Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
My spouse has suggested that females should rebrand ourselves to be "ovarians". At this point, I'm inclined to run with it, since the term "woman" and "female" are both being systematically stripped of any rational meaning. At least it has a nice ring to it.
Click to expand...

The weird thing to me is that you made a clear concession to the redefinition of the word woman by explicitly using "female" so that it could be very clear exactly which group you were referring to.

To have Boudicca then go on to say that she's a female.

Pretty soon you're going to use "ovarian" and we'll get the claim that one doesn't need ovaries to be an "ovarian".
 
LondonJohn said:
Man & Woman (and indeterminate and non-binary): gender - defined as the social constructs of those respective gender identities; gender can be fluid throughout one's lifetime.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing a definition there. Gender is defined as the social constructs of those respective gender identities? Walk me through what that means, and how it relates to "man". Help me connect those dots. Ideally, I could compare a given individual and use the definition to determine whether that individual is a man, a woman, or something else.
 
LondonJohn said:
I know.

Apparently Emily's Cat is now attempting to argue a position where

a) the risk to cis women of being sexually attacked by trans women with penises in (say) a typically well-lit sports centre changing room is sufficiently high (in her view) that trans women with penises should be excluded on that basis from using the women's changing rooms in sports centres

yet

b) the risk to cis women of being sexually attacked by trans women with penises in (say) a typically dimly-lit nightclub toilet at 1am must (in her view) be lower than in example (a) - since she now says that there's no problem (in her view) with trans women with penises being allowed to use (eg) the women's toilets in nightclubs at 1am......
Click to expand...

I want to offer an alternative explanation for those two positions.

Emily's Cat is basically a decent person who wants to do what lots of us want to do, which is find a position that allows people to live their lives the way they wish as much as possible. We know that women want male-free spaces, especially in cases where they are undressed, and possibly at other times. We know that transwomen want to be treated like women as much as possible. We see that it is literally impossible to completely satisfy both of those desires.

In order to treat transwomen as women, we would have to allow them in any space where a woman is allowed. However, that would mean that a woman who desired a male-free space would not get what she wanted. Someone will not get they want. Emily's Cat, and a lot of other people, are trying to find some middle ground where both groups get most of what they want, even if they give up a little.

In discussing these topics and trying to work out a compromise, sometime different proposals are made and different ideas are tossed about, and they might not bear up under intense scrutiny. That's ok.

You seem to be saying that because someone might not be able articulate exactly where that compromise should occur, there should be no compromise, and the women who want male free spaces should give up everything.
 
d4m10n said:
Come on LJ. You haven't yet seen any cases where sex-based rights conflict with gender-based rights? After all this time?

Suppose Rolfe believes that she has the right to a single sex sleeper berth on the railway. She sincerely believes that's a sex-based right.

Suppose Boudicca believes she has a right to a single gender sleeper berth on the railway. She sincerely believes that's a gender-based right.

Rolfe and Boudicca are the same gender, so they belong in the same sleeper berth, yeah? Or nah?
Click to expand...

Was the hypothetical train you are talking about advertised as having single sex berths or gender?
 
Boudicca90 said:
I view female as relating to either sex or gender, depending on the context. My biological sex may be male, but that doesn't make ME male. And as far as I'm concerned, bio sex is only really relevant for things like medical issues, not when discussing areas that have more to do with gender or gender presentation than chromosomes or reproductive organs.

Transwomen are women and females, we just aren't biologically female.
Click to expand...

What does "female" refer to if not biological sex? "Biologically female" is completely redundant.
 
LondonJohn said:
Not at all. It's just that they are a separate issue from transgender rights. In exactly the same way, rights and protections for (say) homosexuals or black people are not addressed in the debate over gender identity - but that doesn't mean they've "been disappeared".

And on the matter of the rights and protections that are due to a) biological females and b) women, it's perfectly possible (and, obviously, desirable) to address the issue of transgender identity rights while at the same time taking care to protect the rights of biological females and women.
Click to expand...

If male-bodied people are included in the sex class "women" then how can sex-based laws protect women's rights and legal protections? How do we define who sex-based laws apply to?



LondonJohn said:
Yes and no. Yes, many intersex babies present somewhere closer to the male end of the spectrum, and many present closer to the female end of the spectrum. And in many (most) intersex births, it's fairly uncontentious for those babies to be labelled as either male or female (even though technically-speaking they are neither). But many intersex babies are close enough to the halfway line between male and female that it is difficult for doctors to assign them a male or female sex.
Click to expand...

Wrong and ill-informed. Sex isn't on a spectrum. While there may be some reproductive organ anomalies, the bodies of nearly all people with DSDs have developed, from conception, along either male or female pathways.

"Assigned at birth" does not apply to transgender people at all. It's simply a case of misappropriating medical terms to prop up a scientifically muddled ideology.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
Was the hypothetical train you are talking about advertised as having single sex berths or gender?
Click to expand...


The train is not hypothetical. You book online and simply have to select "male" or "female" from the drop-down menu. When asked, the railway company said it would respect passengers' self-declared identity.

Exactly what happens if a lone female traveller is confronted by an obvious male expecting to share her compartment, who then when challenged insists he identifies as a woman, I don't know. The implication was that the woman would have the choice of putting up with it or leaving the train and not travelling. Because it would be transphobic to ask the male to leave the sleeper berth. Or perhaps there might be a seat in the part of the train which has ordinary day-carriages that the woman could occupy.
 
Rolfe said:
The train is not hypothetical. You book online and simply have to select "male" or "female" from the drop-down menu. When asked, the railway company said it would respect passengers' self-declared identity.

Exactly what happens if a lone female traveller is confronted by an obvious male expecting to share her compartment, who then when challenged insists he identifies as a woman, I don't know. The implication was that the woman would have the choice of putting up with it or leaving the train and not travelling. Because it would be transphobic to ask the male to leave the sleeper berth. Or perhaps there might be a seat in the part of the train which has ordinary day-carriages that the woman could occupy.
Click to expand...

I suppose so.

What happens when the same woman objects to a trans woman who isn't sufficiently feminine in her appearance to meet the complaining woman's standards? I'm not familiar with overnight train travel, but are gender-segregated sleeping cars the norm? I would be very surprised if other European train lines don't enforce such separation.

Some form of official gender ID may be a workable solution, but only if it allows trans people to have it reflect their transitioned identity without excessive bureaucratic burden.

I worry about what a system like that might impact the most at need, such as those seeking crisis shelters. It's very common for abuse victims to have trouble with documentation, especially if abusive partners/parents withhold necessary documentation. Someone living in their car after fleeing an abusive spouse might not have all their ducks in a row.

I suspect the people actually running these shelters would object to such documentation hurdles, because it's more likely to harm than help.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I suppose so.

What happens when the same woman objects to a trans woman who isn't sufficiently feminine in her appearance to meet the complaining woman's standards? I'm not familiar with overnight train travel, but are gender-segregated sleeping cars the norm? I would be very surprised if other European train lines don't enforce such separation.

Some form of official gender ID may be a workable solution, but only if it allows trans people to have it reflect their transitioned identity without excessive bureaucratic burden.

I worry about what a system like that might impact the most at need, such as those seeking crisis shelters. It's very common for abuse victims to have trouble with documentation, especially if abusive partners/parents withhold necessary documentation. Someone living in their car after fleeing an abusive spouse might not have all their ducks in a row.

I suspect the people actually running these shelters would object to such documentation hurdles, because it's more likely to harm than help.
Click to expand...

You don't appear to worry about the impact on women. Why should any woman have to share over-night, sex-segregated sleeping quarters with a male-bodied person, whatever "gender" they present as?
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
You don't appear to worry about the impact on women. Why should any woman have to share over-night sleeping quarters with a male-bodied person, whatever "gender" they present as?
Click to expand...

I see such discomfort as a secondary concern to not discriminating against trans people as a class. Women that are uncomfortable sharing quarters with trans people, or with queer people, or with whatever protected class they find distasteful can make other accommodations, such as paying extra for private quarters, if available.

The mere existence of trans people is not an affront to womanhood.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I see such discomfort as a secondary concern to not discriminating against trans people as a class. Women that are uncomfortable sharing quarters with trans people, or with queer people, or with whatever protected class they find distasteful can make other accommodations, such as paying extra for private quarters, if available.

The mere existence of trans people is not an affront to womanhood.
Click to expand...

The attitude that the discomfort of females is a secondary concern is an affront to humanity in my opinion.
 
Transgender activist position:

Sex segregation is wrong except in a few specific medical circumstances. Gender segregation is fine and often necessary though.

Hmm ...

Seems arbitrary.
 
lionking said:
The attitude that the discomfort of females is a secondary concern is an affront to humanity in my opinion.
Click to expand...


I think one of the sticking points to be able to ever find a resolution is that everyone is treating groups of people as if they are a homogenous blob of people and using the extremes to paint the entire blob.

I think the word "some" is missing in a lot of statements!
 
Meadmaker said:
In order to treat transwomen as women, we would have to allow them in any space where a woman is allowed. However, that would mean that a woman who desired a male-free space would not get what she wanted.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

We could create single-person private spaces for example in changing rooms and toilets and the like and say 'there may be transpeople in this facility, if you don't like it then please use the private spaces'. In other words, if YOU have a problem YOU exclude yourself from the places that it might occur.

My understanding of EC's position is not that she wants an option of a male-free space but rather that she is insisting that certain groups of people be excluded from a space they would otherwise have access to because of her personal preferences.

That's an important difference, to me anyway.

I see it as akin to in one case demanding that a restaurant has a vegan option and in the other demanding that a restaurant doesn't sell any animal products because you are vegan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom