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

[Paul2]

What do you and I have in common as part of that meta-category of "woman", and which we do not share with the meta-category of "men"?

Observing the reality of you sex is not hateful. I have consistently used female pronouns when referring to you, and in interactions with you. If you are emotionally harmed by the actual fact of your male biology, that's not evidence of hate from me or anyone else.


Ahh... so you've got a "lady-brain". Does that mean that "women" are naturally compassionate, submissive caregivers, who place the whims of their menfolk above their own needs? Evolved to be subservient? Not mentally suited for leadership or decision-making? Just naturally quiet and in the background, ceding the spotlight and the center of focus to men?

The biological cues 100% determine the sex you end up with. That is out of your control from the moment of conception. As far as the gender that you're using here, that's no in your control either - it's imposed upon us by society and interactions with other people.

Gender identity, on the other hand, is neither sex nor gender. I sympathize with your suffering and challenges related to your gender dysphoria. It sounds like something truly difficult and stressful, that could cause significant emotional trauma to you. I don't think you should be subjected to violence or legal discrimination due to a medical condition outside of your control. And I support your steps to mitigate the effect that your condition has on you quality of life.

The only thing I don't accept is that your mental state should take precedence over my objective reality, and be centered as a higher priority throughout society. Furthermore, I don't accept that your experiences as someone with persistent dysphoria from early childhood are the only experiences and the only situations our there. I don't think that I should have to accept Karen White or Jessica Yaniv into my spaces because I would accept you into them.

EC evinces sympathy and support here. Now, she may be misguided in some of her policy positions, and those may even do harm to trans folk. But it makes no sense to view those like her as the enemy (usually by calling them transphobes) when they have demonstrated good will through stated sympathy and support for trans folk.

We can't lose the ability to make friends and allies with those who might think differently, even if they are wrong or misguided. Let those who have never been wrong or misguided throw out the first transphobe label (against those who are generally in support).

 

[Emily's Cat]

Best me to it. Call Boudicca male and be prepared to be told you are a hateful, transphobic bigot.

Much lower likelihood of that happening, seeing that TomB is male...

 

[Emily's Cat]

If the highlighted is actually true it is stupid.

The amount of stupid wrapped up in progressive gender-identity policies in the UK is a bit astonishing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, I am female, not male. I am not a "woman with male gametes/physiology" I am female and a woman, just a different subset of woman as ciswomen.



Because it absolutely is.



I am not male, either by society's standards or by biology.

The earth is flat, the sun orbits the flat earth, humans are only 6000 years old and used to ride dinosaurs, vaccines cause autism, and bigfoot is real!

Your proclamations are in opposition to objectively observable and verifiable reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've been following and advocating those definitions from the very beginning of the discussion. I keep getting equivocations or rivers-in-Egypt from the transactivist side of the debate though.

I've also been scrupulously applying those definitions... for which I am called a hateful terf.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, it's quite simple. Just respect a person's self-identity and don't try to weasel around it. Unless you are a doctor, a person's biological makeup shouldn't be any of your business.

What if you're a female athlete and the person next to you has all of the benefits of an obviously male build and testosterone?

What if you're a female in prison, and the person incarcerated with you and sharing your cell self-identifies as a woman but has a fully-functional penis?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I just anyone would explain to us what the point or end goal here is.

My goal is to prevent stupid legislation that puts females in danger and reduces the rights and gains of females in society. My goal is to cement a reasonable and responsible method for diagnosing gender dysphoria that doesn't require "affirmation only" approaches, especially for minors. My goal is to stop this self-id ******** before it gets any further down the road. My goal is to support the dismantling of reductive and discriminatory sex-based stereotypes so that men can wear dresses and makeup and not be worried that other men will hurt them in the men's room.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That it be considered polite to refer to someone with their preferred pronoun, if they've advised you of it. Just like it's polite to refer to someone by their chosen name.

To allow people to make choices according to their self-identified gender, except in cases where there is a compelling reason not to.

Neither of those requires agreeing on whether trans women are "real" women.

Most of the posters in this thread agree with your intent. It's the "compelling reason" part where things get messed up. Some of us say "some compelling reasons exist", the other side says "no compelling reasons can be allowed to exist"

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've thrown a wrench in how you view us by giving examples of how we view ourselves, but you and your transphobe allies constantly dismiss what I have to say as insane. When my views are quite common in the trans community. I can't say whether or not it is a majority view, but many trans women consider ourselves truly female and consider being called male to be hateful.

And yet, I keep getting told that the transwomen on line who profess views that are in direct opposition to reality are really just the fingiest of the fringe...

How do you feel about slogans for "punch a terf" or rhetoric that "terfs aren't human" or that "terfs should be raped by ladydicks" and such? Do you oppose such sentiments? Do you think those views are ver rare, or are they commonplace?

 

[theprestige]

Honestly if trans-activists were to propose literally any other criteria rather than self-ID, I'd be meeting them more than halfway on just about everything except women's sports. And even then, I think we'd have a sound basis for working out an acceptable compromise.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But you have seen people, as you say, arguing that trans people shouldn’t be in public bathrooms because their fellow gender cannot trust them, correct? You have seen the arguments against redefining words? That trans people have a mental illness?

This is bordering on intentional misrepresentation.

People have argued that transpeople - specifically transwomen - shouldn't be allowed into opposite sex bathrooms - specifically female bathrooms, because males are a danger to females. It has ****-all to do with gender identity. Whether they identify as women, men, or chinchillas is irrelevant. They are still males, and males still represent a risk to females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Does that include ignoring the consequences of the politics of oppression or just the consequences one doesn’t like? How does that work?

Which oppression are you referring to with respect to transgender folks? And which consequences thereof?

 

[theprestige]

I think Upchurch is just trying to win the discussion without actually participating in it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If I see the conversation drop less often into the red herring of "denying biology" I'll be more in agreement with your assessment.

I wish it were a red herring. Unfortunately, it's not - it's the wedge.

"Team Opposed to Self-Id" doesn't deny that gender dysphoria isn't real, we don't want to erase the existence of transgender people or exterminate them. Or any of the other over-the-top emotionally-laden rhetoric that gets tossed out. Mostly, we just think that there are real differences between males and females of the species that justifies segregation in some certain settings. Generally in places where actual biology really does matter - in places where there's an increased vulnerability to sexual assault or where physical domination skews the equitable nature of the circumstances.

"Team All For Self-ID" seems to frequently insist that biology doesn't matter, or that sex is a spectrum, or that sex is subordinate to gender identity. They insist that sex doesn't matter for anything important (as if discrimination against females has to do with fashion choices rather than reproductive capacity and physical size).

If we can't nail down a meaningful difference between biological reality and subjective gender identity, we cannot have a discussion at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You know way more about your family than I know about mine. Thanksgiving conversation at your place must be fascinating.

We talk about everything except politics and religion.

It was a bit of a shock for my spouse, the first time we had Christmas dinner with all of my family. He was unprepared for my 80yo grandmother to launch into a discussion of sexual positions and facial expressions during orgasm.

My family is not at all dysfunctional. We are, however, highly unorthodox.

 

[Elaedith]

There is an online conference in January (UK based) in case anyone is interested:

DO NOT ADJUST YOUR SET”: SEX,GENDER and PUBLIC POLICY

A conference exploring the misunderstanding of the nature of gender dysphoria and its impact on public policy for children & young people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Honestly if trans-activists were to propose literally any other criteria rather than self-ID, I'd be meeting them more than halfway on just about everything except women's sports. And even then, I think we'd have a sound basis for working out an acceptable compromise.

Agreed. It really is the self-id aspect that is the problem.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think Upchurch is just trying to win the discussion without actually participating in it.

Obviously. Toss out vague comments that are supposed to evince some kind of shame from others.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is an online conference in January (UK based) in case anyone is interested:

DO NOT ADJUST YOUR SET”: SEX,GENDER and PUBLIC POLICY

A conference exploring the misunderstanding of the nature of gender dysphoria and its impact on public policy for children & young people.

I hope there will be a recording available. That's like the middle of the night for me.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do people really not remember the resistance to homosexuality over the last 30ish years?

Yes but I also remember what gay "meant" was clarified before we started having the discussion, it wasn't a vague vague vaguery vaguely vaguing that we were expected to figure out along the way while the homosexuals coquettishly went "Oh I'll never tell."

If you want to make a parallel imagine someone who is sexually attracted to the other sex, sleeps with the other sex, wants to get married to the other sex, but demands we think of them as gay anyway and calls us a homophobe when we just ask questions, even purely semantic ones.

Do people really not see the parallels here and consider that, just maybe, the world might not be as simple this time either?

"But it's just not that simple" is an argument ending cliche. It's true of everything outside of math and particle physics so it means nothing in any one particular discussion. It's up there with "But we can't go too far in the other direction" as something to say in an argument when you just want to hear your voice but have nothing to say.

As said it's trying to win a discussion without actually being in it.

And since nobody is making any effort to simplifying it, the fault doesn't lie with us.

I also must of all missed at what point anyone considered the gay rights movement "simple."