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

[Emily's Cat]

It was the first sentence of mine you quoted and elaborated on by the rest of the post. What you're misunderstanding is that "a good man" and "a real man" are culturally and historically synonymous.

But a "bad man" has never been synonymous with "woman". Which you really seem to be missing.

Honestly, your premise ends up really screwing over a lot of people. If a woman isn't feminine enough, then by your approach, she's a man. If a gay man is very effeminate, or a lesbian is very butch, they're no longer homosexuals, they're heterosexual transfolks. Tomboys are no longer girls who think pink is an ugly color, they're really boys in the wrong body.

Your premise reinforces sex-based stereotypes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In this thread, it's not that difficult. If the post is made by JoeMorgue, just mentally interpret it as "Oh woe is me, no matter what I do I end up the bad guy, and my needs should be centered here!"

Joe, I know that's a bit harsh, and it doesn't apply in any other topic. But you do seem to approach this topic from the perspective of how unfair the debate between transwomen and females is to you personally.

ETA: Made a few minor edits to make some points clearer.

Which would be fine, relatively speaking, if "picking a side" wasn't a requirement just to be in basic society.

If a woman somehow finds herself in "my" (however we're defining it when this is all said and done) bathroom, I'm not going to rape her.

If a trans-male somehow finds himself in "my" (same caveat) bathroom, I'm not going to run him out because he doesn't belong or harass him.

Again I stress that I'm literally doing what both sides claim they want (because what they want is completely reasonable to the point that "not doing it" isn't a thing you should get credit for, obs)

The problem is the meta-problem when the woman sees the trans-female in her space and wants them out because she is scared of rape and the trans-female wants in because she doesn't want her femininity denied and they both (not literally obviously but in the context of a social discussion) look at me and go "Well which side are you on now?" and my only option at that point is to look around for a fire alarm to pull so I can make an escape.

You can dismiss it as "woe is me" if you must but don't think it's particularly fair to do so. And you say "Just because it's unfair to me personally" as if that's a valid dismissal or something I'm otherwise unreasonable to even trying to put on the table.

"Nobody is denying there is a contradiction, just don't worry about and pretend it will never come up" is the best answer I've gotten between the waves of being accused of being a bigot of some various sort.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're taking a position that will eventually become extinct and the cultural norms change to become more reflective up people rather than forcing people to confirm with the then current cultural norms.

Well, no. Exactly the opposite in fact. You're changing language in order to reinforce conformity with cultural norms, rather than dismantling confining and discriminatory cultural norms regarding sex-based expectations and behaviors.

Supporting a system in which men can wear make up and dresses and behave in any manner they choose while still being considered men - that would be progressive.

 

[cullennz]

Supporting a system in which men can wear make up and dresses and behave in any manner they choose while still being considered men - that would be progressive.

Not realistic though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

A female might technically be able to attack and rape a male. The likelihood, however, is extremely low. And the likelihood of a male being able to successfully fight her off is very, very high.

This is rather like when women are talking about problems with how rape and sexual assault are handled socially, and the need for better support systems for raped women... someone invariably comes in and drops the "men get raped too!" truth-bomb on the whole thing and gets pissy that the needs of raped men aren't being centered in the conversation, and that men are being treated like they're "the enemy" in their perception.

Or like how when the topic of discussion is black lives matter and police brutality against black men, someone will inevitably come in and drop the "ALL live matter, BLM is racist!" bomb, or the "police kill white people too!" and get all in a snit because the adversity of white people isn't being centered enough in the conversation.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Most important things first, yes I do really make mead. I'm planning on starting some during the Christmas break. I don't make nearly as much as I did when I first started using that moniker. Back then, I was making about 100 gallons per year. Now, I make a few gallons per year, but I miss some years.

Now, to your first paragraph. Yes, that is precisely the case. I would assume Andraya Yearwood is a decent sort of person, but when she stood on that podium to accept first place, she took that honor from someone who had earned it. That's mistreatment. When Colleen Brenna showed off "her" stuff in front of the girls' swim team, and refused to use the small room, and they used it instead, that was mistreating the girls.

Upchurch said he wanted people to treat each other decently, but some of what is happening results in mistreatment, almost always of females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Unless someone has come up with one in the last couple of years, since I retired, no.

Assessment requires an awful lot of talking, then some unpicking of that, then some more talking, some more unpicking, establishing what Kid A means by this or that or the other (oddly consideration is given to someone's sexual identity as well as gender identity...). Oh, and ruling out obvious signs of any primary mental illness...And then some more talking and unpicking...Consideration of consent issues (aaaaah, UK-ian consent laws...Can you politicians actually sort them out? Properly?), what Kid A actually thinks they are consenting to, what Kid A wants. Then some more talking and unpicking...And then eventually I'd write a referral letter to the Tavistock, where it would all start again. And eventually an endocrinologist from one of the major London hospitals becomes involved and a lot of it starts again...

The idea that folk involved just start throwing out hormone blockers and accept anything that is said to them is nonsense.

That's how it *should* work, and that's perhaps how it worked when you were younger, but that's not how it has actually been working at Tavistock and GIDs. In the UK, Canada, and the US, it's become very common for a child to get a referral to a gender clinic on request from their primary care doctor, without having to go through a psychiatrist or psychologist at all. And it's become common for those children to be prescribed puberty blockers after only a few one-hour interviews.

I'm pretty sure that the responsible and rational approach that you outline above can't be completed in just a few hours time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

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?

Holy cow.

Because they are MALE. Because 98% of rapes and sexual assaults are perpetrated by MALES. Because over 90% of the victims of sexual assaults and rapes are FEMALES. Because based on criminal statistics, transwomen commit sexual assaults and rapes at the same rate as OTHER MALES.

Because MALES are bigger and stronger than FEMALES and MALES can make FEMALES pregnant against their will.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

No, but you are the one who seems to be pretending that humans don't have sexually dimorphic physical characteristics, and that the only way to tell whether someone is male or female is to look at their genitals.

 

[cullennz]

I guess not. That's why I asked.


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?

Just speaking from the point of view of your average bloke, I can personally say I have never gone into a bog and being worried about a woman raping me.

Unfortunately, women do not have that option depending on the isolation and amount of nutty dudes.

With the bloke raping bloke thing I have never really thought about it.

But have the luxury of being born someone who doesn't really need to worry.

I guess other blokes aren't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

RE: the in-between. Under the old state of things, there was trust on the part of women that people knew where they ought to be. And if a woman was butch or androgynous, we trusted that they were female. Sometimes we were wrong, but it was rare.

RE: getting people involved after the fact. This is rather like arguing that nobody should lock their doors out of concern for being robbed, and they should only get the cops involved after they've been cleaned out. You're removing the ability to prevent harm, and placing people - female people overwhelmingly - in a position where they cannot protect themselves from being hurt and can only get the police involved AFTER they've been harassed or assaulted or raped.

This essentially creates a situation where females are being asked to take on real risk and face real harm... in order to avoid hurting the feelings of a small number of males who identify as women and need to be in female spaces to affirm their internal subjective impression of themselves.

I think this is rather like abolishing the sex offender registry, and letting likely-to-re-offend pedophiles move in right next to a preschool, and telling all of the families in the area that it's no big deal, they can get the cops involved after their child has been molested. That's not intended to draw a parallel between transgender people and pedophiles, just to illustrate the insanity of placing that much risk on people in order to protect the feelings of a few.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well our primary point of disagreement is whether or not that "threat vector" for lack of a better term is one that can be altered by gender identity.

One side is arguing that their penis is supposed to be less threatening because it's attached to a woman. The other side is not agreeing with this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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!”.

Those different definitions are driving policy, Darat. If it were nothing more than a matter of social interaction, there'd be no real argument at all. But that's not where we're at, and it feels a bit disingenuous to gloss over that.

Those different definitions are being leveraged to allow biological males to win women's sports competitions, and set essentially unbeatable "women's" records. Those different definitions are being used to let biological males to take short-list positions and political seats that are reserved for women, in order to advance representation for half the population. Those different definitions are being used to allow males who identify as women to be placed into women's prisons.

Those different definitions are being leaned upon by people who feel that allowing a rape victim to specify the SEX of her medical examiner, rather than the GENDER makes transpeople "unsafe" and makes rape victims "bigots".

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

Females have always been expected to "get along", and to be conciliatory and collaborative. We've always been expected to subordinate our needs to the feelings of males.

Staying silent on this topic, "agreeing to disagree" is leading to females losing access to services, and no longer having a right to set their own boundaries and expect safety or dignity in private spaces or intimate settings.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

What the heck do you think the gist of this thread is?

 

[Emily's Cat]

What exactly do you think she's been doing?

Perhaps he thinks I've been being hysterical and making a big deal out of it?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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)

Okay. I re-read your posts, and I think I inferred a different tone than you may have intended. I suspect I took your effort at neutral language to be more oppositional than it actually was.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Yes, plenty of young dudes have been preyed upon. I don't dispute that at all. But I also don't follow where that is relevant to this discussion. Do you think that allowing transmen into mens spaces and mens roles is likely to increase the likelihood of a boy being assaulted or preyed upon by females? That's not something I've given much thought to, and I confess it seems unlikely to me, but it would certainly be relevant to the topic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

ETA: Made a few minor edits to make some points clearer.

Which would be fine, relatively speaking, if "picking a side" wasn't a requirement just to be in basic society.

If a woman somehow finds herself in "my" (however we're defining it when this is all said and done) bathroom, I'm not going to rape her.

If a trans-male somehow finds himself in "my" (same caveat) bathroom, I'm not going to run him out because he doesn't belong or harass him.

Again I stress that I'm literally doing what both sides claim they want (because what they want is completely reasonable to the point that "not doing it" isn't a thing you should get credit for, obs)

The problem is the meta-problem when the woman sees the trans-female in her space and wants them out because she is scared of rape and the trans-female wants in because she doesn't want her femininity denied and they both (not literally obviously but in the context of a social discussion) look at me and go "Well which side are you on now?" and my only option at that point is to look around for a fire alarm to pull so I can make an escape.

You can dismiss it as "woe is me" if you must but don't think it's particularly fair to do so. And you say "Just because it's unfair to me personally" as if that's a valid dismissal or something I'm otherwise unreasonable to even trying to put on the table.

"Nobody is denying there is a contradiction, just don't worry about and pretend it will never come up" is the best answer I've gotten between the waves of being accused of being a bigot of some various sort.

I don't think I've asked you to take a side, or implied that you're a bigot for finding the whole discussion frustrating and a giant gordian knot, but if I have I'm sorry.

Mostly, I don't think anyone in this thread has been demanding that you take a side at all. There are several posters who've found themselves somewhere in the middle on a variety of topics.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not realistic though.

Is it less realistic than demanding that they be accepted as women without question?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well our primary point of disagreement is whether or not that "threat vector" for lack of a better term is one that can be altered by gender identity.

One side is arguing that their penis is supposed to be less threatening because it's attached to a woman. The other side is not agreeing with this.

Crime statistics don't support the idea that a lady-penis is less of a threat either.