Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[cullennz]

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.

Think you are over analysing

Basically to me at least.

Trans women aren't "females"

But I am OK with it if the want to be treated as "women", within reason.

 

[TomB]

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.

As I recall from the numerous times my daughter went to the ER with kidney stones, the highlighted is not how it works. They routinely collect a urine specimen in a cup which they analyze for a number of things, including pregnancy. Most people probably wouldn't even realize that pregnancy was being tested until/unless they were told the results.

The particular case you mention is an outlier. I think a bigger concern than what happened in that particular case is decisions on medications given in the ER by IV or otherwise. Both my wife and daughter have been asked if there was any possibility of pregnancy before being given things like pain medication, so I infer its possible that something harmful to a fetus could be given if the patient is assumed to be biologically male.

Also, the sexes metabolize medications differently:

Psychotropic drugs are more commonly prescribed to female patients, and young women are more sensitive to their effects. This disparity holds true even when the doses are corrected for body size. Women show a more pronounced response and are more likely to suffer unpleasant or unwanted side effects. The responses may be due to the effect of estrogen on the brain or to differences in the pharmacokinetics of the drugs.

On the other hand, tricyclic antidepressants are more effective in treating panic attacks in male patients. There is a difference in the way male brain cells bind to serotonin. Men?s serotonin receptors on platelets have fewer binding sites for serotonin than do those of women.2

Recently it was found that the effects of digoxin are gender-specific. This discovery was made after reviewing results from a large randomized study of 5281 men and 1519 women with congestive heart failure who were treated with either digoxin or placebo. The data were analyzed separately for men and women. The authors found that women, and not men, had a higher all-cause mortality when taking digoxin than when taking placebo.10

https://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/issue/2004/2004-02/2004-02-7624

But realistically, the vast majority of trans-people are rational and realize that they need to make their status clear in a medical environment. And I'm pretty sure that an unresponsive patient's status would be evident to a doctor pretty quickly.

 

[TomB]

Think you are over analysing

Basically to me at least.

Trans women aren't "females" But I am OK with it if the want to be treated as "women", within reason.

They are in Boudicca's language. I'm not sure about LondonJohn's...I think he generally uses male/female for biology and man/woman for gender.

That's my whole point. If two groups use different vocabularies, the same words can mean different things. And different words can mean the same things.

 

[Meadmaker]

As I recall from the numerous times my daughter went to the ER with kidney stones, the highlighted is not how it works. They routinely collect a urine specimen in a cup which they analyze for a number of things, including pregnancy. Most people probably wouldn't even realize that pregnancy was being tested until/unless they were told the results.

Anecdote. Hidden in spoiler because it's just a lighthearted, marginally on topic story:

When I was 16, my girlfriend was 14. She experienced abdominal pain, and was admitted to the hospital. (This was 40 years ago. Hospital admissions happened a lot easier back then, and didn't cost as much.) An X-Ray was ordered. Looking over the paperwork, my father, the X-Ray technician, saw 14 year old girl on the paperwork for an abdominal x-ray, and so looked for the pregnancy test result. Not seeing one, he picked up the paperwork to find an orderly to tell them to take the girl (my girlfriend) back until the pregnancy test results were available. As he left his office, he passed through the waiting room, and recognized my girlfriend's mother. He realized he had not looked at the name on the forms. He checked the name, recognized it, and grew very, very, nervous.

The test was negative, and the cause of the abdominal pain was never really explained. She never knew she had been tested. I broke up with the girl, but stayed friends. I only learned about the incident and the pregancy test when I was at their house one night two years later, and the mother told us the story. My father had told her why the x-ray was delayed, and they spend a nervous hour or so waiting for the test results. (Pregnancy tests were slower in those days.) My (ex) girlfriend and I were both amused, because we knew that there was no possible way that there would have been a positive test, but of course our parents did not know that.

 

[Meadmaker]

They are in Boudicca's language. I'm not sure about LondonJohn's...I think he generally uses male/female for biology and man/woman for gender.

That's my whole point. If two groups use different vocabularies, the same words can mean different things. And different words can mean the same things.

And that's related to my point that you will never see a reputable scientific source that says "transwomen are women". In the context where the question was being discussed, any reputable scientists would know that you would have to define the terms in order to make the statement. They stick to facts, not linguistic debates.

 

[cullennz]

Anecdote. Hidden in spoiler because it's just a lighthearted, marginally on topic story:

When I was 16, my girlfriend was 14. She experienced abdominal pain, and was admitted to the hospital. (This was 40 years ago. Hospital admissions happened a lot easier back then, and didn't cost as much.) An X-Ray was ordered. Looking over the paperwork, my father, the X-Ray technician, saw 14 year old girl on the paperwork for an abdominal x-ray, and so looked for the pregnancy test result. Not seeing one, he picked up the paperwork to find an orderly to tell them to take the girl (my girlfriend) back until the pregnancy test results were available. As he left his office, he passed through the waiting room, and recognized my girlfriend's mother. He realized he had not looked at the name on the forms. He checked the name, recognized it, and grew very, very, nervous.



The test was negative, and the cause of the abdominal pain was never really explained. She never knew she had been tested. I broke up with the girl, but stayed friends. I only learned about the incident and the pregancy test when I was at their house one night two years later, and the mother told us the story. My father had told her why the x-ray was delayed, and they spend a nervous hour or so waiting for the test results. (Pregnancy tests were slower in those days.) My (ex) girlfriend and I were both amused, because we knew that there was no possible way that there would have been a positive test, but of course our parents did not know that.

From vague memories of old tv programs it wasn't that long ago pregnancy tests involved rabbits or frogs

 

[Boudicca90]

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 have noticed Emily and others using older definitions and views of us. The notion that we are men who want to be women was debunked quite a while ago, but that notion persists regardless. It was the common view of us for a long time, but it wasn't accurate.

We accepted that diagnosis at the time because it was better to be seen as delusional than a freak. We know better now.

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).

Yep, I definitely disagree with you on your views on transwomen in sports, but you aren't actively denying my identity like Meadmaker or Emily do. And their denial of the existence of gender identity makes finding common ground impossible, I am realizing that more and more.

 

[Meadmaker]

Re: Gender, pregnancy, admitting forms, that sort of thing.

In one of this thread's predecessors, you can read the anecdote of a pregnant trans-man admitted to the hospital who failed to get appropriate care because s/he indicated "male" on the admitting form. The story came from a medical journal and they could not say conclusively that the baby would have lived if the care had been delivered properly.

 

[cullennz]

..

 

[cullennz]

I have noticed Emily and others using older definitions and views of us. The notion that we are men who want to be women was debunked quite a while ago, but that notion persists regardless. It was the common view of us for a long time, but it wasn't accurate.



We accepted that diagnosis at the time because it was better to be seen as delusional than a freak. We know better now.







Yep, I definitely disagree with you on your views on transwomen in sports, but you aren't actively denying my identity like Meadmaker or Emily do. And their denial of the existence of gender identity makes finding common ground impossible, I am realizing that more and more.

From what I understand no.

You are males who want to be treated as women.

And that is all cool within reason.

You just seem to not get the difference between a biologic sex and a gender preference.

Which is all good and personally will still treat you as a women within reason, but don't expect others to ignore the biological sex bit you seem to not get

 

[Boudicca90]

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)

She seems to view sex and gender as inseparable from each other, which is a view not supported by the scientific or medical communities, and hasn't been for quite a while at this point.

As this discussion goes on, I see her using more and more TERF rhetoric and tactics. Like twisting herself in all kinds of knots in order to not refer to us as female.

They are the views of a radical feminist who wants to exclude transpeople (specifically women in this case) because we don't fit her narrow definition of womanhood. And Emily, before you go saying TERF is a bigoted and inaccurate statement again, I would watch this video by Dr. McKinnon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmDauuQOOdU

 

[Ziggurat]

They are the views of a radical feminist who wants to exclude transpeople (specifically women in this case) because we don't fit her narrow definition of womanhood.

As far as I can tell, the only definition of womanhood that you have ever offered is circular.

 

[Earthborn]

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.

Most of those spaces have very little security enforcement. Any person, whether they claim to be a "woman" or not can enter them. If you think they are insufficiently secure, demand that they be made secure. Don't demand that they be more rigidly segregated, as that won't make them more secure.

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.

Seems unlikely. Sports organisations have set rules on how transwomen athletes are allowed to compete to minimise their advantage. People only complain about them having an unfair advantage if they are winning, which usually they are not.

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.

God forbid that women would have to compete in those areas against people even more disadvantaged than they are.

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.

Such statistics -- with possibly the exception of crime statistics -- are usually gathered by surveys in which people fill in their sex with no one checking whether they filled it in correctly. If transwomen had to fill in "male", statistics pertaining to salary and promotion discrepancies, gender bias in schools and workplaces would start to show a bit more equality, because studies that specifically study how transwomen fair show that they are at a significant disadvantage even compared to other women. In most studies though, the percentage of transwomen in a study is so small that they're just noise in the data.

 

[cullennz]

Most of those spaces have very little security enforcement. Any person, whether they claim to be a "woman" or not can enter them. If you think they are insufficiently secure, demand that they be made secure. Don't demand that they be more rigidly segregated, as that won't make them more secure.



Seems unlikely. Sports organisations have set rules on how transwomen athletes are allowed to compete to minimise their advantage. People only complain about them having an unfair advantage if they are winning, which usually they are not.



God forbid that women would have to compete in those areas against people even more disadvantaged than they are.



Such statistics -- with possibly the exception of crime statistics -- are usually gathered by surveys in which people fill in their sex with no one checking whether they filled it in correctly. If transwomen had to fill in "male", statistics pertaining to salary and promotion discrepancies, gender bias in schools and workplaces would start to show a bit more equality, because studies that specifically study how transwomen fair show that they are at a significant disadvantage even compared to other women. In most studies though, the percentage of transwomen in a study is so small that they're just noise in the data.

Do you mind linking to these studies.

Thanks

 

[jeremyp]

She seems to view sex and gender as inseparable from each other, which is a view not supported by the scientific or medical communities, and hasn't been for quite a while at this point.

You tell me what somebody's sex is and I'll tell you what gender they identify as with probably 99% accuracy. If not completely inseparable, sex and gender are strongly correlated.

I think, by the way, you are misrepresenting Emily's position. She has not claimed sex and gender are inseparable. In fact, she has stated on here that she is happy to accept your stated gender whilst insisting that your sex is male. That sounds like separation to me.

As this discussion goes on, I see her using more and more TERF rhetoric and tactics. Like twisting herself in all kinds of knots in order to not refer to us as female.

You are not female by Emily's definition of "female" which is based on sex. Redefining the word won't alter the fact that you were born with testes rather than ovaries.

They are the views of a radical feminist who wants to exclude transpeople (specifically women in this case) because we don't fit her narrow definition of womanhood.

No, she wants to exclude certain trans women from certain female spaces and she has arguments for why she thinks this should be so. I'd be grateful if you and the other people on your side of the debate would concentrate on addressing the arguments and omit the accusations of TERFdom and bigotry. Even if Emily is a TERF and a bigot (I don't think she is) it doesn't alter the truth or otherwise of her assertions.

 

[lionking]

You tell me what somebody's sex is and I'll tell you what gender they identify as with probably 99% accuracy. If not completely inseparable, sex and gender are strongly correlated.

I think, by the way, you are misrepresenting Emily's position. She has not claimed sex and gender are inseparable. In fact, she has stated on here that she is happy to accept your stated gender whilst insisting that your sex is male. That sounds like separation to me.



You are not female by Emily's definition of "female" which is based on sex. Redefining the word won't alter the fact that you were born with testes rather than ovaries.


No, she wants to exclude certain trans women from certain female spaces and she has arguments for why she thinks this should be so. I'd be grateful if you and the other people on your side of the debate would concentrate on addressing the arguments and omit the accusations of TERFdom and bigotry. Even if Emily is a TERF and a bigot (I don't think she is) it doesn't alter the truth or otherwise of her assertions.

You can say that again.

 

[d4m10n]

I have noticed Emily and others using older definitions and views of us. The notion that we are men who want to be women was debunked quite a while ago, but that notion persists regardless.

Which individual researchers and/or peer-reviewed studies were foremost in said debunking? Does this debunking show up in the current DSM? If so, where?

As this discussion goes on, I see her using more and more TERF rhetoric and tactics. Like twisting herself in all kinds of knots in order to not refer to us as female.

What definition of "female" are you using here? I've been using (essentially, nearly all of the time) mammals born with ova.

 

[Tippit]

I don't mean to attack you from your flank, because I generally agree with you otherwise, but...

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

I think anti-discrimination has gone too far. Shouldn't employers have the right to fire whomever they please? Should they be forced to hire mentally ill people?

2) Right to not be denied housing or other core necessary services on the basis of how they present themselves

Is there any evidence that they are already denied this right? They have the right to buy and rent property, like every other human being. If a landlord doesn't want to rent to such a person, why should the government force them to?

3) Right to be free from abuse, harassment, and violence on the basis of how hey present themselves

To what end? Should the police respond as if there is a crime when they feel insulted that their particular illness isn't indulged? This would appear to conflict somewhat with your prior statements re: hate speech. I suspect most of them would include that as abuse/harassment (and even violence, as you've pointed out).

We agree about the rest:

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.

My point here, is that if you give them an inch, they will take a mile. Mental illness should not be indulged, period. Neither should it be stigmatized. Should we indulge heroin addicts who have addiction problems by signaling the virtues of heroin use, and providing government subsidized heroin? Should we enumerate all kinds of special rights for this tiny class of angry, irrational, mentally ill, yet very loud and apparently politically influential people?

 

[Dismember]

They are the views of a radical feminist who wants to exclude transpeople (specifically women in this case)

Except that this is pretty much the opposite of what Emily’sCat has actually stated. She’s said repeatedly that she wants and would fight for trans inclusion in the majority of circumstances, with very specific exceptions which she has clearly explained. You even agreed with one of those exceptions (self-declared transwomen whose appearance and behavior are indistinguishable from cismen). If I’m remembering the gist of his posts correctly, Meadmaker has expressed largely the same views.

So you DO have a LOT of common ground but the 99% of common ground isn’t good enough because they don’t think or perceive you exactly how you want them to. IMO this is not a reasonable demand nor is it reasonable to keep mischaracterizing them with the pejorative terms “TERF” and “bigot”.

 

[xjx388]

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.

Aside from all the transsexual stuff, all I’m saying is that as they are drawing blood for other stuff from an unresponsive patient, it would literally be nothing to include a blood pregnancy test as part of routine tests done. No one has to piss on a stick.

From a larger view, I seriously doubt this will ever be a big issue in EDs. But if it becomes one, there’s an easy fix and that’s what I’m pointing out.