Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

Self-Declaration as the sole requirement is what threatens women's rights and progress here.

Secure spaces for women will not be secure if any person making a claim to be a "woman" can enter them on their claim alone. Women's sports are already being threatened, and places for females on women's sports are being jeopardized because male-bodied people are taking the highest places and setting records as a direct result of their biology, regardless of how they feel on the inside.

Boudicca has expressed that transwomen should be eligible for women's scholarships, grants, and short-list positions, and that transwoman should be honored as women for awards and similar... which pretty much brings us right back around to losing ground in terms of female equality in the world.

Statistics pertaining to salary and promotion discrepancies, gender bias in schools and workplaces, and statistics referencing sex-differentiated crime levels... all of those become meaningless when the statistics count male people as females.

So let's let's turn this around: What rights are transgender people fighting for? What rights do they not have?

How exactly do you define "self-declaration" in this precise context?

 

[d4m10n]

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

Yes, if by the highlighted phrase you intend to include all of the rights typically demanded by rights activists working in this particular subfield of civil rights advocacy.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

For me, this sort of thing goes to the heart of the matter. As you say, it's nothing whatsoever to do with simply (cis) girls/women acting/behaving/looking like (cis) boys/men, or vice versa.

I sincerely believe that many (maybe most) people who either oppose, fear, or are confused by, the argument for transgender rights.... are fundamentally ignorant about what gender dysphoria and (trans)gender identity actually are. I think that of those who are ignorant, many (most?) of them think they know what these things are, but they don't. And then they form their own viewpoints on swampy base of ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Ahh, yes. It's there, but it can only be seen by the wise.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

In real life Andraya Yearwood sets all time records in the Connecticut state girls' 200 meter race, at least in according to the official record books.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Great. And of course, what is important to YOU is what should be important to everyone else. If other things (like actual biology, the effects of that biology, and the millennia of oppression and forceful subordination due to that biology, not to mention the rampant acts of rape both as a means to dominate a newly-won territory or to punish social transgressions) are more important to the people WHO ACTUALLY ******* EXPERIENCE THEM, well, that's no biggie - your feelings are far more important than my reality, right?

FFS, You demand that you must be treated as a woman, as a female, just as much as any natal female... while simultaneously denigrating the experiences and the ******* reality of actual ******* females.

Again, I'll point out the experience that you haven't historically had: It's no big deal, stop making such a fuss about it, stop being so hysterical, is it your time of the month? Don't worry about her "feelings", she's awash in hormones, and those don't matter. Maybe when you've spent a little bit more time as a woman, you'll actually understand the complete dehumanization involved in being dismissed out of hand without a second thought, in favor of the whims of a man.

In other words... It's just a female, they aren't important and aren't worthy of having a voice or of consideration.

Where do you get off demanding that females accept you as being as much of a female as we are... while you continue to assume that your feelings are more important than our risks, and that whatever you want you should get. In other words, why should we kowtow to your demands when you continue to act like a stereotypical male?

But I get it. I mean, clearly, being "misgendered" by the acknowledgement of your objective biological reality is a far, far worse thing for anyone to experience than the every-day marginalization and dismissal that we mere females face. Seriously, who do we think we are?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

No, it doesn't. It represents the POLITICALLY VALUABLE view of what gender identity is.

So... how about all of those biology experts, the psychology and psychiatric and medical experts that are very clear that TRANSWOMEN ARE WOMEN, full stop, not caveats, no semantics, end of discussion?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

1) Yes, gender dysphoria is a valid condition. That does NOT imply that it is a legitimate physical condition that renders the person the functional sex with which they identify. Nor does it mean that their personal belief about their gender bears any connection to objective reality. A person who is biologically male might very well genuinely believe themselves to be female, but it does not actually make them female. Nor does it actually make them a "woman" in any rational and non-tautological sense of the term.

2) Gender dysphoria requires a diagnosis, which is explicitly what transgender activists are asking to remove as a requirement so that they can COERCE the rest of society into affirming their internal belief about themselves.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, if by the highlighted phrase you intend to include all of the rights typically demanded by rights activists working in this particular subfield of civil rights advocacy.

There's a spectrum of rights which are up for discussion. Some (including all of the most important ones) are a slam-dunk, others are not.

I stated (maybe yesterday) that IMO there's a reasonable, fair discussion to be had about which rights should be granted, and which (for example) would lead to such a consequent degradation of rights for another societal group that it would be unsound to grant them.

And, for me, elite sports are a very clear example of the latter. It seems clear to me that the blanket inclusion of trans women in elite women's sports would, at a stroke, put in jeopardy the achievement and recognition of cis women in women's sports.

I've stated before, and I'll state again: one can a) believe that transgender identity is a valid, lived condition (and that, for example, trans women are women), and therefore b) believe in the concept of transgender rights, yet at the same time c) believe that there are certain specific transgender rights which should not be granted (but only those where another group's rights in that area would be significantly eroded as a direct consequence).



But if you prefer to hold that a general belief in transgender rights must necessarily entail a belief in every single specific area of transgender rights which have been raised for consideration - and that therefore a disbelief over even one of those specific rights somehow invalidates or contradicts a general belief in transgender rights..... well, that's your prerogative. I don't agree.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Lol. no, you can't. There is nothing at all in the DSM-V description of gender dysphoria that implies that the feeling of oneself as being the opposite sex actually means the person is the other sex in any way at all - not even in terms of gender.

TWAW is a slogan used to berate and intimidate people - especially female people - into kowtowing to the whims of male-bodied people and subordinating our needs and reasonable expectations to the whims and feelings of those males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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...

Nor does a YEC see any "anti-creationist" positions that stand up to what they consider "proper scrutiny"

When the entirety of your "scrutiny" relies on nothing but dogmatic adherence to a belief... facts and logic and reason are of little importance.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, it doesn't. It represents the POLITICALLY VALUABLE view of what gender identity is.

So... how about all of those biology experts, the psychology and psychiatric and medical experts that are very clear that TRANSWOMEN ARE WOMEN, full stop, not caveats, no semantics, end of discussion?

*sigh*

I'll find some tomorrow (it's 1.30am here). I don't know why, because you already know that this is the position endorsed by mainstream medicine. But I'll run and fetch your stick, even though my tail is far from barking.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nor does a YEC see any "anti-creationist" positions that stand up to what they consider "proper scrutiny"

When the entirety of your "scrutiny" relies on nothing but dogmatic adherence to a belief... facts and logic and reason are of little importance.

You're aware of DSM-5, right?

You're aware of the current position of mainstream medicine and science in this area, right?

You're aware that creationism is not the position of mainstream science, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

How exactly do you define "self-declaration" in this precise context?

Way to dodge the question! You're really quite good at semantic tap-dancing.

In this context, self-declaration means literally, a person decides that they are transgender, then proceeds to use that declaration of being transgender to gain access-on-demand to spaces and services that are normally segregated on the basis of biological sex. It may or may not include a "legal" declaration of their self-diagnosis.

 

[LondonJohn]

Lol. no, you can't. There is nothing at all in the DSM-V description of gender dysphoria that implies that the feeling of oneself as being the opposite sex actually means the person is the other sex in any way at all - not even in terms of gender.

TWAW is a slogan used to berate and intimidate people - especially female people - into kowtowing to the whims of male-bodied people and subordinating our needs and reasonable expectations to the whims and feelings of those males.

Who said anything about sex?

Are you still unable to conceptually separate "sex" from "gender"?


ETA: Oh and this is total radical-feminist BS, by the way

(But once again, it's very revealing as to your true beliefs and motivation)

 

[Emily's Cat]

How exactly do you define "self-declaration" in this precise context?

Way to dodge the question! You're really quite good at semantic tap-dancing.

In this context, self-declaration means literally, a person decides that they are transgender, then proceeds to use that declaration of being transgender to gain access-on-demand to spaces and services that are normally segregated on the basis of biological sex. It may or may not include a "legal" declaration of their self-diagnosis.

Oh, and just in case you "forget" the actual question that you're supposed to be answering, allow me to include it for your reference:

Self-Declaration as the sole requirement is what threatens women's rights and progress here.

Secure spaces for women will not be secure if any person making a claim to be a "woman" can enter them on their claim alone. Women's sports are already being threatened, and places for females on women's sports are being jeopardized because male-bodied people are taking the highest places and setting records as a direct result of their biology, regardless of how they feel on the inside.

Boudicca has expressed that transwomen should be eligible for women's scholarships, grants, and short-list positions, and that transwoman should be honored as women for awards and similar... which pretty much brings us right back around to losing ground in terms of female equality in the world.

Statistics pertaining to salary and promotion discrepancies, gender bias in schools and workplaces, and statistics referencing sex-differentiated crime levels... all of those become meaningless when the statistics count male people as females.

So let's let's turn this around: What rights are transgender people fighting for? What rights do they not have?

 

[Meadmaker]

For me, this sort of thing goes to the heart of the matter. As you say, it's nothing whatsoever to do with simply (cis) girls/women acting/behaving/looking like (cis) boys/men, or vice versa.

I sincerely believe that many (maybe most) people who either oppose, fear, or are confused by, the argument for transgender rights.... are fundamentally ignorant about what gender dysphoria and (trans)gender identity actually are. I think that of those who are ignorant, many (most?) of them think they know what these things are, but they don't. And then they form their own viewpoints on swampy base of ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

I think it's telling that you can't make a case that doesn't involve insulting people who disagree with you.

 

[Meadmaker]

There's a spectrum of rights which are up for discussion. Some (including all of the most important ones) are a slam-dunk, others are not.

I stated (maybe yesterday) that IMO there's a reasonable, fair discussion to be had about which rights should be granted, and which (for example) would lead to such a consequent degradation of rights for another societal group that it would be unsound to grant them.

And, for me, elite sports are a very clear example of the latter. It seems clear to me that the blanket inclusion of trans women in elite women's sports would, at a stroke, put in jeopardy the achievement and recognition of cis women in women's sports.

I've stated before, and I'll state again: one can a) believe that transgender identity is a valid, lived condition (and that, for example, trans women are women), and therefore b) believe in the concept of transgender rights, yet at the same time c) believe that there are certain specific transgender rights which should not be granted (but only those where another group's rights in that area would be significantly eroded as a direct consequence).



But if you prefer to hold that a general belief in transgender rights must necessarily entail a belief in every single specific area of transgender rights which have been raised for consideration - and that therefore a disbelief over even one of those specific rights somehow invalidates or contradicts a general belief in transgender rights..... well, that's your prerogative. I don't agree.

Excellent. So, you agree that it is possible for a person to support transgender rights even though that person does not agree that transwomen are women.

 

[LondonJohn]

Way to dodge the question! You're really quite good at semantic tap-dancing.

In this context, self-declaration means literally, a person decides that they are transgender, then proceeds to use that declaration of being transgender to gain access-on-demand to spaces and services that are normally segregated on the basis of biological sex. It may or may not include a "legal" declaration of their self-diagnosis.

Oh, and just in case you "forget" the actual question that you're supposed to be answering, allow me to include it for your reference:

What do you mean "dodging the question"? Why do you even demand that I answer a question, let alone a question which wasn't even directed at me?

In what jurisdictions can a male self-declare themselves to be a woman, on the spot?



(But incidentally, if you don't already know the answer to the question which you berated me for not answering.... then there really is no sense in having a debate here)

 

[Emily's Cat]

So let's let's turn this around: What rights are transgender people fighting for? What rights do they not have?

Okay, so far as I can tell, these are the "rights" that transgender people are asking for:

1) Right to not be fired on the basis of how they present themselves
2) Right to not be denied housing or other core necessary services on the basis of how they present themselves
3) Right to be free from abuse, harassment, and violence on the basis of how hey present themselves
4) Right to force other people to use the gendered pronouns and addresses of their choosing
5) Right to invade the sex-segregated spaces and services of other people with impunity
6) Right to replace sex-based protections under law with "gender identity" protections, even when that effectively demolishes sex as a protected class
7) Right to compete against biological females in sports competitions, without consideration for their physical advantages
8) Right to demand that other people (especially females) bow to their feelings and affirm their internal sense of what they think the other sex is like so that they don't feel bad about themselves
9) Right to coerce everyone else to comply with these demands under threat of being considered to have committed a hate crime
10) Right to do all of these things on the basis of nothing but their own say-so, with no gatekeepers, no treatment, no supervision, and with absolutely no give a **** at all about the impact this has on females

I'm 100% on board with items 1 through 3 up there.
And I am 100% against item 10.

For the rest... most of those aren't "rights" to begin with. They're fascistic domination of other people - a LOT of other people.

Almost all of those are absolute feels over reals.