Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

The whole Karen White case has become for the drooling anti-trans movement exactly equivalent to the Rotherham grooming gangs for the drooling anti-Muslim movement.

First off, most of the posters in this thread are not anti-trans. I'm not, for sure. Not bending to every whim, not accepting every irrational request, not agreeing that biology isn't real... those things don't make me anti-trans. I'm all for transgender people having a right to not be fired or denied housing as a result of their gender expression. I'm all for negative rights - protections - for transgender people. What I oppose is positive rights - entitlements - for transgender people that override existing negative rights - protections - for females.

 

[LondonJohn]

It looks like he understands it fairly well, but does not agree.

Are you one of those people who feel that a lack of agreement is only possible due to a lack of understanding?

No, I'm not "one of those people".

The principle driving this analogy is this, and only this:

It is entirely feasible and allowable for civil rights reform aimed at helping one group in society to have - as a direct, if undesirable, consequence - the effect of putting a different group into a position of increased potential danger.


That's all. Nothing to do with "segregation" or "who oppressed whom" or "which danger is more extreme" or anything else.

 

[d4m10n]

How do you determine whether Seani is a man or a woman?

Under "self-i.d." (the broad social ethos, rather than specific proposed legislation) we will simply have to take her word on this. I'd be shredded six ways from Tuesday if I didn't respect her identity and pronouns on, say, Facebook.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think we need to tease a couple of things apart. Are we saying that the justification for excluding transpeople is ACTUAL risk, or are we saying that the justification is PERCEIVED risk and discomfort.

Both, and more.

First off, let's reiterate what has been said repeatedly: females are not seeking to exclude transgender people because they are trans; females are refusing to surrender the already existing right to exclude males. Transwomen are male.

Second, there is an actual real risk to females from males. Not every male is a risk, just like not every person walking around in public armed with an Ar-15 is a risk. But statistically speaking, males are a risk to females, just like people with high-powered rifles are a risk to everyone around them. It is an actual risk in aggregate, even if it is not a specific risk in the individual. Furthermore, just as with a person armed with an assault rifle, observers have no way of knowing whether that armed person is or is not a risk. Males are enough of a risk to females that it is rational and reasonable to assume that any male has the capacity to be a risk. 1 in 3 females has been subjected to sexual assault in their lives. 1 in 6 females has been subjected to an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. 90% of the victims of sexual assault are female. 15% of sexual assaults occur in open public places. 10% occur in closed public places. (RAINN Reference). These are not negligible statistics. These aren't occurrences that are so rare they can be ignored. These are real risks. And 98% of those assaults are perpetrated by males. Note that those statistics do not include sexual harassment, voyeurism, or flashing. Those also happen, and females are the overwhelming majority of victims.

Third, transwomen commit violent crimes at about the same rate as cismen do. They both commit crimes at about the same rate as all males. Transmen commit violent crimes at a lower rate than cismen, but at a higher rate than ciswomen. That means that the risk of assault from a transwomen is no different than the risk of assault from a cisman. (FPFW Reference)

Lastly, most females don't have an objection to a surgically transitioned transsexual woman in our spaces. We have an objection to self-declared transwomen in our spaces. Because we have an objection to penises in our spaces.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because I'm not interested in discussing the world as imagined by people who imagine the worst things. I am interested in discussing reality as it actually is.

I'm unaware of anyone anywhere, not least of all on this thread, who has said that attempting to keep cismen out of women's spaces should be a crime. You just made it up, didn't you?

You've been asked repeatedly, and have failed to answer: How does one tell the difference between a cisman and a transwoman?

 

[Meadmaker]

Both, and more.

First off, let's reiterate what has been said repeatedly: females are not seeking to exclude transgender people because they are trans; females are refusing to surrender the already existing right to exclude males. Transwomen are male.

Second, there is an actual real risk to females from males. Not every male is a risk, just like not every person walking around in public armed with an Ar-15 is a risk. But statistically speaking, males are a risk to females, just like people with high-powered rifles are a risk to everyone around them. It is an actual risk in aggregate, even if it is not a specific risk in the individual. Furthermore, just as with a person armed with an assault rifle, observers have no way of knowing whether that armed person is or is not a risk. Males are enough of a risk to females that it is rational and reasonable to assume that any male has the capacity to be a risk. 1 in 3 females has been subjected to sexual assault in their lives. 1 in 6 females has been subjected to an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. 90% of the victims of sexual assault are female. 15% of sexual assaults occur in open public places. 10% occur in closed public places. (RAINN Reference). These are not negligible statistics. These aren't occurrences that are so rare they can be ignored. These are real risks. And 98% of those assaults are perpetrated by males. Note that those statistics do not include sexual harassment, voyeurism, or flashing. Those also happen, and females are the overwhelming majority of victims.

Third, transwomen commit violent crimes at about the same rate as cismen do. They both commit crimes at about the same rate as all males. Transmen commit violent crimes at a lower rate than cismen, but at a higher rate than ciswomen. That means that the risk of assault from a transwomen is no different than the risk of assault from a cisman. (FPFW Reference)

Lastly, most females don't have an objection to a surgically transitioned transsexual woman in our spaces. We have an objection to self-declared transwomen in our spaces. Because we have an objection to penises in our spaces.

I would agree with all of this, but I would add one more thing in order to address a point that I had made to AGG.

Even in cases where, through whatever means, the risk posed by a specific person could be reduced to absolutely zero, it would still be perfectly normal for the presence of a male in a locker room or similar situation to provoke anxiety on the part of the woman, and thus it would be perfectly normal for a woman to object to the male presence. The existence, in general, of the real risk is so significant and so ever present that an aversion reaction is normal. That's the "instinctive fear" I talked about.

Part of the reason for saying this is simply to avoid a counterargument. "We will do X so that there's no real risk. Since we are willing to do X, there is no valid objection to the male's presence in the locker room." I say even in that case it is reasonable to exclude the male, because the aversion reaction is still normal.

 

[theprestige]

No, I'm not "one of those people".

The principle driving this analogy is this, and only this:

It is entirely feasible and allowable for civil rights reform aimed at helping one group in society to have - as a direct, if undesirable, consequence - the effect of putting a different group into a position of increased potential danger.


That's all. Nothing to do with "segregation" or "who oppressed whom" or "which danger is more extreme" or anything else.

Nobody's disagreeing with that principle.

The disagreement arises because that principle does not justify every such solution in every such scenario.

These things are taken on a case by case basis. What makes sense in one case, due to segregation, who oppressed whom, and which danger is more extreme, may not make sense in another case where these factors are not present or have different weights.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

First off, most of the posters in this thread are not anti-trans. I'm not, for sure. Not bending to every whim, not accepting every irrational request, not agreeing that biology isn't real... those things don't make me anti-trans. I'm all for transgender people having a right to not be fired or denied housing as a result of their gender expression. I'm all for negative rights - protections - for transgender people. What I oppose is positive rights - entitlements - for transgender people that override existing negative rights - protections - for females.

You are anti trans.

And don't say you aren't because your self-identification doesn't matter ... it's what other people say you are that matters.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's a completely circular argument at the minute...

You: We need to avoid the real risk of rape
Me: But there might not be an increased risk of rape
You: It doesn't matter if there is or isn't a real increased risk, women still feel uncomfortable
Me: yeah but lots of people can argue things make them uncomfortable like gay guys in the locker room
You: But it's different because there is a real risk of rape!

No, it's not circular. Not at all.

Females: We want to CONTINUE avoiding the real risk of rape FROM PEOPLE WITH PENISES
You: There might not be an increased risk of rape
Females: Currently, penises are not allowed here. You want to make some penises allowed. If penises are allowed, then the risk of rape by penises will increase. It will increase from zero to something higher than zero.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Transwomen are losing the ability to be recognised as the gender they identify as.

No, they're not losing this, as they didn't have it to begin with. In fact, this is what they are lobbying to attain.

If you don't think it should matter then think of an example where a shy, softly spoken boy was told 'you need to go change with the girls, you aren't a real man' or a 'tomboy type' girl was told 'you need to go change with the boys you aren't a real girl' - I'm pretty sure that in both of those cases we would say they are being bullied and suffering harm. It's no different in the case of transwomen.

It is different though. In fact, it's the polar opposite. What we have in actuality, is a shy, soft-spoken boy who insists that he should be allowed to change with the girls and that it is discriminatory if we don't let him. What we have in actuality is a tomboy type girl who demands that she be allowed to change with the boys, and that it is hateful if we don't let her do so.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I can certainly see why it gets us nowhere, but if I tried to explain it, we might disagree on the explanations.

What it comes down to for me is whether the discomfort is not merely real, but also instinctive or natural. Is it something that is part of our human condition or is it an artifact imposed by society?

I think the aversion a Southern white person felt to sharing a swimming pool with a black person was very real, but imposed by society. I think there is ample evidence that if children were not taught to segregate and to view skin tone as an important characteristic, they wouldn't feel that way. In such cases, I see no reason to perpetuate that teaching to the next generation, and I would encourage destroying those barriers. They cause harm.

I see reluctance to disrobe in the presence of the opposite sex as something different. I think that's instinctive feeling. I think the expression of that feeling can be shaped and transformed by society, but I think it's a very real thing, inborn in humans. If it were completely societally imposed, I think the obvious solution would be to simply do away with segregation of locker rooms entirely. While that suggestion is occasionally made, it never gets anywhere. People, especially women, don't want that.

Once you recognize that, then you have to acknowledge that this sense of invasion of privacy is very real, and ordinary, but then you have to explain why it ought to be honored by refusing to allow one male into a locker room, but allowing a different male into the locker room. Good luck with that. Frankly, I haven't even seen you make an attempt to address the issue. Your perspective is always based on the feelings of the transpeople who are excluded, never on the other people who are sharing the space.

For what it's worth, I do see some sort of parallel between discomfort about a man undressing in front of a gay guy and a woman undressing in front of a trans-woman. The fact is that the person is undressing in front of a male where there is a certain degree of sexual significance, and that can create perfectly natural discomfort in both cases. i.e. it is perfectly natural that a man might feel uncomfortable taking off his clothes knowing that the man next to him is gay.

However, the extent of the discomfort is much smaller, because there probably isn't as much fear. for several reasons. I haven't spent my life interacing with sexually aggressive males, there's no physical disparity, and I can't get pregnant if he attacks me. When all is said and done, I don't see a practical alternative. We can go into more detail if it seems worthwhile. For now, I just don't want to hear, "See, there's no difference, therefore......" There's a gigantic difference.

You might have pre-empted this but the objection I am going to have here is that the people who opposed rights for black people would make the same arguments. That there is something intrinsic about being scared of another race. And I don't think you have shown there is a real difference. If people had grown up changing in front of people of both genders there wouldn't be a societal issue with changing in front of both genders. It's instinctive to fear other races... but it's not right. It's instinctive to fear other genitals.. but it's not right. Could be?

That's what I thought, and you are right. I'm dismissing it.

I don't care isn't very persuasive

If you accept the modern linguistic distinction between sex and gender, it isn't even true. She can still wear nylon underwear and binge watch "Gilmore Girls" and do all the societally imposed things that we are told constitute "gender", while segregating the locker rooms based on biological sex.

You have to use the women's locker rooms then cos you're a bitch boy cuck. You don't mind do you. I mean you can still watch Rambo and wear pants.

In school settings, the "special place" is usually a facility normally reserved for faculty. Doesn't seem like a downgrade.

Where that "special place" might be in other settings varies depending on lots of factors.

Then you don't understand the issue.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, they're not losing this, as they didn't have it to begin with. In fact, this is what they are lobbying to attain.


It is different though. In fact, it's the polar opposite. What we have in actuality, is a shy, soft-spoken boy who insists that he should be allowed to change with the girls and that it is discriminatory if we don't let him. What we have in actuality is a tomboy type girl who demands that she be allowed to change with the boys, and that it is hateful if we don't let her do so.

Sorry I can't help you. Stop talking to me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I'm not "one of those people".

The principle driving this analogy is this, and only this:

It is entirely feasible and allowable for civil rights reform aimed at helping one group in society to have - as a direct, if undesirable, consequence - the effect of putting a different group into a position of increased potential danger.


That's all. Nothing to do with "segregation" or "who oppressed whom" or "which danger is more extreme" or anything else.

Alright, fine. That principle is meritless on its own. It's a truism without material impact.

The objection from many posters, however, is that you take that truism and then you extrapolate the implied conclusion that "therefore it is acceptable and appropriate that this civil rights reform puts a different group of people into a position of increased danger".

Without that extrapolation... there's not any point to your analogy at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I would agree with all of this, but I would add one more thing in order to address a point that I had made to AGG.

Even in cases where, through whatever means, the risk posed by a specific person could be reduced to absolutely zero, it would still be perfectly normal for the presence of a male in a locker room or similar situation to provoke anxiety on the part of the woman, and thus it would be perfectly normal for a woman to object to the male presence. The existence, in general, of the real risk is so significant and so ever present that an aversion reaction is normal. That's the "instinctive fear" I talked about.

Part of the reason for saying this is simply to avoid a counterargument. "We will do X so that there's no real risk. Since we are willing to do X, there is no valid objection to the male's presence in the locker room." I say even in that case it is reasonable to exclude the male, because the aversion reaction is still normal.

I don't disagree with you at all. I was simply trying to keep emotions out of the discussion from my perspective.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I would agree with all of this,.

Of course you would because it pander to your prejudices. And this is all this thread is. People agreeing with their own prejudices.

I'm happy that my own prejudice is to extend rights and privileges as widely as possible, if you are happy with your own prejudices then let's just leave it there. Because there is nothing being gained by people arguing past each other.

I'm happy that every other movement that tried to deny people rights failed and is now mocked. If you think you have found the exception go for it and fight against it. Stand beside the religious right and the usual crowd of flag waving bigots and know that they have it is just a coincidence that they have it wrong and you have it right but just so happen to be on the same side.

I'm happy with my position. You won't change it. Trans rights are human rights.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are anti trans.

Thank you for telling me what I believe. It's nice to have my own mind put in its place by a male person every now and then. Wouldn't want that darned thing thinking it had a mind of its own or anything.

 

[LondonJohn]

Alright, fine. That principle is meritless on its own. It's a truism without material impact.

The objection from many posters, however, is that you take that truism and then you extrapolate the implied conclusion that "therefore it is acceptable and appropriate that this civil rights reform puts a different group of people into a position of increased danger".

Without that extrapolation... there's not any point to your analogy at all.

No, it's more that "it should not necessarily be deemed unacceptable or inappropriate that...".

Because the original premise was that civil rights reforms should not have the consequence of putting another group into a position of increased potential danger.

 

[Meadmaker]

Then you don't understand the issue.

I understand the issue just fine. That doesn't mean I agree. This specific comment, though, was limited to the characterization of an alternate facility as a "broom closet". In practice, if it exists, it is not a broom closet.

Saying "broom closet" is one of those ways that people try to draw on some emotional strings, acting like the person is persecuted and shoved in the closet, which would be very unpleasant, not to mention gaining some bonus points for playing on the phrase "in the closet" and its associations to LGBT issues.

However, it's just phony. The alternate facility in a school setting is usually a faculty area. It's not a broom closet. That's just an attempt at manipulation, with no connection to the real world.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You might have pre-empted this but the objection I am going to have here is that the people who opposed rights for black people would make the same arguments. That there is something intrinsic about being scared of another race. And I don't think you have shown there is a real difference.

There is a real actual definite difference.

1 in 3 females have been sexually assaulted during their life
1 in 6 females have been subjected to attempted or completed rape
90% of the victims of sexual assault are females
98% of the perpetrators of sexual violence are male

You ignoring those facts doesn't make them not true, and it definitely does not make it a case of "you haven't shown it to be true".

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, it's more that "it should not necessarily be deemed unacceptable or inappropriate that...".

Because the original premise was that civil rights reforms should not have the consequence of putting another group into a position of increased potential danger.

That's how you've framed it, sure. But the original position was that increasing civil rights for one disadvantaged group should not be accomplished by reducing the rights, safety, and privacy of another disadvantaged group.