Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[cullennz]

Unless of course you are not talking about individual rights.

And everything is related to gay or straight couples, which again wasn't the question

 

[d4m10n]

What resources are allotted to straight men on the basis of them being straight?

What resources are allotted to straight men with no other factor like a female partner on the basis of them being straight?

I'd like to point out that these are two distinct and distinguishable questions. Had the first one ended "straight and straight alone" that would be less so.

 

[cullennz]

I'd like to point out that these are two distinct and distinguishable questions. Had the first one ended "straight and straight alone" that would be less so.

Yes, which was kind of my point about you not answering the question and adding women side things in.

Which you didn't acknowledge was not answering the question, or at least add a proviso.

 

[cullennz]

TBF I can't be ****** over it anymore.

You are right.

Gay men are treated badly as opposed to straight dudes in straight relationships which while not the question (as nothing can be about an individual these days), probably makes some point you want to make.

Straight single dudes we shall ignore, as you know, who gives a ****?

 

[d4m10n]

Gay men in healthy long-term relationships are treated badly as opposed to straight dudes in similarly healthy long-term relationships, in those states where fostering and/or adoption services are preferentially given to the latter group.

As with the (now settled) issue of same-sex marriage, this is a civil rights issue which only effects couples.

 

[cullennz]

Gay men in stable long-term relationships are treated badly as opposed to straight dudes in similarly stable long-term relationships, in those states where fostering / adoption services are preferentially given to the latter group.

I know.

But that wasn't the question.

Only you brought couples into a question about individual males.

I give up, as you don't seem to be able to grasp the question.

 

[d4m10n]

Only you brought couples into a question about individual males.

Individual males who cannot foster/adopt because of their sexual orientation are being denied equal treatment relative to similarly situated individual males who differ only on sexual orientation.

Sometimes individual rights are about our relationships with others, and whether those within such relationships are given equal treatment under law.

 

[cullennz]

Individual males who cannot foster/adopt because of their sexual orientation are being denied equal treatment relative to similarly situated individual males who differ only on sexual orientation.

Sometimes individual rights are about our relationships with others, and whether those within such relationships are given equal treatment under law.

Link please, as I would argue single blokes no matter what persuasion these days would be a no no with fostering

 

[d4m10n]

Link please, as I would argue single blokes no matter what persuasion these days would be a no no with fostering

Zig's original question didn't narrow the scope down to uncoupled individuals, neither did my answer. You did that yourself, and I'm not playing along.

ETA: You realize that I'm still an "individual male" despite being married, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

Foster parenting and adoption services, in many if not most "red" states in the U.S.

Not equivalent. There isn’t some allotment reserved for straight men, and the rest for everyone else, and gays are moving in on the straight men allotment instead of using what’s available for everyone else. The difference matters.

 

[cullennz]

Zig's original question didn't narrow the scope down to uncoupled individuals, neither did my answer. You did that yourself, and I'm not playing along.

ETA: You realize that I'm still an "individual male" despite being married, right?

Fair enough then,

Your point.

Straight females in a relationship with a straight dude are likely to foster over anyone else including gay people, who you seem to give a bigger **** about than others like single straight males for some reason known only to you.

 

[qayak]

Hmmmmmm.

"I fully support the decision of gay men to live their lives as they want, until they take resources allotted straight guys".

S. M. H.

Is your point that gay men are not men? That's the implication of your statement?

I explicitly stated that trans-women are not women. Which is why I don't feel they should be using up the limited resources allotted for women. In my view it's punching down. Pretty much like able bodied athletes insisting they be allowed to play in the Paralympics.

 

[JihadJane]

Is your point that gay men are not men? That's the implication of your statement?

I explicitly stated that trans-women are not women. Which is why I don't feel they should be using up the limited resources allotted for women. In my view it's punching down. Pretty much like able bodied athletes insisting they be allowed to play in the Paralympics.

 

[Boudicca90]

Personally, I think that for homosexuals, both approaches are appropriate. You start with CBT and try to get the mental to align with the physical. This is the least overall harmful..... and (it) also doesn't expose the individual to abuse and discrimination.

(You quite clearly are impervious to the fact that what you're saying here is that people with gender dysphoria should, as a first approach, try to be "cured" of their gender dysphoria. To be made "normal" again. And you wonder why people like me find your position disgusting and contemptible.)

Exactly. It doesn't surprise me that someone with such transphobic views would support conversion therapy for us to "fix" us.

I wonder when the trans-activists will get around to telling the vast majority of transsexuals that their transition is bogus because sex isn't even binary anyway, and the man-woman distinction they're hung up on isn't real in the first palce.

In a world of binary gender, I could see gender dysphoria being a real condition that merits treatment, accommodation, and understanding. Like blindness or quadriplegia. But in a world where binary gender doesn't even exist? How do you accommodate someone who insists their seeing-eye dog needs to come on the plane, if eyes don't exist and nobody actually "sees" anything anyway?

Just because everything is on a spectrum (sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation), doesn't mean there aren't people like me who still find ourselves on the ends of that spectrum. And gender dysphoria is not a "condition", it is our reaction to not being able to live as the sex/gender we truly are. It comes from society's expectations of us to adhere to gender norms meant for cispeople.

We know we can never reconcile the extremists, with that in mind I was thinking about what compromise we will end up with. I think it will be something like:

1) Official gender change will still require some form of a “Gender Recognition“ certificate
2) Someone who has officially changed their gender will be able to use facilities labelled “women only”. I expect there will still be some limitations on that, probably something like there having to be private cubicles.
3) Businesses that now can legally discriminate on the grounds of gender will be able to continue to do so but will need to honour gender recognition certificates. (This would still mean that a beauty parlour offering a waxing service wouldn’t be forced to wax male genitalia because that is not a service they offer regardless of official gender.)
4) Sport - will still be able to deny or allow participation regardless of official gender based on their own objective measures.
5) Under 16 years old will not be able to start physical medical treatments

This is not a compromise at all. How it should be:

1) "Gender Recognition Certificates" should be done away with in favor of Self ID.
2) People should be able to use the facilities that best fit them, regardless if the government things you are "official" or not. And no limitations.
3) Discrimination of us by gender in any way is unacceptable. I can understand not waxing a woman's penis because they haven't been trained for it. But if you do offer that service, you offer it to everyone.
4) Discrimination of us in sports in any way is unacceptable, as is hormone level requirements of us.
5) Transgender kids/teens should be able to start HRT when during puberty and not have to either delay their development with puberty blockers or have to suffer going through physical changes that can be devastating to them.

This is where I stand. No compromise on our rights here.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Speaking as a former 'gay man', he is exactly right. I have said many times how the same arguments against us now have been used against me in the past. Transphobia is just repackaged homophobia.

Is your point that gay men are not men? That's the implication of your statement?

I explicitly stated that trans-women are not women. Which is why I don't feel they should be using up the limited resources allotted for women. In my view it's punching down. Pretty much like able bodied athletes insisting they be allowed to play in the Paralympics.

As I am a woman, if I did fill a position meant for a woman, there is nothing being taken away there. I am a woman as much as Emily's Cat, Rolfe, JihadJane, and the rest of the cisgender TERFs on this board.

 

[Meadmaker]

As I am a woman, if I did fill a position meant for a woman, there is nothing being taken away there. I am a woman as much as Emily's Cat, Rolfe, JihadJane, and the rest of the cisgender TERFs on this board.

I agree with 1 out of 3 of your examples.

 

[Joe Random]

<...>
As I am a woman, if I did fill a position meant for a woman, there is nothing being taken away there. I am a woman as much as Emily's Cat, Rolfe, JihadJane, and the rest of the cisgender TERFs on this board.

Illogical insistences which go against basic reality do not magically become true with repetition.

 

[Butter!]

As I am a woman, if I did fill a position meant for a woman, there is nothing being taken away there. I am a woman as much as Emily's Cat, Rolfe, JihadJane, and the rest of the cisgender TERFs on this board.

This seems pretty borderline.

Terf just means bitch now. Convince me otherwise. Meadmaker has said all the same stuff as EC, but somehow he didn't make the list.

I get that you were trying to draw a parallel between yourself and other women posting, but you could have just said cis-women in this context. You went with terf. I'm getting kind of suspicious of the way that word's being thrown around lately. The discussion here is extremely tame, for the most part.

 

[Paul2]

I am a woman as much as Emily's Cat, Rolfe, JihadJane, and the rest of the cisgender TERFs on this board.

I asked you before to say how you define the word "woman" without reply. I would appreciate a reply so I can understand what you mean when you say you are a woman.

 

[Butter!]

We know we can never reconcile the extremists, with that in mind I was thinking about what compromise we will end up with. I think it will be something like:

1) Official gender change will still require some form of a “Gender Recognition“ certificate
2) Someone who has officially changed their gender will be able to use facilities labelled “women only”. I expect there will still be some limitations on that, probably something like there having to be private cubicles.
3) Businesses that now can legally discriminate on the grounds of gender will be able to continue to do so but will need to honour gender recognition certificates. (This would still mean that a beauty parlour offering a waxing service wouldn’t be forced to wax male genitalia because that is not a service they offer regardless of official gender.)
4) Sport - will still be able to deny or allow participation regardless of official gender based on their own objective measures.
5) Under 16 years old will not be able to start physical medical treatments

This seems pretty good to me, just as a basic starting point. I don't think it would be seen as acceptable by large portions of this issue's debaters, though.

That's not even a problem. We should have lots of debates. None of this stuff has an easy solution that could possibly please everyone. The problem is when you're declared en-terfened just for wanting to have any debate at all. That's what's freaking me out.

 

[d4m10n]

There isn’t some allotment reserved for straight men, and the rest for everyone else, and gays are moving in on the straight men allotment instead of using what’s available for everyone else.

Check out Fulton v. City of Philadelphia sometime, in which the Catholic Church is suing to preserve an allotment of foster care services set aside for straight men and their opposite-sex partners.