Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Meadmaker]

I'm reminded of yourself saying not too many days ago that you don't trust survey data generally because it can be manipulated and so much depends on how questions asked.

First of all the survey says several contradictory things ......
Safe-spaces for old right wing blowhards is a policy I could get behind however. Preferably on the ***** moon.

So now we go to the "name calling" portion.


But you're right. The survey says contradictory things, or at the very least things which are easily misinterpreted and potentially contradictory, and yes, surveys can be manipulated and it depends how the questions are asked, which is exactly what you were getting at in the portion I snipped out in the ... section.

As evidence, this survey is suspect.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Thank you, yes.

 

[d4m10n]

I assure you, racists that would rather not share a sleeper car with "lesser" races also couch their bigotry in terms of safety. The inherent criminality and danger of black people, for example, is one of the chief claims made by American white supremacists.

Are you trying to fashion the worst possible analogy? There is cross-cultural evidence that human males are vastly more likely than females to commit sexual violence against the opposite sex. Nothing like that for human "races" which aren't even a scientific category.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Are you assuming that females as a group don't care about privacy, rights, or dignity relative to males who identify as women? Or that safety and the shocking volume of sexual assaults against females really only matters to a few females?

Which "some" are you arbitrarily deciding are "extreme" here?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The reason we disagree is because at some point, we ask, "Why should we treat you like a man?"

1. Because I want to be treated like a man, live like a man and do my best to be a man regardless of whether you believe me to be a real one or not, and there is no good reason not to treat me like a man. (that's good enough for me, actually)

2. Because I have a legitimate medical condition the accepted treatment for which is to treat me like a man regardless of whether you agree that I am a real man or not, and there is no good reason to treat me like a man (that really IMHO be enough for anyone)

Note that I am leaving open the 'there is good reason not to' window here - that then easily allows us to discard nonsense objections like 'then should you get checked for testicular cancer?' and to have discussions around less nonsense one's like 'should we allow transmen to step in the boxing ring with cismen'

When it comes to playing on a sports team, we have historically had a "women's" competition. If we take your first suggestion, and eliminate the two "man/woman" categories, and replace them with four "cis/trans//man/woman" categories, we have to change the way we do sports.

We don't necessarily need to change anything. We can just assign the 4 groups to the existing categories for sporting purposes. We can change things though. Sports already have their own rules and regulations and definitions. Each sport may even have a different definition. As the Caster Semanya case shows it's not necessarily a trans-issue alone. I think each sport is going to have to navigate that one differently, and possibly even different levels of sport will have different regulations.

For sure, it has been shown that it is 'possible' for transpeople to compete in sports as their preferred gender without causing significant problems. Equally I have sympathy with the idea that it is not always possible for this to be the case.

That's true, but I would be curious what you think the implications of the statement are. I think the implications are that the existence of the penis is actually more important than the words used to label the person attached to it.

You could be right. But that would reinforce my point that it is not about the words or definitions of male and female. We may be in violent agreement at this point.... the question is not whether people with male biology can be women but whether it is the right thing to do to treat those who identify as women as women.... and in what cases exceptions might have to be made.

And none of that question is addressed by chasing shadows of nitpicking definitions of man woman male female.

 

[The Atheist]

A feminist view here: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...minists-anti-trans-idea-sex-gender-oppression

Probably a TERF and can be ignored.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Your understanding is, and has consistently been, wrong.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So now we go to the "name calling" portion.

That those most anti-trans are Old, Tory and Pro-Brexit is a statement of fact. It's shown in the survey.

In the US I haven't seen the data but I'd bet my mortgage on it being Old, Christian, Trump Voters.

if you object to me characterising these people as Gammons and Karens then so be it. The point remains that they are what they are.

But you're right. The survey says contradictory things, or at the very least things which are easily misinterpreted and potentially contradictory, and yes, surveys can be manipulated and it depends how the questions are asked, which is exactly what you were getting at in the portion I snipped out in the ... section.

As evidence, this survey is suspect.

In a couple of posts we have gone from 'I will cite the survey as evidence of my belief' to 'as evidence, this survey is suspect'. I'll take that.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But ... these things are already segregated ... all you did was change the terms of the segregation ... black people who identify as white can now be in sleeper car, but black people who identify as black cannot ... and this is okay? ... does not compute ... system shutting down ...

This is about the 147th time you have attempted this gotcha. And the 147th time it completely missed the point.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

This kind of take on things seems, well, disingenuous. There's a clear timeline involved, as well as a clear change of definition that needs to be considered.

Up until just a couple decades ago, gender and sex were literally synonymous. There was no meaningful difference between the two. Gender was simply a polite term for sex, that helped keep it distinct form the act of sexual intercourse (which was also referred to as sex). It had no connotation or meaning of anything different from biological sex at all. In keeping with that understanding, the terms "woman" and "man" were the polite and considerate terms for females and males. In fact, it was considered impolite to refer to a person using the terms female or male, because it reduced them to their reproductive capacity... it's how we refer to livestock, not humans. And it was understood by everyone that woman is the term for an adult human female... in exactly the same way that doe is the term for an adult female deer, and mare is the term for an adult female horse, and hen is the term for an adult female chicken, and so on. It was a term that signified both sex and species in one polite swoop.

Based on that well-understood meaning of very common terms, the labels placed on bathroom AT THAT TIME were "women" and "men". Or in nicer areas "ladies" and "gents".

Recently - well after those common terms had been firmly established - there was a push by transgender people to redefine the term gender so that it could be used to refer to their internal sense of self, and to separate the mind from the body. It is only within the last couple of decades that the term "woman" has been appropriated and finagled around to mean "a feeling in someone's head".

The terms on the toilet doors have NEVER referred to the feeling in a person's head. They have NEVER referred to gender as you are defining it now. They have ALWAYS referred to biological sex.

 

[Meadmaker]

the question is not whether people with male biology can be women but whether it is the right thing to do to treat those who identify as women as women.... and in what cases exceptions might have to be made.

I would agree with that statement.

(We might disagree with where the exceptions lie.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I am not convinced that your level of numeracy is sufficient to judge my understanding of statistics and mathematics.

 

[Joe Random]

<...> In fact, it was considered impolite to refer to a person using the terms female or male, because it reduced them to their reproductive capacity... it's how we refer to livestock, not humans. <...>

It wasn't that long ago at all that using 'female' as a noun rather than adjective was seen by some as being overtly offensive. On various social media platforms (yes, I know) you'd often see people replying to someone using 'female' as a noun with something like this :



But now we sorta halfta use it as a noun since people are trying to distort 'woman' into something completely circular and meaningless. Unless we want to go even further into the objectification route and start using the previously-suggested 'ovarians', or 'ambulatory wombs', or 'those who whistle when skydiving nude', or something equally inane.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Are you ******* kidding me? Are you seriously, with a straight face, comparing the desire to be naked in a space that doesn't include penises, the desire to have single-sex prisons... to fancy vehicles and vacations? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

 

[Olmstead]

This is about the 147th time you have attempted this gotcha. And the 147th time it completely missed the point.

This is about the 147th someone has used the silly racism analogy ... and, you know ... completely missed the point.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

The complete lack of give a **** about females is astonishing.

All of the known females who have posted in the last two editions of this thread have admitted to having been sexually assaulted. At least two of us have been subjected to attempted rapes.

But sure, coed sleeper cars are a fantastic idea! And if more females end up being assaulted and raped, no big deal. At least the males who identify as women won't get their feelings hurt.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A feminist view here: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...minists-anti-trans-idea-sex-gender-oppression

Probably a TERF and can be ignored.

I don't know if she is a TERF or not but it's not much of an argument is it?
her writing style is also truly annoying to me, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.

ETA: Thought I would check her Twitter to see if she is being bullied or accused of hate speech or having the police called on her or anything. No sign of anything like that so far. 1 use of the word TERF, not directed at her specifically. Lots of fawning praise. One or two objections to what she wrote. Let's see how that develops.

 

[theprestige]

Your understanding is, and has consistently been, wrong.

I dunno. It kinda takes good aim to consistently place all your shots outside the target.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sex as a protected class does not mean female.

What on earth do you think it means, other than biological sex? Or are you arguing that sex was made to be a protected class in order to protect the rights of males and to address their disadvantages and prevent males from being discriminated against?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I assure you, racists that would rather not share a sleeper car with "lesser" races also couch their bigotry in terms of safety. The inherent criminality and danger of black people, for example, is one of the chief claims made by American white supremacists.

Such claims are the bedrock of many bigotries.

Is it your position that the statistics citing the prevalence of sexual violence toward females are just made up bigotry?

Do you believe that all of the females who spoke out as part of the #MeToo thing were just making things up? Or were they just hysterically overreacting?