there's nothing those brunettes can do about it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

Appeals to tradition don't work on me though.

For most of recorded history people knew that all the animals were created by God. Because they didn't know any better and had never thought otherwise. As we learn more about things our understanding tends to get more complex and nuanced. That's a good thing.

But if you want to go there many societies throughout history have had more complex views of sex and gender than man/woman. The idea of three or more 'genders' dates back 3 or 4 thousand years.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's baloney.

It isn't, you know.

 

[Emily's Cat]

haha.
This brings back memories of my 'fairly large' male Ob/Gyn checking for fetal growth by sticking what felt like his whole hand up there and then his other hand on top to check the size of the fetus. owwwwww

As it was, she didnt make it out the normal way, though my doc 'thought I could' even with her size. Eventually, we all gave up on baby cooperating in time and went to the OR. She was a bit over 10lbs, 21.5in long

Hard to imagine now that I was just walking around with what looked like a 3mo old baby inside my body the day before!

Wow, that's a big baby! You grew a giant!

 

[Paul2]

Thank you, you have understood the analogy and engaged with it.

We may actually be getting towards an actual discussion.

Now on what basis do we decide if discrimination is 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate'?

Had a white person pointed out that they feel threatened and uncomfortable around black people would they have a legitimate issue?

Had a white person pointed out that black people are statistically more likely to be violent criminals or sex offenders would they have a legitimate issue?

Had a white person point to examples of gruesome crimes commited by black people against white people would they have a legitimate issue?

Had they insisted that desegregating sports would see professional sports dominated by black people would they have a legitimate issue?

You can probably make a case that none of these arguments matter because white people were in a privileged position and so all that desegregation does is level the playing field. Cool. No issue with that.

But transwomen are not in a privileged position and unless you buy into the ridiculous notion that the whole trans rights thing is just a misogynist plot to do down women you have to accept that we are now in a trade off position.

So it just comes down to what is the justification for excluding transwomen from spaces and is that justification sufficient to justify the discrimination. The answer in some cases may well be 'yes' and in other cases 'no' but from my view the onus of justification lies with those who want to deny people rights.

At least it seems we agree that people who wanted to discriminate against black people DID lose something during desegregation. That seemed to be contentious.

It's not privilege that is the reason that justified why whites had to desegregate, it was the irrationality of the racism and generated the segregation. Even in the ways that mattered to whites, it is irrational to think that there is something essential in blacks that make them more dangerous than anyone else. And, danger wasn't the only factor, either. There were miscegenation laws, too, for instance.