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

[JihadJane]

Not sure about perving, but wouldn't a transwoman in a women's locker room for the first time be observing the other women pretty closely to see how other women actually behave in such situations?

I know that's what I tend to do when I'm in a new social situation.

Blending in would make it easier to perv on women, if that was their inclination.

 

[Paul2]

If we assume rates are the same (and low for both groups), the significantly larger population of the latter compared to the former still means there are simply many more pervs of the latter sort than the former sort.

But you could divide the population of all biological males on any characteristic that produces a minority - wiggle your ears? - bald before 50 years old? - earned a P.hD.? - and then say that the number of those people who pose an actual risk is so small that they can be ignored.

You might be able to come up with enough definable minorities so as to exclude most people from such restrictions.

 

[Lithrael]

It occurs to me that if we use the terms transwoman, ciswoman, transman, and cisman, we all understand what those terms mean. Some people do not like the terms, but everyone understands them. The fundamental, underlying, problem of communication is that some people think there are very important features shared by cismen and transmen, while other people think that there are very important features shared by cismen and transwomen. Depending on which "side" you are on, you think that public policy should emphasize the common features shared by cismen and transwomen, or that public policy should emphasize the common features of cismen and transmen.

I can certainly agree with this and I think it’s an excellent summary of what everybody is trying to hash out as far as agreements and disagreements about what can and/or should be done for various real world practical applications. The definition stuff is superfluous to that, and is kind of its own thing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Blending in would make it easier to perv on women, if that was their inclination.

And that's a poison pill that doesn't need to be put into the discussion, lest of all at this level

 

[Ziggurat]

But you could divide the population of all biological males on any characteristic that produces a minority - wiggle your ears? - bald before 50 years old? - earned a P.hD.? - and then say that the number of those people who pose an actual risk is so small that they can be ignored.

You could. But it's not really equivalent. Is there some benefit to accommodating most such minority groups by allowing them access to female spaces? In almost all cases, no.

Is there some benefit to accommodating trans women by allowing them access to female spaces? Yes, there is some benefit, a benefit not shared by other groups such as premature balding men. There is some cost, especially if implemented poorly, but there is benefit. If implemented poorly, then the largest cost is likely to to come from predatory non-trans men who abuse the opportunity for access. So that's the biggest issue to address, an issue where trans women like Boudicca should try to work with women like Emily's Cat to figure out an acceptable solution. But Boudicca doesn't seem to want to even concede that this is a valid concern.

The issue of predatory trans women isn't irrelevant, but it is smaller. Is it small enough to be outweighed by the benefits? Maybe, maybe not. But it's still second place, and if no agreement on handling the first one can be reached, there's no hope on the second one.

 

[Paul2]

You could. But it's not really equivalent. Is there some benefit to accommodating most such minority groups by allowing them access to female spaces? In almost all cases, no.

Is there some benefit to accommodating trans women by allowing them access to female spaces? Yes, there is some benefit, a benefit not shared by other groups such as premature balding men. There is some cost, especially if implemented poorly, but there is benefit. If implemented poorly, then the largest cost is likely to to come from predatory non-trans men who abuse the opportunity for access. So that's the biggest issue to address, an issue where trans women like Boudicca should try to work with women like Emily's Cat to figure out an acceptable solution. But Boudicca doesn't seem to want to even concede that this is a valid concern.

The issue of predatory trans women isn't irrelevant, but it is smaller. Is it small enough to be outweighed by the benefits? Maybe, maybe not. But it's still second place, and if no agreement on handling the first one can be reached, there's no hope on the second one.

Yes, I agree. The difference between trans folk and those who can wiggle their ears is the benefit that would occur to trans folk. Then, you have the cost/risk/benefit calculation to do.

 

[d4m10n]

It occurs to me that if we use the terms transwoman, ciswoman, transman, and cisman, we all understand what those terms mean.

Careful! I've been wokescolded on occasion for failing to put spaces after "cis" and "trans" so as to make them into standalone adjectives instead of prefixes.

The fundamental, underlying, problem of communication is that some people think there are very important features shared by cismen and transmen, while other people think that there are very important features shared by cismen and transwomen.

I'd say that both are evidently true. Cis men and trans men often have relatively high testosterone (compared to females) and have to deal with the physiological and psychological effects thereof. Cis men and trans women often have the muscle density and bone structure typical of males, and this makes it potentially unfair for them to compete in women's rugby.

 

[GlennB]

You could. But it's not really equivalent. Is there some benefit to accommodating most such minority groups by allowing them access to female spaces? In almost all cases, no.

Is there some benefit to accommodating trans women by allowing them access to female spaces? Yes, there is some benefit, a benefit not shared by other groups such as premature balding men. There is some cost, especially if implemented poorly, but there is benefit. If implemented poorly, then the largest cost is likely to to come from predatory non-trans men who abuse the opportunity for access. So that's the biggest issue to address, an issue where trans women like Boudicca should try to work with women like Emily's Cat to figure out an acceptable solution. But Boudicca doesn't seem to want to even concede that this is a valid concern.

The issue of predatory trans women isn't irrelevant, but it is smaller. Is it small enough to be outweighed by the benefits? Maybe, maybe not. But it's still second place, and if no agreement on handling the first one can be reached, there's no hope on the second one.

This sums up the dilemma perfectly, imo.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps what you went through at puberty wasn’t the “normal”? Why is what kids today apparently go through not the “normal” and what you went through was the “abnormal”?

Times change, what is considered “normal” will be different from generation to generation. In effect you are trying to impose and fix what you went through as “normal”. Kids today can explore their identities and try on different hats in a way I find enviable, when I was that age there was pretty much one socially acceptable identify for males, one for females and god help you if you didn’t conform to those.

I really do think this is something to celebrate.

Couldn't agree more.

I happen to believe that for many people over the age of, say, 35, their approach to the transgender debate is coloured to a certain degree (whether consciously or unconsciously) by this sort of thinking: "It wasn't a "thing" when I was growing up". "I never knew anyone at school/uni/work/etc who was transgender", and so on.

And, as you say, this then translates - again, whether consciously or unconsciously - into them framing the debate in their own flavour of "normal". What's more (as you also say), they hold the belief that their flavour of "normal" actual IS the fixed norm.

The likely reality (as you once again point out) is that these issues very much did exist when people born in the 40s-80s were growing up - it's just that societal pressures and prejudices effectively forced those people to (attempt to) conform to the "norms". It's heartbreaking to imagine the internal mental conflicts that so many people may have had to endure as a result.

 

[LondonJohn]

RE: The highlighted: In fairness, it has been asserted that at least some trans-women display behavior patterns associated with men (disregarding women's opinions, aggressiveness, crime rates).

But in general, you are correct. And even the poster who made those points is willing to accept trans-women in female spaces and sports given certain conditions.

The key to the "women's space" issue is less about who gets to enter and more about how do we allow trans-women in while still discouraging cis-men from entering.


Men invading women's spaces for voyeuristic (or worse) purposes is already a problem. In fact, there are already men who will disguise themselves for that purpose. I believe I provided a link not too long ago. No one here has said that this was not a problem already, though I don't think there is a thread specific to it. Just as there is not a general: "murder is bad" thread.

The reason it is an issue on trans- threads is that there is concern self-ID may make an existing problem worse. Not because of legitimate trans-women, but because of opportunistic cis-men.

Now, are men "suddenly" concerned about this because it involves trans people? Not really. As a male, do I think about voyeurism or assualt in bathrooms a lot? No. It's not part of my daily life. But am I concerned with it when it comes up? Yes. It concerns me when there is a news story of two way mirror in a gas station bathroom. It concerns me when I hear of a man sneaking into women's bathrooms/locker rooms to plant cameras.

I would advocate for measures to safeguard against this if I could think of any that were practical. I can't think of a practical way to ensure that trans-women entering the spaces are not cis-men in disguise. But I think something along the lines of requiring some sort of gender certification might act as a deterrent to some. (It won't act as prevention because showing papers to enter the bathroomis anuntenable idea.)

There are a lot of nuanced positions in this thread, some of which get lost if you just look at individual posts. No one wants to write a dissertation explaining their full view for every post, so you kind of have to piece it together over time. I've pointed out a few times how close together some of the "extremists" (if there truly are any on this thread) are in their opinions.

It's almost like which "side" you are on is more important than the actual topic.

I entirely agree with everything you write.

And on the (ever-volatile) issue of transwomen in women's changing rooms, I myself have previously made the point more than once that - in this context - women unfortunately already stand at potential risk of men simply walking in and offending.

I agree with your point that any publicising of the right of transwomen to use these women's spaces may, in itself, embolden certain cismen to use this as a cloak to enter women-only spaces. But, as you say, I think the correct approach is to try to make it more difficult for cismen to employ such a stratagem. And I would add that, in the 21st century, it should be pretty easy to install panic buttons (and maybe ones which trigger cctv recording, for use as evidence) in places such as women's changing rooms in sports centres.

To me, the optimum solution is to try to improve safeguards; to me, the optimum solution categorically is not to prevent transwomen from being allowed to use women-only spaces such as changing rooms.

 

[TomB]

The likely reality (as you once again point out) is that these issues very much did exist when people born in the 40s-80s were growing up - it's just that societal pressures and prejudices effectively forced those people to (attempt to) conform to the "norms". It's heartbreaking to imagine the internal mental conflicts that so many people may have had to endure as a result.

This is true. But not exclusively so.

There is another likely truth that many of the people who were questioning had those issues resolve in other ways or that the questioning was nbot the result of being trans.

These are not mutually exclusive. It can be true that past social pressures repressed expression of being trans and also be true that in certain communities kids with non-conforming issues could be overly encouraged (pushed) towards a transitioning.

I don't really have an opinion as I have no direct experience. But it's possible for both to be true.

 

[TomB]

I entirely agree with everything you write.

And on the (ever-volatile) issue of transwomen in women's changing rooms, I myself have previously made the point more than once that - in this context - women unfortunately already stand at potential risk of men simply walking in and offending.

I agree with your point that any publicising of the right of transwomen to use these women's spaces may, in itself, embolden certain cismen to use this as a cloak to enter women-only spaces. But, as you say, I think the correct approach is to try to make it more difficult for cismen to employ such a stratagem. And I would add that, in the 21st century, it should be pretty easy to install panic buttons (and maybe ones which trigger cctv recording, for use as evidence) in places such as women's changing rooms in sports centres.

To me, the optimum solution is to try to improve safeguards; to me, the optimum solution categorically is not to prevent transwomen from being allowed to use women-only spaces such as changing rooms.

I think I agree with this in principle, though I doubt many would be open to cctv cameras in restrooms/changing areas as its too hard to ensure they are only used when the panic button is pressed.

But I think that's progress because now we are talking about mechanisms to address the needs of both groups as opposed to staking out sacred ground.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I happen to believe that for many people over the age of, say, 35, their approach to the transgender debate is coloured to a certain degree (whether consciously or unconsciously) by this sort of thinking: "It wasn't a "thing" when I was growing up". "I never knew anyone at school/uni/work/etc who was transgender", and so on.

Some context for this. Now to be clear this isn't meant as a direct (or any sort of) rebuttal, but I do think it does provide a valid perspective.

It's not so much that the broad social concept that we're now discussing as transgenderism didn't exist, it's that it was being approached from a different angel.

Again up until what we now generally think of as transgenderism came into the discussion the big push was toward desegregation of the sexes, taking things that one sex could do but not the other and getting rid of that restriction.

Homosexuality, cross dressing, wage equality, women's liberation... all sort of broke down upon those lines. Men wanted to be able to have sex with men, women wanted to be able to have sex with women, people wanted to wear clothing not traditionally associated with their sex, women wanted to be paid the same wage for the same work as a man, women didn't want to seen as defaulting to staying at home, raising the kids, etc.

That was always the path I thought we were on; making the sexes more equal. Looking at things that one sex could do and the other couldn't and going "Okay let's look at this really hard and see if it's necessary." And I thought, and still do, think that's a noble goal.

That was the battle. And my main issue with transgenderism has always been how it never admits that it is running, not contrary but certainly in a weird parallel path. When you're fighting to make the teams equal and then someone runs up, really, really concerned that they are the ones getting to choose which team they are one... we all get that's weird right?

Again we're on like the 25th loop of this same discussion so I'm pretty sure of the answer I'm going to get; that gender identity is not incompatible with sexual equality and I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but gender identity is, by definition this point can't be counter-argued, going to become less important the more equal the sexes are so I don't think I'm being paranoid or hateful by raising an eyebrow at a subtle culture that is become really, really, really emotionally invested and putting so much of their indenity in defining their own genders.

Like I'm sorry but the idea that Bou-"I'm a woman from every single possible angle because I say so"-dicca or someone like her just isn't going to be happy in a world where men and women are as equal as possible, therefore that extremely important to them and defining part of her personal identity means little to nothing, isn't crazy.

 

[TomB]

Blending in would make it easier to perv on women, if that was their inclination.

That logic also makes it easy for lesbians to perv on women and gay men to perv on men. (And I've seen women perv on men, so ...)

But...

We were mostly raised to be modest around the opposite sex. And, for the most part, girls are still raised not to get naked around boys and boys to not get naked around girls. This is the conditioning that society continues to instill.

So most people (in the US at least) are going to be at least a little uncomfortable undressing around people they perceive as the opposite sex/gender (not sure which one applies here). Truth is, most guys will be a little uncomfortable undressing in from=nt of a stranger they consider female. We may be more willing to just turn our back or ignore the discomfort, but it's still conditioned into us.

So is there really any reason to be surprised when women feel discomfort with people they perceive as male in their locker rooms? And maybe a bit of resentment to the idea that they should be the ones chased out to resolve this discomfort?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well again that pretense can be dropped.

"I don't want that that gay man in my locker room because I'm afraid he might rape me" - Homophobic.
"I don't want that transgender person in my bathroom because they peep on me" - Transphobic
"I demand multiple safe spaces from straight cis men to protect me from being raped, assault, peeped, or even ogled." - the inherent right of women everywhere.

 

[theprestige]

To me, the optimum solution is to try to improve safeguards; to me, the optimum solution categorically is not to prevent transwomen from being allowed to use women-only spaces such as changing rooms.

Hilariously, this is where the skeptics have been since the very beginning of the thread. The main theme being "self-ID is not an adequate safeguard". Unless you think self-ID is sufficient, and no more improvement of safeguards is needed, it looks like you've been in agreement on the main topic of debate all along.

Then it becomes a question of "what reasonable improvements can we make, that are not unacceptably offensive to transsexuals?" They way Boudicca puts it, the answer seems to be "none at all". What do you think?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I love how we still somehow manage to have "No True Scotsman" in a discussion based 100%, totally on the idea that "Self Identity" is sacrosanct.

Already we've been told multiple times that our hypothetical person who sneaks into the other sex's dressing room to peep isn't a "real transgender."

Well screw that. If they say they are they are. The fact that we can't question that BEING THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT can't go away when it makes you look bad.

 

[Ziggurat]

I love how we still somehow manage to have "No True Scotsman" in a discussion based 100%, totally on the idea that "Self Identity" is sacrosanct.

It's not 100% totally based on that idea if only some people involved in the discussion subscribe to that position. I do not. Boudicca says she does, although she makes exceptions based on standards she won't specify. I'm not sure who actually does subscribe to this 100%.

 

[Meadmaker]

Careful! I've been wokescolded on occasion for failing to put spaces after "cis" and "trans" so as to make them into standalone adjectives instead of prefixes.

Classic.

At least under the newspeak guidelines "cis" and "trans" still have definitions of some sort, unlike "man" and "woman".


I'll stick to using them as prefixes.

 

[d4m10n]

I love how we still somehow manage to have "No True Scotsman" in a discussion based 100%, totally on the idea that "Self Identity" is sacrosanct.

I doubt anyone really believes this, all of the time.

Even Boudicca seemed dubious about Seani.