Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

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.

1) The concept of self-identification is/was never simply the case of (eg) a male being able to declare herself a transwomen on a whim: someone self-identifying would have to make a formal sworn declaration to that effect (I think that's the case everywhere, but it certainly is in the UK).

2) I'm guessing that there's little or no reliable data concerning the area of males going through this self-identification procedure (as above) primarily for the purpose of allowing them access to women-only spaces in order to satisfy desires related to sexual deviancy. In other words: males who are actually heterosexual cis men, who choose to lie in going through the self-identification process in order to be able to get into women-only spaces with a view to being sexually deviant. But I wonder just what the extent of that problem might ever be.

3) Personally, I agree with you that it's vastly better (for all, including those with gender dysphoria) to have to go through an appropriate clinical assessment and diagnosis process.

4) If this process of self-identification is removed completely from the table (as indeed appears to be the case in England & Wales in the upcoming reform of the law), what is your view on clinically-assessed, clinically-diagnosed trans women being able to access and use women-only spaces?

 

[cullennz]

Should women have any spaces?Why or why not?

If there is no danger or issues with 'penis having' persons, I see no reason to segregate just based on being a 'woman', and anyone can self-ID they are either a woman or man. We should honor each persons individual opinion about their identity.

Other than medical things related to having a uterus and birthing all the humans on the planet, there should be nothing special.
Sports should be just height and weight. Scholarships by pure ability only. Prisons, dorms, school, all mixed!!
No discrimination!

That way when a male decides he wants to be a woman, but then switches back, there is no coercion either way. The sports team 'she' is on is fine either way. Fluidity is possible. Neutral sexuality is possible. Even the asexuals, non-sexuals, or the ones who identify an non-human aliens are fine in this system.

The weird thing, I suspect, is that the trans women dont actually want things neutral. Their psychological validation and feeling of 'belonging' come from being in a distinctively 'woman' space.
So how to correct for that?

Yes they should.

Personally speaking as a bloke who watched my mother getting the crap kicked out her by the old man while I was very young, women deserve the right to be able to escape to a women's only space where they are not going to be confronted by other biological males, when their mental state should not have to deal with it.

 

[d4m10n]

You need to look at the actual situation and the actual maths if you want to have a genuine appreciation of risk.

I don't think you're doing the maths right if your maths don't allow you to do any forecasting whatsoever.

Suppose the question is whether the residents of [Planet X, Location Y] would be more safe or less safe if a dozen men males were introduced into a space formerly reserved for a hundred women females. By your logic, we have no idea since it would be wrong to compare the baseline rates of violence within and between the sexes and make at least a qualitative (up or down) prediction therefrom.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Have you talked to any real life females about your perception on this?

You're a real life female, yes? Give me the alternative answer.

You're just going to wedge that in there as if it's patently true, with no support... and then just dictate that it be "put aside"?

It is patently true. Continue to be boggled. Or correct it. At what point does a man become a transwoman in your opinion? And what change occurs at that point?

Why wouldn't this same argument hold for a cisman? If a cisman has a desire to enter the women's space for non-nefarious reasons, and who claims a harm is being done to them by denying it... why would their demand not be viewed as justification?

I guess it 'could' be. What reason are they giving? And what harm is being done by denying it? If they have good reason and are being harmed by not being allowed to do so then why would their demand not be viewed as justification? But there isn't and they don't. Unless I have missed something. Have i?

What is the justification that a transwoman provides that allows them access to a female space, where a cisman would not be allowed?

That they wish to be treated as a women and that it harms their well-being to be treated otherwise.

I consider that answer to be one that eliminates sex as a protected class.

Fair enough. But I don't see that conclusion as being justified and since you haven't attempted to I'm none the wiser as to why you think so.

Sex as a protected class means that I cannot discriminate against you on the basis of sex. Nothing I have said discriminates against anyone on the basis of sex as far as I can see.

Do you mean to say that since since the same protections would be available to people based on gender that renders sex meaningless as a protected class? If so I don't think I agree.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Promises, promises.

I answered this already.

I hope... I certainly typed one out and hit submit.

 

[Meadmaker]

I answered this already.

I hope... I certainly typed one out and hit submit.

I'll look. I didn't see it, but the thread moved quite quickly.

ETA: Found it. Haven't read it yet.

 

[Emily's Cat]

1) The concept of self-identification is/was never simply the case of (eg) a male being able to declare herself a transwomen on a whim: someone self-identifying would have to make a formal sworn declaration to that effect (I think that's the case everywhere, but it certainly is in the UK).

What is happening in the real world, socially, is that males are self-declaring themselves to be transwomen, with no medical diagnosis at all. They are then accusing people who misgender them or are skeptical of their identities of being transphobes and bigots, and are harassing them online, and seeking to have them dismissed from their jobs. They are putting pressure on lesbians to have sex with their penises, and if she doesn't want to they call her names and threaten her.

Right now. In the real world.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't know what you think is mainstream... but self-declaration, with no diagnosis and no medical transition is exactly what was used to transfer Karen White - a physically male person who had been convicted of rape but claimed to be a transwoman - transferred to the female ward.

So clearly, that's not what the law is right now. And there are a lot of people who disagree with your very reasonable request to have some gatekeeping involved. Some of those people have been in this very thread.

It's fairly widely acknowledged by everyone involved that Karen White should not have been admitted to that prison and that mistakes were made. Hopefully lessons have been learned.

if i see people arguing otherwise on this thread I will make a point of addressing them but I haven't seen anyone do it recently.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

None of this is relevant to the analogy.

The analogy rests simply on the premise that one societal group (white girls/women) was placed in a position of increased personal danger (both real and perceived) as a direct consequence of laws aimed at giving another societal group (black people) rights.


And one specific example I use is the fact that before rights reforms, any black person on a public bus was required to give up the whole bench seat to a white passenger if the bus was full: therefore, white girls/women would never be placed into a situation of sharing a two-person bench seat with a black male. But post black rights reforms, if a girl/woman was sitting alone on a two-person bench seat, a black male now had the right (as he should have) to sit himself tight up against that white girl/woman on that seat.


Compare with cis women, pre transgender rights reform, being able to use women-only facilities solely in company with other cis women; but post transgender rights reform, cis women were now (as a direct consequence of transgender rights reform) placed into a position of potentially increased danger, owing to trans women now being allowed to access/use women-only facilities.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What is happening in the real world, socially, is that males are self-declaring themselves to be transwomen, with no medical diagnosis at all. They are then accusing people who misgender them or are skeptical of their identities of being transphobes and bigots, and are harassing them online, and seeking to have them dismissed from their jobs. They are putting pressure on lesbians to have sex with their penises, and if she doesn't want to they call her names and threaten her.

Right now. In the real world.

Harassment is illegal. As is putting pressure on someone to have sex with you and threatening them when they don't.

In many cases so is being a transphobe and a bigot though.

In my personal experience the transphobes tend to be the ones shouting louder and going out of their way to harm others, but that's only my personal experience. Most of the issues I see raised by transphobes turn out to be the same old 'cancel culture' ******** whining.

One of the issues of social media is that you tend to see what you already agree with and get a distorted view of the other side and crazies. it's one of the reasons why i binned Twitter..... plus all the crazies.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

But this is a long way from what "transition" actually means.

In fact, transitioning is anything from simply changing one's pronoun, through changing one's given name, through simply presenting oneself in a way that is more commensurate with one's new identity, through wearing clothing/makeup that is more commensurate with one's new identity.... and right through to medical or surgical intervention.

There is some informative reading information here:

https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people

 

[theprestige]

Compare with cis women, pre transgender rights reform, being able to use women-only facilities solely in company with other cis women; but post transgender rights reform, cis women were now (as a direct consequence of transgender rights reform) placed into a position of potentially increased danger, owing to trans women now being allowed to access/use women-only facilities.

Is the danger posed to women by males pretending to be trans the same as the danger posed to white women by black men? I don't think so.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Exactly.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can't help but notice that you complain about not getting responses to your analogy, you insist that people need to engage with you. And when the people who engage with you are men, you thank them for engaging even if you disagree with them. When the people who engage are women, they get curt dismissals.

Well that is not what I observed or perceived. What I observed/perceived was that the differing forms of response from Archie Gemmill Goal were based purely upon the nature/quality of the engagement being presented to him.


It does seem to me (but it may be a misconception) that the belief process underlying your posts here is fairly hardwired into the women-are-being-constantly-repressed-by-men ideology.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Exactly.

Not all rights, and not all denials of rights, are analogous.

Also, not all "rights" are actually rights. Sometimes people try to justify their demand for privileges or entitlements by claiming they are actually human rights.

Are safe spaces from cismales a right that women should have? Probably.

Is access to women's safe spaces a right that transwomen should have? Probably. Is access to women's safe spaces a right that cismales should have? Probably not.

Does granting access to transwomen on their self-ID alone, to the point of making it a criminal offense to attempt any gatekeeping, necessarily grant the same access to cismales? Pretty obviously yes.

Is the women's right to have a space safe from cismales worth giving up, in order to give transwomen access to those spaces on their self-ID alone? That's the question.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're a real life female, yes? Give me the alternative answer.

Most sex-segregated spaces aren't some hold-over from the bad old days. They are spaces that females fought to acquire. Females for a very, very long time had no rights of their own, only rights-by-proxy of their father or spouse. They were not allowed to use public restrooms, restrooms were only for males. They had no rape or domestic violence shelters, in fact, for a very long time violence committed against wives or sisters or daughters wasn't even considered violence at all, it was the right of the man to do so. It was the right of a husband to have sex with his wife, she had no right to decline.

Most female spaces are spaces that females had to fight very hard to get. They're not a matter of social convenience, they're a matter of safety and privacy.

It is patently true. Continue to be boggled. Or correct it. At what point does a man become a transwoman in your opinion? And what change occurs at that point?

Well, for the easy part - it's certainly not immutable and always true. There are many cases of people detransitioning.

Beyond that, you haven't provided any definitions for your terms here. And while I am not usually a fan of semantic argument, this is a case where a monumental amount of the discussion hinges directly on what is meant by the terms "man", "woman", "transman", and "transwoman" in the first place. So you don't get to just make declarative statements that depend intimately on your own internal definition of a term and insist that it is "patently" true.

I guess it 'could' be. What reason are they giving? And what harm is being done by denying it? If they have good reason and are being harmed by not being allowed to do so then why would their demand not be viewed as justification? But there isn't and they don't. Unless I have missed something. Have i?

You're assuming that any reason given by a cisman is not a justified reason, aren't you? It seems as if you are.

That they wish to be treated as a women and that it harms their well-being to be treated otherwise.

I wish to be treated like royalty and it harms my well-being to be treated otherwise.

A wish to be treated in a certain way does not obligate everyone else to comply with that wish. I don't see any reason why a wish to be treated as something one is not should override the rights of others.

Sex as a protected class means that I cannot discriminate against you on the basis of sex. Nothing I have said discriminates against anyone on the basis of sex as far as I can see.

Do you mean to say that since since the same protections would be available to people based on gender that renders sex meaningless as a protected class? If so I don't think I agree.

There is a significant push to replace the term sex with the term gender in a variety of regulations and documents. Sex is observable reality. Gender is a feeling inside one's head, which nobody else can evaluate in any way. This results in sex protections being meaningless. Anyone who claims to be the appropriate gender then has access to any services apportioned for that sex. It would also mean that elements in place designed to protect a vulnerable sex would become available to anyone who claimed to be the gender associated with that sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's fairly widely acknowledged by everyone involved that Karen White should not have been admitted to that prison and that mistakes were made. Hopefully lessons have been learned.

if i see people arguing otherwise on this thread I will make a point of addressing them but I haven't seen anyone do it recently.

The apologies have been that Karen White specifically shouldn't have been admitted. What I am saying is that Karen White should never have even been considered for moving to the female ward, because people with penises should not be allowed in the female ward, regardless of how they identify.

 

[d4m10n]

Are safe spaces from cismales a right that women should have?

I'd think that the answer to this hinges on whether cisgender males are actually more dangerous (or at least more threatening) than other sorts of males. Haven't seen any data on this question yet, IIRC.

 

[LondonJohn]

What is happening in the real world, socially, is that males are self-declaring themselves to be transwomen, with no medical diagnosis at all. They are then accusing people who misgender them or are skeptical of their identities of being transphobes and bigots, and are harassing them online, and seeking to have them dismissed from their jobs. They are putting pressure on lesbians to have sex with their penises, and if she doesn't want to they call her names and threaten her.

Right now. In the real world.

But if males are simply deciding to declare that they are trans women, without going through any formal process of check & balance and affirmation, then they cannot go around demanding that transgender rights should apply to them.

Just as, in the same way, I cannot declare myself Chairman of my company and demand a huge corner office and a seven-figure salary.


ETA: and with this in mind, some of the actions/behaviours you're describing appear to constitute potential criminal offences, and they should be investigated as such by the relevant authorities.

 

[lionking]

That you don't know what you are talking about is not my issue. The legislation that allows transpeople access to women's spaces based on being transgender is anti-discrimination legislation. If you have a problem with that happening then it's to do with anti-discrimination legislation.



You asked ME what I thought and used that as a justification. I don't speak for all males anymore than you speak for all women. Even though you think you do.



I think that's pretty much what the law is right now. And i'm not aware of anything specific proposed that would change it. I'm not aware of any mainstream groups of transallies or activists actively pushing for anything significantly different. Nor do I have a specific platform to engage with them on the topic.




Probably. There are going to be some areas of experience where yes they can speak for natal women and others where they won't. Equally there will be some areas of life where cismen can speak for transwomen and others where they won't. That's why we value diversity in the first place. To try to suggest that there is one definitive 'natal woman' experience that is shared by all is nonsense. I would recommend that we only have transwomen on the panel.

How many times do you need to be told that UK legislation, which you are fixated on, is not what other people are talking about? Talk about dishonest discussion.....