Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[The Atheist]

So if you then decide it is no good and want to go back to being a women you would be a trans women, as for a while you were a man.

Once upon a time it was funny when some comedian claimed to identify as a gay fur seal.

Now it's reality.

 

[Pixel42]

Coming late to this thread via a nomination so apologies for butting in without reading the whole thing, but I just wanted to say that what bothers me about this whole thing is the stereotyping. A man likes wearing high heels and makeup, therefore he must really be a woman in the inside? No, he's a man who likes wearing high heels and makeup, and what's wrong with that. I'm a woman who has never worn high heels or makeup in her life, so what?

I look forward to a future when there is just one set of pronouns and no one knows or cares about gender. People will undoubtedly still divide everybody else into "people I find sexually attractive" and people I don't find sexually attractive", but no one except those involved will give a toss who's in anyone else's categories.

 

[cullennz]

Coming late to this thread via a nomination so apologies for butting in without reading the whole thing, but I just wanted to say that what bothers me about this whole thing is the stereotyping. A man likes wearing high heels and makeup, therefore he must really be a woman in the inside? No, he's a man who likes wearing high heels and makeup, and what's wrong with that. I'm a woman who has never worn high heels or makeup in her life, so what?

I look forward to a future when there is just one set of pronouns and no one knows or cares about gender. People will undoubtedly still divide everybody else into "people I find sexually attractive" and people I don't find sexually attractive", but no one except those involved will give a toss who's in anyone else's categories.

And we can all wear the same clothes. Like Grey non gendered overalls, all drive the same car, all have the same phone and all be named a non gendered name like Jamie.

And all eat the same diet. Handed out each week so no one gets it wrong and accidently shows signs of a personality.

 

[Pixel42]

And we can all wear the same clothes. Like Grey non gendered overalls, all drive the same car, all have the same phone and all be named a non gendered name like Jamie.

And all eat the same diet. Handed out each week so no one gets it wrong and accidently shows signs of a personality.

No idea how you get any of this from my post. My whole point is that people should be able to wear/do whatever they like, without being immediately labelled as a particular gender as a result of those choices. There would almost certainly be more variety in what people wear or buy, not less.

 

[cullennz]

No idea how you get any of this from my post. My whole point is that people should be able to wear/do whatever they like, without being immediately labelled as a particular gender as a result of those choices. There would almost certainly be more variety in what people wear or buy, not less.

Fair point I apologise.

But that isn't what is happening or looks likely to.

We have already gone from 4 genders

Man
Woman
Trans man
Trans women

To an infinite number of groupings on an apparent gender spectrum. Each wanting their own voice heard in the great identity politics based world we are now living in.

 

[The Atheist]

Coming late to this thread via a nomination so apologies for butting in without reading the whole thing,...

If you'd rad the whole thing I'd be questioning your sanity! Or masochism status.

~20,000 posts, of which about 19,000 are repeating something long since said.

Except for my posts, which are informative, entertaining and you should rea them all.

A man likes wearing high heels and makeup, therefore he must really be a woman in the inside? No, he's a man who likes wearing high heels and makeup, and what's wrong with that. I'm a woman who has never worn high heels or makeup in her life, so what?

I think you're wrongly conflating trans and cross-dressing, which is not necessarily a gender thing - as far as I understand it, cross-dressing's mostly just fetish, but I'm probably CERFing* it by saying that.

*Cross-dresser Exclusionary Radical Feminist

I look forward to a future when there is just one set of pronouns and no one knows or cares about gender.

Jonathan Swift was on that track 300 years ago.

The human race has come a long way since then.

People will undoubtedly still divide everybody else into "people I find sexually attractive" and people I don't find sexually attractive", but no one except those involved will give a toss who's in anyone else's categories.

Which kinda segues into something that bugs the crap out of me - celebrities who come out as bisexual. Who the hell cares!

Back before all the groups were invented, they were just horny bastards. Now, they need to carry a label for authenticity.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I do indeed think that's the nub of the issue.


You start with a premise that discrimination is bad. I don't think that's true at all. Nature discriminates. Discrimination is not inherently evil.

'We' as a society have decided that discrimination against people based on certain characteristics is bad. Race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation. Of course we also acknowledge that it might be necessary at times. But you don't just assume it's necessary without doing the work of showing it. I'm genuinely trying to understand why this would be worrisome or troubling to anyone.

I have a feeling that will raise a "why not?" question. Or a whole bunch of other questions, but I think that is shifting the burden of proof. I want to do something (i.e. to discriminate.) If you want to pass laws against me doing that thing, (i.e. discriminating), I think it is on you to prove why that discrimination ought not be allowed.

Then we fundamentally disagree. I think the burden of proof is on those who want to deny things to others. In any case,we have already been through the process as a society of saying that it is not OK to discriminate willy-nilly.

When it comes to discriminating between trans-girls and biological girls, I'm perfectly willing to defend that discrimination, and have done so throughout these threads, and I have no intention of stopping.

Loads of people are perfectly willing to defend all sorts of discrimination. Is it troubling and worrisome that others disagree? If you think it's justified then that is a different argument to saying it is worrying and troubling to have to justify it.

If you want me to explain why discrimination based on skin color or ancestry is almost always bad, I could do that, too, but this isn't really the thread for it.

No need to explain to me something that I agree with. what I have asked for an explanation of is why it is worrying and troublesome that people should not be allowed to discriminate against transpeople with no justification. Which was the position being argued here.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That is as a direct answer as I can give. If my occupation was dealing with female bodies there is no way in a million years I would expect to have to deal with a male one because men and women are different.

It wasn't an answer at all. It was a politicians answer.

A simple yes or no is what is required. If you can't provide that then you are avoiding the question.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Coming late to this thread via a nomination so apologies for butting in without reading the whole thing, but I just wanted to say that what bothers me about this whole thing is the stereotyping. A man likes wearing high heels and makeup, therefore he must really be a woman in the inside? No, he's a man who likes wearing high heels and makeup, and what's wrong with that. I'm a woman who has never worn high heels or makeup in her life, so what?

I look forward to a future when there is just one set of pronouns and no one knows or cares about gender. People will undoubtedly still divide everybody else into "people I find sexually attractive" and people I don't find sexually attractive", but no one except those involved will give a toss who's in anyone else's categories.

A transwoman is not just a man that likes wearing high heels.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If there is a quota for women representation, and the quota is only being met and not exceeded, then yes, as a matter of fact, it IS a zero-sum relationship to include transwomen under that quota. This is obvious.

I'm not aware of there generally being specific quotas for things but if they are then they would surely be proportional so if you increase the numerator by the number of transwomen hired you also increase the denominator by the number of transwomen in the population. So the impact should be a wash.

As always it seems, what is obvious to you about trans issues may not be the case.

 

[Meadmaker]

No idea how you get any of this from my post. My whole point is that people should be able to wear/do whatever they like, without being immediately labelled as a particular gender as a result of those choices. There would almost certainly be more variety in what people wear or buy, not less.

I think that's where a lot of us are at with this debate, at least when it comes to doing whatever we like. However, the labelling of people by gender....or sex...or something....is going to happen and is not something we are going to grow out of. In my opinion, we shouldn't grow out of it. It helps perpetuate the species.

What I think most of us do want, though, is to reduce or end the pressure to conform to behavioral stereotypes imposed because of our sex. Whether it's wearing high heels, or knitting, or watching NASCAR or playing Chess, people should be able to do those things, without judgement, regardless of what we look like with no clothes on.

The real controversies come in, though, when some people insist that they have one sort of body, but that society must treat them in all ways as if there is this very real, very important, thing called "gender", which is often associated with one sort of body, but their body is different, but they still have to be treated as the other sort of body, but, it gets very confusing to even explain, so let's cut to the chase.

The real controversy comes in when a girl on the swim team is told that she has to take her clothes off in front of someone who has a dick, and if she doesn't like that she is a horrible, hateful, bigot.

The other area of controversy is that she has to compete athletically against someone who is has a biological advantage that she has no hope of overcoming.

At least among people here, that's what it's all about. Elsewhere in the world, there are people who care who you sleep with and what sort of underwear you are wearing, but the people here figure those are your own issues and more power to you if you defy the conventions, but we draw the line at actually declaring that a man is really a woman, so stop complaining when "she" sees you naked.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Rather than just continue the same back and forth, I'm curious about the issue of the Labour Party including trans women on their shortlist or other quota systems.

Is there any good data that this is actually a meaningful controversy among Labour Party members? One source claimed that 300 people resigned in protest to the trans-inclusive stance, of a party of some 500,000.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43962349

Inclusion of self-identifying trans women for these positions seems to be the official party line.

 

[Meadmaker]

'We' as a society have decided that discrimination against people based on certain characteristics is bad. Race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation. Of course we also acknowledge that it might be necessary at times.

What muddies the water and confuses people is that the word "against" is added to the word "discriminate". If we have separate locker rooms or separate sports leagues, we are discriminating, but we are not "discriminating against" anyone.

I am in no way diminished or harmed if I am not allowed to join a women's track competition. It is discrimination to exclude me from that competition, but there is no "against".

We, as a society, never signed up to stop acknowledging the differences between men and women when we said that men and women should get equal pay for equal work, or that men and women should be able to pursue certain careers. However, a lot of those societal changes were accomplished under the banner or "non-discrimination", and now that is used as a magical incantation to force all sorts of changes that we, as a society, aren't really keen on.

 

[Manger Douse]

It wasn't an answer at all. It was a politicians answer.

A simple yes or no is what is required. If you can't provide that then you are avoiding the question.

The Post Office discriminated against me today by refusing to sell me a dozen sausages - should I nail a rat to the front door or just threaten to rape them with a barbed wire wrapped baseball bat do you think?

 

[Meadmaker]

Then we fundamentally disagree. I think the burden of proof is on those who want to deny things to others.

My sister wants a locker room where she can change clothes with no males present. You want to deny her that.

I want to build a building that has separate bathrooms for males and females. You want to deny me that right.

I want to watch a sporting competition where all the participants are women. You want to deny me that opportunity.

Selina Soule wanted to go to the New England girls' track championships. The policies that you advocated denied her that opportunity.

Look in the mirror to find someone who is denying people things that they want.

 

[Pixel42]

The real controversy comes in when a girl on the swim team is told that she has to take her clothes off in front of someone who has a dick, and if she doesn't like that she is a horrible, hateful, bigot.

Personally I don't like getting undressed in front of anyone I don't know, even if they're the same gender as me. I think the vast majority of people would say the same.

So my solution to the locker room problem: one long locker room, lockers on one wall, individual lockable changing/shower cubicles on the other. Everyone gets their privacy.

The other area of controversy is that she has to compete athletically against someone who is has a biological advantage that she has no hope of overcoming.

OK, I can see that's a genuine issue for people who like to compete athletically. Not something I care about at all, so I have no suggestion to make. Well, other than to hope that eventually everyone comes to share my opinion of such pointless competitiveness. I mean, what's wrong with just working to beat your own previous personal best for your own satisfaction? I've seen people devastated by coming second in something. Competitive sport, it seems to me, is just lots of misery for the many in return for an ego boost for the few.

 

[Meadmaker]

Personally I don't like getting undressed in front of anyone I don't know, even if they're the same gender as me. I think the vast majority of people would say the same.

So my solution to the locker room problem: one long locker room, lockers on one wall, individual lockable changing/shower cubicles on the other. Everyone gets their privacy.

I think most people here, and a lot of people in society, favor that solution, but it is in fact more costly and less convenient than traditional locker rooms. There really is a tradeoff.

Also, at least one study that has been widely cited in this thread or its predecessors showed that locker rooms that followed that design in the UK had higher incidence of sexual harassment and assault.

Still, I suspect that this sort of arrangement will be more common in new construction.

OK, I can see that's a genuine issue for people who like to compete athletically. Not something I care about at all, so I have no suggestion to make. Well, other than to hope that eventually everyone comes to share my opinion of such pointless competitiveness. I mean, what's wrong with just working to beat your own previous personal best for your own satisfaction? I've seen people devastated by coming second in something. Competitive sport, it seems to me, is just lots of misery for the many in return for an ego boost for the few.

I referred to this attitude a page or two ago. People who are very keen on trans-inclusion in sports tend to be people who don't like sports.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What muddies the water and confuses people is that the word "against" is added to the word "discriminate". If we have separate locker rooms or separate sports leagues, we are discriminating, but we are not "discriminating against" anyone.

I am in no way diminished or harmed if I am not allowed to join a women's track competition. It is discrimination to exclude me from that competition, but there is no "against".

I don't see it as muddying the waters at all. Discrimination is always 'against' someone. In that there has to be a recipient for it to be discrimination. It may be in your opinion justified or unjustified which I think is what you are trying to get at here. Gender segregated sports have been justified based on allowing woman an opportunity to compete and win in their own competitions.

Separate but equal has always been troublesome in many ways. In some very important ones but also in some less obvious one. Separate soccer teams in schools for example can mean here that girls don't get a chance to play soccer because there aren't enough girls to make a team. If they aren't allowed to play with the boys (which many weren't in the past) then they don't get to play. Separate gender segregated golf clubs have long been fought against by those who advocate for women's rights.

Incidentally what are your thoughts on all-male golf clubs or social clubs? Should it be OK to exclude women from these?

We, as a society, never signed up to stop acknowledging the differences between men and women when we said that men and women should get equal pay for equal work, or that men and women should be able to pursue certain careers. However, a lot of those societal changes were accomplished under the banner or "non-discrimination", and now that is used as a magical incantation to force all sorts of changes that we, as a society, aren't really keen on.

Nobody is arguing for stopping acknowledging the differences between men and women. What at best is being argued is to stop using 'differences between men and women' as an automatic unthinking excuse for discrimination.

We see it with the guff that 'women just don't want to do STEM' because lady-brains are different.

The other thing I object to here is 'we as a society aren't keen on' where again anti-trans arguments are assumed to be the majority view. We as a society aren't keen on bigotry and discrimination. If you want to be able to do it then you are going to have to justify it. And repeatedly asserting things as obvious or not needing justification doesn't cut it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The Post Office discriminated against me today by refusing to sell me a dozen sausages - should I nail a rat to the front door or just threaten to rape them with a barbed wire wrapped baseball bat do you think?

It's great to see the anti trans lobby adopting such well thought out arguments.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you're wrongly conflating trans and cross-dressing, which is not necessarily a gender thing - as far as I understand it, cross-dressing's mostly just fetish,

It is much more complex than that. Some there are gender non conforming men too for example, they identify as men but wear dresses and such as habbit. But you are correct that being trans is not about what clothes someone wears.