• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man, it must really cause you great distress that most parts of the civilized world are seeing growing trans acceptance and that the TERFs are increasingly fighting a losing battle.

How long do you really think is left before the transphobes are fully repudiated within liberal circles? A decade? 50 years? Surely not much longer.

Seems to me that transphobes will soon have no political home outside the reactionary right. They'll probably have to dump the feminism if they want to be accepted by their new friends though.

That's an eye-opening post.

Yep, you're right. Females are being pushed out by the left, and the only place left that gives a **** about female rights is... the right. Which of course, does mean that females would have to give up on feminism.

So the solution seems to be... "Back to the kitchen!".

And you wonder why so many females oppose this approach?
 
Progress is putting males into female leadership spots and silencing any females that disagree! Yay progress!

Seriously, though. How is it that you both seem so at ease with reducing the number of females being represented? If you really want to increase diversity and inclusiveness, why don't you give up male seats to transpeople? Why is it okay to take them away from females, who are already under-represented?

Would you support allowing biologically white transracial people to take seats allocated to minorities who are under-represented?

If you take the view, as I do, that trans women are women then there is no loss of women's representation.

I suppose inclusion of previously excluded groups does dilute the power of those who are already in the club. Yes, allowing blacks into baseball meant there were less white players.

Whether or not this inclusion is something to mourn depends on your viewpoint. Every role filled by a transwoman is one that might have been filled with a ciswoman had the exclusion remained in effect.

Seeing how transwomen are women, the goal of such a quota is still met.
 
Last edited:
Seeing how transwomen are women, the goal of such a quota is still met.

Not only does this assume a definition of "woman" that is not universally accepted, it also assumes what the goal of the quotas actually is. For many supporters of such quotas, no, that doesn't still meet their goals. You were correct when you said, "Whether or not this inclusion is something to mourn depends on your viewpoint." But then you simply dismissed any alternative viewpoint to your own. That isn't persuasive.
 
Progress is putting males into female leadership spots and silencing any females that disagree!

A little wrinkle you may have missed; the Tory party is of course the one that has had 2 female leaders, and the Labour party while having women only shortlists for MPs has not yet had a female leader.
 
I find this brief letter in Scientific American says it better than I ever could.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

The whole thing is pretty short and worth a read, but the concluding paragraph is below for brevity:



The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is doing a lot more non-scientific judgement than they like to let on.

That article is ********, and shame on Scientific American for publishing it. Sex is NOT a spectrum. It is binary. It's binary in all mammals, and most other creatures too. It is literally a case of "large immobile gamete" versus "small mobile gamete". There is not third gamete. None at all.

This person should have their Biology degree revoked for saying things like this:

The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.
...
Simply put, the idea of a sexual binary isn’t scientifically useful, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the brain.
...
Transgender humans represent the complexity and diversity that are fundamental features of life, evolution and nature itself. That is a fact.
 
Boudica's mind is stuck at "I'm a woman, therefore I go in woman space" and nothing will shift her from that.

Emily's is at "I don't want penises in my women only space, whether they are attached to men or women."

Round peg, square hole, someone make them fit.

I don't care. I have zero horses in this race. I only care about making other people feel safe and happy and accepted. Give me a solution everyone even 75% accepts and I'll hump it like sex doll.

I can't choose between transphobe and rape enabler.

Then get out of the discussion. You say you have no horse in this race... but you keep insisting on coming in here and telling us all how much you don't care. Oh, and how unfair it is to you to not know what the rules are.

And FFS, casting me as a transphobe and Boudicca as a rape enabler is infantile and incredibly insulting to us both. That represents neither of our views, and is just ******* rude.

So if you truly don't care... then please stop telling us how much you don't care.
 
Overall, this was a really good post, AGG. It's nice to see you lay out your perspective in more detail.


I'm curious if you have any references for this? I haven't seen this expressed within the context of transgender topics ever.

("this", above, referred to the belief that gender doesn't exist.)

I have certainly heard that view expressed in right wing sources.

Even on this thread, there is no one who says "it doesn't exist", but a lot of people have expressed doubt about its existence as a neurological phenomenon that is immutable and truly a part of a person's existence or experience.

I, myself, have no idea what "gender" actually is. I totally understand the idea of gender dysphoria, but I'm not sure of what gender actually is when describing a person. If someone says that a person is "really" female, despite having male anatomy, because their gender is female, I honestly don't know whether to call that a real aspect of their identity, or a delusion, or a desire, or just a set of behaviors.
 
That article is ********, and shame on Scientific American for publishing it. Sex is NOT a spectrum. It is binary.

The argument that it is seems to be based on a conflation between sex itself (binary) and sexual characteristics, which can in some cases be a spectrum. But that's a bad argument to make.
 
Boudica's mind is stuck at "I'm a woman, therefore I go in woman space" and nothing will shift her from that.

Emily's is at "I don't want penises in my women only space, whether they are attached to men or women."

IIRC E’s Cat *is* fine with transwomen in her space if they are making at least *some* attempt at “passing” as female. The idea is that if they’re putting in at least some effort, they’re generally far less likely to be an opportunistic predator.

The trans”women” EC was concerned about were the ordinary bearded “cis men” who were making zero changes but simply self-identifying as a woman and demanding that natal females accept that solely on the “transwoman”’s say-so. Incidentally, Boudicca actually agreed that someone of that description shouldn’t be using a ladies room, but when EC continued to the crux of the matter — namely, if we agree they shouldn’t be there, as long as they “identify as” a woman on what grounds do we exclude them? — Boudicca had no answer. Just right back to self-identifying being all that’s necessary and that transwomen are entitled to every last bit of private spaces that natal females set aside for themselves.

I can't choose between transphobe and rape enabler.

I agree. I don’t think it’s fair or realistic to act as if it’s this strict dichotomy when there are plenty of people who don’t fit any reasonable definition of “TERF” or “bigot” but still want to have *some* biological-sex-based protections left for natal females. I don’t understand why that is considered unreasonable or why TRAs pretend this middle ground doesn’t exist.
 
I find this brief letter in Scientific American says it better than I ever could.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

The whole thing is pretty short and worth a read, but the concluding paragraph is below for brevity:



The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is doing a lot more non-scientific judgement than they like to let on.

That article has some good things in it, but fundamentally is using a straw man definition of biological sex. When you define biological sex as the type of gamete the organism produces - fewer and bigger, versus more and smaller - things are nearly completely binary, and is and has been extremely useful and even crucial for biology. I'm not a biologist, but Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution Is True is one, and that's where I read about this.
 
If you take the view, as I do, that trans women are women then there is no loss of women's representation.

I suppose inclusion of previously excluded groups does dilute the power of those who are already in the club. Yes, allowing blacks into baseball meant there were less white players.

Whether or not this inclusion is something to mourn depends on your viewpoint. Every role filled by a transwoman is one that might have been filled with a ciswoman had the exclusion remained in effect.

Seeing how transwomen are women, the goal of such a quota is still met.

You persistently present women as being equivalent to white males. Do you truly view females as the oppressor in society?

Yes, i get that you view transwomen as women. That's abundantly clear. I, on the other hand, view the vast majority of transwomen as males. It's not about their gender identity. It's about their childhood conditioning and their lived experience, and their ability to represent the views of a class of people in politics.

I don't think that a person born male, raised male, and conditioned male can effectively and appropriately represent the views and needs of females. Especially because a rather large amount of discrimination against women is rooted in reproductive capacity, and a large amount of the barriers we face socially and politically are a result of our biology. Those are views that a male-born person, even if they transitioned in childhood, cannot represent or experience.

Females are discriminated against in the workplace. We still don't make as much as males do. Some of that is deeply held social views that females are primarily supposed to fill the role of mother and caregiver, not provider. Some of that is also due to the assumption that a female *might* miss some work to have a baby. Neither of those are barriers to males, and they aren't barriers to transwomen either.

Females are discriminated against in leadership and politics. We are still underrepresented. Some of that is the deeply held social view that females aren't suited for making "tough calls" because we're evolutionarily wired to be conciliatory peacemakers and carers. Some of it is because there's an assumption that we'll get bent out of shape during "that time of the month" and be completely unable to work with. Neither of those are barriers to males, and they aren't barriers to transwomen either.

Females are disproportionately subjected to sexual violence by males. We are physically weaker and smaller, and can be physically dominated and overpowered by most males. We are also at risk of unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape. Our claims to sexual and domestic abuse are frequently dismissed on the assumption that we must have done something to encourage it or to deserve it. Most domestic abuse and sexual assaults are not even investigated, and are depressingly underreported. While males can be raped, they are nearly always raped by other males. And even then, the likelihood of being physically overpowered is significantly lower for a male than for a female. A raped male doesn't face the additional risk of pregnancy. And although most male victims of rape do not speak out (thanks stupid gender roles and forced masculine stereotypes), when they do they are taken seriously and are rarely assumed to be lying or conniving or vengeful. This is a constellation of barriers that females face, that are significantly less of an issue for males, even transwomen.

You can adopt the slogan that transwomen are women, and support the view that society should treat their gender expression and presentation as valid. I have no objection to that view, and I support it as well.

But at the end of the day, transwomen are a subset of males, and cannot represent the views and needs of females effecetively.

Replacinng female seats in leadership and politics with transwomen does NOT address the continuing discrimination that females face. A transwoman, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot speak for females.

That's been repeatedly shown in this thread. Boudicca, as well as you, AGG, and LJ, have repeatedly dismissed physical sex as "unimportant". Despite several females in this thread explaining the ways in which sex is NOT trivial to us, and is actually a very large element of continuing discrimination against females, you continue to view it as "not a big deal". I can only conclude that because you are male, sex is not a big deal to you, and the fact that it is a big deal to females is of no account in your perspective.

For time out of mind, females have been told that their concerns, their needs, their dignity, and their safety is "no big deal", and that we're overreacting and getting hysterical about nothing important. Not because it isn't important - but because it's not important to males.
 
So we're just accepting that there is no grey area between "transphobia" and "You're magical special girl-penis doesn't get to go places that a normal male penis doesn't"

Like we stopped seeing any difference between homophobia and the belief that marriage is just between a man and a woman.
 
Even on this thread, there is no one who says "it doesn't exist", but a lot of people have expressed doubt about its existence as a neurological phenomenon that is immutable and truly a part of a person's existence or experience.

Got it there is no one declaring it does not exist they are merely asking questions about if it really exists or not. Like no one denies the holocaust they are just asking questions about the common narrative.
 
I agree. I don’t think it’s fair or realistic to act as if it’s this strict dichotomy when there are plenty of people who don’t fit any reasonable definition of “TERF” or “bigot” but still want to have *some* biological-sex-based protections left for natal females. I don’t understand why that is considered unreasonable or why TRAs pretend this middle ground doesn’t exist.

One of the problems is that activism now tends to attract the most toxic members of basically any group. Not all activists are toxic people, but the proportion of toxic people among activists of any stripe are going to be much higher than for the population as a whole. And that's because, unfortunately, activism can actually reward people for toxic behavior. So we see demands being made that can in many cases exceed what the community they supposedly represent actually want.
 
That article has some good things in it, but fundamentally is using a straw man definition of biological sex. When you define biological sex as the type of gamete the organism produces - fewer and bigger, versus more and smaller - things are nearly completely binary, and is and has been extremely useful and even crucial for biology. I'm not a biologist, but Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution Is True is one, and that's where I read about this.

Of course if they are not producing gamete's they have no biological sex and people find the idea that at menopause women stop being biologically female while accurate somewhat questionable and distasteful. Tying sex to fertility is rather a non starter for most people when taken seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom