Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
Tell you what - if I can't tell you're male, and I don't see your penis, then I'm not going to be worried about it now, am I?

But that's not where you stop - you insist that people who ARE visibly male and masculine, people who DO NOT make sure they're respectful and stay covered - should have unfettered access to female spaces. You want to force females to accept into their midst not just decent, caring sensitive transwomen who are trying to get by in a world that doesn't understand them... but also all of the creeptastic, fetishistic, misogynistic, males that do nothing more than declare themselves a woman and expect that females can have no say about it. Do you really expect that because Jessica Yaniv has "decided" that they are a "woman", I should be forced to allow her and her balls into any female-space they wish? Do you actually think that there is anything remotely approaching justice and civil liberty in allowing that Long Chu person who believes that the essence of womanhood is being a vessel for another person's desire to have access to female private areas? Really?

If you would draw a reasonable line and at least *pretend* to give a crap about the disadvantages and challenges that females actually face in the real world... I would be a lot more sympathetic. Instead, however, you've made it perfectly care that you think females aren't as valuable as you, their voices don't matter, their challenges are beneath you. Your feelings are more important than our safety.
Click to expand...

And here is where you use a few insane bullies to speak for all of us. Jessica Yaniv and Andrea Long Chu do not speak for all transgender people and have little to no support. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if people took a cis woman who drowned her children as an example of all cis women, or a Black man who looted a store as an example of all Black people (even though plenty of people do that, hence the need for BLM), but that is exactly what you are doing to us.

These people that you keep using as examples of us are extreme outliers, in actual trans communities we are just men and women like any other. Not the freaks and perverts you keep trying to paint us as.

Penises are not female organs. Vaginas are not male organs. How you feel about yourself does not change reality, and it is irrational to demand that everyone else pretend that it does.

Your feelings should not be held as more important than my safety, privacy, and rights.
Click to expand...

I don't see a penis as inherently male or female, it's just a body part and doesn't have a gender of it's own. I definitely don't call it a "girldick" or anything like that, which again is something I've never heard anywhere in real life. Just more stereotypes of us.

Again: As much as you may believe your safety, privacy, and rights are in danger - they simply just aren't. They are feelings as well.

Self ID isn't a new idea, and there haven't been issues from it in anywhere where it's the law. It doesn't even affect me personally at this point because I already did everything the hard way before it went into effect. But I do have friends who would definitely benefit from it and so that's why I think it is important.
 
caveman1917 said:
Well I sure hope you don't speak for "all of you" either, because my goodness are you bad at arguing a damn case.
Click to expand...

Better than derailing the thread again with your propensity to argue about arguing. I'm just giving my views, this isn't debate class.

Typical of a tankie, always demanding things go your way. :D
 
cullennz said:
Not sure about other countries, but here there is usually just one.

They are built for a purpose. Hand rails. Bigger spaces for wheel chairs etc.

They have a hard enough time trying to get a disability car park without some non-disabled jerk using them for convenience, without also taking over
the only place they can take a crap.
Click to expand...


This isn't entirely analogous. Disabled toilets are built to accommodate disabled people and it's right that there should be one in every possible venue a mobility-impaired person might want to use. But there aren't actually all that many mobility-impaired people who need these facilities. As far as I can make out it has never been intended that these facilities should stand empty and unused while people queue for ages for the standard facilities.

If a mobility-impaired person appears, nobody expects them to wait in the queue with everybody else, they can go immediately to the front for the disabled facilities. But to expect that this facility will be left permanently unoccupied while others are queueing just to save you a few minutes wait is unreasonable. It's not like parking spaces, which are in favourable positions near to shops etc, and which are required for much longer periods. If someone parks in a disabled space they can't be contacted and asked to move their car. Parking spaces are rightly protected by law and people without a blue badge can be fined for using them. This is not the case with disabled toilets.
 
Boudicca90 said:
A woman can have a penis and a man can have a vagina.
Click to expand...


Don't you just love* it when people state (ridiculous) assertions as if they were some sort of fundamental truth that can't be argued with?

*wait, not love. the other thing.

A woman is an adult human being whose body developed along the female pathway during gestation, this being dictated by the embryo lacking either a functional SRY gene (the vast majority of individuals) or (rarely) genes for functional androgen receptors. These people never have a penis.

A man is an adult human being whose body developed along the male pathway during gestation, this being dictated by the embryo possessing both a functional SRY gene and genes for functional androgen receptors. These people never have a vagina.

It is not possible for a mammal to change sex after conception. Unnatural exogenous hormones and/or cosmetic surgery may give a superficial resemblance to the opposite sex (often far less convincing than the person concerned fondly imagines) but does not alter the underlying sex of the body.

See, two can play at that game.
 
lionking said:
Pink news?

The Daily Mail has more credibility I’m afraid.
Click to expand...

Rolfe said:
Sorry, we all know that Penis News lacks the most cursory acquaintance with the truth and prints brazen lies on a regular basis. I don't like Rory the Tory one tiny little bit, but I know who I believe in this case.
Click to expand...

"I don't like the source, so it's fake news!"

That's why transphobes ally yourselves with the far right and evangelicals on this issue, you think alike in quite a number of ways.
 
Meadmaker said:
If that's true, then there is a significant implication far beyond some sort of argument ad popularem.

I have contended that the aversion to undressing in the presence of males is an innate feeling, not created by social conditioning. Perhaps a better way to say it would be that it is related to instinctive feelings, but shaped by social conditioning.

If the majority of women think that transwomen ought to use the women's changing room, it would mean that the majority of women are not experiencing the feelings that I am attributing to instinct. That, in turn, would strongly suggest that the feelings aren't instinctual after all.

So, if it makes a majority happy, and doesn't cause the sort of anxiety that I am saying is perfectly normal and natural, we should do what the majority wants. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's a fine default position.

My impression is that this is not the case. My impression is that the majority of women object to sharing private spaces with biological males. Convince me that is not the case, and I'll go along with the majority.

And, that really covers a lot of the ground in responding to your last two posts, so I won't add anything more specific.

One caveat: If 80% of the men and 25% of the women support trans-inclusion in women's private spaces, that's a majority of people, not a majority of women.

One other caveat: A survey result probably won't convince me. Survey questions are easily misunderstood, and easily manipulated. What I see in real life in the US is that high school girls protest when asked to share a locker room with transgirls. I won't call them bigots for doing so, even if they are not in the majority. However, I will say that if a clear majority of the girls welcome the transgirl in, then I would say that the other girls will just have to deal with it. So far, that's not what I'm seeing.
Click to expand...

I have sympathy for the points you are making re surveys but I wonder then how we could convince you?

I mean a vocal minority can make a hell of a lot of noise.

For example in this case we have 1 girl taking a school district to court over changing rooms. https://www.tes.com/news/pupil-seeks-court-action-over-school-transgender-policy

If I follow your post then you would say she should be told to go away because she is in a minority? Or as she will argue is she speaking on behalf of a silent majority?

I think we need to be careful in using 'majority opinion' on matters of civil rights for minorities. Or for anyone for that matter.
 
lionking said:
Actually, this is about the most accurate post you have made in this entire thread. Yes, I look at sources. Credibility of sources is a thing.
Click to expand...

Except PinkNews doesn't have a credibility problem, you just don't like them because they are openly pro-LGBTQ+, much like how conservatives dismiss New York Times because they have a liberal slant.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pink-news/

Edit: And here is the Daily Fail for comparison: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

Doesn't look good for your judgement.
 
Last edited:
I don't like them because they lie. And because they're pretty much a men's rights publication, with gay men and transwomen their only concern.
 
Boudicca90 said:
Better than derailing the thread again with your propensity to argue about arguing.
Click to expand...

The derail was the discussion of whether arguments from analogy work, not whether the specific one used here is valid.

I'm just giving my views, this isn't debate class.
Click to expand...

This is a skeptics forum where you are choosing to make a number of claims, obviously they will be challenged. You're the one who chose the venue, don't complain about the result. And before you go crying bigotry or something, I'd again refer you to the "Deeper than primes" thread in Religion and Philosophy where doronshadmi is also "just giving his views" yet leading to the same result. You'd find the same in other threads too of course, but that one is particularly exemplary as it sharply focuses on the failure of defining terms, the same thing your claims (such as "transwomen are women" or "I am female") are failing from.

Typical of a tankie, always demanding things go your way. :D
Click to expand...

What makes you think things aren't going my way? Why do you think I'm even here? People make stupid arguments and I pick them apart, it's a hobby. Ultimately, the more fallacious arguments you make the better for me.

Tankie is a silly insult though, especially after SuburbanTurkey expressed his desire to throw people in gulags for refusing to hold "transwomen are women" to be true. Me? I just think you're spooked (in the Stirner sense) having some fixed ideas like "transwomen are women" and "I am female" and such.
 
Rolfe said:
Sorry, we all know that Penis News lacks the most cursory acquaintance with the truth and prints brazen lies on a regular basis. I don't like Rory the Tory one tiny little bit, but I know who I believe in this case.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely dishonest argumentation.

It's not pink news you are questioning but Lord Keen. Here it is again, it's in Hansard.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2020-04-21.HL3293.h&s=prison

Like so much else of the noise around trans rights when a light is shone on it the truth is somewhat different.
 
lionking said:
What, that internet sites created for a certain demographic publishes stories to appeal to that demographic? Seriously?
Click to expand...

No, that they are doing so factually incorrectly. Of course almost all media is biased for a certain demographic, the question is whether the factual reporting is accurate or not.

No I’d rather trust better sources.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a no on the "demonstrating factual incorrectness" thing? In which case I'm going with "there are no recorded instances of rape of female staff in prison by male transgender inmates."
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I have sympathy for the points you are making re surveys but I wonder then how we could convince you?

I mean a vocal minority can make a hell of a lot of noise.

For example in this case we have 1 girl taking a school district to court over changing rooms. https://www.tes.com/news/pupil-seeks-court-action-over-school-transgender-policy

If I follow your post then you would say she should be told to go away because she is in a minority? Or as she will argue is she speaking on behalf of a silent majority?

I think we need to be careful in using 'majority opinion' on matters of civil rights for minorities. Or for anyone for that matter.
Click to expand...

In the US, I have seen cases where the single plaintiff is chosen to represent a group. Whether they are the majority is difficult to determine. It's obvious that there is more than one of them, because the others carry signs at school board meetings or walk out of classes in protest.


As for the significance of using the majority opinion in cases like this, you don't seem to have picked up on why it is significant, and not an argument ad popularem, nor even a "majority rules" opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom