Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

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.

No.

Because to believe that transwomen are not women is to deny the validity of transgender identity itself.

And that's fundamentally different from believing in the validity of transgender identity (and of transgender rights in general).... but believing in the denial on certain very specific transgender rights (and tthen, only on the basis that other groups' rights would be unjustly and disproportionately eroded as a result).

 

[Meadmaker]

What do you mean "dodging the question"?

She means this:

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)

 

[LondonJohn]

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

How would you, for example, respond to an argument that homosexuality is not real, that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that (on those grounds) gay rights and protections should not exist?

If you figure that out, you might start to understand the way in which I address arguments that transgender identity is not real etc.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 sincerely wish you would at least attempt to read what other people are saying with an open mind, rather than assuming a combination of idiocy and malice from those who disagree with you.

Almost all of the females in this thread who have spoken out against self-declaration and some of the things that TRAs are demanding are speaking from a position of acknowledging increased vulnerability, risk, and the erosion of hard-won rights and protections for females - who STILL have unequal representation in society and who STILL Face abhorrent levels of sexual violence and sexism.

Almost all of us are fed up with the callous disregard for the rights of females, the ease with which you dismiss our voices. The casualness with which you toss aside the well-being and equality of half the population in favor of a minute percentage that share a genetic inheritance with you is simply staggering.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

In real life a significant number of female records have been smashed to bits by male-bodied people who have some mysterious "essence of womanhood" inside of their minds that is more important to them and their evangelists than the physical and social reality of actual females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I just laughed a trinidad sour out of my nose. I don't recommend it, it was highly unpleasant.

You can "disagree" but the lie is shown by your own behavior. Failure to accept every single one of those beliefs is what has resulted in me, and other females, being labeled as bigots, terfs, transphobes, and other dismissive, denigrating, and highly insulting terms. Failure to roll-over and accept every aspect of those "rights" that are being demanded is exactly what you and several others have used as a means to bludgeon and intimidate females with in order to coerce our submission to the demands of the TRAs.

ETA: Oh, yes, I forgot - your post was responding to a fellow male, so of course, they merit more respect and dignity than we mere females do.

 

[Meadmaker]

Because to believe that transwomen are not women is to deny the validity of transgender identity itself.

And that's fundamentally different from believing in the validity of transgender identity (and of transgender rights in general).... but believing in the denial on certain very specific transgender rights (and tthen, only on the basis that other groups' rights would be unjustly and disproportionately eroded as a result).

Ok. So, there's a difference between believing in transgender rights in general, but denying certain specific rights, versus denying of transgender rights in general, but granting certain specific rights. And these are different even if the end result in terms of rights granted or denied is the same.

Well, ok. That's not ridiculous. I'm not sure it's useful, but whatever.


Oh, by the way, your first sentence is not supported by mainstream science.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

I am aware that you have taken a surface level reading of a MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS and have extrapolated that, on the basis of nothing other than your zealous devotion to an irrational ideology, to some kind of dogmatic absolute truth that allows you to assume into being facts that are not actually in evidence.

Pshaw. And you have the nerve, the sheer gall, to consider yourself a rational skeptic. You're nothing more than a religious adherent to an absurd tenet.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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)

Frankly, this is an idiotic rejoinder. Do you deny that transwomen are male-bodied? What kind of fantasy world are you inhabiting?

 

[Meadmaker]

How would you, for example, respond to an argument that homosexuality is not real, that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that (on those grounds) gay rights and protections should not exist?

I would respond thusly:

Statement Response
Homosexuality is not real: Obviously, it is, and if it were not, we wouldn't have anything to talk about.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder The best research available says it is a permanent condition. It cannot be "cured". It harms no one. Calling it a "disorder" doesn't mean anything.

Therefore gay rights should not exist Your premises are false, and your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Your argument is neither valid nor sound.

If you figure that out, you might start to understand the way in which I address arguments that transgender identity is not real etc.

So I figured it out, and I assure you that I understand the way you address arguments. For example, I understand that the way you ended the above statement is a straw man argument. No one in this thread says that transgender identity is not real.

I think it's telling that you can't make a case without insulting the people who disagree with you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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)

I have observed that you almost never actually engage in discussion. Rather, you engage in condescending dismissals of people who disagree with you, appeals to arbitrary and unfounded authority (including your own without even the benefit of providing a reason we should accept your authority on a matter), and a rank disregard and denigration of females, quite specifically.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because to believe that transwomen are not women is to deny the validity of transgender identity itself.

Not it isn't. To accept the reality that transwomen are not women is to refuse to allow wishes to be treated as fact.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok. So, there's a difference between believing in transgender rights in general, but denying certain specific rights, versus denying of transgender rights in general, but granting certain specific rights. And these are different even if the end result in terms of rights granted or denied is the same.

Well, ok. That's not ridiculous. I'm not sure it's useful, but whatever.


Oh, by the way, your first sentence is not supported by mainstream science.

It is the very definition of ridiculous. But that's merely my opinion, and given that I'm female, my opinion carries very little weight, of course.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I should not post when I have been drinking. I shall sign off forthwith.

 

[d4m10n]

...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.

It was my understanding that "trans women are women" was intended as a statement of moral principle as to how both groups should be treated.

Once you start making exceptions for sports and changing rooms, it's difficult to see what the statement should really be taken to mean.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[caveman1917]

I should not post when I have been drinking.

Why not? Makes it more fun to read. Personally I have a rule that I never post unless I'm stoned.

 

[xjx388]

Which they won't do if the person in front of them is listed as male on the intake form.

If it started becoming a problem in medical facilities, it would be nothing to simply make pregnancy tests routine no matter if M or F is listed on the intake sheet. A pregnancy test is super cheap.

 

[theprestige]

If it started becoming a problem in medical facilities, it would be nothing to simply make pregnancy tests routine no matter if M or F is listed on the intake sheet. A pregnancy test is super cheap.

It's not cheap in terms of human dignity. Why should a cismale have to piss on a pregnancy strip, just because transmen can't be trusted to be open and honest about their fully functional uteruses that might actually have a baby inside?

This is something that has actually happened.

This is something that leads me to question the rationality of trans activists, and the sanity of transsexuals. The same way I question the sanity of paranoid schizophrenics. They moment you sacrifice medical accuracy to subjectivity perception is the moment you start to lose me as an ally.

 

[cullennz]

If it started becoming a problem in medical facilities, it would be nothing to simply make pregnancy tests routine no matter if M or F is listed on the intake sheet. A pregnancy test is super cheap.

What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

 

[TomB]

No.

Because to believe that transwomen are not women is to deny the validity of transgender identity itself.

No.

It's possible to believe that transgender identity is real, valid, and important, but that it is not the same identity as women.

For starters, no one is saying that transwomen are the same as cis-women. But what perspective one terms "cis-women" perspective 2 terms "women." Therefore the statement in the language of perspective one that:

"Trans-women and cis-women are different."

Can be translated into the language of perspective two as:

"Trans-women and women are different."

Those two statements say the same thing, just in different languages...or rather vocabularies.

So it is possible to believe that trans-women are not women (by the speaker's definition of woman) and yet fully support transgender rights.

You can also say "trans-women are not women" and also say "trans-women are not men, either."

How? Even if sex is binary, there's no reason that gender need be. And I'm not talking about things like autismgender (https://gender.wikia.org/wiki/Neurogender )

One could consider trans-woman (or trans-man) to be an identity/gender in and of itself that doesn't need to be the same as "woman" to be valid. In the end you still have to decide which facilities are segregated, whether they are segregated by sex/gender, and (for those segregated by gender) which gender uses which facility. But all genders would still be equally real and valid.

Frankly, I think the "Are trans-women women" argument gets in the way of a lot of practical common ground as well as resolution of trickier issues. For some women, and I'm guessing those who have devoted a significant part of themselves into feminist causes (yes, radical feminists...not meant as an insult) claiming what they regard as their identity for someone else probably feels like an attack. It puts them on the defensive and results in needless antagonism.