Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Bad logic.

First off, no one is saying (2) and you know it. At most, they are saying: “I do not believe that trans-women are women in the same sense as cis-women, but I believe they should be treated the same as women in most situations. Those situations where I do not think they should be treated as women are those where I believe that biological sex rather than gender is the reason for differential treatment”

Quite a few people seem to be saying exactly that (2). Your caveat doesn't really change anything because I have been saying pretty much what your caveat suggests and been greeted with violent disagreement. At best the debate is over when does biological sex rather than gender matter and if the answer is 'whenever men and women are normally segregated' then that becomes (2) again.

Second, even with the false statement you provide for number two, it does not logically follow that they believe that transgender identity is a real valid condition. It would simply mean that that real and valid condition does not make them their target gender in all senses and circumstances.

But again if the difference matters at all points where it makes a difference then it doesn't make the transgender identity valid. We are not talking about denying transwomen access to the contraceptive pill because they don't have the equipment to get pregnant we are talking about, for example, people who regard the request to refer to a transwoman as 'she' as an affront to reality.

No one has said that trans experiences are invalid. No one has dismissed their challenges and experiences as insignificant.

Quite a few people have come quite close to it if they have explicitly used those words.

The biology related challenges of biological females, however, have been dismissed as unimportant. Watching my daughter grow up, however, I know that biology, particularly particularly the consequences of the female reproductive system, play an important part in the identity of biological women. It plays into their daily lives and the decisions they make. They bear the brunt of reproduction and birth control including societal pressures to reproduce. And, at the same time, societal pressure not to get pregnant. If they cant have kids, they are a failure. Ridicule for being a prude or for being a slut. Because of biology, their moods are characterized as PMSing, on their periods or post menstrual in order to dismiss them as only rational one week a month. (I knew one woman(!) on another message board who stated she would never vote for a woman president because they are emotionally unstable and might launch nukes due to PMS.)

Dismissed as unimportant in general? I'm not seeing that. At worst they are being dismissed as irrelevant to the topic of trans-issues. Because mostly there are. Everything you have said there is true and important. But none of it is changed by whether a transwoman is allowed access to a woman's restroom. It's possible to be in favour of both women's rights and trans rights.

And that’s just some of it. It’s stuff that you and I cannot fully understand because we cannot ever share that experience. So when you dismiss biology as unimportant, you are saying that the experience of biological women is invalid and denying their identity. I think there’s probably a word for that.

Again. It's not about dismissing anything as unimportant. It's about recognising that it's not a trade-off.

Now, most women, including the ones on this thread, are happy to treat trans-women the same as women in circumstances where biology doesn’t matter. But when you are removing the biological aspect from the identity set named “woman” you are removing something that’s rather large. And then you are telling them that it’s insignificant. You don’t even attempt to understand their experiences and how it shapes their identities.

I wouldn’t even say I’m on their “side” in this discussion. I’m on both sides. Or neither. But it would be good if you would actually listen. I’m not talking about parsing words to trap people into meaningless little logic traps that characterize them into or force them to defend positions they never held. That’s lazy. Try actually looking beyond the words and understanding the actual concepts.

To be fair, the above could apply equally to people on all sides. There is a HUGE area of common ground that should be a starting point, but is being ignored.

Sorry I think you are just being far too charitable to people who for example, make a point of calling an openly transwoman 'not a woman' by characterising that as 'treating transwomen as women in circumstances where biology doesn't matter.'

 

[Darat]

The reason I ask is that there’s no bloody middle ground. There is no solution that will satisfy everyone. You trend to one side or the other. Calling people extremists is simply dismissive.

Nope. There are plenty of ways to come up with compromises that would be "OK" with the majority of people, only the extremists won't be OK with compromises.

Indeed even thinking it is just a matter of 2 sides would indicate to me that someone is listening to the extremists, they are the ones that think in simple black and white.

Society will probably end up with different "solutions" for the various circumstances that are being discussed.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I mean, that's a big component of the TERF-based transphobia. That's only a small niche of the larger world of transphobia, but it's a unique one rooted in the strains of feminism that paint all men as the enemy, and transwomen as crypto men trying to infiltrate women's space for nefarious purposes.

The UK seems to be a TERF stronghold, where otherwise progressive and queer accepting people draw a hard line for transgender rights.

It does seem to be a theme that supporting trans rights is misogyny. But I struggle to see the thread that connects the argument. Are we to believe that the Venn Diagram of 'people who think women should get back in the kitchen' and 'people who think we need to put tampon vending machines in male toilets' have significant overlap???

As far as I can see from survey data the opposite is true. Largely the same people - the old, the poorly educated, the right wing - hold the same reactionary views to any and all social progress. There is a reason why holding anti-trans views correlates with being anti-EU.

For the most part, these groups oppose anything seen as progressive any social change. And one by one the skittles get knocked down and they move on to the next cause to rail against.

It's the same people everytime. 50 years ago it was black people need to know their place, 30 years ago it was women need to know their place, 15 years ago it was homosexuals need to know their place, and now its trans people need to know their place.

We know the right lacks empathy, sees everyone different as a threat coming to take their precious stuff, and likes to dismiss the 'other' as somehow less. Transpeople are weirdoes and perverts and strange and dangerous... why should we let them into our spaces?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It does seem to be a theme that supporting trans rights is misogyny. But I struggle to see the thread that connects the argument. Are we to believe that the Venn Diagram of 'people who think women should get back in the kitchen' and 'people who think we need to put tampon vending machines in male toilets' have significant overlap???

As far as I can see from survey data the opposite is true. Largely the same people - the old, the poorly educated, the right wing - hold the same reactionary views to any and all social progress. There is a reason why holding anti-trans views correlates with being anti-EU.

For the most part, these groups oppose anything seen as progressive any social change. And one by one the skittles get knocked down and they move on to the next cause to rail against.

It's the same people everytime. 50 years ago it was black people need to know their place, 30 years ago it was women need to know their place, 15 years ago it was homosexuals need to know their place, and now its trans people need to know their place.

We know the right lacks empathy, sees everyone different as a threat coming to take their precious stuff, and likes to dismiss the 'other' as somehow less. Transpeople are weirdoes and perverts and strange and dangerous... why should we let them into our spaces?

The TERFs are a minority I think. Like you say, the overwhelming base of anti-trans sentiment comes from the same people that always hold generally regressive views. Obviously, those that haven't even come to terms that homosexuality is acceptable are not going to be trans friendly.

You get strange alliances though, where TERFs start finding themselves taking up common cause with explicitly regressive groups, like Christian extremists, in order to achieve some common goal. You start to wonder how sincerely these people hold their feminist views when they are collaborating with extreme regressive interest groups.

Of course, this is nothing new. Dworkin's collaboration with anti-porn conservatives is an example from the past where the bleeding edge of radical feminism finds itself in alignment with regressive Christian zealots.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/radical-feminists-and-conservative-christians-team-up-against-transgender-people

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I tend to agree. There's some edge cases where there's room for minor quibbling, but the core issue, whether trans-identity is valid and should be recognized and protected by law, is largely a binary choice.

And yet there clearly are extremists - on both sides.

From transwomen are just men, sit down and shut up, to my personal gender identity is all that matters and I should be able to walk into a chemist and demand copious amounts of free hormones.

I think the problem is that recognising trans identity as valid is pretty much step 1 and if you can't get to that point then there is little conversation to be had beyond that. If that point is being staked out as the argument's middle ground then I think that only shows the problem.

 

[lionking]

It does seem to be a theme that supporting trans rights is misogyny. But I struggle to see the thread that connects the argument. Are we to believe that the Venn Diagram of 'people who think women should get back in the kitchen' and 'people who think we need to put tampon vending machines in male toilets' have significant overlap???

As far as I can see from survey data the opposite is true. Largely the same people - the old, the poorly educated, the right wing - hold the same reactionary views to any and all social progress. There is a reason why holding anti-trans views correlates with being anti-EU.

For the most part, these groups oppose anything seen as progressive any social change. And one by one the skittles get knocked down and they move on to the next cause to rail against.

It's the same people everytime. 50 years ago it was black people need to know their place, 30 years ago it was women need to know their place, 15 years ago it was homosexuals need to know their place, and now its trans people need to know their place.

We know the right lacks empathy, sees everyone different as a threat coming to take their precious stuff, and likes to dismiss the 'other' as somehow less. Transpeople are weirdoes and perverts and strange and dangerous... why should we let them into our spaces?

You seem pretty good at categorising people. Do you mind giving your age, educational achievements and voting history so I can judge you?

No, of course you won’t and nor would I expect it.

So please don’t dismiss people who don’t agree with you as old, poorly educated, right wing brexiteers and whatever. It adds nothing to this thread, but says a fair bit about you.

 

[Olmstead]

If that ever happens I'll be sure to let you know. You don't think that you've done that with your nonsense, do you?

To be fair, it didn't take much. All I had to do was point out that racial segregation wasn't abolished by letting black people who had adopted the "white" lifestyle sit at the front of the bus, and you had absolutely no worthwhile response. It was like knocking over a house of cards.

 

[Meadmaker]

I wouldn’t even say I’m on their “side” in this discussion. I’m on both sides. Or neither. But it would be good if you would actually listen. I’m not talking about parsing words to trap people into meaningless little logic traps that characterize them into or force them to defend positions they never held. That’s lazy. Try actually looking beyond the words and understanding the actual concepts.

(You might want to ask Emily's Cat, for example, why she claims on the one hand that self-ID is the only sticking point for her, but on the other hand she has a blanket refutation of the right of trans women who've had no surgery (ie with a penis) to (eg) use women's changing rooms - regardless of whether those trans women have been clinically assessed and diagnosed.....)

This is precisely what TomB was talking about.

On the general topic, I think the post from which the quote above explained things quite well, and I wouldn't have anything to add to that.

I don't know how that fits in with your line of questioning/discussion about homosexuality, but you can pursue that if you wish.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

To be fair, it didn't take much. All I had to do was point out that racial segregation wasn't abolished by letting black people who had adopted the "white" lifestyle sit at the front of the bus, and you had absolutely no worthwhile response. It was like knocking over a house of cards.

to be fair, if that's what you think the analogy was about then you haven't a clue what you are blethering about.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is precisely what TomB was talking about.
.

I hope it wasn't. Because pointing out where someone's argument makes no sense isn't setting them a logical trap. You're doing TomB a pretty major disservice there.

 

[Olmstead]

to be fair, if that's what you think the analogy was about then you haven't a clue what you are blethering about.

Here's a tip: use your words to tell me what the analogy was about and why it makes sense in the context of this topic, then I will explain why I don't think it makes sense, and then you can use your words again to explain why my thinking is faulty. It will be like a discussion.

Alternatively, I can adopt your method of discussion instead:

I can't believe you think that analogy is in any way relevant. How silly.

 

[theprestige]

Who's claiming that it does, prithee?

Okay, so valid in what sense? Transwomanhood means you're a biological male who wants to be treated as a woman.

I, Emily's Cat, and Boudicca all agree that this is valid in some but not all senses.

It seems like you're equivocating on a point nobody actually disagrees about, and finding a contradiction where none actually exists.

 

[Meadmaker]

I hope it wasn't. Because pointing out where someone's argument makes no sense isn't setting them a logical trap. You're doing TomB a pretty major disservice there.

It's about selectively picking bits and pieces from a discussion and declaring an "Gotcha!" moment.

I can read the posts of every frequent poster in these threads and know basically what they mean. The fact that there is some specific example where there's a question whose answer isn't obvious doesn't invalidate the general line of reasoning.

One of the things that I cannot answer about my own position is precisely when a person ought to be granted access to facilities of the biological sex opposite their own. I can't say that about Emily's Cat's position either. This isn't a flaw in mine, or her, reasoning. It's just an open area that someone will have to work out someday. However, I can read the writings of all the frequent posters and get a fairly good idea of the answer, or at least the principle on which the answer is based.

Either I or Emily's Cat may have made some statements on the general topic that might suggest one point of transition as the point at which locker room use might be allowed, but in a different post might have looked to a different point in the transition. This isn't some "Gotcha" moment that shows we are incapable of logical thought on a subject. It means there's a lot of details and we might not be able to precisely answer all questions with medical certainty and legislative specificity, and it might even mean when writing one post me might contradict what we wrote in a different post. That doesn't mean you win.

It would be so much easier to just adopt an extremist position. Let's try it. If you were born a boy, you are always a boy, and should always be treated like a boy. Period. Simple, eh? If I did that, you could never catch me in a logical contradiction.

 

[theprestige]

I don't know whether you're doing it deliberately or not.... but the point had nothing whatsoever to do with the conditions themselves: it was entirely to do with reactionary resistance to reforms, on the basis of a refutation of the validity of the conditions themselves.

Not all reforms the same. Some should be welcomed, others resisted. Not all conditions are the same. Some are valid, some are not. Without looking at the conditions themselves and comparing them, we cannot say that the same kind of reform is appropriate for both.

 

[d4m10n]

The point being discussed is whether Group Y's 'discomfort' with Group X is a valid reason to exclude Group X from being in the presence of Group Y.

Of course it is, or at least it can be.

Imagine a world in which sexual assault is completely unknown, but the deeply uncomfortable feeling of stripping off in front of strangers of the opposite sex remains for a strong majority of those surveyed. In that world, we'd still have separate changing rooms based on sex, keeping groups XX and XY apart based on their mutual discomfort with each other, and that would be a good solution given the stated needs of the people involved.

 

[theprestige]

P1. Women are uncomfortable with having transwomen in female spaces
P2. Discomfort alone is a valid reason to exclude someone from a space

C: Transwomen must be excluded from female spaces.

The specific point of discussion IN THIS SPECIFIC ANALOGY is whether P2 is true or not.

It doesn't take an analogy to discuss whether P2 is true or not. Whether it's true depends entirely on the nature of the discomfort and the nature of the person in question. More on this in a moment.

First, an important correction: Your P1 is wrong. The actual starting point of this discussion is:

P1. Women are uncomfortable with having males in female spaces.

From here we can develop several P2s:

P2a. Discomfort alone is a valid reason to exclude males from female spaces.

P2b. Discomfort alone is a valid reason to exclude transwomen from female spaces.

The conclusion you arrive at from here depends entirely on whether you believe transwomen should count as males, or as women, when it comes to exclusion from female spaces.

I don't think there's a good analogy that answers that question.

Boudicca's answer is that it depends on how sincere the transwoman is in committing to their gender identity. It's not clear exactly how much transitioning is necessary, or if other people are allowed to verify it, but that seems to be the gist of it.

That's more or less my answer too, but I see a lot of problems with it, that I don't know how to solve.

here are two competing/simultaneous arguments that I can decipher here. One is that women are uncomfortable and therefore exclude transwomen
The second is that women are at risk and therefore exclude transwomen

Another important correction. Two, in fact. The first is that the two arguments are not competing. Risk and the perception of risk contribute to discomfort, they do not compete with it.

The second is the same correction as before. The two arguments to decipher are:

Women are uncomfortable and therefore exclude males.

Women are at risk and therefore exclude males.

This causes a dilemma, since transwomen are males, but do not want to be excluded like other males are excluded.

So it's not really a discussion about discomfort and risk. Those are actually taken for granted, here. Even Boudicca doesn't want males in female spaces. She just doesn't want to be counted as male when it comes to exclusion from those spaces.

The actual discussion is tossed on the horns of two dilemmas: Are transwomen women? Yes, but not always. Are transwomen female? No, but sometimes...

 

[theprestige]

tell me what the analogy was about and why it makes sense in the context of this topic

The funny thing about this approach is that by the time you're done mapping the terms of the analogy to the terms of thing itself, you don't need the analogy anymore. You've described the thing itself in its own terms. At that point you can skip the analogy altogether, and just argue the thing itself.

 

[theprestige]

You might want to ask Emily's Cat, for example, why she claims on the one hand that self-ID is the only sticking point for her, but on the other hand she has a blanket refutation of the right of trans women who've had no surgery (ie with a penis) to (eg) use women's changing rooms - regardless of whether those trans women have been clinically assessed and diagnosed.....

It seems to me that these two things go hand in hand. "I have a penis but it doesn't count because I say so" completely dismisses the blanket refusal of penises.

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems to me that these two things go hand in hand. "I have a penis but it doesn't count because I say so" completely dismisses the blanket refusal of penises.

Ah, well your problem here starts with the phrase "I have a penis but it doesn't count because I say so".

Because this is to completely misunderstand/misrepresent gender dysphoria.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not all reforms the same. Some should be welcomed, others resisted. Not all conditions are the same. Some are valid, some are not. Without looking at the conditions themselves and comparing them, we cannot say that the same kind of reform is appropriate for both.

At least you understand the principle now.

And while I totally agree with your general premise above, I totally disagree with your (apparent) position that a) homosexuality is a valid human condition, but b) gender dysphoria is not.

Once again, I choose to base my position on gender dysphoria and transgender identity upon the position of those who are the world's experts in precisely the field in which gender dysphoria and transgender identity reside.

And I'd be interested to learn why you (apparently) think different/better than the world's experts in this subject.