Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
And I'll just keep coming back to this: the validation of gender dysphoria and transgender identity was not done by a shady cabal of misogynistic males in a back room somewhere.



Rather: plenty of females - and not just any females, but actually females who are extremely well-educated, well-informed, and highly expert in the very fields of medicine which are directly relevant to this issue - will have contributed to the evolution of medical thinking wrt transgender identity (and, as a direct consequence, the need to enshrine and uphold transgender rights in law); and plenty of other highly-educated, highly-experienced and highly-skilled females will have sat on legislative committees and helped formulate governmental policy and legislation in this area.



I, for one, don't doubt that these very women will be fully cognisant in the historic oppression of women, and the levels of oppression and imbalance which still (regrettably) exist today. Yet they were apparently able to contextualise this successfully when they affirmed both the validity and rights associated with transgender identity. And I, for one, would take their conclusions any day over some of the opinions being mooted within this thread.
Personally think "gender studies" is a load of bollocks.

It is a flowing beast. Some say "spectrum". Some try to label every single one and end up with a form table with about 40 different options.

Rights of those not in the fitting your normal ying and yang categoru is the issue.

As a bloke I don't really care as long as it doesn't mess with females rights.

Edit: sorry by don't care. I meant trying to adhere to as much as possible within reason
 
Last edited:
I ask once again: if you think that sex-segregation is the "correct" way to go, then how do you account for trans men? For example, which of the (now-mythical) changing rooms should trans men use, in your worldview*?

I addressed this multiple times in this thread. Additionally, I've reiterated my view on bathrooms and changing rooms multiple times. Perhaps if I try just once more, you will actually comprehend, and will then stop trying to 'gotcha" me for not typing out the Gutenberg Bible every single time the topic crosses you mind and you feel compelled to boil it down to your misrepresentation of my views again.

1) Toilets, I don't care. I prefer that you use whichever toilet most rational people are going to assume you belong in. And at the end of the day, if you decide to ignore my preference, I really don't give a crap about toilets.

2) Changing rooms, locker rooms, and other places where people are routinely naked and in a vulnerable state. I prefer that they be sex-segregated. That's the whole point of them in the first place. With an eye to being realistic, however, I will consider a person who has had GRS to be honorable members of the sex that their bodies now resemble. For people who have begun hormone therapy, and are actively seeking to pass as the opposite sex, use reason. If you mostly look like a female, use the ladies - but if you've got a penis keep it covered and out of sight. If you mostly look like a male, use the mens - but if you've got boobies, keep them covered. If a person self-declares themselves to be transgender, but is not passing (for example, Seani who has a full beard and presents as a male) then use the rooms designated for your biological sex, because your internal feeling doesn't override the rights of females to have a space free of males.

3) Prisons. No naturally functioning biological penises in the female ward. That means no transwomen that have not had complete GRS. But it DOES allow transmen who have had complete GRS. This is a matter of safety for people who do not have any option at all to leave the venue. Females, regardless of how they identify, are smaller, weaker, and less aggressive than males. Even a fully transitioned transman is at a higher risk of assault in the men's ward. A fully transitioned transwoman is still bigger and stronger than females, but without a penis the risk of harm and impregnation from rape are significantly reduced. I am willing to allow case-by-case consideration of transwomen who are not fully transitioned, with significant weight given to the type of crime committed that landed them in jail in the first place. If transwomen are at higher risk in the male ward, then set aside a wing for them or find some other solution. Putting penises in lock-up with females is not an acceptable solution on the whole.
 
And I'll just keep coming back to this: the validation of gender dysphoria and transgender identity was not done by a shady cabal of misogynistic males in a back room somewhere.

Rather: plenty of females - and not just any females, but actually females who are extremely well-educated, well-informed, and highly expert in the very fields of medicine which are directly relevant to this issue - will have contributed to the evolution of medical thinking wrt transgender identity (and, as a direct consequence, the need to enshrine and uphold transgender rights in law); and plenty of other highly-educated, highly-experienced and highly-skilled females will have sat on legislative committees and helped formulate governmental policy and legislation in this area.

I, for one, don't doubt that these very women will be fully cognisant in the historic oppression of women, and the levels of oppression and imbalance which still (regrettably) exist today. Yet they were apparently able to contextualise this successfully when they affirmed both the validity and rights associated with transgender identity. And I, for one, would take their conclusions any day over some of the opinions being mooted within this thread.

Again, you're simply making assumptions about this. Go look into who has been involved, the degree of female representation, then get back to us. Stop just assuming that it "must have been so".
 
You were the one who was seeking to switch from gender segregation (which is the only game in town, if you hadn't noticed) to sex segregation.

Only game in town?

Maybe in your town. And, if that really is the only game in your town, maybe some people might like to bring back the old game.
 
A thought experiment for anyone who's interested: Suppose you find yourself in a hilarious body-swap situation like the ones you've seen portrayed in various films. If you're a cisgender woman you're now in the body of a cisgender man, and vice-versa. If you're a transgender woman you're now in the body of a transgender man, and vice-versa. Do you continue to attend the changing rooms and bathrooms that match your personal sense of self, or do you switch rooms based on the appearance of your new body?

Easy answer for me. I head straight to the women's locker room.:blush:

Obviously, what you would "really" do is something you can't really say, because the situation can't really occur, but I'm pretty sure that would actually be the answer for me, for two reasons. One really is the notion above, the "blushable" notion. I am assuing that part of the thought experiment is that nothing else about you changes, i.e. I would still be sexually attracted to women. The other is safety. It wouldn't seem wise to get naked around a bunch of guys. Even if I thought I wouldn't get assaulted, I would not want to be the center of that attention. Better to go someplace where I wouldn't draw that much interest.
 
And I'll just keep coming back to this: the validation of gender dysphoria and transgender identity was not done by a shady cabal of misogynistic males in a back room somewhere.

Rather: plenty of females - and not just any females, but actually females who are extremely well-educated, well-informed, and highly expert in the very fields of medicine which are directly relevant to this issue - will have contributed to the evolution of medical thinking wrt transgender identity (and, as a direct consequence, the need to enshrine and uphold transgender rights in law); and plenty of other highly-educated, highly-experienced and highly-skilled females will have sat on legislative committees and helped formulate governmental policy and legislation in this area.

I, for one, don't doubt that these very women will be fully cognisant in the historic oppression of women, and the levels of oppression and imbalance which still (regrettably) exist today. Yet they were apparently able to contextualise this successfully when they affirmed both the validity and rights associated with transgender identity. And I, for one, would take their conclusions any day over some of the opinions being mooted within this thread.

In addition to what Emily's Cat said (questioning your assumptions on just how many expert women were really involved) there's the fact that the people who were the medical experts didn't chime in on the question of locker room use, and, as discussed earlier today, didn't aeven say all of the things being attributed to them, at least they didn't say it in the DSM-5.
 
Ah it’s good to see I’m chopped liver or something. ;)

It seems ironic to me when gender critical women complain women are being ignored and talked over while ignoring and talking over the women who disagree with them, and occasionally dismissing them as some kind of traitors or Palestinian sympathizer style ‘useful idiots’ who are just looking for virtue signaling points with the trans lobby.
 
Ah it’s good to see I’m chopped liver or something. ;)

It seems ironic to me when gender critical women complain women are being ignored and talked over while ignoring and talking over the women who disagree with them, and occasionally dismissing them as some kind of traitors or Palestinian sympathizer style ‘useful idiots’ who are just looking for virtue signaling points with the trans lobby.

:confused: You've got only two other posts in this thread. I'm sorry if you feel you've been talked over... it's quite difficult to avoid talking over someone who doesn't talk. :p

That said, I've been reading through edition 1 of this thread. So I am becoming familiar with your position as I go along.

What I have observed so far is that you're NOT dismissing other posters of any sort, you're NOT demeaning people and calling them names. You present your own opinion, based on your personal experiences in a reasonable and civil fashion.

I have no objection to being disagreed with. There are several elements that I disagree with many posters on - where I draw the line, for example.
 
:confused: You've got only two other posts in this thread. I'm sorry if you feel you've been talked over... it's quite difficult to avoid talking over someone who doesn't talk. :p

That said, I've been reading through edition 1 of this thread. So I am becoming familiar with your position as I go along.

I have no objection to being disagreed with. There are several elements that I disagree with many posters on - where I draw the line, for example.

Fair enough, and thanks. Yeah, I post a lot once in a while and then hardly at all for another while. This thread in particular gets too muddy for me sometimes.

Your position, too, usually isn’t far from mine when it comes to brass tacks, but you end up talking a much more extreme game as far as what you feel is going on.

For example the mistaking tomboys for trans boys idea, what evidence do we have that therapists don’t know what tomboys are? It seems to me that it’s not hard to tell a little casual penis envy from dysphoria. What little kid after all would NOT like to practice their aim by sinking little sponge battleships, pee outdoors with their pants up, or write their name in the snow? Are therapists meant to be too stupid to understand that fun things are attractive?

And it’s not so outlandish that someone prefers boys’ toys but doesn’t reject girls’ toys. He-Man, Transformers and space LEGO were my jam but I didn’t ignore my sister’s hand me down barbies. You’d never catch me in a dress and when kids demanded to know my gender I said it was “banana.” But if you’d tried to convince me I could try out actually being a boy I would have said “why?” the same way I said “why?” to the height-increasing hormonal study I was offered. Who wants therapy, shots and medicine for something they don’t care about changing?

It sounds like people think therapists are going “are you sure you don’t want to be the other gender? We’d all be really happy if you did! Everyone would love you if you changed your gender!” Like, therapists aren’t supposed to lead clients any more than lawyers are supposed to lead witnesses. But if it’s really a problem let’s get some therapy judges in there to yell ‘objection!’
 
People talk about not wanting to see penises in the changing room, but IMO the more problematic body part is the testicles. Without those, fewer men would be fantasizing about ogling women in the changing room.
 
People talk about not wanting to see penises in the changing room, but IMO the more problematic body part is the testicles. Without those, fewer men would be fantasizing about ogling women in the changing room.
Should I cut mine off?
 
It sounds like people think therapists are going “are you sure you don’t want to be the other gender? We’d all be really happy if you did! Everyone would love you if you changed your gender!”

That's a bit of a strawman, but something has changed in the UK:

Equalities Minister Penny Mordaunt has asked officials to investigate the reasons for the dramatic 4,415 percent increase – and wants to know if the internet could be influencing the way girls think about the issue.

Figures indicate the number of children referred for gender treatment such as hormone injections has increase from 97 in 2009/10 to 2,519 in 2017/18.

Most strikingly, among girls, the figure is up from 40 to 1,806, meaning girls are currently far more likely to seek to become boys than vice versa.

In total, 45 children were aged six or under, with the youngest aged just four.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1018407/gender-transition-treatment-investigation-penny-mordaunt
 
As has been pointed out many times recently - there are undoubtedly several specific areas (and you've brought up two such areas here) in which a negotiation, arbitration and monitored outcome will need to happen.

Some of it will be pure trial and error. Some of it will be hypothesis-based. Some of it will need to be heavily tweaked once reliable evidential data start coming in. Some of it may need to be ditched and totally re-thought once reliable evidential data start coming in.

Speaking personally, I believe that trans women should not gain the right to compete in elite or sub-elite women's sport (in those sports where physiology and/or anatomy can be the source of competitive advantage). And I believe that trans women should have the right to use women's changing rooms - but only after certain safeguards have been put in place to try to mitigate the risk to other women using the changing room (and I've outlined some possible safeguards very recently within this thread).

Anyhow anyhow, I really am shutting up shop now. Ciao for now.

The idea that no dude has to worry about a transman hassling them in the toilets is a ******** outdated gender stereotype anyway. Female on male sexual assault is a thing. And it is probably hideously under-reported because of BS attitudes like that.

And before anyone jumps in - I'm not saying it's as prevalent as the opposite way around.
 
Ah it’s good to see I’m chopped liver or something. ;)

It seems ironic to me when gender critical women complain women are being ignored and talked over while ignoring and talking over the women who disagree with them, and occasionally dismissing them as some kind of traitors or Palestinian sympathizer style ‘useful idiots’ who are just looking for virtue signaling points with the trans lobby.

It's interesting. I'm still keeping an eye on the Twitter feed of that Guardian journo who publish an article yesterday. It certainly prompted a lot of debate but so far exactly 0 bullying and 0 accusations of hate crimes as far as I can see. A lot of women commenting on both sides of the argument. One comment did stick out for me though. A woman posted that anyone who isn't gender-critical isn't a feminist.

Personally I find the constant reduction of woman-hood to mere biology as they are just breeding-livestock to be the most unfeminist position going.
 
The idea that no dude has to worry about a transman hassling them in the toilets is a ******** outdated gender stereotype anyway. Female on male sexual assault is a thing. And it is probably hideously under-reported because of BS attitudes like that.

And before anyone jumps in - I'm not saying it's as prevalent as the opposite way around.

I know it's something I never, ever, worry about.

In my life, I've been the victim of one violent sexual assault, by a male perpetrator.

I've been the victim of a few different non-consensual groping incidents by females. Using modern definitions, those were sexual assaults. I can honestly say none of them bothered me beyond some mild irritation. Now that I'm nearly 60, I kind of miss those days.

Women never seem to talk like that.

Not only is it not as prevalent. It's not as significant. On those occasions when a woman made intimate contact with me when I was not expecting it (i.e. she grabbed or slapped my ass, or, on one occasion, aggressively grabbed my crotch) I didn't feel threatened. That's the difference. It's not the number of times it happens.

Yes, I know that if you search far and wide you could come up with a few incidents that are somewhat more dangerous and where there is an actual risk to male victims, but those are so rare that it isn't even worth worrying about. On the other hand, women have to be constantly aware of that possibility, and guard against it.

So, I would prefer that trans-men not be in my locker room, but I would be more concerned for his safety than for mine.
 
Personally I find the constant reduction of woman-hood to mere biology as they are just breeding-livestock to be the most unfeminist position going.
What a bizarre take for a forum where everyone ought to understand that humans are nothing more than upright apes to begin with. There is nothing about the human condition which doesn't have roots in our biology, including all of the conditions and disorders we read about in the DSM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom