Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

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?

I respect you when you're not calling me names and dismissing my concerns

Let's circle back to the Seani scenario. Seani self-declares herself to be a woman. Seani presents, as far as I can tell, as a man. Seani has also been clear that she has no intention of undergoing HRT or GRS.

You and I both want a male-free space. You want to be considered female with respect to that space, not just be considered a woman. I get that.

Seani also wants to be considered female with respect to that space.

How do you and I come to some kind of agreement of terminology that allows both of us to recognize that Seani presents as a man, and has the physical attributes of a man... while also denying Seani entrance to our private spaces? What is the appropriate terminology to use here?

If you were asked to explain why Seani (who self-declares to be a woman) should not be allowed into our private spaces... what would you say?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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!

Just for clarification, none of the people in this thread want to discriminate against you. None of us deny your existence as a transgender person. None of us dismiss the challenges you face, or the disadvantages society places upon you. None of us think that the distress you've gone through is anything other than real sincere distress. And none of us think that such distress is unimportant or negligible. All of us have sympathy and empathy for what you've had to deal with.

In the cases where people think it appropriate that you be excluded, it has nothing at all to do with you being transgender. It has to do with you being biologically male. I know that hurts your feelings, and I'm sorry for that. I don't want to cause you pain. But it's also true. The instances where people don't think inclusion is appropriate are places where biological females don't think it appropriate to include biological males.

And even on that basis, it's not a bright line for most of us. Many of us are willing to bend somewhat and include transwomen who seem committed and sincere in most of our spaces. And those spaces, by the way, are spaces that you also don't want males in.

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!

I think you underestimate the importance of biological sex. I think you underestimate how intrinsically the treatment of females throughout history is tied to our bodies and our reproductive capacity.

This is something I would very much like you to try to understand. You feel as though mentioning and acknowledging your biological sex is irrelevant to you as a person, and irrelevant to your identity. I understand that it isn't a large part of your identity, and if anything, it's a barrier to your identity.

What I'd like is for you to understand that just because it's not important to you doesn't mean that biological sex is not important to ciswomen. It's actually a very salient element of what forms the social construct of "woman" in the first place. It isn't fingernail polish and lipstick that has resulted in women being discriminated against and systematically treated as second-class citizens - it is our biological sex.

So when you insistently repeat that sex isn't important, you are in effect, denying the personhood and identity of ciswomen everywhere.

 

[theprestige]

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!

Turns out you, I, and Emily's Cat are all in agreement.

 

[d4m10n]

Turns out you, I, and Emily's Cat are all in agreement.

#metoo

Now we just need to figure out when sex is more important.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[LondonJohn]

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

Because I'm suggesting it's highly likely that the subset "males who identify as women" will have different attitudes and urges from the main set "all males" in the area of sexual or physical assaults on women.


I don't really care if you disagree. Because - as I clearly said - the matter will only be addressable if/when there is reliable statistical data. And - as I clearly said - it's only upon receipt of such reliable statistical data that anyone will be able to form proper opinions.


And I see you're replaced "sexual or physical assaults upon women" with "violence". The only thing which is relevant for our discussion here is the former. Especially with respect to the last two words of the former. Not generic "violence". Interesting.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove off-topic material

 

[LondonJohn]

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.)

Oh yes, I saw the thread title.

And therefore the only rationale for this thread actually existing and living is because people are challenging the statement made in the thread title.

If you believe the thread title is accurate and true, then you're in for a big surprise. Just like people who once thought (for example) that homosexuality was a disorder or a smiting from God, pr people who once thought that women did not have the character or the intellect to enable them to vote in elections.

 

[lionking]

Just for clarification, none of the people in this thread want to discriminate against you. None of us deny your existence as a transgender person. None of us dismiss the challenges you face, or the disadvantages society places upon you. None of us think that the distress you've gone through is anything other than real sincere distress. And none of us think that such distress is unimportant or negligible. All of us have sympathy and empathy for what you've had to deal with.

In the cases where people think it appropriate that you be excluded, it has nothing at all to do with you being transgender. It has to do with you being biologically male. I know that hurts your feelings, and I'm sorry for that. I don't want to cause you pain. But it's also true. The instances where people don't think inclusion is appropriate are places where biological females don't think it appropriate to include biological males.

And even on that basis, it's not a bright line for most of us. Many of us are willing to bend somewhat and include transwomen who seem committed and sincere in most of our spaces. And those spaces, by the way, are spaces that you also don't want males in.


I think you underestimate the importance of biological sex. I think you underestimate how intrinsically the treatment of females throughout history is tied to our bodies and our reproductive capacity.

This is something I would very much like you to try to understand. You feel as though mentioning and acknowledging your biological sex is irrelevant to you as a person, and irrelevant to your identity. I understand that it isn't a large part of your identity, and if anything, it's a barrier to your identity.

What I'd like is for you to understand that just because it's not important to you doesn't mean that biological sex is not important to ciswomen. It's actually a very salient element of what forms the social construct of "woman" in the first place. It isn't fingernail polish and lipstick that has resulted in women being discriminated against and systematically treated as second-class citizens - it is our biological sex.

So when you insistently repeat that sex isn't important, you are in effect, denying the personhood and identity of ciswomen everywhere.

Sometimes I wonder if people posting in this thread know how recently and appallingly women have been treated. As recently as the 1970s in Australia (and other countries) women had to resign from their jobs not because they had babies (this was the case as well) but when they married.

In this context I don't blame biological females from resisting incursion of biological males into female sport, scholarships and hitherto private places. I don't blame them for thinking that their female rights are under threat.

 

[d4m10n]

Because I'm suggesting it's highly likely that the subset "males who identify as women" will have different attitudes and urges from the main set "all males" in the area of sexual or physical assaults on women.

Why exactly do you think this is highly likely?

Does this logic work for any other forms of identity?

Is there something about identifying as a Chicagoan which makes someone less likely to sexually assault another Chicagoan?

Is there something about identifying as a lesbian which makes someone less likely to sexually assault another lesbian?

Is there something about identifying as a Native American which makes someone less likely to sexually assault another Native American?

 

[LondonJohn]

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!

Yes and yes. If I was transgender, I'm pretty sure that I'd be a) thorougly pissed off and b) persistent in my attempts to have my rights granted and respected.... all in an environment where all too many antediluvial attitudes exist.

Unfortunately, transgender people still have to encounter many people who do not accept them for who they are, who discriminate against them, who seek to deny them their human rights.

However, fortunately for transgender people, those sorts of antediluvial opinions tend not to prevail among the people who are the most educated, experienced and well-informed about gender dysmorphia (and all other mental health conditions, in order to place gender dysmorphia in its correct context and place) - and this is why mainstream medicine supports gender dysmorphia and transgender identity issues.

And fortuately also, most progressive liberal democracies also have sufficiently intelligent and experienced lawmakers (ie politicians) to be able to understand that gender dysphoria is a valid, genuine human condition - and that consequently their responsiblity is to legislate in such a way as to enshrine transgender identity rights and protect transgender people from discrimination or harassment.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Is it, or is it not, beyond debate that homosexuality is a valid lived human condition, rather than the product of a mental disorder or deviancy?

If there was a thread in this forum about gay rights, do you think it would be a debatable point as to whether homosexuality itself was valid or whether it was the product of a degenerate, damaged brain?


If anyone thinks that transgender identity and gender dysphoria are not "real", valid human conditions, I would suggest that their first port of call should be the world's experts in mental health and psychology/psychiatry, who have declared gender dysphoria to be a valid condition (and not the product of any disorder).

Or alternatively, if people think they know better than the world's experts in mental health and psychology/psychiatry, then perhaps those people would be better off examining themselves and their own internal prejudices. Just like the sizeable sections of the population who believed that homosexuality was the product of a mental disorder (or, according to some, a sin against God....), long after the world's experts and many progressive Governments had declared homosexuality to be a valid condition.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Will you please address the question which I've now asked you twice? I can repeat it again if you've forgotten it.


I mean, of course you can choose not to answer it - it's entirely your prerogative.

However

 

[Meadmaker]

Oh yes, I saw the thread title.

And therefore the only rationale for this thread actually existing and living is because people are challenging the statement made in the thread title.

If you believe the thread title is accurate and true, then you're in for a big surprise. Just like people who once thought (for example) that homosexuality was a disorder or a smiting from God, pr people who once thought that women did not have the character or the intellect to enable them to vote in elections.

Oh I doubt that I shall be terribly surprised. You know how it is with people like me, so mired in ignorance that we can't see beyond the vision of our eyes. I suspect I will go to my grave saying that not only does the Empress have no clothes, but, because I cannot see her clothes, I will declare, based on what I see, that she is in fact, the Emperor. The wise people in the crowd shall have no option but to chuckle at my lack of wisdom.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why exactly do you think this is highly likely?

Does this logic work for any other forms of identity?

Is there something about identifying as a Chicagoan which makes someone less likely to sexually assault another Chicagoan?

Is there something about identifying as a lesbian which makes someone less likely to sexually assault another lesbian?

Is there something about identifying as a Native American which makes someone less likely to sexually assault another Native American?

Once again, you're way off the point.

Tell you what: let's wait for actual (reliable) research on this subject. But as an aside, if you can't see the difference - with specific regard to propensity to attack women sexually or physically - between "males who identify as women" and "Chicagoans"...... then I'm glad you won't be on any of the public bodies who'll be sorting out the policies and practices which grant rights to transgender people.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just for clarification, none of the people in this thread want to discriminate against you. None of us deny your existence as a transgender person.

Just for clarification, none of the people in this thread want to discriminate against you. None of us deny your existence as a transgender person..... but paradoxically we deny your right to be treated as - and afforded the same rights as - cis women.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh I doubt that I shall be terribly surprised. You know how it is with people like me, so mired in ignorance that we can't see beyond the vision of our eyes. I suspect I will go to my grave saying that not only does the Empress have no clothes, but, because I cannot see her clothes, I will declare, based on what I see, that she is in fact, the Emperor. The wise people in the crowd shall have no option but to chuckle at my lack of wisdom.

Do you think that those people (often pretty well-educated and otherwise intellgent people, by the way) who opposed* gay rights, on the grounds that gay people didn't deserve rights since homosexuality was either a disease/disorder or a sin (take your pick - either or both)....

.... were ignorant or not?


* And some nutters still do oppose

 

[theprestige]

Just for clarification, none of the people in this thread want to discriminate against you. None of us deny your existence as a transgender person..... but paradoxically we deny your right to be treated as - and afforded the same rights as - cis women.

No paradox. Transwomen aren't the same as cis women, and even Boudicca agrees that sometimes sex is more important than gender.

The paradox would be if transwomen had the same right to discriminate against biological males that cis women do. Since, you know, transwomen are biological males themselves.

 

[LondonJohn]

No paradox. Transwomen aren't the same as cis women, and even Boudicca agrees that sometimes sex is more important than gender.

The paradox would be if transwomen had the same right to discriminate against biological males that cis women do. Since, you know, transwomen are biological males themselves.

There's an axiomatic paradox between

1) I do not deny your existence as a transgender person

and

2) I believe trans women are not women, and I do not believe that trans women should be treated within society as women.


(1), rephrased, tells us that the person accepts that transgender identity is a real, valid condition; but (2) tells us that the person does not accept that transgender identity is a real, valid condition.

 

[theprestige]

Valid in what sense? Transwomanhood doesn't make someone a biological female.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you think that those people (often pretty well-educated and otherwise intellgent people, by the way) who opposed* gay rights, on the grounds that gay people didn't deserve rights since homosexuality was either a disease/disorder or a sin (take your pick - either or both)....

.... were ignorant or not?


* And some nutters still do oppose

I will keep it simple and say they were ignorant,

but will ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks at a later time.

(That last bit is a reference to the US Congress, where congressmen give a short speech on the floor, but ask everyone if it's ok if they insert a longer speech into the congressional record.)

 

[d4m10n]

Once again, you're way off the point.

Once again, you've failed to provide any evidence to back up your likelihood claim. It appears to be nothing more than personal intuition, which is good fodder for making hypotheses but not for drawing conclusions.

Tell you what: let's wait for actual (reliable) research on this subject.

I agree!

Let's hold off on major policy changes (e.g. reconfiguring sex-segregated spaces to be gender-segregated spaces) until we've sorted this specific question out scientifically.