Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boudicca90 said:
Plenty of people in this thread have said more offensive things about us trans women, so I'm not going to be lectured by anyone for defending myself. And Emily being hysterical and paranoid and irrational when it comes to us has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her fear of us. Which is the definition of transphobia.

I would describe you and the other anti-trans posters the same way, the difference between you and her is the motivation of your fear and hate of us. TERF ideology is very specific about couching the bigotry in a layer of faux feminism to make it more acceptable to the masses.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing fear of trans people specifically. There is some fear of males in general entering female spaces. Based on sexual assault/harassment I think that's justified, but there's no specific fear of trans people expressed in her position. So transphobia doesn't apply here.
 
Boudicca90 said:
Plenty of people in this thread have said more offensive things about us trans women, so I'm not going to be lectured by anyone for defending myself. And Emily being hysterical and paranoid and irrational when it comes to us has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her fear of us. Which is the definition of transphobia.
Click to expand...

With all due respect. It ain't all about you. If you bother to actually read her posts she is talking about anyone with a penis, of which trans women make a miniscule ratio.
 
From a personal point of view I don't care.

I just rule out joining high level women's sports comps, being allowed in segregated changing areas that are female, or clog medical waiting lists if the are a weirdo and pretend they have issue that is impossible.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Here's an interesting story:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/54233946

Summary, born female, recently came out as transgender male. Plays on Canadian national women's Soccer team and intends to be at the Tokyo Olympics next year. (I so hope that happens, the "Olympics next year" part.)

The person in question prefers the pronoun "them". I won't do it. I'll go with he. I just don't like "them", for one person. Way too awkward.

It ought to surprise no one that I have no problem with that. If he's not taking any substance that is banned for women's sports, then go for it. Do what you want. Go for the gold.

But I do wonder if the more vocal trans-rights supporters, and especially those who think that Quinn is "really" a man, whatever that means, will object. I honestly have no clue if they would or not, but in their world, this would clearly be a case of a man competing in women's sports. Wouldn't that be taboo?

I, of course, think this is a woman competing in women's sports. The transman thing is a social nicety. He doesn't have any biological advantage over the other women, no matter what pronouns he uses, so it's all good. But....does everyone see it that way?
Click to expand...
Sorry but on phone version so can't be bothered editing it to last paragraph. With the trans man thing in women's sports.

A) It kind of makes a joke of how serious trans people are of thinking they are the opposite sex.

B) They might be on male hormone supplements.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:confused: What is it that you think you claimed? You said it would be more accurate to say that she is pretending to be a man. That necessarily implies that she is not a man, she is actually a woman.
Click to expand...
No, you are thinking too binarily. The fact that someone is not "really truly a man" does not imply that they are necessarily "really truly a woman". A person can have aspects of both.

Regardless, let's simplify this: How do you determine whether Seani is a man or a woman?
Click to expand...
It is not for me to judge.

Emily's Cat said:
It is different though. In fact, it's the polar opposite.
Click to expand...
The point is that for the people involved it feels the same.

Emily's Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's just saying you are against equal rights, but with extra steps.

Emily's Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...
A fine principle in theory, but it should not be used as a justification for not increasing civil rights for one of those groups. It should be used as a justification for trying to find ways to accommodate both.

Emily's Cat said:
ALright. You deserve to get annual pelvic exams (snip)
Click to expand...
I am sure that if any of those things were an option, Boudicca would would jump to the opportunity. Your argument amounts to "well, you can't have these things so I am going to deny you other things".

We'll give you a paycut while we're at it, because you're a woman and all. And of course, you should definitely see slower career growth and fewer promotions (snip) We should also make sure that you get sexually harassed as much as females do.
Click to expand...
She probably already got those, likely even moreso than females do.
 
Meadmaker said:
When it comes to the fear of other genders, I personally think it is not only instinctive, but rational, for all the reasons stated over and over again. I think that there is a reason that we do not change in front of both genders, except in very controlled circumstances, and I don't think it is just societal influence that causes it.
Click to expand...
I think it is "instinctive" but for much more basal reasons than you seem to think. Taking off the things that protect us from the elements is going to make anyone feel exposed, having to show strangers one's sensitive bits makes anyone feel vulnerable. It is just that some people are capable of coping with those feelings if they sense that the other people are somehow "like them". Sexually or racially.

The solution shouldn't be segregation, but not putting people in such a vulnerable position in the first place.

However, if you want to maintain a locker room for men and a locker room for women, that's a different story.
Click to expand...
The type of locker rooms you obsess about should be banned. They have no place in a society that values privacy and some levels of modesty.
 
Aber said:
It seems that there are 2 main positions in this thread:

"Transwomen are not women, but should be treated as such when required by law, and also when it is polite/convenient/safer to do so"

and

"Transwomen are women, and should be treated as such at all times"

Allowing for some elasticity in definition, both positions are internally coherent but incompatible.
Click to expand...

I don't think those are the two, or only 2 positions. There seems to be a position that transwomen are not women and should not be treated as such doing the rounds too...and variations of it.

There's also the 'it doesn't matter what transwomen are anyway this is about penises and we all know penis means potential rapist!' position
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

And it doesn't matter if it was Buckingham Palace. Being made to use a 'special place' because you aren't like the other kids is not a solution to making transpeople feel excluded. Which is why I said if you think it is then you don't understand the issue.
 
Meadmaker said:
Certainly fear of other races is extremely common, and may very well be instinctive. That's a complicated issue. In my opinion, and I suspect in yours as well, society is not well served to pander to those instincts, or to enshrine them into law.

When it comes to the fear of other genders, I personally think it is not only instinctive, but rational, for all the reasons stated over and over again. I think that there is a reason that we do not change in front of both genders, except in very controlled circumstances, and I don't think it is just societal influence that causes it. However, be that as it may, that isn't the actual issue involved here. Once again, if you want to argue that there should be no segregation of changing facilities, or come to think of it why should there be changing facilities at all? Why would we go behind a door to change clothes? If that's what you want to propose, then the problem is solved.

However, if you want to maintain a locker room for men and a locker room for women, that's a different story. That's what we have here. I can't understand any way that you can logically assert that I, a cis-man, should be excluded from the women's locker room, while some other male bodied person who declares himself to be a transwoman should be allowed, unless you are willing to simply ignore the wishes of the cis-women who object.
Click to expand...

You're slightly putting words into my mouth here because I personally don't really care whether there are segregated changing rooms or not. If there is a solution where its all gender neutral then I'm fine with that. But other people seem to want to keep the segregation thing and that being the case then we should take steps to ensure the segregation thing isn't discriminating against transpeople.

Please Bre'r Fox, don't throw me into the briar patch........but in this case I think the people sharing the locker room would object.

Oh....and....I see you've descended into illogical name calling, emotional appeals, and the stuff the makes for lofty rhetoric, but not actual meaningful dialog. By all means, demand freedom and rights for everyone! Privacy rights aren't real rights anyway.
Click to expand...

I hope you do realise I wasn't indulging in genuine name calling but rather pointing out the emotional elements of being told that you don't meet the standards that other people have deemed necessary and therefore need to be excluded.
 
Roboramma said:
What matters is what's actually true. Based on Emily's Cat's actual views, she's clearly not anti-trans.
Click to expand...

Well based on my opinion she is. Why should I listen to her own opinion on something about how she feels or thinks? Why should that matter?

I hope you see the parallels being drawn.

The problem is that a lot of people are relying on their view of what is 'actually true' but failing to acknowledge that other people see things differently.
 
Roboramma said:
Nothing contradictory about that: "I support women's rights, but I don't want to share male changing rooms with them" isn't contradictory either.
Click to expand...

Do I need to point out the difference? Or show why that construction can be contradictory?

"I support rights for black people, I just don't want to live next to one"

" I support women's rights, I just don't want them having access to the golf club"
 
Meadmaker said:
To be fair, it's not like people are either "pro-trans" or "anti-trans" as a binary choice. She could be a little bit pro and a little bit anti. Labels are so restrictive.

What is clear to me from reading her posts is that she makes no moral judgements about trans people, and she supports their rights to a far greater degree than some in our society. However, she does not support every single item on the wish list of the trans-rights activists, and she doesn't recognize them as "really" being ......let's see if I can get this both politically and grammatically correct.....an actual member of the sex that is most commonly associated with their gender identity. Actually, even that won't work, because in the trans rights world, you can be a "real woman" without being a member of the female sex. Oh, fiddlesticks. It's impossible I think, but that isn't all that surprising when circular defintions are employed.

Back to the question, though, what I would say is if you alienate someone as liberal about the subject as Emily's Cat is, you have no hope with people who hold actual mainstream views on the subject. EC is on the left of the spectrum on this issue.
Click to expand...

The mainstream view on trans-issues is generally supportive. It's certainly not that the whole idea of trans-rights is a misogynist plot to destroy women as EC opines. I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusions in the last paragraph here.
 
Earthborn said:
The type of locker rooms you obsess about should be banned. They have no place in a society that values privacy and some levels of modesty.
Click to expand...
As much as I dislike having to witness the ravages of age unmitigated by so much as a single stitch of clothing, this seems like quite an extreme position to take. Our newly constructed YMCA has open plan locker rooms and also has completely private changing rooms for those who require more modesty.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Here's an interesting story:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/54233946

Summary, born female, recently came out as transgender male. Plays on Canadian national women's Soccer team and intends to be at the Tokyo Olympics next year. (I so hope that happens, the "Olympics next year" part.)

The person in question prefers the pronoun "them". I won't do it. I'll go with he. I just don't like "them", for one person. Way too awkward.

It ought to surprise no one that I have no problem with that. If he's not taking any substance that is banned for women's sports, then go for it. Do what you want. Go for the gold.

But I do wonder if the more vocal trans-rights supporters, and especially those who think that Quinn is "really" a man, whatever that means, will object. I honestly have no clue if they would or not, but in their world, this would clearly be a case of a man competing in women's sports. Wouldn't that be taboo?

I, of course, think this is a woman competing in women's sports. The transman thing is a social nicety. He doesn't have any biological advantage over the other women, no matter what pronouns he uses, so it's all good. But....does everyone see it that way?
Click to expand...

Provided the organisers of the sport are happy that no rules are being broken and Quinn is happy with the arrangement and there is no harm being done to anyone involved then I don't really care if Quinn is 'really' a man a woman a wombat or a Level 14 Warlock.

There are other examples of transwomen competing in women's soccer and things seem to be equally 'OK'.

Life is difficult enough, I don't think there is any need to create issues where none exist.
 
Boudicca90 said:
your irrational and hysterical views will be drowned out
Click to expand...

It’s frightening to see this stunning lack of empathy and openly misogynistic views from someone demanding unfettered access to (previously) private spaces set aside for the safety and security of biological females.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom