Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

Hayton.

Hayden is the name of a different transgender woman who is frequently in the news for trying to sue people. You don't want to get them mixed up.

Thank you, corrected.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Looking into the treatment of children. I'm kind of appalled that they're using Lupron to stop puberty. I took Lupron for 3 months prior to having uterine surgery (so i wouldn't die from a hemorrhaging fibroid) and my surgeon was pretty clear about not wanting to delay surgery for more than about 3 months to try to get my iron count up because of the potential side effects of Lupron over the long-term. He didn't want me on it for more than 3 months... but they're giving pre-teen girls a dose that is 4 to 5 times as much as I got, for years at a time. How is that even remotely safe or reasonable?

 

[Emily's Cat]

So I just ran across the link to Edinburgh Action for Trans Health's Trans Health Manifesto.

It reads like it is supposed to be satire. I mean, it's completely round-the-bend nutty.

 

[Boudicca90]

So I just ran across the link to Edinburgh Action for Trans Health's Trans Health Manifesto.

It reads like it is supposed to be satire. I mean, it's completely round-the-bend nutty.

I think it's pretty nutty too, but I don't think it's satire. Based on some of the terminology I see, it looks like they are looking at trans rights from an anarchist and mutual aid-directed perspective. Healthcare from the community rather than the medical establishment.

I can understand where they are coming from in regards to that, as few doctors have any real understanding of transgenderism and how to treat us to our satisfaction. And I know I have gained far more knowledge from the trans community than from doctors who have tried to inhibit my transition.

Still, safeguards are there for a reason. And while I think the gatekeeping should be loosened, it shouldn't be done away with entirely.

If you are using this to paint all of us as radicals, it isn't going to work. This is a very minority viewpoint.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So is that what this thread has come to now? Tumblr posts?

I didn't bother to read it, but let's assume it's batty.

What exactly do you think you're proving through nutpicking?

By the time you're linking Quillette articles and combing tumblr for nutters, maybe that's an indication that you've lost perspective.

 

[Tippit]

You can make the decision that you personally don't feel the interaction merits additional action even if it would be justified. That doesn't mean, however, that because you felt it wasn't a big deal, nobody else should be allowed to either.

I don't think that says anything about whether anyone was objectively harmed, though. I am not in favor of drug prohibition laws, because I don't think anyone can articulate a case for where there was any (direct) harm, and if there is no harm, there can't be a victim and thus there should be no crime. But lots of other people "feel" otherwise. I think these people and the law cause great damage to society, and to a large degree chip away at our civil liberties, and take away resources that should be directed against violent and property criminals. I'm not sure that just feelings should be the basis for legislation.

Consider an analogy, where the kid down the street takes your skateboard from your garage without your permission. An objective observer would say that the kid has committed theft, which is a crime, and that you are within your rights to press charges against the kid. You personally, however, might decide that you never liked that skateboard anyway, and you haven't used it in years, so it's no big deal, and you can decline to press charges. But your decision in this situation doesn't imply that if the kid stole your next door neighbor's skateboard, that your neighbor should not press charges.

Agree, however, one of the consequences of not punishing criminal behavior is that criminals will tend to be embolded, and find other victims. For instance, maybe the kid steals the neighbors bike (one that the neighbor really likes), and gets away with it.

Partly, yes. Partly it's because they don't have real penises, and in many cases may not have a penis at all. So the amount of potential damage they can do is very limited - a transman would be unable to impregnate a female, for example. And given how pseudo-penises function, it's highly unlikely that a transman would be able to rape a female anyway. Beyond that, a transman will still have been socially conditioned as a female, will have an understanding of the inherent risk that female faces, and is unlikely to violate that social contract in the first place.

I must admit, I am a little shocked that you think the presence of a penis should deny admittance to the female bathroom, but the presence of a vagina should not deny admittance to the male bathroom. This is a fairly odd view to take. I think there are a lot of issues besides risk of rape that are good cause for having traditional bathroom rules. I suppose your view is based strictly on physical security.

I am as certain that the transgender women in this thread and elsewhere would argue that they have also been conditioned as females, and are also unlikely to violate the social contract.

I don't know what that last sentence means. Can you elaborate?

Females are often portrayed, especially by feminists, as powerless, but they're not. They have the power of persuasion over the males they influence, and, I would argue, wield the power of the state over men (ironically, usually states controlled by powerful, rich men who seek to dominate other men). This is reflected in a number of double standards in law, especially custody law, rape and sexual assault, domestic violence, military draft, et al. This mindset prevails even in discussions about who should use which bathroom

 

[Boudicca90]

I appreciate this response.

What I'm asking for in this conversation is that you remember the socialization element of the relationship between transwomen and ciswomen. And respect that difference in socialization, as well as the social barriers that females face - not because of socially defined gender roles, but as a result of our actual biology. I'd like you to try to understand those barriers, and sympathize with them instead of seeming to dismiss them.

You'll get exposed to many of the social factors as you become more integrated, some of which you're already experiencing with overly handsy, pushy men who feel that their entitled to your body for their own enjoyment. But there are going to be some elements that you won't experience, simply because biology is a real thing and it has real impacts for females.

One of the things that I feel like we are missing as a connection point is recognition that many of those social factors are negatives for females. Many of the behavioral expectations of females are things that most females would like to eliminate, or at least reduce.

This is an area of conflict in objectives. I don't see that extending the social concept of "woman" to include males, while still retaining those social constraints addresses the issues that females deal with. It also doesn't address issues for gender non-conforming people, including effeminate gay men and butch lesbians. On the other hand, loosening the concept of "male" to include more feminine behaviors and less strict boundaries would help all of us.

I think that the second approach, altering the socially acceptable behavior of males and females, would present greater gains than the the first approach. It would allow "socially gender dysphoric" people like Seani, to behave and present in ways they feel comfortable with, without any expectation of them having to reject their bodies and their biology. They could continue to be males, and behave in more effeminate "girly" ways, because that behavioral constraint would be lifted and would lose a lot of its meaning.

There would still be some people whose dysphoria is directly driven by their physical bodies, but I think it would be a smaller number. And I suspect that most of those would be happy to exist as transsexuals, with full surgical transitions.

So you want to loosen the concept of "male", but not "female". It's only fair if it's equal here, but that shows it is specifically about excluding transgender women with you. Which really shouldn't surprise me since you said before you want us all funneled into the men's room so you can have the women's room all to yourself.

You seem to want to change more than I do in order to accommodate us while still trying to protect your view of your safety. For the most part, I am defending the status quo here. While you seem to want to redefine "male" and "man" (but not "female" and "woman") to essentially kick us out of womanhood.

 

[Tippit]

In what way are any of the rights that women have fought for, eroded by the inclusion of trans women? Am I missing something about women fighting for womens’-only spaces, as opposed to women fighting to be accommodated at all in places previously accomodating exclusively to men?

Collegiate competitive sports for women. Transwomen being allowed to compete is a travesty, and violates the spirit of Title 9. Women's professional combat sports, where perhaps the physical differences of growing up male vs. female are put starkly on display.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you are using this to paint all of us as radicals, it isn't going to work. This is a very minority viewpoint.

I wasn't. Nor have I with any event mentioned so far.

I have, however, used the prevalence of certain kinds of behavior available out there to indicate a problem.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So is that what this thread has come to now? Tumblr posts?

I didn't bother to read it, but let's assume it's batty.

Things actually submitted by activist organizations to the government of scotland (don't know the right term) aren't really "tumblr posts".

 

[Emily's Cat]

So you want to loosen the concept of "male", but not "female". It's only fair if it's equal here, but that shows it is specifically about excluding transgender women with you. Which really shouldn't surprise me since you said before you want us all funneled into the men's room so you can have the women's room all to yourself.

I really thought the concept was clear enough without having to include all the variations. It would include a loosening of the behaviors that are attributable to "female" as well. Thus, a biological female exhibiting masculine behaviors and expression would still be considered female, and it would simply become socially acceptable for her to express herself, comport herself, and behave as she wishes without having to try to subjugate biology.

Your interpretation here is also pretty wrong on multiple bits. I've been consistently happy to allow transmen into the ladies room, although I suspect that once they've undergone some element of HRT, they would prefer to use the men's. I've also been relatively open about changing rooms, where my baseline is based on biological sex (which means transmen use the women's changing rooms), but I'm willing to make exceptions if we can find a reasonable guideline. And I've just downright said that regardless of whether they've had HRT or not, transmen should by default be placed in the female prison ward.

You seem to want to change more than I do in order to accommodate us while still trying to protect your view of your safety. For the most part, I am defending the status quo here. While you seem to want to redefine "male" and "man" (but not "female" and "woman") to essentially kick us out of womanhood.

Lol, no. I would be quite content to leave it at the ACTUAL status quo... which is based entirely on biological sex, and has nothing at all to do with how a person feels inside their own head. You're the one pushing for a dramatic change in definition, erasing the entire concept of women and replacing it with an internal impression that exists only in your mind, but needs constant validation from everyone else so that your feelings are protected, regardless of the impact it has on females. You're not defending the status quo - you're insisting that your feelings and your wants are more important than the existing protections and dignity of females.

 

[Boudicca90]

I really thought the concept was clear enough without having to include all the variations. It would include a loosening of the behaviors that are attributable to "female" as well. Thus, a biological female exhibiting masculine behaviors and expression would still be considered female, and it would simply become socially acceptable for her to express herself, comport herself, and behave as she wishes without having to try to subjugate biology.

Your interpretation here is also pretty wrong on multiple bits. I've been consistently happy to allow transmen into the ladies room, although I suspect that once they've undergone some element of HRT, they would prefer to use the men's. I've also been relatively open about changing rooms, where my baseline is based on biological sex (which means transmen use the women's changing rooms), but I'm willing to make exceptions if we can find a reasonable guideline. And I've just downright said that regardless of whether they've had HRT or not, transmen should by default be placed in the female prison ward.

A biological female exhibiting masculine behaviors is already considered female, look at tomboys for example. They are only male if they feel they are male, it's not due to their behaviors. You keep ignoring the importance of gender identity in this, just like a feminine male isn't a woman unless he feels like his gender identity is female.

To me a person's gender identity is far more important than their biological sex, which only comprises a part of their gender. That's why transmen belong in the male prison ward, just like I would belong in the female ward. Unless there are safety or security concerns with the prisoner or the prison population of course. That's why I support our new law here in California.

Lol, no. I would be quite content to leave it at the ACTUAL status quo... which is based entirely on biological sex, and has nothing at all to do with how a person feels inside their own head. You're the one pushing for a dramatic change in definition, erasing the entire concept of women and replacing it with an internal impression that exists only in your mind, but needs constant validation from everyone else so that your feelings are protected, regardless of the impact it has on females. You're not defending the status quo - you're insisting that your feelings and your wants are more important than the existing protections and dignity of females.

I am not "erasing the entire concept of women" and it's not a "dramatic change in definition", it's just the acknowledgment that a person's gender is sometimes different than their biological sex. It was a change that happened decades ago when we realized thanks to research on these things that sex and gender are different, and sometimes incompatible with each other. This is not a new concept, it's just a concept you don't want to accept because it goes against your biology-centric worldview.

 

[Ziggurat]

They are only male if they feel they are male, it's not due to their behaviors. You keep ignoring the importance of gender identity in this, just like a feminine male isn't a woman unless he feels like his gender identity is female.

What does this even mean? The definitions all appear to be circular. Being male is defined by feeling like one, but feeling like one is defined by what it feels like to be a male. Same with female. But other than two letters, what's the actual difference? You could take any feelings, say they are male (or female), and then any person with those feelings can be either male or female purely depending on which label you chose.

To me a person's gender identity is far more important than their biological sex, which only comprises a part of their gender.

From what I can tell of your definition, it doesn't comprise any part of their gender. I can't determine anything at all which comprises their gender in any objective sense.

I am not "erasing the entire concept of women"

You've turned it into a circular definition, which isn't far off from erasing it.

 

[caveman1917]

What does this even mean? The definitions all appear to be circular.

Since undefined (or circularly defined) terms can be replaced with any arbitrary string of symbols, what you quoted means this:

They are only qdsr5gd if they feel they are qdsr5gd, it's not due to their behaviors. You keep ignoring the importance of gender identity in this, just like a feminine qdsr5gd isn't a erfdiud441 unless he feels like his gender identity is oksq68es6.

I can understand why you fail to find meaning.

 

[LondonJohn]

How about you provide links to some of those experts that corroborate the interpretation that you're peddling?

Good grief.

Is this a wilful demonstration of feigned ignorance?

Because this has been done now so many times within these threads that I simply refuse to believe that you don't know of the expert view on this (or, in your world, "the interpretation I'm peddling"...).

But try reading this. Again.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

I suggest you read all of that. Again. Slowly and carefully. Because it represents the current view of the mainstream medical & scientific establishment in respect of gender (and how it differs from sex in this particular context) and transgender identity.


I can assure you categorically: the only views on this subject which can correctly be accused of being "peddled" or an "interpretation" are the views held by people such as you or Elaedith. The medical community - and the govermental and legal communities in most large liberal democracies - hold a view on this which disagrees fundamentally with garbage such as "Gender ideology comes from postmodern queer theory taught in gender studies departments, spread through social media to narcissistic middle class kids looking for something to make them feel important, and imparted to institutions by highly funded activist groups with no science qualifications". As do I.

 

[Meadmaker]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21[/url]

It doesn't say transwomen are women.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, and you did see what the TRAs did to the Chair of the working group (Ken Zucker) who revised the relevant parts of the DSM-5, right? I posted about it a couple of times.

Not to mention copious material from other experts critical of current ideology and practice.

I have to wonder if you are bothering to look at any evidence at all.

I have no idea why you think this is relevant to a discussion of the validity of treating gender dysphoria as a valid condition and treating those with trans identities along the lines of the gender with which they identify?

Yes, extremist trans-activists wanted crazy extreme elements and rights to be included within DSM-5 and embraced by mainstream medicine (that's why they're labelled "extremists".

Are you actually trying to argue that the actions and aims of extremist trans-activists somehow invalidates or weakens the argument for a moderate - but still firmly affirmative - recognition of transgender identity/rights?

Because I can't think of any other reason why you might be highlighting the (disgraceful) activities of these extremist activists.


(And I wonder if you've ever bothered to read what actually IS in DSM-5)

 

[LondonJohn]

You won't find any statement that transwomen are women in the DSM-5.

Of course you won't.

But you'll find that a statement such as "trans women are women" can be easily (and correctly) derived from the content of DSM-5.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sure thing. What would a "refusal to accept that...trans women are women" look like besides attempts to exclude trans women from women's spaces?

If you don't read past the headline, you won't know the story.

Especially if you're just skimming.

LOL.

So your position is that it's functionally impossible to be in favour of transgender rights, while at the same time holding that the potential distorting effect of trans women in women's sport means that transwomen should not be allowed to compete in (most) elite women's sporting competition?

Let's see what happens in real life, eh?


(I mean, I know what's almost certain to happen in real life - where people with expertise and experience make real-world decisions, as opposed to a bunch of random nobodies (us) hitting their computer keyboards - but, you know, the proof of the pudding and all that...)

 

[LondonJohn]

I have a lot of respect for your views, and ability to reason, but I have to admit that I disagree with your acceptance of a double standard with regard to transmen in male bathrooms, which is what I assume this post is referring to. The issue doesn’t just boil down to capacity for violence/sexual assault and physical superiority, it also has to do with decorum, privacy, and dignity as they apply to the genders. I don’t want a transman in a male bathroom not because I’m afraid they will beat me up or sexually assault me, but because I simply don’t accept them as male, and they don’t belong there.

Yep. I've also been pointing this out. It's a glaring double standard. But then again, I haven't yet seen in here any "against-trans-rights" positions which stand up to any proper scrutiny...