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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not all progressive movements look great in hindsight:

In 1976, the NCCL in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee of the British Parliament argued that "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage… The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage". The NCCL also sought to place the "onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed" rather than having a blanket ban on child pornography and advocated the decriminalisation of incest.
Click to expand...
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Their "reasoning" is because they accept the facts I. e. that is how society is currently organised. They are not saying like many seem to be "I wouldn't start from here".

You are not going to get far when campaigning for social changes by taking everything back to its foundations. You have to work with what you have.

As an illustration look at how we ended up with universal suffrage in the UK. The radical Chartists got nowhere wanting to go from something like 2% to 100%, those that campaigned for equally radical but less ambitious reforms made inroads time and time again. Sometimes the campaigns got very angry and even violent, for example the women who campaigned for women such as themselves to get the vote (it is often overlooked that the "Suffragette movement" was not a campaign for universal suffrage). Eventually we ended up with universal suffrage.

Most campaigns for rights go through similar stages.

Y
 
Aber said:
Missed the point completely :rolleyes:

Our London lawyer has been claiming that transgender people have a fixed and clear internal view of their gender which differs from biological reality.

Eddie Izzard is NOT of that view; it seems his views are less clear-cut and look (from the outside) very much like "making it up as I go along"/"let's find something shocking to say".
Click to expand...



If you're referring to me, please point out where I've ever claimed anything akin to your "fixed and clear" proposition.

And boy is there some bigotry continuing to seep out out in this thread. Tell you what: why don't you email Eddie Izzard's agent and tell them to tell Eddie that it looks very much to you like she's "making it up as (she) goes along" and that she's "(trying to find) something shocking to say"?

You ought to be ashamed of what you've written there. As should many others in this thread. As I've now said many times before, it's a blessing that nobody holding these sorts of views is anywhere close to the prevailing view in either the medical or legislative bodies across most of the developed world.
 
Upchurch said:
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...
Click to expand...



I know. And then - as now with trans-identity issues - those sorts of bigots couldn't see just how offensive and divisive their bigotry was. On account of them being bigots.

I realise it's a stonking big cliche round here, but one doesn't normally expect to find bigotry and intolerance within a forum promoting critical thinking and scepticism. Hey ho.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Are comparing transgenderism to pedaphilia in order to delegitimize it? That’s homophobia all over again.
Click to expand...

Although historically that was (and still is) a link that was made to harm campaigns for homosexual discrimination to be stopped the early gay and then lesbian and gay campaigners did allow some of the pedophile campaigners to hijack/stowaway/jump on the lorry of those early campaigns. That was still causing harm when I first became involved in campaigning in the early 1980s.
 
Upchurch said:
A unisex locker room wouldn’t be that hard to design and still allow individual privacy. I’d be surprised if someone hadn’t already built one.
Click to expand...
I have described the unisex changing room in my hometown YMCA upthread.

ETA: Included a photo as well.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
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...
Click to expand...

Probably because you aren't reading the thread and haven't noticed this strawman has been rejected several times already.

Including in the past couple days since you started trying to fringe reset the thread.
 
Upchurch said:
Are comparing transgenderism to pedaphilia in order to delegitimize it? That’s homophobia all over again.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Also see Eugenics.

Just because a campaign is lauded by progressives, does not mean it is looked on favourably by history.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
If you're referring to me, please point out where I've ever claimed anything akin to your "fixed and clear" proposition.
Click to expand...

This is close enough for me, unless you hold views about non-binary gender which you have not made clear.

As opposed to holding real, valid, lived, totally sincere beliefs that they do not identify as the gender which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
Probably because you aren't reading the thread and haven't noticed this strawman has been rejected several times already.
Click to expand...

Strawman? Perhaps you've missed Emily's Cat's argument that trans women's abnormal behavior represents an eminent danger to cis women and should, therefore not be allowed in certain places?
 
JoeMorgue said:
We can't legislate criminality based on sex/gender, so all of this is a red herring anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes we can. Spain has done it already. The new gender violence laws only apply for violence from men to women. No more pesky presumption of innocence either, a woman's word is enough to send a man to prison. (But not the opposite).
 
Upchurch said:
Strawman? Perhaps you've missed Emily's Cat's argument that trans women's abnormal behavior represents an eminent danger to cis women and should, therefore not be allowed in certain places?
Click to expand...

That sidebar is tangential to the argument for not accepting self-ID as sole justification for access to female-only spaces. Which you would know if you'd actually been reading the thread instead of mining it for ersatz gotchas.

Erstaz because your "gotcha" misunderstands the nature of EC's argument in that sidebar, and therefore also and predictably fails as an analogy.

In any case, EC has repeatedly and explicitly stated that she does not object to transwomen having access to female-only spaces. So your analogy not only fails in function (the two things not actually being analogous), but it's wildly off the mark as well. You really should just read the thread instead of trying to reset it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom