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

[rdwight]

I guess not. That's why I asked.

Alright, to give you the benefit of the doubt could you perhaps give you input on the only portion of my post that you didn't address?

Now imagine a non-transitioned man was casually attempting to go in. Would you ask what he is doing? Would the answer of, "oh I am a woman" be sufficient to alleviate any concern? Would you follow in just to hurry her up or check in from the door?

How so? Are you under the impression that women can not attack and/or rape men in the bathroom? For that matter, are you under the impression that other men can not attack or rape men in the bathroom?

I'll allow that any scenario you present is possible. But I was generally trying to see if your mindset extends to those that you have a responsibility to. Theoretical is all nice, but in practice I think people throw their ideals out the window. Men have different dangers than woman, children different than adults. If we can agree to that, can we agree that each group has a better understanding of their own dangers and we should perhaps listen to them?

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

I know that opinion isn't universal among trans people, and quite possibily a minority view as well. But Boudicca isn't alone in claiming this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think focusing on bathrooms is silly, personally. That's the issue of least concern here.

I'm hung up on all this "sex doesn't exist and isn't binary" business. That's the exact point at which I lose my ability to go along with the whole thing. And I disagree that it makes me transphobic, because I know at least two transpeople who have no desire to deny that sex is binary and actual.

I'm going to be really honest right now. I'm starting to see the denial of sex and the push to change words referring to it as just another segment of this scary anti-intellectual trend that's been growing around us for years. It's what brought me to this forum in the first place - most of the people around me in real life were reality-deniers. "I don't care what your study says, it's all been covered up, I know vaccines cause autism. I know 9/11 was an inside job." It all seemed like a big deal then, but I now long for those simpler days. Because things have gotten WAY worse. People just make up their own realities with impunity now, like the millions who think Trump really won the election. Reality doesn't matter in the slightest, because people seem to have stopped agreeing that it matters. Debunking is useless; we might as well all be living in separate little worlds.

Up until this point, the kind of stuff I'm referring to seemed like mostly a right-wing, conspiracy-oriented phenomenon (with a few REALLY far-left moonbats thrown in on the holistic healing end of things, perhaps). But now, the mainstream left is starting to take up this rallying cry, and I'm fine with it up to the point where I'm being screamed at for saying that men and women are real, definable things. Change your gender, call yourself a woman, I'm not bothered. Come in and get naked in front of me, wave whatever you've got around like a prize (to paraphrase cullennz's terms). I really don't care (though I'm not disregarding the feelings of women who do). But if you're going to tell me that there is no such thing as a woman, I'm going to start seeing you as crazy and disingenuous. I can't understand what the angle is there. How does that help anybody? If there's no such thing as sex, then what are trans-people changing to?

I thought it was gender they were changing, and sex was different, and that made sense to me - but the terms are being used interchangeably now, and it's making me feel like no one even cares about reality or making sense.

Yet another excellent post by Butter!

I have one comment:

I can't understand what the angle is there. How does that help anybody?

I don't think it helps women or transwomen at all. I do, however, think it helps MRAs and incels and misogynists. That's part of why it creeps me out so much, they're the ones who win with this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Responding more specifically to the "reality" question--I perceive differently. I don't see that the biological differences are being literally denied--instead I see it promoted that the non-biological components of gender, the ones we socially interact with most, are of greater consequence.

Which is to say, not that biology is wrong, but that it is less relevant to the discussion of how to work with gender in societal norms. I think it's sometimes true and sometimes not.

I see your point, and I agree that many people aren't being literal.

The problem I have is that the people insisting that biology isn't relevant are largely the people who haven't been screwed over for millennia as a result of biology.

And, sorry to trop in more of the feminist stuff, but it's same trope over and over. Females get told throughout our lives that our concerns, our needs, our situation "isn't a big deal" and that we're overreacting. In reality, however, that's not objectively true. Female concerns aren't a big deal to males who don't experience them.

This is largely the same. The largest, most vocal group of people saying that biology doesn't matter and is irrelevant are people who don't have a female biology.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have been in a band that includes several trans men and the occasional trans woman for nearly two decades now. I've only ever known some of them in their post-transition state. I've played on the same stage with them, sometimes closely (it's a large band). I've shared bathrooms with the trans men.

From the nature of this thread, I think some might be surprised how little the contents of one's pants effects daily interactions. Even in bathrooms, I can count on zero hands how many times other people's junk has been of my concern*.

If I had to guess, all the pearl clutching is being done by people who are not, themselves, familiar with trans people. When I see Lee, for example, I don't see short dude who used to be a girl. I see a short dude who is a great sax player, smokes too much, and takes good care of his wife's medical issues. In fact, when a former co-worker announced her transition recently, it took me a minute to remember that Lee helps people go through the transition process in order to make a recommendation.

I don't know, maybe try to be more concerned about treating people decently than concerned about what people have under the hood?

I'm going to respectfully suggest that you've got a very male-centric perspective on this. In day-to-day interactions, including toilets, most of us genuinely don't care.

You're looking at this from the perspective of a male, who isn't subjected to nearly as much sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexism as women are. You're looking at this from the perspective of someone with a very, very low probability of being raped, and a very high probability of being able to fight off an attacker.

I'm all for treating people decently. But treating people decently shouldn't require females to be put at greater risk and exposure.

 

[gnome]

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.

I consider it more like pointing out that since the old rules are in service of a "polite fiction", possibly that is not worth having a practice of challenging anyone.

If the idea is to keep people out that don't look like the right sex, what about someone who looks in-between, and would not be well accepted in either restroom? If they are challenged, what should the owner or police do? So it seems to me even the "old rule" has scenarios not addressed, so now we are choosing what new rule to adopt.

If we try to avoid trouble by proposing a new strict rule that you must choose according to your birth gender, then we ask trans men to walk into the ladies' room possibly looking quite male. As well, someone ambiguous is either way still walking into a room with people that might find it uncomfortable, so in the end we have exactly the same problem we proposed to solve, only on top of that we have to figure out how to verify and enforce it.

So it seems to me there IS no rule that will keep people from seeing someone that makes them uncomfortable in a bathroom. In that case isn't it simpler to have no rule, and suggest people use whichever bathroom they find comfortable? And if an individual harasses another person, only then is it time to get owners or police involved. I feel like this is done successfully elsewhere without calamity. I also expect the lion's share of the time people will indeed select the restroom that matches how they present, at a rate we're not likely to exceed by piling on more rules than that.

 

[Darat]

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.

Then just accept she has different definitions for some things then you do. Why do feel as if you two have to agree on the definitions? The classic “we shall have to agree to disagree” is a truism because we all do it for the sake of “getting along” in society or rather “managing to coexist even if I am smiling through gritted teeth to do so!”.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes--thank you that is a good point. The push to de-emphasize biological sex in policy making and informal rules is exactly that--a movement to realize how infrequently the nature of our usually covered bits is important.

The nature of your covered bits (and the biological repercussions of them, the price of procreation, etc.) are infrequently of importance to you. You are male.

They're frequently far more important to females than I think you grok.

I'm exhausted by having a bunch of males tell me over and over that female biology isn't important to them, and therefore, shouldn't be important to me either.

Look, would you use this argument if the topic were race? Would you tell a black man arguing for his right to not be brutalized by the police, and not to be placed at risk for the color of his skin that melanin content is just really not important?

Would you argue that black people should be colorblind, so that transracial people who identify as black can impose themselves and usurp their limited resources?

Would you argue that black people should deprioritize their own objectives for equality in order to center the feelings and affirmation of transracial people, under threat of them being labeled "transracist bigots"?

 

[Darat]

...snip..

Self ID changes that current policy.

..snip...

Then campaigning against whatever you mean by “self-ID” would seem to be the path you should be on.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Going back to Butter's point, the thing about all of those people above is that they are all male. Really. Sex is a real thing, and those people are all male, and pretending they aren't does have some intersection with the real world, and when that happens, other people end up mistreated.

Let's not candy-coat this, Meadmaker. It's not "other people" who end up mistreated. It's females that end up mistreated.

Related to nothing at all... Do you actually make mead? I adore mead, and prefer it greatly to wine.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Woman is a category. Trans-woman is a sub-category of woman. Cis-woman is a sub-category of woman.

This is ideology based on bait-and-switch semantics.

I am not a subcategory of my own sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then campaigning against whatever you mean by “self-ID” would seem to be the path you should be on.

What exactly do you think she's been doing?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ah, I see your problem. You have a difficult road ahead of you if you choose to hold on to your mistakes instead of learning from them.

Okay, then I will ask you the same question that everyone else keeps ignoring or giving a tautological response to.

What do females and transwomen have in common that females and males do NOT?

 

[Darat]

What exactly do you think she's been doing?

?

 

[Ziggurat]

?

You suggested she should do exactly what she has already been doing. Have you not been paying attention?

 

[gnome]

The nature of your covered bits (and the biological repercussions of them, the price of procreation, etc.) are infrequently of importance to you. You are male.

They're frequently far more important to females than I think you grok.

I'm exhausted by having a bunch of males tell me over and over that female biology isn't important to them, and therefore, shouldn't be important to me either.

Look, would you use this argument if the topic were race? Would you tell a black man arguing for his right to not be brutalized by the police, and not to be placed at risk for the color of his skin that melanin content is just really not important?

Would you argue that black people should be colorblind, so that transracial people who identify as black can impose themselves and usurp their limited resources?

Would you argue that black people should deprioritize their own objectives for equality in order to center the feelings and affirmation of transracial people, under threat of them being labeled "transracist bigots"?

I don't think I would answer "yes" to any of your questions. And indeed I would not seek to tell you that your biology is not important as a general statement.

Any proposals I make would be context-specific and generally would involve the question of restricting a second party. I think I've even agreed that there are circumstances where that ought to be done.

(edited last line for clarity)

 

[Emily's Cat]

Manhood and womanhood are cultural ideas. We can know this because the idea of what makes a good/strong man or a good/strong woman varies from culture to culture and from time to time. In our own culture, traditionally, gay men were not considered "real men", were they? And, yet, that has changed as the culture changed.

You're conflating biology with social gender roles and expectations.

Femininity and Masculinity are cultural ideas. "Proper" womanhood and "proper" manhood are social gender expectations of behavior and comportment. When a gay man was told he wasn't a "real man" it didn't mean that he wasn't male, nor even that he wasn't a man. It meant that he didn't conform to the stereotypical gender norms. When the high school football player breaks down in tears and his friends tell him to "man up", they're passing judgment on his masculinity and his conformity with social gender roles, they're not questioning his sex.

Gay men were never considered to be women. They were considered to be unmanly or effeminate. And those are very, very different from being considered a woman.

It's entirely reasonable to say that a gender dysphoric male is "feminine" or "womanish". But to say that such a male IS a woman, is simply wrong.

Transwomen are a subset of men, who wish to live as a woman.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And have you interacted with any of these people on a regular basis? Do you use their preferred pronouns or do you use your preferred pronouns for them?

When you think of them, do you think of them as their preferred gender or the gender you prefer for them?

I use my niece's preferred pronoun, because it's polite to do so and I care about her feelings. When I think of her, I cannot see her as anything other than male. She's 6'2", 190 lbs, with a size 13 men's shoe, and a ginormous adam's apple. I will indulge the polite fiction of her preferred pronoun, but she still isn't a woman in any rational meaning of the term.

My love for her doesn't override reality.

Maybe a few years from now, when she presents more effectively, maybe that will change. But at present she has no intention of having any surgeries, so I'm going to have a really hard time seeing her as anything other than a man with boobies who likes painted nails.

 

[cullennz]

Let's not candy-coat this, Meadmaker. It's not "other people" who end up mistreated. It's females that end up mistreated.

Related to nothing at all... Do you actually make mead? I adore mead, and prefer it greatly to wine.

TBF EC

I think you could try to tone down the women are only victims thing.

Plenty of young little dudes have been preyed upon

Tend to agree with your all around arguments, but I think you could do with a bit more looking at the bigger historical picture.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I love it when someone jumps into a lengthy discussion without getting up to speed, misses the point entirely, begs the central question, and condescends to anyone who doesn't a priori agree with their misunderstanding.

Nommed.