Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

No, how about you reread the rest of my post, and respond to all of it rather than the selectively clipped part?

In particular, how about you give an answer to the fact that a) you tried to claim that this was only ever about self-id issues, yet b) you have many times stated that you believe trans women with penises should not be allowed into women's changing rooms (when, of course, many such trans women could reasonably have gone down the route of clinical assessment, diagnosis and treatment)?

Or would you rather not address the bit where you drive a coach and horses through your own argument?

Any update, Emily's Cat? Or should your silence be interpreted accordingly?

Or are you now ready to accept that your set of beliefs appears to be predicated on a blanket fear of all males with penises, and that it actually doesn't really have anything to do with transgender identity as such?

(And please don't take this as an excuse merely to address the second paragraph (above) of this post - I'd like an answer to my quoted post, and the first paragraph of this post, preferentially. Thanks.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Nope that is definitely your false equivilance and your redefinition of the word discomfort.

I think it's time to reasonably draw the provisional conclusion that certain arguments within this thread are based predominantly upon an overarching fear and hatred of all males, when it comes to anything which might conceivably take things into a psychosexual area.

I don't think those arguments are really about transgender identity or the rights of trans people (especially trans women) at all. I think they're about males. All males.

 

[Meadmaker]

Or are you now ready to accept that your set of beliefs appears to be predicated on a blanket fear of all males with penises, and that it actually doesn't really have anything to do with transgender identity as such?

Once again, I can't speak for Emily's Cat, but I'm going to just speculate about the answer.


Of course it's predicated on a blanket fear of all males with penises. That's the whole point! And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with transgender identity as such!

Will she, or anyone else "accept" that? Hell, we've been shouting it from the rooftops for years!

ETA:

I think it's time to reasonably draw the provisional conclusion that certain arguments within this thread are based predominantly upon an overarching fear and hatred of all males, when it comes to anything which might conceivably take things into a psychosexual area.

I don't think those arguments are really about transgender identity or the rights of trans people (especially trans women) at all. I think they're about males. All males.

Yes! Yes! 1000 times yes! There's no hatred, but there is fear. Absolutely. Not "certain arguments", either. All of the arguments. Every one of them.

 

[LondonJohn]

In English and Welsh equality legislation sex refers to both female and male, the law is "sex neutral".

Boy is this vehement anti-male stuff clouding (and in fact, distorting - and maybe even ruining) the chance of having a balanced debate on transgender identity and transgender rights.......

 

[Darat]

You've not read the bottom part have you..
.

 

[LondonJohn]

Once again, I can't speak for Emily's Cat, but I'm going to just speculate about the answer.


Of course it's predicated on a blanket fear of all men with penises. That's the whole point! And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with transgender identity as such!

Will she, or anyone else "accept" that? Hell, we've been shouting it from the rooftops for years!

Interesting response. And one which effectively invalidates the identity and rights of transgender people (most notably, of course, those trans women who elect - as is their total right - not to have their penises removed).

So with that in mind, you really have nothing to contribute to this debate in any way. Your position is effectively a denial of transgender identity (and the rights which accrue accordingly) - so for you, there's no debate to be had in any case.

 

[LondonJohn]

You've not read the bottom part have you..
.

I know

I pointed that out*; and I also pointed out the gigantic statistical insignificance of the study that was quoted - a level of statistical insignificance which should identify itself very loudly to anyone who knows anything at all about statistics and what one can (and cannot) infer from statistical studies.

Oh and I also pointed out the *interesting* name (and evidence mission) of the website which carried the study, and which drew - improperly - the inference in the headline.


* And I wonder if that refutation of the inference was inserted into that web page in a mandatory way (seeing as it's in an entirely different font and style to the main body of the webpage)? I somehow wonder if an activist website of that variety would happily have placed that damning addendum of its own accord....

 

[Boudicca90]

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.

You are right that historically sex and gender were interchangeable, up until the 50's when advancing research showed them to be distinct from each other. So this isn't a change in definitions that happened recently, it's been around for quite a while.

And our current understanding of gender is that sex is only part of what makes up a person's gender, and that many of the things we have once attributed to sex are actually due to gender instead. Sex-based rights have always been gender-based in actuality, we have just started realizing that lately.

What's interesting to me is that Boudicca90 also want's to keep out cis-men and people of questionable trans status. That suggests that it shouldn't be all that difficult to find common ground and a guidelines that is reasonable. It gets more complicated when people who aren't impacted by this at all (ST and AGG and LJ) insist that no such compromise is available, and that there can be no discussion.

You are right that we ultimately want the same thing in that regard, but as long as we have the impasse of you seeing these issues as dealing with sex and me seeing it as gender instead, we won't find common ground. Especially as you continue to refer to us as "males" or "male-bodied", why should I respect someone who doesn't respect me?

 

[d4m10n]

Nonsense. The subset of "all males" which is labelled "those males who identify as women" is clearly radically different from, say, a subset labelled "those males who support the Chicago Bears", when it comes to an analysis of the propensity to launch sexual (especially) or physical assaults upon females.

Clearly? How so? Looks to me like you're simply assuming that the subset is significantly different than the entire set (when it comes to violent tendencies) for reasons unstated and unknown.

ETA: My best guess is that you're reading in gendered stereotypes about the propriety of physical solutions to interpersonal problems, but who knows? [emoji848]

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[Meadmaker]

Interesting response. And one which effectively invalidates the identity and rights of transgender people (most notably, of course, those trans women who elect - as is their total right - not to have their penises removed).

So with that in mind, you really have nothing to contribute to this debate in any way. Your position is effectively a denial of transgender identity (and the rights which accrue accordingly) - so for you, there's no debate to be had in any case.

You're just now catching on to this? Check the thread title. It's not sarcasm. It's not caricature.
Here's the title:

Trans Women are not Women.

Is saying they aren't women "a denial of transgender identity"? Ok. Then I'm denying their transgender identity.

Does that mean I have "nothing to contribute"? Hmmm......seems like the debate wouldn't be much of a debate at all, if only one side gets to contribute, but if you say so. At least we understand each other.


I'm kind of puzzled how you missed this. I must admit I find it fascinating. I'm trying to sort out how you could have participated to this level and think that this is some sort of secret you've pried out of us.


(And there was an ETA that you might have missed. It was after the part you quoted from a couple of posts ago. It doesn't really add a whole lot, except to note the distinction between fear and hatred.)

 

[Boudicca90]

You're just now catching on to this? Check the thread title. It's not sarcasm. It's not caricature.
Here's the title:

Trans Women are not Women.

Is saying they aren't women "a denial of transgender identity"? Ok. Then I'm denying their transgender identity.

Does that mean I have "nothing to contribute"? Hmmm......seems like the debate wouldn't be much of a debate at all, if only one side gets to contribute, but if you say so. At least we understand each other.


I'm kind of puzzled how you missed this. I must admit I find it fascinating. I'm trying to sort out how you could have participated to this level and think that this is some sort of secret you've pried out of us.


(And there was an ETA that you might have missed. It was after the part you quoted from a couple of posts ago. It doesn't really add a whole lot, except to note the distinction between fear and hatred.)

And that is why it's important for me to keep bringing up the fact that Trans Women Are Women, so you can't use your views to exclude and discriminate against us!

Other than a few areas where biological sex becomes more important, we deserve to be treated the same as cisgender women, in all areas. And I'm never backing down from that!

 

[Elaedith]

Nonsense. The subset of "all males" which is labelled "those males who identify as women" is clearly radically different from, say, a subset labelled "those males who support the Chicago Bears", when it comes to an analysis of the propensity to launch sexual (especially) or physical assaults upon females.


But, as I say, let's see the (reliable, statistically-significant) data. You may be right - though I very strongly doubt it - that trans women show much the same propensity as the whole set of "all males" on this particular matter. If that's the case, then of course my mindset will alter accordingly.

Fascinating. And do you assume by default that trans men (even those who have not medically transitioned) will show male statistical patterns of offending, until you see evidence to the contrary? Or does this assumption only work in one direction?

 

[Meadmaker]

And that is why it's important for me to keep bringing up the fact that Trans Women Are Women, so you can't use your views to exclude and discriminate against us!

Other than a few areas where biological sex becomes more important, we deserve to be treated the same as cisgender women, in all areas. And I'm never backing down from that!

Ok. Don't back down.

For some faint reassurance, I said I would "deny your transgender identity", but that was a rhetorical statement in response to LJ more than anything else. And when it comes to "transgender rights", that word "rights" is a complicated word. Lots and lots of ink has gotten used trying to explain that one, long before we started typing with electrons. I can only assure you that I wouldn't have you arrested for "dressing like a woman", whatever that means, or even for using the ladies' room.

However, if you want me to acknowledge that you are a woman, you'll have to provide me a definition of the word.

 

[lionking]

No. Just no! Stop this, it's dishonest. You and AGG keep trying to foist a very limited very specific UK definition on the rest of us. And every time you've been corrected on what the rest of us are actually talking about, you just fall back to this very narrow UK legal version as if that makes you right.

FFS, I even changed the terms in order to avoid this problem. Reread my post. I'm not talking about Self-ID, I'm very clearly talking about self-declaration, which is not the same thing. You slapping a / in there doesn't make them synonymous. And your pigeon hole debate definition is irrelevant to this discussion.

Including (By AGG) that people who don’t agree are him tend to be old, Tory Brexiteers. His inability to accept that the UK doesn’t mean the whole civilised world is very telling.

 

[Rolfe]

He can accuse me of being old if he likes but he knows very well that I'm neither a Tory nor a Brexiteer.

 

[Elaedith]

You're just now catching on to this? Check the thread title. It's not sarcasm. It's not caricature.
Here's the title:

Trans Women are not Women.

Is saying they aren't women "a denial of transgender identity"? Ok. Then I'm denying their transgender identity.

Does that mean I have "nothing to contribute"? Hmmm......seems like the debate wouldn't be much of a debate at all, if only one side gets to contribute, but if you say so. At least we understand each other.


I'm kind of puzzled how you missed this. I must admit I find it fascinating. I'm trying to sort out how you could have participated to this level and think that this is some sort of secret you've pried out of us.


(And there was an ETA that you might have missed. It was after the part you quoted from a couple of posts ago. It doesn't really add a whole lot, except to note the distinction between fear and hatred.)

It is standard to assert that the central tenets of gender identity ideology are 'beyond debate'. That was what alerted me to the danger of this ideology in the first place. It is either 'no debate' or only debate on the assumption that the central tenets are correct (which then makes it impossible in practice to debate). It is a closed belief system.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The extremists.

Well that certainly provides a clear and easily understandable view...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nonsense. The subset of "all males" which is labelled "those males who identify as women" is clearly radically different from, say, a subset labelled "those males who support the Chicago Bears", when it comes to an analysis of the propensity to launch sexual (especially) or physical assaults upon females.

Based on what? You've just made a declarative assertion, with no evidence to support it. Not just that it's different, but that it's clearly radically different.

My starting position is that males are males, that the aggressive correlation of testosterone is fairly well established, and that the social aspect of having been raised and conditioned as male is not insignificant. I start from the null hypothesis. What information I've found suggests that transwomen are no less violent in general than cismen are, and thus, I find it reasonable to assume that such violence does not demonstrate a material difference in distribution than it would by any other male.

You, on the other hand, are making the assumption that a specific subset of males have a dramatically different rate of violence, in particular sexual violence, than other males do.

I suggest that you go find some evidence to support your assumption, given that your assumption is the one that is significantly different from the null hypothesis.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Any update, Emily's Cat? Or should your silence be interpreted accordingly?

Or are you now ready to accept that your set of beliefs appears to be predicated on a blanket fear of all males with penises, and that it actually doesn't really have anything to do with transgender identity as such?
(And please don't take this as an excuse merely to address the second paragraph (above) of this post - I'd like an answer to my quoted post, and the first paragraph of this post, preferentially. Thanks.)

It always has been. It's nice to see that you've finally managed to comprehend that point that I've said rather clearly on more than one occasion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Once again, I can't speak for Emily's Cat, but I'm going to just speculate about the answer.


Of course it's predicated on a blanket fear of all males with penises. That's the whole point! And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with transgender identity as such!

Will she, or anyone else "accept" that? Hell, we've been shouting it from the rooftops for years!

ETA:



Yes! Yes! 1000 times yes! There's no hatred, but there is fear. Absolutely. Not "certain arguments", either. All of the arguments. Every one of them.

What baffles me is that, despite this having been pretty clearly the argument... like having been said in nearly those same words on multiple occasions... LJ presents this as if it's some sort of fantastic win on his part.