Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

Bet LJ responds to me next time he is online.

huh?

 

[Boudicca90]

I think the operative question (here) is whether human females ovarians ought to be allowed to have a male-free spaces at all, either in the legal or moral sense. The answer seems obvious to me, but then it also seems obvious to Boudicca—in the other direction.

p.s. I’d be interested to hear AGG’s take on it.

I don't know what other direction you are taking my views, but I want male-free spaces to continue to be male-free. The distinction is no matter what gross term you decide to call biological females to separate them from us, it doesn't make us male.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Been there, done that, became homeless for two years.

What makes you think I don't know that already?

I don't think you don't know it. I was acknowledging that it sucks.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So wait - what? You're saying that, for example, trans women who dress and look - to the random observer - quite like a woman, but who have undergone no medical or surgical transition, and who thus still have the demon penis....

.... should use the women's bathrooms?

Is that what you're saying here? Because that's what you appear to be saying here. Unless of course your definition of the information about the transgender person to whom your "random observer" has access... includes the ability to inspect the transgender person's genitals...?

I'm not sure if you're aware of all the internal contradictions you're creating with respect to your position. But hey ho - that's par for the course I guess.

Oh ffs! LERN2REED

Me:

Sports - only after hormones are consistently and testably within a normal female range, and in some sports even that may not be acceptable (fighting, for example), but some case-by-case may be okay.

Toilets - I don't care. Stalls for everyone.

Changing Rooms - have at it as long as you don't have a penis. I am willing to consider case-by-case exceptions at the discretion of the owner of the venue, and with the expectation of modesty and respect for the other women there.

Prisons - No natural penises in the female ward... but neuvopenises are okay by me. Even fully surgically altered transmen are female. If transgender people are at exceptionally higher risk in the male ward, then find a different solution.

Short-lists, scholarships, grants, recognition, etc - No. Just No. Females are ALREADY disadvantaged in society, we're already not equal, and we're already dismissed out of hand and our voices are ignored (or we're called hysterical and told it's all in our heads) by males. I'm happy to help create similar support structures for transgender people, but I do not think it is appropriate for female civil progress so be made subordinate.

I have said the exact same ******* thing with respect to toilets from the get-go. Just because you can't manage to read other people's actual words without smudging your own imagineered assumptions into them doesn't mean that anyone actually thinks what you think they think!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Lucky you. I was made to feel like a stalker. It was more than a little creepy to me.

It's messed up. When we were taking care of my niece for a month, my husband picked her up from school. She was in 6th grade, and he was horrible uncomfortable and aware of the scrutiny from every adult around.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ah a leeetle beeet of goalpost shifting to while away a Tuesday evening


That's a question for the professional and experienced people who run women's shelters to figure out, and not me. But, given the very particular and extreme sensitivities attached to women's shelters, I'd suggest something along the lines of a combination of a) the experience and wisdom of the staff on duty, b) the ability to request proof of gender on demand (with entry denied to all those - including any cis women who happen to be asked - who cannot provide such proof), and c) vigilance and security measures within the women's refuge to minimise the risk of danger to any of those using the shelter.

You know, when I said essentially the same thing, I got called a TERF and a bigot and a transphobe, because TWAW!!!!!!

 

[LondonJohn]

I thought some people never expressed extreme exasperation in a disparaging or demeaning style? Or has the self-appointed rule on this one changed now as well...?

 

[theprestige]

I don't know what other direction you are taking my views, but I want male-free spaces to continue to be male-free. The distinction is no matter what gross term you decide to call biological females to separate them from us, it doesn't make us male.

Leaving aside the whole gender vs sex thing...

... Last time I checked, it seemed like you were in favor of some kind of sincerity test, for allowing transwomen access to female safe spaces (such as locker rooms and shelters).

Do I understand your position correctly?

Assuming I do understand your position correctly: Do you think the sincerity test should be a matter of law, or do you think it should be left to the discretion of the space's administrators?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm trying to establish here whether it might perhaps be the view of people such as Emily's Cat that

Maybe you should just try actually paying attention to what "people like Emily's Cat" have actually for really real said on the topic of bathrooms, eh? Or is that just too much to ask of you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

ETA: Emily's Cat has never addressed this point to my recollection, but I'll bring up that high school bathroom access has different issues than movie theater bathroom access.

In general I really don't care much about bathrooms, whether public or in schools. Changing rooms where people are going to be naked are a different issue.

 

[abaddon]

No problem, but I shall take it to PM if that is OK with you.

I extended an invitation so as not to derail. Accept or not. Either is OK.

 

[Boudicca90]

I think we need to address the elephant in the room of the "magically undetectable trans person who completely slips under everyone's radar because they are just so undetectable as someone of the other gender" thing sooner or later.

That's where this circle squares itself. It's where the "OMG we're talking about setting up genital checks!" thing falls apart.

No we're not. Because when a biological man puts on a dress and "identifies/presents as" a woman it doesn't magically make broad shoulders, Adams Apples, deep voices, average greater height, and the totally inability to strap down a cargo load without snapping the cargo straps and saying "Yep... that's not going anywhere", ya know all those traditional male traits, disappear.

I think there's a lot of disconnect here that we're all dancing around because we know the unpleasant hijack it could cause.

LondonJohn is probably learning more toward the image of a transperson who is passing as their identified gender so perfectly there's no reason, indeed no way, to question it. I'd wager Emily's Cat is not.

You seem to have some stereotypes of us that I wonder if Emily also has.

I have been on HRT for over 3 years now starting when I was 32. I don't have broad shoulders, I never had a visible Adam's Apple, I NEVER had a deep voice (in fact, I would often be misgendered even before I transitioned because of my voice because I sounded like a girl even when I was a "guy"). I am 5'8", so a little on the tall side for a woman but not too tall, and assuming that cargo load thing has to do with strength, it has also decreased to more normally "female-levels" after all this time.

Most transwomen are like me, and try to "pass" and integrate ourselves as much as possible, even though it might not be enough for some people. Unfortunately society spends so much effort to make sure we pass and fit some "criteria" that those who don't or can't get ostracized, and it shouldn't be like that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think you'll find she's been saying that no trans women with penises should be allowed to enter the women's bathrooms*. Do you think her position on this is different from that?

You're wrong. Just wrong. If you're going to castigate and denigrate me, at least have the simple human decency to do so on the basis of my actual positions rather than on the basis of something you either didn't bother to read, or have decide to "translate" in a vaguely human-like figure made predominantly of dried grasses and intended to be enkindled.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes. Which is precisely why it's absurd. Which is precisely why the only workable and fair solution is that all trans women use the women's bathrooms, and all trans men use the men's bathrooms.

As a general courtesy all people should use the bathroom that an objective observer is most likely to assume they belong in. But at the end of the day, I really only give a crap about toilets. Or maybe a stream. Depends on the time of day and how much coffee I've had.

 

[abaddon]

You know, when I said essentially the same thing, I got called a TERF and a bigot and a transphobe, because TWAW!!!!!!

Well that is not right. TERF? TWAW? No.

I learned that there is only bigotry.

Kind of a sad lesson to learn, but a necessary one.

Everyone needs to learn it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13141644#post13141644

And I don't want to speak for Emily's Cat here. That's not my purpose. What I hope to convey to you is that her position has been fairly clear for a long time, if you actually listen to what she says. The only reason there is confusion on the point is that so many people try to twist what she says into something else.


That includes you with your recent "looks like a man" comments. Her position isn't difficult to understand, unless you are trying to parse it with legal precision in the hope of finding some discrepancy you can exploit. EC believes that if you're out on the town in a dress and you need to pee, go to the ladies' room.

I mostly agree with her, but with some reluctance.

Did I get that right, EC?

More or less, yes. If you're out on the town in a dress and you have a full beard and hairy legs, and every person you interact with is going to think "That dude's wearing a dress", it would probably be polite to roll with te drag queen or transvestite assumption and just use the mens.

But at the end of the day, I don't care about toilets.

+++++++++++++++++

There really seems to be a tendency of some of the people in this thread to just not bother to read or give consideration to the posts made by certain other people. It's almost as if some people in this thread have decided that a certain kind of other person just don't matter...

 

[Boudicca90]

Leaving aside the whole gender vs sex thing...

... Last time I checked, it seemed like you were in favor of some kind of sincerity test, for allowing transwomen access to female safe spaces (such as locker rooms and shelters).

Do I understand your position correctly?

Assuming I do understand your position correctly: Do you think the sincerity test should be a matter of law, or do you think it should be left to the discretion of the space's administrators?

I'm not really sure what a "sincerity test" would look like, especially in the context of locker rooms. But shelters are a good example, it should be left up to the administrators to judge. As long as it's not discriminatory towards us in general, in fine with it.

Places like shelters definitely need some enhanced scrutiny, but it shouldn't be codified into law. Shelters should have the leeway to make their own decisions, but not ban us outright.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Option 4 - You just don't care about the results from option 1 and 2, and continue to argue whatever it is you want to argue.

I think Joe's got a point. It sucks for good guys to end up being distrusted by females, it really does. I would guess that were I a male, I'd be a bit put out by it too.

On the other hand, I wouldn't actually yell at JoeMorgue. I acknowledge his position, and even if I prefer to uphold sex-segregation in many spaces, I can understand where he's coming from.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hmm really? Because here's Emily's Cat talking about how trans women with penises should not be allowed into women-only spaces:




http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13237621#post13237621





http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13216541#post13216541





http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13205311#post13205311





http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13204392#post13204392



And that's just a quick search.

I normally avoid the "did someone say this or not" arguments, because they aren't usually fruitful, but I'm going to dive into this one a little bit deeper because I have a different purpose. I'm trying to show that someone (me), managed to figure out what she meant, while a different someone (you) is getting hung up on trying to find some sort of contradiction.

Her meaning is pretty easy to understand, if you want to understand it.

Several of the quotes above are specific to locker rooms, others apply to "female only spaces". "Female only spaces" includes bathrooms, right?

Well, yes, it could. Or it could be that at the time she was speaking it wasn't important to be extraordinarily precise about exactly what it meant, while at other times she was speaking specifically about one specific sort of space. It could even mean, as strange as it may sound, that she, or others, like me, haven't thought through this at a legislator's level of detail, where all the exceptions and specifications have to be made explicit. It could also mean that she would like things a particular way, but is willing to compromise in some other ways, but hasn't really tried to establish exactly where to draw the line.

It's hard to communicate if every single sentence has to stand on its own, and be completely accurate, and be completely consistent, even when withdrawn from the context where it is said. Her general line of thought, though, is very consistent. If people are going to see women when the women are naked, those people shouldn't have penises.

It's not really difficult to understand her position, if you want to understand it.

Now if I wanted to play an adversarial role and try to pick apart her position for inconsistencies, I'm sure I could do it, but why would I want to do that? Playing the "Aha! You said.."..game isn't much fun.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh ffs! LERN2REED



I have said the exact same ******* thing with respect to toilets from the get-go. Just because you can't manage to read other people's actual words without smudging your own imagineered assumptions into them doesn't mean that anyone actually thinks what you think they think!

Yeah.....but then there's this (my bolding):

In bathrooms, as I have been told, men already make a point of not making eye contact with or interacting with other males. A transman would likely use a stall if they're pre-op, or at least expect that other men aren't going to be staring at their shiny new penis. And men, in general, are very, very unlikely to get raped by genetic females in the toilet at a night club. In general, men are unlikely to be leered at by lecherous females in a changing room, or be intimidated by females who might sexually assault them while they're showering.

That doesn't hold true if you turn it around the other way though.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13134284#post13134284



LERN2RGEW!!

Oh I like that erm, "literary device"! I want to steal it and use it - I'm hoping it'll make me seem more edgy and cool