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

[Emily's Cat]

If you are defining sex as only to do with biological reproduction in order to make it binary then to argue that it is the defining factor in why women have been oppressed defies logic and evidence.

Woman aren't discriminated against because they produce eggs.

Okay, this is an interesting take.

Why do YOU think that females are discriminated against?

 

[Emily's Cat]

And within this post of yours, you're only further reinforcing my position wrt your toxic beliefs. I'm alright thanks, "buddy".

Alright then. This weirdly puts YOU in the position of claiming that a fellow poster wants to force people to have sex with them regardless of their orientation, but you do you, I guess.

 

[Emily's Cat]

First, one quick note about the binary: anything outside of the binary of two different sexes based on the type of gamete isn't even the type of thing that we're talking about in this thread anyway. Your garden-variety trans person still has one of the two types of gametes in the bimodal distribution.

To be more precise, sex isn't bimodal, it's straight up binary. There is no "in-between" gametes.

Some physical characteristics are sexually dimorphic along a spectrum and bimodal - overall size, size of hands and feet, presence and amount of facial hair, body hair, shape of cheekbones, orbital sockets, brow ridge, pitch of voice, etc. These are strongly peaked in a bimodal distribution, but "in-between" states do actually exist, although they are relatively rare.

Other physical characteristics are sexually dimorphic along a spectrum but are NOT bimodal - size and shape of breast tissue, size and shape of penis, uterus, testicles, mobility of sperm cells, number of egg cells, etc. Those exhibit a spectrum of size/shape/coloration/etc., but only do so within a given sex, barring disorders of sexual development.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I fully support her decision to live her life as she wants, until it takes resources allotted women. I don't worry about celebrities like Elliot Page taking resources from men. We have plenty to go around.

That's kind of the crux of the problem, isn't it?

Transwomen's desires take resources and rights away from ovarians. But they don't care, and they seem to think that it's fine if females end up suffering. They are imposing themselves on females, in places that females are vulnerable, in places that females are underrepresented and don't have equitable representation, and in ways that make females less safe and increase their risk. But transwomen, and their activist allies, have decided that the affirmation of the internal identity of male-born transwomen are more important than the real costs to females. And they, being male, generally have the physical strength and power to dominate and harm females. They seem to believe that females should de-prioritize their own needs and objectives, and instead should center the feelings of male-born people as paramount.

Transmen, on the other hand, present no risk to natal males. They aren't usurping the resources of a disadvantaged group of people in any way. They do not present any physical risk to males, nor do their requests present loopholes by which malicious females can abuse and endanger males. They aren't jeopardizing male access to sports scholarships, and they aren't dropping male representation in leadership and politics even further below a proportional level.

The things being asked for by TRAs do not present a risk or a loss to males in any way. They do, however, present a risk and a loss to females. Unfortunately, they also frequently express their belief that the risks and the losses faced by females simply don't matter to them, and they seem to think that they *shouldn't* matter to females either.

One can only surmise that it's because females, as a whole group of people, don't matter to them.

 

[cullennz]

Do you even science?

Sex is dimorphic, as well as being binary. Secondary sex characteristics show great variety within each characteristic, but no overlap. There's great variety in size and shape of breasts... but the chests of males do no naturally have breasts at all, of any size or shape. There's great variety in size and shape of penises, but females do not have penises of any size or shape.

We already know that YOU don't care about sex. Your lack of care, however, promotes and reinforces sexism and misogyny. You pretend that thousands of years of oppression and discrimination aren't based on sex when you insist that it doesn't matter. That's tantamount to insisting that hundreds of years of slavery and oppression doesn't matter when the topic is black people, because YOU don't care about race.

Far out Emily. I agree with some stuff you say, but the man hate thing is a bit grating. Maybe you haven't noticed, but a lot of dudes here agree with you with female rights.

As for the highlighted, still a lot of dudes get breast cancer.

Women get free smear tests and breast exams for cancer here. Dudes have to pay for a doctor to thrust their finger up our **** for prostrate.

Yeah, it is all one sided to help men.

Edit: Not every dude is out to ruin your place in life.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Can I just take the time to point out, that I have high hopes and a good feeling this 5th massive forum thread repeating the same things as the other thousands and thousands of posts on the other 4 will be the winner. The one that sorts it once and for all.

I don't think continuations of this thread is going to change the minds of those entrenched in their views. On the other hand, however, these threads have shifted the views of some posters who are either on-the-fence or who haven't been exposed to the breadth of this topic.

I'm not willing to be silenced. If we stop fighting, this misogynistic agenda will win. I'm no more going to surrender and roll-over on this than I would expect a black man to stay silent in threads where a racist was insisting that their struggles aren't important, the disadvantages they face aren't a big deal, and they should reframe their values to center white people instead.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I just can't get over the narrative underhandedness of constantly framing females as the great oppressors of males. I don't even have words for the weaseliness of constantly pretending that females are to males as white supremacists are to black people, and as religious zealots are to homosexuals.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Sex does not exist on a spectrum.

And if the source of your gender dysphoria diagnosis (which you insist doesn't need to be diagnosed) is on the basis of not adhering to social gender norms... then FIGHT THOSE GENDER NORMS along with the rest of us who are harmed by them, Stop trying to insist that everyone else in the world needs to pretend that reality doesn't exist so that you can try really, really hard to conform with a gender norm that actively harms females!

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.

Okay. So... have you changed your view from when you first joined this thread? Or were you being disingenuous at the beginning?

I also really want to know how you can be so sanguine about pushing an agenda that literally allows any male to "self identify" and gain access to vulnerable females. Under your approach, any male prisoner can literally just claim to be trans, and gain access to females who cannot get away from him. Under your approach, any male who isn't competitive against other males can just "self-identify" and trounce female competitors. Under your approach, many children - especially children struggling with homosexuality - will be sterilized and become permanent patients, with many of them mutilating their perfectly healthy bodies.

You approach supports the subordination and oppression of females, and the eugenics of homosexuals - do you realize that?

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.

Gender Affirmation Only from therapists is repackaged conversion therapy for young homosexual people.

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 don't know how many times I've asked this, and you still haven't answered.

In what way are you as much a woman as me, Rolfe, and JihadJane?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I agree with 1 out of 3 of your examples.

Which one?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

TERF is a slur, and holds no meaning. It's nothing more than an attempt to intimidate and silence females.

 

[Meadmaker]

Which one?

I am not absolutely certain, but I think JihadJane is male, in every sense. If I'm wrong, she can correct me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Actually, I'm pretty much okay with it, for the most part. Especially with the inclusion of "some exceptions may apply" that Darat has up there.

That listing is how things used to work, and they worked pretty well for a long time. Females in lockers, changing rooms, etc. engaged in the polite fiction that transsexuals were women, and accepted them into our spaces as a vulnerable group of people who should be protected from the risk of predatory males*.

It really is the 1) self-identification alone and 2) medicalization of children aspect of the current push that is objectionable.

Oh, also the abhorrent prevalence of death and rape threats against any uppity females who won't stay silent and center the desires of males above their own needs. That is a sticking point as well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Discussed/discussing stuff with my former squeeze who later came out as trans. (Mentioned in a previous section of this megathread, I'm pretty sure.) Some examples of her views -

She thinks that sports leagues should be redefined based on skills or hormone levels, as opposed to biological sex or gender. I'm not much of a sports follower, so I don't know if that would be a workable solution or not. I have thought that would be a good solution myself, along the way.

She does not agree with self-ID, but she also thinks the legal/medical procedures should be somewhat simplified in order to minimize trauma and humiliation to patients seeking gender confirmation. So, none of that "you must live two years as a woman" stuff, but also no same-day walk-in changes with no discussion whatsoever. Find a happy medium.

Finally, she does not see herself as identical to a female born female, but she does think of herself as a type of female. She's fine with the cis-women trans-women distinction being drawn, especially in medical contexts. She is not okay with being referred to as any type of male or man. She has no problem with cis-women talking about their vaginas, breasts, or other indicators of womanhood by their usual names. She does not personally see her penis as a female penis because she prefers not to think about her penis at all. She is planning bottom surgery. She emphasized that transitioners who choose not to undergo bottom surgery for whatever reason are just as legitimate as those who do.

That's as much as I'm willing to bug her about (though I did suggest she sign up here if she ever wants a calmer debate than one might find on Twitter). The point I'm trying to make is that, even among individual trans people, the debate can vary wildly. This is why we should at least try to assume good faith from each other when discussing this issue. I think people have a tendency to automatically assume bad faith.


ETA - By the way, I am in no way trying to deflect any criticism of my own views or questions by posting this. I am not pulling a "some of my best friends are black" ruse, so please do not think that. I just wanted to note that there's a lot of variation in positions, and I have the benefit of getting another viewpoint from a single trans individual. She only speaks for herself.

Most females also think there is a reasonable compromise available in there somewhere. Your friend's starting point is a good jumping-off spot.

Unfortunately, a lot of TRAs (which does not by any means include all transwomen) has boiled down to essentially "Give us everything we want or we'll rape you with our barbed-wire wrapped baseball bats".

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think you would find that this solution seems pretty good to a lot of people who are not sports fans.

Even a fair number of female athletes are willing to allow hormone levels in many sports. Some of them it's not as necessary... but in others, even lowering hormone levels isn't sufficient to offset the strength and power differences. But for a lot of sports, it could be reasonable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's like how to most current, really outspoken feminists the "Patriarchy" is no longer a male-dominated society but all unfair power structures and responsible for everything up to and including the eventual heat death of the universe.

Mmmm... not really. There's a pretty big schism in feminism at the moment, and you've got outspoken and well-known people on either side.

One side sticks with the "patriarchy" argument, and centers the equality of females (the group formerly known as women) in their objectives and undertakings. The other side has subscribed to some sort of "trickle-down" equality theory in which centering the needs of every group except females will somehow magically result in females no longer experiencing discrimination and inequality.

The former side, however, ends up being threatened, deplatformed, and silenced by the other side along with their TRA allies.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Because it makes sports fans unhappy" is not something we should be using to judge this on.

How about "Because it ***** over all the females"?

 

[theprestige]

I am not absolutely certain, but I think JihadJane is male, in every sense. If I'm wrong, she can correct me.

Ironically, I think JihadJane is female, in every sense that's applicable here: Anonymous Internet entity with a femme handle. Even if the person on the other side of the screen is indeed a person and not a dog, it still makes sense to refer to the femme "Jane" with feminine pronouns.

Not that it matters.

Anonymous Internet discussions are one place gender and pronouns really don't matter at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't care about fraudulent claims. They are rare and shouldn't affect the laws that affect us. They will be dealt with if they come up. Otherwise it is just not an issue big enough for me to bother with.

You don't care about it, because you aren't the one facing the risk and the harm that comes from fraud! You're not the one being raped in prison by the male-bodied person who "self identifies" as a woman! You're not the one who has a 40-something be-penised person creeping on your 12 yo daughter in the locker room! You're not the one losing athletic scholarships to a "self-identified" male who takes advantage of the lack of requirements to clinch an easy win against females!

You don't care about females. End of story.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's possible that the patient is not actually trans and that transitioning is not the appropriate treatment. In that case, hormones or surgery could do lasting damage.

Now, is that to say that doctors should try to "convert" trans people? No. It means that before they treat them through chemical or physical transition, they need to be sure that they are treating the correct condition. This may include trying some therapies in another direction as well. Failed treatments are diagnostically useful, even if they can be frustrating for patients.

That was exactly my point, and exactly my ask. Not a complete ban on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for kids, but a tightening of treatment, and a bit more therapy and waiting.

How much you want to be that you don't get called a TERF for having the same view though?

 

[Emily's Cat]

On the one hand, there's something silly about not answering a question posed by A because you've answered B about the same question. I didn't see your earlier answer. How difficult is it to just type an answer? It doesn't have to be - in fact, shouldn't be - a dissertation, or even a paragraph.

IIRC, her position is that she has explained herself to other people not on ISF at other times prior to posting on this topic at ISF, therefore she doesn't need to explain herself here.

Somehow dictating that she's "just as much of a woman" as a natal women is supposed to quell all disagreement because... I dunno why.

I don't accept "because I say so" from any other debate opponent. I don't know why anyone should accept it here.