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

[JoeMorgue]

We can't legislate criminality based on sex/gender, so all of this is a red herring anyway.

I'm not trying to make light of Emily's Cat's fear, but we can't make "Rapist" into a gender.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Study suggests that transwomen exhibit a male pattern of criminality

Transgender women exhibit a male-type pattern of criminality: Implications for legislators and policy makers.

Goggling is almost impossible. Everything turns up info about violence against transwomen. One of the things most frequently left out of those studies is that a very large portion of the transwomen who are victims of violence, are also sex-workers, and that's not controlled for.

On the other hand..
List of people killed for being transgender Shows a grand total of 10 people killed for being transgender in 2019, in Europe, North America, and Mexico.

Actually, I think logically the burden is on those making the claim that transwomen differ. That is, if one wants to say that this group of males is significantly/intrinsically different than all other males, then the burden of evidence is on them.

Should note, I really hope we don't start conflating tranwomen crime stats with those of women (i.e. adult human females)

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's a point I've made multiple times. For all the time we spend spinning the wheels getting nowhere defining the line, it's fairly obvious the line everybody wants is between "straight cis males" and "everybody else."

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's sort of like how we settled on "Person of Color" as the de-facto term for "Anyone who isn't white" despite that... really not making sense or being a meaningful and useful categorization.

 

[angrysoba]

Because I want a solution both of them will accept.

Don't play "You said this, but then you said that (in a totally different context that I'll just LOL pretend not to notice)" gotcha.

I'm frustrated that neither side wants to give an inch while still wanting both of them to get the core of what they want. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

I didn’t say you were a hypocrite. But I am letting you know that you almost certainly can’t please both sides in this debate and there is no point waving your olive branch around and expecting that to placate everyone.

I think the aims are mutually exclusive, at least when the game is a zero-sum one as both sides (or at least the extremes of both sides) are characterizing it.

Either you supports trans rights in which case, transwomen take some of the pie that is reserved for women, or you argue that the pie is women’s only in which case transwomen will be excluded.

If you don’t pick a side then the extremes will definitely go after you. You could argue that the extremes don’t matter in which case just expect flak.

Personally I think that there cannot be a totally satisfactory situation.

Perhaps the best way is to make gender free toilets and locker-rooms, and people who want to spend their time in public mixing with people only of their own gender will just have to suck it up. Women’s sports, if they continue as a class will just have to exclude *some* trans athletes. Some people will not be satisfied with that, but ultimately one side (or the extremes) will have to put up with it. Sorry Eddie Izzard, you can’t have women’s marathon records!

 

[Upchurch]

Actually, I think logically the burden is on those making the claim that transwomen differ. That is, if one wants to say that this group of males is significantly/intrinsically different than all other males, then the burden of evidence is on them.

The self-identify as girls/women were as other males don’t?

 

[theprestige]

The self-identify as girls/women were as other males don’t?

Again*, this is clear enough, but hardly seems binding on anyone else, nor a reasonable basis for changing public policy.

Especially if we stick to your definition of woman as being the social and cultural assumptions and interactions. If that's the criteria, then their self identification is completely irrelevant to questions at hand.

 

[cullennz]

Because I want a solution both of them will accept. Don't play "You said this, but then you said that (in a totally different context that I'll just LOL pretend not to notice)" gotcha.

I'm frustrated that neither side wants to give an inch while still wanting both of them to get the core of what they want. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

The point is that after 5 threads, we have kind of come to the conclusion there isn't one, from looking at it.

So you basically have to kind of pick a who is going to have to give more leeway.

Tough luck. Life sucks and all that, but bad luck, it is going to be dudes who think they are chicks

 

[Upchurch]

Hey, remember when it used to be that gay men couldn’t be Boy Scout leaders because the risk of them being pedophiles was just to darn high?

I don’t know why that occurred to me just now...

 

[angrysoba]

The point is that after 5 threads, we have kind of come to the conclusion there isn't one, from looking at it.

So you basically have to kind of pick a who is going to have to give more leeway.

Tough luck. Life sucks and all that, but bad luck, it is going to be dudes who think they are chicks

Not necessarily. Don’t rule out the possibility of a compromise that no one is happy with.

 

[cullennz]

Hey, remember when it used to be that gay men couldn’t be Boy Scout leaders because the risk of them being pedophiles was just to darn high?

I don’t know why that occurred to me just now...

Not from memory.

Here it seems to be any bloke wanting to be a primary school/kindergarten teacher these days.

Actually even high school I think.

 

[lionking]

Hey, remember when it used to be that gay men couldn’t be Boy Scout leaders because the risk of them being pedophiles was just to darn high?

I don’t know why that occurred to me just now...

These false analogies have been dealt with countless times in this series of threads.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hey, remember when it used to be that gay men couldn’t be Boy Scout leaders because the risk of them being pedophiles was just to darn high?

I don’t know why that occurred to me just now...

You want to maintain segregation when it comes to locker rooms, right?
You want to maintain segregation when it comes to sporting events, right?

All of the various analogies that you might use apply equally to your position as to mine. We both want to maintain segregation, just like people used to segregate whites and blacks. We both want to exclude men from the women's locker room, just as they used to exclude gay people from the Boy Scouts. The only argument is about what criterion on which to segregate.


How can you justify that, given all the misery that has been caused by racial segregation?

I'm not going to go all sealiony by asking you to explain your reasons for wanting to segregate men and women in sports, or in showers. I already know why most people want to do that. I'm guessing you have the same reasons as others. However, as a mental exercise, pick a reason that men and women ought to be segregated, and then see if you can come up with an argument about why transwomen should be on the women side of the segregation line. If you come up with a good one, share it with us. Let me emphasize what I'm asking for. I'm looking for an argument about why
1) Segregation of men and women ought to maintained and
2) Whatever reason men and women ought to be segregated, transwomen ought to be included with the women. (For bonus points, complete the argument by showing how transmen ought to be included with the men.)


You can say, "because they are women", but that isn't so much an argument as it is a bare assertion.

 

[cullennz]

You want to maintain segregation when it comes to locker rooms, right?
You want to maintain segregation when it comes to sporting events, right?

All of the various analogies that you might use apply equally to your position as to mine. We both want to maintain segregation, just like people used to segregate whites and blacks. We both want to exclude men from the women's locker room, just as they used to exclude gay people from the Boy Scouts. The only argument is about what criterion on which to segregate.


How can you justify that, given all the misery that has been caused by racial segregation?

I'm not going to go all sealiony by asking you to explain your reasons for wanting to segregate men and women in sports, or in showers. I already know why most people want to do that. I'm guessing you have the same reasons as others. However, as a mental exercise, pick a reason that men and women ought to be segregated, and then see if you can come up with an argument about why transwomen should be on the women side of the segregation line. If you come up with a good one, share it with us. Let me emphasize what I'm asking for. I'm looking for an argument about why
1) Segregation of men and women ought to maintained and
2) Whatever reason men and women ought to be segregated, transwomen ought to be included with the women. (For bonus points, complete the argument by showing how transmen ought to be included with the men.)


You can say, "because they are women", but that isn't so much an argument as it is a bare assertion.

I realise that it seems to have hit full on suddenly going to stupid levels of a weird convo' now you are comparing it to racism, but you do realise, that your whole argument begs the question why can't trans women just use the dudes?

I mean why as you put it, the segregation?

 

[Meadmaker]

I mean why as you put it, the segregation?

Periodically, someone says exactly that. Most often they say that with relation to private spaces, arguing that if only we regularly saw each other naked, it wouldn't be a big deal. It's an honest argument, even if I don't agree with it. It came up recently with sports, asking why they were segregated by men and women, instead of by skill level.

However, what we have is an awful lot of people who think that men and women ought to be segregated, and transwomen should be on the women's side.

I'm pointing out that arguments relating to past segregation don't really make sense, because even today, the people making the arguments want to continue segregation. All of the old "it's just like the old days", apply just as well to their arguments as to mine.

Then, I'm asking people if there is an argument, other than bare assertion, that segregation ought to be continued, but transwomen ought to be on the women's side, and transmen ought to be on the men's side.

Why should we have separate locker rooms or sporting competitions? If a reason exists, why does that reason apply to me, but not to a transwoman? If the only answer is "because they're women and you are not", then there isn't any real argument at all. It's just an assertion.

 

[cullennz]

Periodically, someone says exactly that. Most often they say that with relation to private spaces, arguing that if only we regularly saw each other naked, it wouldn't be a big deal. It's an honest argument, even if I don't agree with it. It came up recently with sports, asking why they were segregated by men and women, instead of by skill level.

However, what we have is an awful lot of people who think that men and women ought to be segregated, and transwomen should be on the women's side.

I'm pointing out that arguments relating to past segregation don't really make sense, because even today, the people making the arguments want to continue segregation. All of the old "it's just like the old days", apply just as well to their arguments as to mine.

Then, I'm asking people if there is an argument, other than bare assertion, that segregation ought to be continued, but transwomen ought to be on the women's side, and transmen ought to be on the men's side.

Why should we have separate locker rooms or sporting competitions? If a reason exists, why does that reason apply to me, but not to a transwoman? If the only answer is "because they're women and you are not", then there isn't any real argument at all. It's just an assertion.

I know it might be beginning to sound like a broken record, but it is biology,

I have been a teenage bloke and I know from my hormone filled years the situation would have me wandering round your proposed room in those days like a human sun dial. Through no fault of my own. It is just human nature.

And I am the one who would just be hanging round getting changed. You need to add in nutters.

 

[Meadmaker]

I know it might be beginning to sound like a broken record, but it is biology,

I have been a teenage bloke and I know from my hormone filled years the situation would have me wandering round your proposed room in those days like a human sun dial. Through no fault of my own. It is just human nature.

And I am the one who would just be hanging round getting changed. You need to add in nutters.

You realize that I am not proposing an end to segregation, right? I want to continue segregation.

So does Upchurch et. al.

But I'm asking him, or anyone who agrees with him, to actually explain their reasoning, instead of just asserting their conclusion. Why have segregation? Once you describe that, then apply the argument to individuals, specifically to transgender people, and describe why some biological males should be segregated with the women, and some biological females should be segregated with the men.

 

[Darat]

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

And?

 

[Aber]

Should note, I really hope we don't start conflating tranwomen crime stats with those of women (i.e. adult human females)

Already are.

 

[Upchurch]

These false analogies have been dealt with countless times in this series of threads.

It’s not a false analogy. It’s a lesson from history that we will either learn from or be doomed to repeat. People are not threats or criminals because the acknowledge and accept who they are on the inside, nor are they mentally ill because what they are on the inside is different from what society thinks their biology defines them as.

Like those Confederate monuments, most of this series of threads will not age well as society grows to understand the intent or feelings behind these arguments. History is rarely on the side of the bigot who wants to control others.