Do you realise that there is a summary on that wiki page? You could have clicked the link rather than ask others to summarise it.
Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
- Status
Do you realise that there is a summary on that wiki page? You could have clicked the link rather than ask others to summarise it.
Yes I do.
It is tiny.
And it is why I asked for just a summary than everyone else having to go on Wiki.
The original post could have just added this.
Which would have meant everyone didn't have to browse
Sherkeu
Illuminator
There is more...
I noticed something Boudicca claimed that struck me as being a rather vulgar thing for a female to say. She says she calls her reduced flaccid penis "my clit". Now, I am not a huge prude and have been on several boards and with real-life friends who can be quite raunchy in conversation...but I have never heard them say "my clit". I am sure it happens with some women and perhaps they use it during sex?... just not in all my years as a female speaking to another female.
(Could be a generational thing I guess.)
So I looked it up.
Evidently, a transwomans feminine identity is sometimes affirmed by renaming their male parts as something female.
read here: "girldick and clit" (dailydot)
Sounds reasonable.
And not stupid.
So from now on let it be known my knob is now called "Trevor", or "Dave", depending on it's decided gender spectrum place on any given day.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Okay, let me ask the question another way. Ought employment law protect transgender status when the job itself doesn't involve sex-specific work (e.g. modeling bikinis, playing WNBA basketball)?
Last edited:
Yes, but that was kind of my point.
It should protect most statuses within reason.
Marital
Medical
It kind of all comes down to within reason.
If someone wants 6 weeks off to have their schlong removed and be fitted for a dress, that might be pushing it.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Out of curiosity, is bottom surgery a covered benefit under NZ health systems?
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
Mmm, I think it's just us raunchy gals, actually. I've definitely used that phrase speaking to girlfriends and vice versa.
No one ever came up with any good slang for that particular organ, so "clit" is the best we've got. Hilariously, as an aside, I didn't even know what it was called at all until I was like almost 20. Hooray Catholic school.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Protect in what way? Gender identity is already included in the protected class of sex (along with sex itself and sexual orientation). Are you asking cullennz if he has an argument for or against that?
Do *you* have an argument for or against that?
(I don't, yet. I'm provisionally defaulting in favor of the protection.)
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Because of appeals court decisions such as Glenn v. Brumby in the United States, yes. In other OECD nations such protections are in place in other ways.
My question was designed to determine whether we've got anyone here so illiberal as to oppose such legal protections. I'm guessing not, despite all the accusations of TERFness, transphobia, etc.
Again my opinion that there is no functional non-biological difference between men and women make the whole question pointless. I don't even have a framework for how I would descriminate.
So it's not so much a case "I think there should be legal protection for transgenders to do X" I just don't think "Rules in place that force the various genders to do X" should exist in the first place, so a special exception for transgender people is nonsensical.
It's like asking "Do you think it should be illegal to murder people with beards?" Well no... I don't think it should be illegal to murder anyone so do I say yes because of course people with beards shouldn't be murdered or do I say no because I don't think people with beards should be or not be murdered any more or any less than anyone else? *Shrugs* I don't know.
Again my main "issue" such as it is with transgenderism is I cannot imagine a version of it that doesn't require us to put old gender roles back on the table again, just this time they being used non-traditionally so that makes it okay.
So it's not so much a case "I think there should be legal protection for transgenders to do X" I just don't think "Rules in place that force the various genders to do X" should exist in the first place, so a special exception for transgender people is nonsensical.
It's like asking "Do you think it should be illegal to murder people with beards?" Well no... I don't think it should be illegal to murder anyone so do I say yes because of course people with beards shouldn't be murdered or do I say no because I don't think people with beards should be or not be murdered any more or any less than anyone else? *Shrugs* I don't know.
Again my main "issue" such as it is with transgenderism is I cannot imagine a version of it that doesn't require us to put old gender roles back on the table again, just this time they being used non-traditionally so that makes it okay.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I suppose you could discriminate on the basis of dress code and similar considerations.
Should it be legal to require that the receptionist at your law firm wear business formal attire, and fire them if they refuse?
Should it be legal to insist on natural hair colors, no visible piercings other than earlobes, and no visible tattoos in the workplace? Should it be legal to fire anyone who doesn't comply?
Should it be legal to require that everyone dress according to the gender they present as*, in the workplace? I.e., if your boss thinks you look like a dude, you have to wear pants, and if you boss thinks you look like a lady, you have to wear skirts and dresses?
Should it be legal to require employees to answer to the pronouns others perceive as correct for them, and fire them if they insist on other pronouns?
---
*As which they present.
ETA: Clarification/context to the above.
So yeah when I get asked in one of the transgender discussions "Am I okay with a trans-male in my public bathroom" it always feel likes a trap question. Because what are (g)you asking me? Are you asking me if:
A: "I'm okay with a biological female that identifies/presents as a male in my public bathroom."
B: "I'm okay with a biological female that identifies/presents as a male in my public space but would not be okay with a biological female that identifies/presents as female in my public space."
I support transgender people in almost all cases because I no distinctions between what the biological sexes should do outside of what is unavoidable due to biology. "Gender" is a total nonsensical concepts to me in current usage; a sad attempt to retcon a simple synonym (and yes that was gender always was no matter what we're pretending now) into a "sex soul" that people have at best, a way to Trojan Horse old sexual stereotypes back into society by letting them be used ironically at worst.
So yeah I'm a lot of people's bad guy because to any question of:
"Should transgender person be able to do X?" my answer will almost always be yes but not because the transgender person gets a special exception to the rule, but because I think the rule shouldn't be there.
So yeah when I get asked in one of the transgender discussions "Am I okay with a trans-male in my public bathroom" it always feel likes a trap question. Because what are (g)you asking me? Are you asking me if:
A: "I'm okay with a biological female that identifies/presents as a male in my public bathroom."
B: "I'm okay with a biological female that identifies/presents as a male in my public space but would not be okay with a biological female that identifies/presents as female in my public space."
I support transgender people in almost all cases because I no distinctions between what the biological sexes should do outside of what is unavoidable due to biology. "Gender" is a total nonsensical concepts to me in current usage; a sad attempt to retcon a simple synonym (and yes that was gender always was no matter what we're pretending now) into a "sex soul" that people have at best, a way to Trojan Horse old sexual stereotypes back into society by letting them be used ironically at worst.
So yeah I'm a lot of people's bad guy because to any question of:
"Should transgender person be able to do X?" my answer will almost always be yes but not because the transgender person gets a special exception to the rule, but because I think the rule shouldn't be there.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I see what you did there.
No. The whole idea that is makes any kind of sense to have seperate, enforceable standards for how men and women dress is inexcusable in 2020. What possible purpose does it serve?
Pronouns are... whatever. I'll use them because I'm not intentionally trying to be a jerk but... they are pronouns. They are just words, not magical incantation. Some languages don't even have them. Other languages have them implemented in radically different ways. They don't actually mean anything.
I did not.
I'm not trying to turn this thread into a "Hardy har transgender jokes" thread.
I disagree with a lot of what is being said by the transgender side. I am not looking for the first excuse to turn them into acceptable targets for ridicule or turn this thread into a place for everyone share their favorite version of the "Assault Helicopter" joke.
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
I had to look into this. It sounds incorrect to me. And when I saw some of the candidates - Japanese!?! No way! Of course Japanese has pronouns!
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Having considered these questions far more than they probably deserve, I think the ultimate solution related to gender has to involve some variation on a legal gender change. Something like a "gender recognition certificate", or a change to what it says on your driver's license, or something. If you have the certificate, your boss cannot fire you for dressing as your preferred gender.
And your boss shouldn't fire you for the way you dress in any except very specialized circumstances anyway, but that's too much culture shock to expect that to change in the foreseeable future. What I'm saying is that the legal protection from employer action should be extended only if you have a legal recognition of your status.
Last edited:
I meant gendered pronouns, I should have been clearer.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
And here's where my thinking stalls out:
I really don't want to turn this into a "papers please" situation. Any more than I want to turn service animals into a "papers please" situation. But karens are already ruining the honor system for service animals. And they're already ruining the honor system for trans accommodations.
So I'm stumped.
- Status