Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Your statement that you want "male-free spaces to remain male free" makes no sense because under the terminology usage in this thread, male free would exclude trans women as it is sex exclusive not gender exclusive.

I think the terminology is often used interchangeably.

I know some people are convinced that toilets are sex-segregated rather than gender-segregated, others disagree. It just says 'Men' 'Women' right?

I think what most people on the pro-trans side are saying is that it doesn't really matter how you define it. Words are just words. If you allow transwomen to use the women's room then the women's room is still free of men.

It seems that it is the anti-trans side who are hung up on definitions. But I think you are going to struggle to make an ethical/values-based case for or against a topic by examining the meaning of words.

 

[caveman1917]

It's been the convention in these threads since before I started participating. Gender identity might be more accurate than gender, I'll concede. Trans men identify as men, trans women identify as woman. And yes, (at least) some women reject this.

It is a convention that is not exclusive to this forum.

It's been the convention for one side of the argument to want to change the definition of the terms man/woman, it's been the convention for the other side of the argument to refuse. It's also been the convention for the former side to continuously fail to support their new definition against challenges of it being circular ("a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman") or meaningless (see the "are you a type A or type B person" line of questioning).

If that is such a convention as you claim, then why does neither Google (using data from Oxford Languages) nor Wikipedia agree? They both clearly define woman as "adult human female." If you want redefine man/woman as well then the burden is on you to show 1) the exact definitions you want to use and 2) that your new definitions are non-circular and meaningful. Those who tried before you have all failed but perhaps you'll manage, what you don't get to do though is circumvent the burden of showing your new definitions to be proper by simply declaring them to be convention.

What you're doing is effectively the same as finding a thread where some people are repeating ad nauseam that 2 + 2 = 5, a bunch of other people refuting that claim again and again, and you then just ignoring those refutations and claiming "It is the convention in these threads that 2 + 2 = 5."

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

AGG,

I can't help but notice that you talk a lot about evidence, but you don't cite very much of it. Some people on this forum are all about links, and surveys, and journal articles, and the rest of the lot, but you don't seem to be that sort. It's not really your style.

I'm not even sure what sort of evidence you are looking for, Evidence of what? That transwomen are really women? I think that's more of a linguistic point than a scientific one.

Your response to a lot of arguments is "that's not persuasive" or sometimes more explicitly "I'm not persuaded." Well, that's fine. I've argued a lot over the years on anything from the evils of supply side economics to whether or not rockets actually work in space, and my track record on persuasion is pretty dismal, but I think that's true of most forum arguments. We rarely persuade anyone of anything.

What I'm getting at is that we know your opinion, and we know that you find counterarguments unpersuasive, but you don't seem to present evidence-based arguments. You don't even seem to respond when other people do, such as the survey (both parts of it) that EC has brought up repeatedly. You present analogies, name-calling, circular definitions. and assertions.

Which makes you no worse than most people, but when accompanied by talk about "evidence" from other people makes for a stark contrast.

I've directly addressed that survey in a couple of posts. You didn't see them fine. But you, and you aren't the only one, tend to see what you want to see.

I've posted direct evidence of for example what Self-ID means, and it gets dismissed because it doesn't suit the narrative people want to follow.

I provided a link to an answer in Parliament from Lord Keen which was directly relevant to a point raised by a poster and it got responded to with on one hand 'Lord Keen is a liar' and 'I don't care about the law' on the other.

So yeah.... you see what you want to see.

The only one I didn't go into in detail is why EC's risk calculations were way off base with her posted 'evidence' because quite frankly if you can't work out why general rates of sexual offences amongst populations don't translate to risks in specific social situations then you shouldn't be allowed near numbers in the first place.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And if I say "Otherkin aren't literally turning into animals" I'm not.

"All Muslims are terrorists" and "You have to have a penis to be a man" are not the same thing, not matter how much you just can't get past thinking they are.

you have a terrible habit of forgetting the point you made and then making a different one when you get a response. It's tiresome to say the least.

 

[caveman1917]

I view female as relating to either sex or gender, depending on the context.

That's what we call equivocation, it goes something like this:

Female relates to either sex or gender.
I am female.
Therefor I should have access to female single-sex spaces.

The equivocation being in the use of the term female in the sense of gender in the second statement but in the sense of sex in the third statement. This becomes clear when you use different terms to disambiguate, like this:

FEMALE_SEX refers to female as relating to sex.
FEMALE_GENDER refers to female as relating to gender.
I am FEMALE_GENDER.
Therefor I should have access to FEMALE_SEX single-sex spaces.

Failure to clearly delineate concepts and disambiguate terms -> muddled thinking.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If we accept that "women" (in general) deserve a "safe space" (again I hate how much baggage that term has picked up but I think it's valid in this context) from "men" (in general) but then turn around and don't let them define the parameters what are we really even doing?

Basically as it stands now we're telling women they aren't smart enough to know who they want to be protected from but still telling them they have a right to be protected.

Either drop the idea that women have some inherent right to male-free spaces (which for the record has always been my answer) or let them actually define the male-free space.

This is quite a weird way of looking at it. Does it work for anything else or only women's spaces? I mean can black people define equality as meaning they all get a HumVee and 3 weeks a year in Hawaii?

Or more importantly can religious whackjobs define their right to religious freedom to include dictating what women can do with their bodies?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Whereas the mere existence of cisgender men . . . clearly warrants a separate sleeper berth.

I suspect this is not universally the case. I see no reason why there can't be coed sleeper cars. People can change clothes in the bathroom or draw a curtain or whatever.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've directly addressed that survey in a couple of posts. You didn't see them fine. But you, and you aren't the only one, tend to see what you want to see.

I've posted direct evidence of for example what Self-ID means, and it gets dismissed because it doesn't suit the narrative people want to follow.

I provided a link to an answer in Parliament from Lord Keen which was directly relevant to a point raised by a poster and it got responded to with on one hand 'Lord Keen is a liar' and 'I don't care about the law' on the other.

So yeah.... you see what you want to see.

The only one I didn't go into in detail is why EC's risk calculations were way off base with her posted 'evidence' because quite frankly if you can't work out why general rates of sexual offences amongst populations don't translate to risks in specific social situations then you shouldn't be allowed near numbers in the first place.

The examples you gave, I must admit, are things that I thought about, but edited out of my comment before posting it. If that's what you were talking about when you talked about evidence, ok.

The item in the last paragraph, I think, is actually quite significant, but we'll see if that, or any other, discussions of evidence or evidence based reasoning comes up again.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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

It depends on the root of the discomfort.

It should be stated again that transphobia is not a universal attitude held by all women. Depending on location, transphobia may well be the minority opinion, even the fringe opinion, of some women. The discomfort of transphobic women is not a high priority to me.

There are no doubt people in this world that would feel sincere discomfort in sharing a sleeper car with someone of certain ethic backgrounds, or with a homosexual, or with someone with a medical disability. I see no good reason why such notions should be considered legitimate concerns.

 

[Meadmaker]

It seems that it is the anti-trans side who are hung up on definitions. But I think you are going to struggle to make an ethical/values-based case for or against a topic by examining the meaning of words.

I don't understand how you make any case for or against anything without examining the meaning of words.

 

[Distracted1]

I don't understand how you make any case for or against anything without examining the meaning of words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v2GDbEmjGE

 

[d4m10n]

There are no doubt people in this world that would feel sincere discomfort in sharing a sleeper car with someone of certain ethic backgrounds, or with a homosexual, or with someone with a medical disability. I see no good reason why such notions should be considered legitimate concerns.

Can you see how those concerns are remotely analogous to the concerns about sexual violence brought up by Brownmiller? I cannot.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[caveman1917]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

Governments say the darndest things, don't they? I'll leave you to ponder the notion of "man-woman" existing on some gender spectrum between masculine and feminine even if (and especially if) only for government work, whilst empirically observing that the relevant segregated spaces are divided into two classes and not a spectrum of them.

ETA: and ????
(I don't treat the discussion in this thread as some sort of battle to be "won" or "lost" - though it certainly appears that other participants might see it in this way. But if one were for a moment to view this thread through that lens, I can see only one "side" that is consistently "winning" the argument - on moral, ethical, legal and consideration grounds )

Yeah we get it, you like to make claims but you just don't like to defend them from criticism.

 

[Lithrael]

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

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.

Yeah, here’s my semi monthly post saying I’m a woman who has so far not seen or experienced anything that makes me more wary of trans women than of anyone else you might see in the ladies’ room. (Also still not worried about regular guys using trans acceptance as cover for being pervs.)

 

[caveman1917]

I think what most people on the pro-trans side are saying is that it doesn't really matter how you define it. Words are just words. If you allow transwomen to use the women's room then the women's room is still free of men.

If you don't know how you define "men" then how could you possibly know whether the women's room is free of them or not? Are you even trying to make sense?

It seems that it is the anti-trans side who are hung up on definitions. But I think you are going to struggle to make an ethical/values-based case for or against a topic by examining the meaning of words.

While it is true that there is a distinction between factual claims and moral claims, leaving terms undefined makes moral arguments just as meaningless as factual ones. If words don't mean anything then neither do claims composed of them, it doesn't matter whether the claim is factual or moral.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't understand how you make any case for or against anything without examining the meaning of words.

There is no intrinsic 'right' or 'wrong' embedded in the meaning of words. If you think so, you may be interested in trying the Bible. I hear that people who read it put a lot of faith in the power of the word.

 

[Butter!]

I just read through all this, and the only thing I'm currently sure of is that a LOT of you guys, on both "sides," are very clearly not reading each others' posts. Like, it's really obvious.

This issue is extremely complicated and interesting, but all this repetitive talking past each other is making the lurkers want to rip our hair out.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The examples you gave, I must admit, are things that I thought about, but edited out of my comment before posting it. If that's what you were talking about when you talked about evidence, ok.

The item in the last paragraph, I think, is actually quite significant, but we'll see if that, or any other, discussions of evidence or evidence based reasoning comes up again.

In your post you suggested I had ignored the survey. When I bring up that I have addressed it you say that you had considered that but edited it out. I'm confused.

I'm happy to look at why the risk analysis was flawed ... see if this helps.

1. Lions kill 250 people per year. That is roughly 0.0004% of deaths per annum. What does that tell us about the risk of allowing lions to enter into a woman's restroom?

2. 80% of infant homicides are carried out by their parents. What does that tell us about the risk of allowing girls to enter the women's restroom with their mom?

Throwing numbers around to justify your argument is a common trait in political arguments but unless they specifically address the issue in question then they can often lead to unjustified conclusions.

You may also reflect on the fact that when that discussion came up I was repeatedly dishonestly accused of saying things that I didn't say.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It depends on the root of the discomfort.

It should be stated again that transphobia is not a universal attitude held by all women. Depending on location, transphobia may well be the minority opinion, even the fringe opinion, of some women. The discomfort of transphobic women is not a high priority to me.

There are no doubt people in this world that would feel sincere discomfort in sharing a sleeper car with someone of certain ethic backgrounds, or with a homosexual, or with someone with a medical disability. I see no good reason why such notions should be considered legitimate concerns.

And people will twist themselves in knots to insist it's not the same thing at all. Just watch.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, the words referring to gender are "masculine" and "feminine." From wikipedia: "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity."

"Man" and "woman" refer to specific subsets of males/females, namely those that are 1) adult and 2) human. Male and female refer to sex. Sex is not gender.

If you want to use words with an alternative definition then you should provide and support that definition. Specifically, if you want to define the terms man or woman by reference to gender then you should also address the earlier failings of similar attempts, such as LondonJohn's attempts which failed against the "are you a type A or type B person" line of questioning.

Yeah, I think that appropriation and re-defnintion of terms is a fait accompli.

Woman and Man have already been stripped of their original meanings, and altered to refer to gender, specifically gender identification.

I'd very much like to retain the existing and scientifically accurate definitions for male and female, at least.