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

[cullennz]

I can guarantee that, statistically, you have shared a restroom with far more gay men than you have trans men. I know I have. I can further guarantee that women have shared bathrooms with far more lesbians than trans women.

Struggling to see the relevance to the topic

 

[theprestige]

Social and cultural assumptions and interactions, which is what I've been saying.

So not someone's internal, mental self-identity?

If it's down to social and cultural assumptions and interactions, then it's pretty obvious that transwomen aren't actually women.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can guarantee that, statistically, you have shared a restroom with far more gay men than you have trans men.

That's likely true, and also entirely irrelevant.

Why do we fear monger trans women so much? Is there any actual data supporting the idea that trans women attack women (cis or trans) more than any other group?

The problem has been gone over many times before in this thread. The primary risk isn't actual transwomen. The primary risk is men who are willing to abuse a lack of standards on access to women's spaces under the guise of being trans.

And if you don't think men who are willing to sexually assault or rape women aren't also willing to pretend to be women in order to do so, well, there's that whole bridge thing.

 

[Meadmaker]

Am I the weird one who makes a point of avoiding looking at people in locker rooms?

Yes, I see naked people in locker rooms, and that includes seeing their penises.

If you spend time at a gym or a swimming pool, you see them, too. If you didn't, we wouldn't have locker rooms. Even in the modern world where men insist on wrapping towels around their waists when walking to and from the shower, those towels have to come off and go on, and you know it, and it happens, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. It's phony.

ETA: But, I suppose, it might be possible to make sure that you never saw another man's genitals in a locker room. You would have to be careful, but it could probably be done. if you do go to all that effort then yeah, that's kind of weird.

 

[cullennz]

If it's down to social and cultural assumptions and interactions, then it's pretty obvious that transwomen aren't actually women.

Was thinking the same thing, but didn't want to offend

 

[Emily's Cat]

Uh, gender identity, and probably some amount of social inclusion in queer culture and some experience of getting side-eyes from people who like everyone to Act Normal. That’s about it, I think.

But since natal males and natal females can still also be queer, they might share the latter two as well. The term ‘natal’ is a little confusing; it could just as easily mean someone trans who doesn’t medically transition, in which case the question wouldn’t parse very well.

That's not an answer.

Activists say that transwomen are just as much of a woman as a natal woman. In what way? In what way are they just as much a woman? What do they share in common that other any other two randomly selected humans of opposite sexes don't share?

That's the crux of trying to pin down what the "gender identity" of woman even is. Most females don't "identify as" women, they simply are women. A whole lot of females find the gender roles and expectations that society defines to be confining and oppressive.

Try this: What do Snoop Dogg and Rachel Dolezal have in common that any other two randomly chosen people of different ethnicities don't also have in common?

 

[Upchurch]

If it's down to social and cultural assumptions and interactions, then it's pretty obvious that transwomen aren't actually women.

Obvious how?

 

[d4m10n]

If it's down to social and cultural assumptions and interactions, then it's pretty obvious that transwomen aren't actually women.

Why not? The ones I've known seem to move in the world as women do, at least AFIAK.

Boudicca says as much of herself, as well.

What do Snoop Dogg and Rachel Dolezal have in common that any other two randomly chosen people of different ethnicities don't also have in common?

NAACP activism.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So I happened to be revisiting some old Jon Ronson audio and came across the Hare Psychopathy Checklist^WP as a result. This made me wonder whether there is an analogous diagnostic tool which professionals might use to determine a subject's gender identity. Anyone seen anything which fits the bill?

I just recently learned this!

The Utrecht Gender Dysphoria Scale

One of the challenges to it, however, is that a whole lot of girls are likely to get "diagnosed" simply because they experience sexism and misogyny and confining gender stereotypes in every day life.

 

[cullennz]

That's not an answer.

Activists say that transwomen are just as much of a woman as a natal woman. In what way? In what way are they just as much a woman? What do they share in common that other any other two randomly selected humans of opposite sexes don't share?

That's the crux of trying to pin down what the "gender identity" of woman even is. Most females don't "identify as" women, they simply are women. A whole lot of females find the gender roles and expectations that society defines to be confining and oppressive.

Try this: What do Snoop Dogg and Rachel Dolezal have in common that any other two randomly chosen people of different ethnicities don't also have in common?

Boudicca actually went with biologically the same, which was a bit left field and out there, but that might have been a one off specific to her.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I thought you might have been interested in this one:



(Emphasis added)


That whole section is an amazing exercise in doublespeak and missing the point.

I had to just grimace at most of it. It so blatantly focuses on "discomfort" as the reason. It totally ignores and glosses over the the safety and risk element of it. Rather like a couple of posters here, who frame it as bigotry on the part of females because they're squeamish about seeing men's bodies or something.

 

[Paul2]

ETA: Sorry, My point in the last paragraph below is misguided (although the main point holds). Upchurch did *not* use the word as I implied. My mistake. Allow me to re-phrase that paragraph:

Please, Upchurch, tell me what word you would use, in whatever contexts you deem relevant, to identify a human with fewer, larger gametes in a way that distinguishes them from those humans with more, smaller gametes.

"Human"?

They certainly are human, but you're missing the distinction. What would you call them in a way that distinguished them from the other humans who have different gametes?

Spoiler: the traditional term has been female and male. I'm asking because I want to be sure I understand you, and to do that, I have to know what you mean by the words you say.

So, does your use of the word "woman" equate with "female?" I suspect not, but I just want to be sure. Assuming it doesn't, I'd also guess that, by "woman," you mean the word as one of the genders, which is defined by psychological or mental or cultural or social aspects.

It's not a straight forward question because it lacks context. If I meet someone on the street, how do I know the quantity and qualities of their gametes?

It was a straightforward question about what you meant when you used the word. What you meant when you used the word "woman" has nothing to do with how or whether you would or should determine the gametes of someone you might meet on the street, that I can see.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's weird because the people arguing for gamete based clear binaries had to ditch all that other stuff as part of their argument.

No, no it's only you who's done that.

I have used toilets for well over 2 score years and have NEVER seen a woman's genitals during the process

I'll nominate this for unintentionally funny.

How many women do you get in the men's room? Don't you have daughters? Have you never helped them in the restroom, or is that "women's work"? Have you never seen another man's penis (even accidentally) at the urinal? Are you blind, by chance?

I have used toilets for well over 2 score years and have NEVER seen a woman's genitals during the process
...
Asserting that your experience is true and obvious seems to be a thing with you

And to clinch the win on unintentional comedy, we've got this pair.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There can be more than one oppressed group, jesus christ, you really do sound like a misogynist.

It feels like these are questions you should be asking the people who want to oppress trans people rather than me.

It's getting really tough to choose between the unintentional comedy posts.

 

[Butter!]

Why are you letting other people determine what you consider is the right attitude for you?

Again there is no way of reconciling the extremists, trying to do so is futile as their views exclude each other’s view by definition. Therefore all one can do is come up with sensible options that the vast majority can agree to.

I see a lot of people apparently wanting everyone to know that they don’t agree with the extremists, as if that is something remarkable or noteworthy. Of course most people don’t agree with the extremists because most people aren’t extremist, and that is true about anything in society when different wants compete.

I thought it was just the extremists, but I'm becoming less sure. The discussion here has seen a great deal of conflation of sex and gender. When the two were treated as separate (though often related) concepts, everything at least made sense to me.

It seems, however, that the mainstream position is inching more toward "sex and gender are the same," which does not make sense to me. And when objections are raised, everyone starts throwing out examples of intersex people. Who are not trans.

So, like, wtf.

Boudicca, for example, said she's a woman, and I agree that she is. She also said she's a biological woman. That's where I start scratching my head. I'm not trying to be cruel at all, I just don't understand how a transwoman can be a biological woman, because I thought "biological" in this context referred to sex and "trans" referred to gender. The mixing of them together is making the discussion crazy, and I don't think it's just extremists who are making the points I'm talking about.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't know if this is true but it certainly seems like the vast majority of voyeurism is cis man on cis woman. And it goes on currently with segregated bathrooms and changing rooms.

And before I get accused of misogyny again... just to be clear that's a ****** situation and it shouldn't happen and people who do it should be prosecuted.

But the question at hand is whether allowing transwomen to use female spaces is going to worsen the situation. Because that is the claim that is being made by those who oppose allowing transwomen access to female spaces.

We know that some people lie on their taxes about how much income they had, so that they pay less taxes.

We want to propose a change to the law, which would allow people to enter their income without having to provide W-4 forms from their employers, and without needing to prove the income they received.

We don't know if this will increase the number of people who lie on their taxes or not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This page seems relevant to the discussion...I haven't fact checked it

https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/5/13/17938102/transgender-people-bathrooms-locker-rooms-schools

It's Vox. You should fact check ANYTHING that comes from Vox.

Also...

We know that some people lie on their taxes about how much income they had, so that they pay less taxes.

We want to propose a change to the law, which would allow people to enter their income without having to provide W-4 forms from their employers, and without needing to prove the income they received.

We don't know if this will increase the number of people who lie on their taxes or not.
We have no evidence whether this will increase the number of people who lie on their taxes or not.

 

[theprestige]

Obvious how?

It's pretty obvious that mainstream social and cultural assumptions and interactions are firmly on the side of "transwomen aren't women". They're men, who for whatever reason are asking for - and in some cases should be given - some of the social and cultural interactions normally accorded to women.

The whole idea of people specifying their preferred pronouns should be a pretty big giveaway. Women enjoying all the mainstream social and cultural assumptions don't have to specify their pronouns. Transmen do, because transmen don't get those assumptions. Which means, if that's the criteria, that they're not actually women.

 

[theprestige]

Why not? The ones I've known seem to move in the world as women do, at least AFIAK.

They move in the world as women do not because there's a mainstream assumption that they're women*, but because there's an increasingly mainstream assumption that it's better to treat them as women up to a point.

---
*Unless they're passing pretty effectively. Which only reinforces the idea that sex is binary, gender is binary, and it's up to society, not the individual transsexual, to decide whether or not they're a woman.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This again seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what Self-ID laws mean and what is and isn't currently possible anyway. People don't get checked for gender when they enter the toilets right now.

You've brought this up several times. I can't decide if it's semantic tomfoolery and pretense... or if you genuinely are incapable of understanding this concept.

The current state doesn't check for gender when they enter toilets because the vast majority of people are visually obvious as either male or female on a simple glance. There is no need to check ID, because if a person who looks like a man enters the room, it is socially acceptable and appropriate for women to challenge them and ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave, it is reasonable for women to involve the owners of the premises or the police (depending on venue), as it is reasonable to assume that the opposite-sexed interloper is up to no good.

Self ID changes that current policy. Self-id replaces sex (which is almost always able to be determined by a cursory glance) with an internal feeling which cannot be verified by anyone at all. If these laws get passed, it will mean that any male who wishes to can enter the ladies toilet, whether he is trans or not. Furthermore, it means that it will no longer be allowable for women to challenge his presence in the toilet. All he needs to do is utter the magic words "I'm a woman" and he cannot be asked to leave.

Yes, some transwomen currently use the women's rooms without challenge or complaint. Most of those transwomen have made efforts to pass and most have undergone medical treatment to appear more like a female. Women accept them out of politeness even though we can tell, and occasionally we cannot tell (although this is a lot more rare than you seem to think).

Self-id destroys that polite fiction. It allows any male to enter without any expectation that he present as female in any way at all. Self-id robs women of the right to challenge the 6 ft lumberjack with a beard. We are forced to accept any male who wishes to be there and no longer have any safeguards.

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

You're trying to change the rules, and then pointing to how things work under the old rules as proof that changing the rules is fine.