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

[LondonJohn]

Females don't "identify as women". We ARE women. I no more "identify as a woman" than I "identify as brunette."



I call ******** on this. Your explanation is that transwomen "identify with" the restrictive, demeaning stereotypes that society places on females, and which act as barriers to women.

By your logic, tomboys aren't women. Gals who dislike pink and hate makeup aren't women. Or at least, they're "less of a woman" than a transwoman is, because the transwoman "identifies with" the pretty, pink, docile, polite, subservient, caring, crapola role that society forces on females without their goddamned consent!

+++++++++++++++++

If a white man identifies with the expectation of being aggressive, violent, criminal, physically strong, under-educated, and inferior... would you say that that white man's claim to identify as a black man is valid and real and should be respected?

.....all of which demonstrates at best a misapprehension of what gender dysphoria and trans-identity are (and what they are not), or at worst a large dose of bigotry and intolerance.

The radical feminism is noted though.

 

[Meadmaker]

Please would you just provide links to a few reliable news reports which describe cismen pretending to be transwomen in order to enter women-only spaces and offend against ciswomen.

There aren't many. here's one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/target-transgender-idaho-voyeurism.html

Now, the story says that it's a transgender woman, not someone pretending to be a transwoman. What I know for certain it is is a male bodied individual in a women's changing room, sticking a camera over a room divider to take pictures of women in their underwear.

So maybe it doesn't count, eh?

 

[Meadmaker]

And, this one:

https://www.courthousenews.com/texas-ag-responds-to-target-peeping-incidents/

Similar activity, but in Texas.

ETA: Toronto

https://www.christianexaminer.com/a...reconsider-gender-neutral-bathrooms/49680.htm

ETA: This study claims an overall increase in voyeurism and similar incidents after Target changed its changing room policies:

https://womanmeanssomething.com/targetstudy/

Earlier in the thread there was a lot of talk about a UK study that showed sexual harassment and voyeurism incidents occuring in UK unisex changing facilities.

 

[theprestige]

You've given a couple examples of when self-identification isn't sufficient to be perceived as a member of a group (minor, veteran) and I'm wondering what would be a good example of when self-identification is indeed sufficient. Fanhood, perhaps? Certain religious sects?

Even fanhoods and religious sects are free to come to their own conclusions about whether you're a "real" fan or a "true" believer. Self-ID is sufficient for you, but not binding on anyone else.

But I think gnome's idea is a good one. Examining what's at stake can help us determine what criteria we should apply, and what policy changes we should make to meet the needs of the various stakeholders.

Like if Boudicca says that what's at stake is her desire to eligible for women's sports leagues, we can discuss whether self-ID alone should be sufficient for that. We can also weigh the competing goods of different stakeholders to see if any of them have a predominant claim or if some kind of compromise can be reached.

Or if Boudicca says that what's at stake is her mental health, we can discuss whether self-ID alone should be sufficient to meet all her requirements. We can also see what is required for an actual mental health diagnosis, and what specific accommodations are recommended by mental health professionals to treat the diagnosed condition.

Things like that.

 

[LondonJohn]

There aren't many. here's one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/target-transgender-idaho-voyeurism.html

Now, the story says that it's a transgender woman, not someone pretending to be a transwoman. What I know for certain it is is a male bodied individual in a women's changing room, sticking a camera over a room divider to take pictures of women in their underwear.

So maybe it doesn't count, eh?

No, it does count to a degree. But clearly it's not a case of a cisman masquerading as a transwoman in order to offend. I suspect it would be easy to find reports of ciswomen (perhaps gay ciswomen) engaging in that sort of activity as well. But nobody is talking about preventing gay ciswomen from entering women-only spaces.

Oh, and there's this extract from the paper I linked to just now, which might be (is) relevant here:

No evidence was identified to support the claim that trans women are more likely than non-trans women to sexually assault other women in women-only spaces. This lack of evidence is reiterated by other sources.


Remember, the underlying question here is this: are ciswomen at any significantly increased risk from a policy of allowing transwomen to access women-only spaces?

 

[lionking]

There aren't many. here's one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/target-transgender-idaho-voyeurism.html

Now, the story says that it's a transgender woman, not someone pretending to be a transwoman. What I know for certain it is is a male bodied individual in a women's changing room, sticking a camera over a room divider to take pictures of women in their underwear.

So maybe it doesn't count, eh?

I’m certain it won’t count to some here. Neither will the case, cited many times in these threads, of male bodied high school athletes insisting on using female change rooms and forcing young women to use smaller change rooms. Or the cases of assault by self-identified transwomen in women’s shelters. I’ve seen links to these cases, but the effort to dig them up is beyond me right now.

There might be only few examples like this, but they are not insignificant.

 

[LondonJohn]

And, this one:

https://www.courthousenews.com/texas-ag-responds-to-target-peeping-incidents/

Similar activity, but in Texas.

ETA: Toronto

https://www.christianexaminer.com/a...reconsider-gender-neutral-bathrooms/49680.htm

First one: yes, that's clearly related to the question at hand.

Second one: not related - gender-neutral spaces are a different matter altogether.

 

[theprestige]

What about the weightlifters identifying as women long enough to smash a women's weightlifting record? I'm pretty sure there's been a couple of those.

 

[Meadmaker]

I suspect it would be easy to find reports of ciswomen (perhaps gay ciswomen) engaging in that sort of activity as well.

I suspect it would be nearly impossible to find any example of ciswomen engaging in anything remotely like that sort of activity. I also suspect you won't be able to find any examples of transmen engaging in anything like that sort of activity.

Why not? Because women don't do that, and transmen are women.

If you ever find such an incident, where a female bodied person is snapping voyeuristic photos of anyone, men or women, I'll guarantee you she is sharing those photos with her boyfriend.

 

[LondonJohn]

I suspect it would be nearly impossible to find any example of ciswomen engaging in anything remotely like that sort of activity. I also suspect you won't be able to find any examples of transmen engaging in anything like that sort of activity.

Why not? Because women don't do that, and transmen are women.

Well your claim here doesn't appear to chime with the quote I used just now from that research paper:

No evidence was identified to support the claim that trans women are more likely than non-trans women to sexually assault other women in women-only spaces. This lack of evidence is reiterated by other sources.

If you ever find such an incident, where a female bodied person is snapping voyeuristic photos of anyone, men or women, I'll guarantee you she is sharing those photos with her boyfriend.

Notwithstanding that I don't agree with this claim (and nor does that paper I'm quoting), I fail to understand your point. Are you suggesting that if it's a case of the perpetrator sharing illegally-taken photos with her boyfriend, this somehow serves as a mitigating factor when assessing the offence?

 

[Meadmaker]

Notwithstanding that I don't agree with this claim (and nor does that paper I'm quoting), I fail to understand your point. Are you suggesting that if it's a case of the perpetrator sharing illegally-taken photos with her boyfriend, this somehow serves as a mitigating factor when assessing the offence?

The paper doesn't include voyeurism as an offense, I'll bet. Certainly the quote you gave from it doesn't signify it does.

As for what I am saying, I am saying that if voyeurism is involved, there's a man in there somewhere. No ciswoman or transman is going to be doing it for her own enjoyment, but somewhere you might be able to find a woman who did it or went along with it because her guy liked it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's not what he is saying at all. The ONLY people who are claiming to gatekeep who is and isn't a women are men* like Emily's Cat.

*Hey if she can do it, then I can do it too.

Difference being that I don't cry that it's literal violence that makes me feel unsafe... you know, because pronouns don't actually hurt people in any way.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That is what he was saying.

You know I think sometimes the issue is that the good old 'skeptics' have an issue with just saying 'i don't know'

I have no idea what Eddie izzard actually means when he says he has a girl mode and a boy mode. but given that i have no expertise in the matter I don't feel like i am in a position to dispute it. I'll leave that to the people who study it

OMG, how dare you misgender Ms. Izzard! What is wrong with you!

 

[Meadmaker]

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/conte...+5+-+Earlier+Version+of+Literature+Review.pdf

That is one gem of a paper. I think it is worth a read for everyone. Here's my favorite excerpt.

"There is limited research from which to draw any conclusion about whether or
not transgender people have an athletic advantage in competitive sport."


I don't have sufficient time to detail all of my thoughts on the research presented in that paper.

 

[Emily's Cat]

.....all of which demonstrates at best a misapprehension of what gender dysphoria and trans-identity are (and what they are not), or at worst a large dose of bigotry and intolerance.

The radical feminism is noted though.

This is a non-response. It conveys no meaning aside from your disdain and your dismissal of a female's perspective.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I suspect it would be easy to find reports of ciswomen (perhaps gay ciswomen) engaging in that sort of activity as well.

Your suspicion isn't evidence. Why not go find some cases of actual females engaging in substantially similar behavior? Then go ahead and try comparing the prevalence of such behavior by sex. Not gender identity and feels, but by actual sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

First one: yes, that's clearly related to the question at hand.

Second one: not related - gender-neutral spaces are a different matter altogether.

Please stop lawyering this to death.

All of these are cases where MALES are harming females. I don't give a crap whether they're natal males or transwomen - they are still male.

You flip-flop on this. It's a great semantic game you're playing, but I'm tired of the rhetorical cartwheels.

You claim that transwomen don't represent a risk to females. You are shown cases where transwomen have harmed females. You ignore them, or dismiss them for some technicality.

You claim that allowing transwomen access to women's spaces on the basis of self-id alone doesn't give natal males a loophole to exploit. You're shown cases where they do. You ignore them, or you dismiss them for some technicality.

No matter how it pans out, you've always got an easy lawyerly technicality to excuse the misbehavior of males, and to imply that females don't have a legitimate concern.

So here's a very straightforward question. Which is more important to you: the affirmation of the internal identity of transwomen... or the safety and dignity of females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No evidence was identified to support the claim that trans women are more likely than non-trans women to sexually assault other women in women-only spaces. This lack of evidence is reiterated by other sources.

On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence showing that transwomen commit violent and sexual crimes at the same rate as natal males, which is massively higher than for females of any sort.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The paper doesn't include voyeurism as an offense, I'll bet. Certainly the quote you gave from it doesn't signify it does.

Lol, good point.

There may not have been a study of that done under controlled circumstances... but there is a plethora of evidence in the form of transwomen bragging about the thrill they get sneaking peaks at other women in the changing rooms.

 

[theprestige]

Limited research =/= not enough research

Seems like all the research about whether men have an athletic advantage in competitive sport over women would be relevant. Although maybe that's not been much researched, either. Probably because it's mundane and well known already.

Though, I could see trans-activists arguing that Karsten Braasch vs Serena Williams doesn't count, and FC Dallas under-15s boys squad vs US Women's National Soccer Team doesn't count, because the subjects were all cisgender at the time. Until Serena Williams plays a bunch of committed transwomen and loses, we won't really be able to draw any conclusions...