Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

I'm going to do some cross-threading here, because the general concept is relevant.

From "Emotional Support Animals" banned on US Flights

About ******* time.

The actual system of service animals like seeing-eye dogs had a bit of semi-formality or informality around the edges, in terms of accommodating people who needed them. But that has left open loopholes for jerks to abuse the system.

So what used to work pretty well, to accommodate people who needed accommodation, has turned into a textbook "ruined it for everyone", "this is why we can't have nice things" situation.

Agreed. Hopefully this doesn't get formalized into anything where the disabled are constantly being harangued to show their papers. The original intent was to avoid such constant harassment for the disabled to have to prove they are legitimately disabled. Especially so for non-obvious disabilities, like PTSD. Demanding someone with PTSD to show their papers all the time is probably counterproductive to accommodation. It worked for a good long time until the trend of people playing games to take their poorly trained pets everywhere.

I get the feeling this may be pretty selectively enforced on those that raise suspicion with their obviously non-working animals. It's often pretty obvious who is faking it, considering that real service animals with extensive training do not act like ordinary pets.

This is perhaps one of the biggest concerns with the concept of Self-ID alone being sufficient to grant a person status as transgender both legally and socially.

Premise: Here's a thing we can do that will accommodate a minority population and make their lives better. It's a good thing to do.

Consideration: Yes, it's a good thing, but it opens up an avenue to abuse by people not in that minority.

This is the same concern with self-id without a medical diagnosis or transition required. It's nice to do for those genuinely dysphoric people for whom the medical process introduces a significant delay to their ability to live their best life, as well as presenting potential economic barriers. I sympathize with that, very much.

On the other hand, however, it also opens up the potential for abuse by people wishing to do harm, or even just wishing to take advantage for their own convenience or benefit.

In the case of service animals, it mostly just inconveniences other people when the generosity gets abused. With Self-ID, however, it also increases risk of harm (particularly to females). It also introduces the risk of reducing access of females to services and systems intended to help females gain equality - short list positions, board and leadership quotas, etc.

 

[Aber]

The group of kids receiving puberty blockers is not included in the group that "grow out of it". The kids who are likely to "grow out of it" are not prescribed puberty blockers, at least not in the Netherlands.

So how does the clinic discriminate between the 2 groups of children?

 

[Aber]

Both Woman's Place UK and Fair Play for Women very much oppose trans people rights in regards to using restrooms consistent with their gender identity. Both groups seem consistent that trans women must be excluded by law from women only spaces.

Because British legislation is based on sex, not gender.

 

[Butter!]

Perhaps I misread PT then. Generally, if person has had full GRS and is passing very well, then I would expect *most* people to be pretty open minded about it. I can see some potential challenges arising, given that the artificial genitalia don't function the same way natural ones do, and take additional work and preparation for using. But I would think that *most* reasonable people would at least be willing to consider giving it a go.

Yeah, I think that if you (general you, of course) turn a trans person down because they still resemble their birth sex too much for your deep-seated orientation to pick up on the change, then that can't be transphobic. That's just being straight/gay/whatever. I don't know how it could be helped.

I understood Turtle to be talking about situations where everything is fine on the physical front, but the mere knowledge that a new partner or prospective partner is trans changes up the game in a negative way. I feel pretty comfortable calling that transphobia.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Because British legislation is based on sex, not gender.

I was asking in regards to this comment from EC:

There is, as you've noted, general support fortransgender people to present however they want to, use whatever bathroom they want, and to be able to live without discrimination. That's even true for some of the groups you've called out as "TERF" groups, like mumsnet and Women's Place UK, and Fair Play for Women.

Doesn't seem like this is true at all. Both WPUK and FPW explicitly take a position contrary to what EC says above. No idea if Mumsnet has a particular position one way or the other. It's a discussion forum.

This strikes me as an attempt to paint these groups as much more accepting of trans people than they really are. My reading of this makes it clear that excluding transwomen from women's spaces is a nonnegotiable element of their advocacy.

 

[Ron Obvious]

I understood Turtle to be talking about situations where everything is fine on the physical front, but the mere knowledge that a new partner or prospective partner is trans changes up the game in a negative way. I feel pretty comfortable calling that transphobia.

A completely hypothetical situation, as it's not possible to actually change one's sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I can't agree with these analogies, however, as they imply that the trans-person is revealed to either be a hideous monster or to be practicing deception. I don't think either is true.

Fair point, that wasn't my intent.

I've seen some debate on trans vlogs about when to inform a date or potential date that one is trans. I don't know that there's a good answer. Declare it whenever they meet a new person? When you think things are going in a romantic/sexual direction? When you know things are going in a sexual direction? Let it happen naturally and risk trans-panic and possibly physical assault? Assume the person already knows? Are the rules different Pre- vs post-op?

This is one issue that trans-people have to consider that non-trans people don't.

True, it's a consideration that cis-gender folks don't have to consider.

My opinion is... use reasonable judgement. If you're looking to "hook up" as opposed to forming a lasting relationship, I would think it reasonable to divulge that info up front. So, like if a person is using grindr or tinder, where it's fairly established that the matches aren't necessarily aimed at long-term stuff, it would be an upfront disclosure.

On the other hand, if you're after a longer term relationship, I'd probably say use judgement and have that discussion when it seems like there's a high likelihood of things getting physical.

I don't really think that surprise genitals is a good idea all around. In a completely ridiculous hypothetical, it seems like I might want to say "Hey, by the way... as the result of a lab accident, my cooch is neon green" before the guy heads downtown for a snack.

 

[lionking]

She was 37 when she was fighting professionally, against women in their early to mid twenties. 37 is old for any MMA fighter. She won 5 of the 6 professional fights that she fought. None of her female competitors had a record that good. Additionally, Fallon made a point of bragging about the harm she did, and expressing glee about damaging her female opponents. She herself has expressed that the reason she got into MMA fighting in the first place was that she could fight against females.


Your dislike of the advocacy group involved doesn't diminish the perspective of those girls. It's well-poisoning to use the group taking up their suit to dismiss the point that those girls were unhappy seeing girls records being smashed by male-bodied competitors who hadn't undergone any medical transition at all.


So here you are misrepresenting my view and attributing an imagined malice to me. I don't think that all transwomen are perverts. In fact, I rather think that the vast majority of transwomen are NOT perverts, just as I think the vast majority of males are NOT perverts. I do, however, think that putting self-identified transwomen who are male-bodied into a prison with females represents a risk that those female prisoners shouldn't be subjected to. Karen White (among a few others whose names I've forgotten) aren't intended to be representative of ALL transwomen. They are, however, a very clear counter to the claim that "transwomen aren't a danger to females" that gets trotted out by TRAs so frequently. Clearly, at least some transwomen are a danger to females - because they have male parts and male strength - and females have no way to tell which of those male-bodied people are a danger and which of those male-bodied people are not. Which, by the way, is why we have sex-segregated facilities in the first place.


Sure there is. Require at least 2 years of HRT bringing testosterone down to within the 90-percent range for females. Allow exceptions for those few sports where biology doesn't make a notable and measurable difference. That means, however, that untransitioned teenage males don't get to compete against teenage females.

I don't have a personal distaste for trans people - this is YOU being dishonest and arguing in bad faith. You've been provided cases of crimes committed by trans people and trans allies, you just dismiss them. You ignore the wave of threats made against feminists and females in Canada. You dismiss the sex predator getting into women's domestic violence shelters on the basis of transwomen being women, then masturbating his lady penis over the sleeping bodies of his roommates.

I don't think there is any information that could be provided to you that will make any difference in your belief. You have decided that any challenge to trans "rights" (including the right for full-grown adult male-bodied transwomen to walk around with their penises visible in front of female children) constitutes transphobia and bigotry... and that any cases of transgender people behaving badly are "outliers" or "fringe groups" and don't represent a real risk. The rampant misogyny and threats against women made online by a LARGE number of trans-identified people... those don't matter, they're not a real threat, and it's not a big deal that they harass women and lesbians on a regular basis. "Punch a TERF" is just a catchy slogan, right?

Like you already said yourself, you're perfectly happy to use women and children as the guinea pigs in this social experiment.

Exactly. What ST is ignoring or doesn’t care about is that women are being hurt physically, emotionally and financially by self identified male bodied “sportswomen” unfairly competing against them. ST clearly considers this a very minor issue. The women concerned don’t, and neither do I.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Doesn't seem like this is true at all. Both WPUK and FPW explicitly take a position contrary to what EC says above.

Can you provide the elements that you see each of those explicitly saying that are contrary to what I said?

 

[Butter!]

A completely hypothetical situation, as it's not possible to actually change one's sex.

Okay?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Exactly. What ST is ignoring or doesn’t care about is that women are being hurt physically, emotionally and financially by self identified male bodied “sportswomen” unfairly competing against them. ST clearly considers this a very minor issue. The women concerned don’t, and neither do I.

The ADF is not asking for this, they are asking that all transwomen athletes be banned entirely from women's sports.

Allying with bigots poisons the well. If you think requiring HRT is a reasonable compromise that balances the rights of both the trans athletes and the cis athletes, the involvement of the ADF is not a positive step towards that resolution.

Requiring some level of HRT is probably something I could support as well, though it's a fair point that there is no universal healthcare in this country, and many trans people are not able to afford HRT or gender-affirming surgeries that they desperately want.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't really think that surprise genitals is a good idea all around. In a completely ridiculous hypothetical, it seems like I might want to say "Hey, by the way... as the result of a lab accident, my cooch is neon green" before the guy heads downtown for a snack.

Phase 5 Marvel superhero?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Phase 5 Marvel superhero?

Don't make my vijay angry. You won't like it when it's angry.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Can you provide the elements that you see each of those explicitly saying that are contrary to what I said?

On the other hand, I don't view the majority of it as being transphobic at all. There is, as you've noted, general support fortransgender people to present however they want to, use whatever bathroom they want, and to be able to live without discrimination. That's even true for some of the groups you've called out as "TERF" groups, like mumsnet and Women's Place UK, and Fair Play for Women.

Both groups insist that women only spaces should remain women only spaces. How is this supporting trans people's right to "use whatever bathroom they want"?

FPW even published a handy dandy guide that explains exactly how excluding trans people from women's changing rooms and bathrooms is legal. It further points out that very few trans people have jumped through the legal hoops to actually have their official sex changed, so they explain how it's perfectly legal to exclude the majority of trans people who haven't met this burden. It encouraged people to demand to see trans people's papers before allowing them access to toilets.

To uphold your single-sex changing room policy you can reserve the right for staff to discreetly ask for additional information before using the service you are providing. The only legal document that confirms someones legal sex is a birth certificate. All other common forms of ID, including passport and driving licence, can now be updated on request to show someone’s self-declared gender identity so can no longer be used for the purposes of confirming legal sex class.

Fair Play for Women is so dedicated to the task of excluding trans women that they are willing to subject insufficiently femme women to the indignity of having some random shopkeep demand to see their birth certificate. How helpful of them to include that no other document is acceptable. Asking butch women to see their papers is one hell of a way to do a feminism, but that's TERF brain for ya.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/changing_rooms/


Another handy guide they put together points out that it's impossible for anyone under 18 cannot get a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), so all trans girls under 18 can be categorically excluded.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/school_toilets/

Likewise WPUK espouses that enforcement of women's only spaces must be rigorously maintained while simultaneously resisting any efforts that make it easier for trans women to have their gender identity legally recognized by the state. Both groups oppose measures that would make it easier for trans adults and especially children to have their gender identity recognized by the state, and the obvious outcome is that this means that the vast majority of trans people will be excluded.

Seems pretty clear to me that these groups are very much opposed to trans people using "whatever restroom they want".

You're the one that made the claim that these clearly trans exclusionary groups do not oppose trans women using women's restrooms? Do you have anything to support that claim?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're the one that made the claim that these clearly trans exclusionary groups do not oppose trans women using women's restrooms? Do you have anything to support that claim?

No, you're correct that those two groups oppose transgender use of single-sex spaces, including restrooms.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No, you're correct that those two groups oppose transgender use of single-sex spaces, including restrooms.

Do you support FPW's suggestion that shopkeepers start demanding to see birth certificates before allowing access to toilets?

Oh course, such a policy would likely only be applied to trans women and cis women who don't meet traditional feminine beauty standards. Passing trans women would likely not be bothered, but ugly cis women and butch cis lesbians will have to start carrying around papers to prove they are real women worthy of taking a piss.

How would you characterize such a scheme? Strikes me as deeply regressive and anti-feminist.

Does such a recommendation impact the way you see this group?

 

[TomB]

Do you support FPW's suggestion that shopkeepers start demanding to see birth certificates before allowing access to toilets?
Oh course, such a policy would likely only be applied to trans women and cis women who don't meet traditional feminine beauty standards. Passing trans women would likely not be bothered, but ugly cis women and butch cis lesbians will have to start carrying around papers to prove they are real women worthy of taking a piss.

How would you characterize such a scheme? Strikes me as deeply regressive and anti-feminist.

Does such a recommendation impact the way you see this group?

Just a comment here. The quote you posted above from FPW is specific to changing rooms, which are different than toilets:

To uphold your single-sex changing room policy you can reserve the right for staff to discreetly ask for additional information before using the service you are providing. The only legal document that confirms someones legal sex is a birth certificate. All other common forms of ID, including passport and driving licence, can now be updated on request to show someone’s self-declared gender identity so can no longer be used for the purposes of confirming legal sex class.

I don't know FPW's position on changing rooms. It probably is what you say. However, that's not what the quote you provided was referring to. I think some of the female posters here have stated that they are fine with trans-women in bathrooms, but changing rooms/locker rooms they feel have different requirements.

Allying with bigots poisons the well. If you think requiring HRT is a reasonable compromise that balances the rights of both the trans athletes and the cis athletes, the involvement of the ADF is not a positive step towards that resolution.

Agreeing with a group on a single issue or a particular instance of an issue does not make one an "ally" of that group. The fact that a bigoted group takes a position I agree with does not obligate me to abandon active support for that position. Nor does the involvement of a bigoted group mean weighing in on the same side of a particular issue or instance imply that you support that bigoted group or their ideology.

If you want an analogy, agreeing with BLM that policing needs to change, does not mean that you are allied with antifa or defund the police groups. It means that you have the same position on a particular issue.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Just a comment here. The quote you posted above from FPW is specific to changing rooms, which are different than toilets:


I don't know FPW's position on changing rooms. It probably is what you say. However, that's not what the quote you provided was referring to. I think some of the female posters here have stated that they are fine with trans-women in bathrooms, but changing rooms/locker rooms they feel have different requirements.


Agreeing with a group on a single issue or a particular instance of an issue does not make one an "ally" of that group. The fact that a bigoted group takes a position I agree with does not obligate me to abandon active support for that position. Nor does the involvement of a bigoted group mean weighing in on the same side of a particular issue or instance imply that you support that bigoted group or their ideology.

If you want an analogy, agreeing with BLM that policing needs to change, does not mean that you are allied with antifa or defund the police groups. It means that you have the same position on a particular issue.

Sure, but in the specific example of the CT trans athlete case, supporting the plantiffs means supporting the ADF's position.

Whether or not you agree with these girls who think it's an unfair situation that should be rectified, taking legal aid from a bigoted group like the ADF damages their credibility.

The ADF lawyers recently tried to have the judge recused after he ordered that they stop referring to the transgender girl athletes as men. They found this order for common courtesy so objectionable they're trying to get the judge thrown off the case. The ADF is involved now, bigotry is the goal, not fairness.

 

[cullennz]

Okay?

It is.

Trans people change their gender, not their sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure, but in the specific example of the CT trans athlete case, supporting the plantiffs means supporting the ADF's position.

No it doesn't.