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

[JihadJane]

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?

Why would anyone be surprised that women would feel discomfort with having males in their locker rooms?

It's almost exclusively men that do the perving (eg voyeurism), and they almost exclusively perv on women. Giving men permission to enter women's spaces is a godsend for them.

 

[LondonJohn]

And here we are, since the beginning all agreeing that, women or not, transwomen should have access to women's spaces, as long as there's some safeguards. Even you agree about this. Even Emily's Cat agrees about this. Even Rolfe agrees about this. We may not agree about whether they're women, but we all agree about this. We've all agreed about this since the beginning.

Well, since you're speaking for other members, I'll feel free to do the same. For example, I believe EC holds that self-ID simply shouldn't be allowed wrt women-only spaces (as opposed to holding - as per your claim - that self-ID is acceptable, provided that further safeguards are put in place).

And further, it appears to me (and, for that matter, Boudicca90) that there's a cadre within these threads who claim that they recognise trans-identity and gender dysphoria as a valid condition (ie not a disorder or aberration etc), but who - almost in the next (metaphorical) breath - push back strongly against everything that such a recognition should entail in practical terms: in other words, transgender rights and protections.


(PS, from my perspective and in my opinion, it's rarely helpful or debate-progressing to attempt to neutralise certain individuals within the debate by telling them that they have effectively wasted their time arguing about an issue which was resolved to the satisfaction of all "sides" in the debate a long time ago. Especially when that issue was not so resolved a long time ago....YMMV, of course)

 

[JihadJane]

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

It's a reality of life.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why would anyone be surprised that women would feel discomfort with having males in their locker rooms?

It's almost exclusively men that do the perving (eg voyeurism), and they almost exclusively perv on women. Giving men permission to enter women's spaces is a godsend for them.

If a transwoman wishes to use (say) a public swimming pool, where would you have her* get changed?


* That's if you are OK with transwomen using women's pronouns (if they so desire), of course

 

[JihadJane]

And here we are, since the beginning all agreeing that, women or not, transwomen should have access to women's spaces, as long as there's some safeguards. Even you agree about this. Even Emily's Cat agrees about this. Even Rolfe agrees about this. We may not agree about whether they're women, but we all agree about this. We've all agreed about this since the beginning.

"Transwoman" can mean any man who says (feels) he's a woman. I not sure that either Emily's Cat or Rolfe agree that such men should have access to women's spaces, with or without safeguards. I don't agree with it.

 

[LondonJohn]

"Transwoman" can mean any man who says (feels) he's a woman. I not sure that either Emily's Cat or Rolfe agree that such men should have access to women's spaces, with or without safeguards. I don't agree with it.

As I was just saying, theprestige. As I was just saying.

 

[JihadJane]

If a transwoman wishes to use (say) a public swimming pool, where would you have her* get changed?


* That's if you are OK with transwomen using women's pronouns (if they so desire), of course

If they have a penis they should keep out of women's changing rooms.

 

[Elaedith]

I think I can remember (albeit only just, and as a kid) when certain (heterosexual) groups were making similar pithy comments about the vocabulary for gay and lesbian people: that they were being forced (against their will and their "better" judgement) to conform to hollow ideological terminology for homosexual people - as opposed to, say, calling them batty boys or rug munchers.

And likewise, I'm pretty sure that a generation before that, certain (caucasian) groups were making similar pithy comments about the vocabulary for black (and, for that matter, all non-white) people. I imagine you can probably guess the sorts of epithets that these groups would prefer to have used to describe non-whites.

None of the above were/are sceptics.

That's true, they weren't.

However, those who can see through facile attempts to imply that structurally dissimilar things are analogous, are reasonably described as sceptics.

 

[Meadmaker]

And here we are, since the beginning all agreeing that, women or not, transwomen should have access to women's spaces, as long as there's some safeguards. Even you agree about this. Even Emily's Cat agrees about this. Even Rolfe agrees about this. We may not agree about whether they're women, but we all agree about this. We've all agreed about this since the beginning.

I'm not certain Rolfe agrees. I know that she once did, but I think she started taking a harder line based on the "camel's nose" arguments.


I think most people, maybe even Rolfe, agree that transwomen should be allowed some access to some women's spaces.

 

[cullennz]

The problem screaming out to me is how do all these spaces both afford and administer these magic safeguards, (presuming they can be agreed on, which I doubt)

 

[Meadmaker]

that there's a cadre within these threads who claim that they recognise trans-identity and gender dysphoria as a valid condition (ie not a disorder or aberration etc)

It is a valid condition. It is also an aberration.

Disorder? That term contains an element of judgement. It's hard to say. I certainly have called it a disorder in the past.

Definitions are so difficult. If you were to define "man", I would take a shot at "disorder", and then I could give a definitive answer about whether or not trans identity is a disorder. It is certainly an aberration, and it is certainly a valid condition.


Thinking as I type.....It has been speculated that trans identity comes about when an abnormal hormonal mixture occurs at specific points during pregnancy. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that that can be confirmed. Moreover, suppose it were known exactly when that point occurs, and the condition can be corrected, and the mother could have some treatment performed that has no known side effects, but would prevent the fetus from developing into a transperson. Would you do it? I think the vast majority of people would do that. If so, I think it has to be considered a disorder. It's something that people would "fix" if they could. I think that's the definition of disorder.

 

[cullennz]

It is a valid condition. It is also an aberration.

Disorder? That term contains an element of judgement. It's hard to say. I certainly have called it a disorder in the past.

Definitions are so difficult. If you were to define "man", I would take a shot at "disorder", and then I could give a definitive answer about whether or not trans identity is a disorder. It is certainly an aberration, and it is certainly a valid condition.


Thinking as I type.....It has been speculated that trans identity comes about when an abnormal hormonal mixture occurs at specific points during pregnancy. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that that can be confirmed. Moreover, suppose it were known exactly when that point occurs, and the condition can be corrected, and the mother could have some treatment performed that has no known side effects, but would prevent the fetus from developing into a transperson. Would you do it? I think the vast majority of people would do that. If so, I think it has to be considered a disorder. It's something that people would "fix" if they could. I think that's the definition of disorder.

Probably not.

I would be concentrating on other actual serious disorders like psychopaths, peados, and the people that are into wanting to cut their own limbs off.

 

[d4m10n]

...there's a cadre within these threads who claim that they recognise trans-identity and gender dysphoria as a valid condition (ie not a disorder or aberration etc), but who - almost in the next (metaphorical) breath - push back strongly against everything that such a recognition should entail in practical terms: in other words, transgender rights and protections.

Can you explain why a "valid condition" (not a disorder) requires medical intervention?

(To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a disorder requiring medical intervention. It will happen to most of us, provided we live long enough.)

 

[Darat]

If they have a penis they should keep out of women's changing rooms.

That avoided answering the question.

 

[cullennz]

That avoided answering the question.

TBF

The question assumes most females are willing to meet in the middle somewhere.

It just always seems to come down to more females are going to be stressed by male bodied people who think they should have been women rother than male bodied people who think they should have been women having to use the unisex, or the dudes which apparently causes stress, due to basic risk to themselves.

Kind of a no brainer which side to take.

 

[Rolfe]

And here we are, since the beginning all agreeing that, women or not, transwomen should have access to women's spaces, as long as there's some safeguards. Even you agree about this. Even Emily's Cat agrees about this. Even Rolfe agrees about this.

No she doesn't. I do not agree that any male-bodied person should have the right to access any female single-sex space. Giving any male-bodied person that right inevitably ends up in the situation where it is impossible to challenge any male-bodied person at all who chooses to access such a space. Any at all.

To be clear, as I've said before, if a transwoman uses one of the less-problematic female spaces such as a public loo, and nobody realises he is a transwoman, I don't have a problem with this. In that situation, what I don't know isn't going to hurt me. But as soon as that becomes a right rather than a privilege accorded to transwomen who really do look and behave like women (not a lot of these around) then we don't have any single-sex spaces any more, because - as we've seen - any man at all is then able to claim that right.

For the more intimate spaces such as women's dormitories, this needs to be a hard-line prohibition. If I discovered in retrospect that I'd been sharing a women's dormitory with a male I'd freak out, and I don't think I'd be the only one taking that position.

I'm not certain Rolfe agrees. I know that she once did, but I think she started taking a harder line based on the "camel's nose" arguments.

The more I have considered this matter the more I realise the dangers of allowing any male access at all to female spaces. Allow one, as of right, and you allow the lot. No.

I think most people, maybe even Rolfe, agree that transwomen should be allowed some access to some women's spaces.

No. Not as a legal right. Absolutely not.

And don't come the "oh but what about the poor marginalised dysphoric darlings, would you make them pee and sleep in men's spaces?" I don't care. Find another solution for these remarkably indulged and accommodated marginalised (narcissistic, aggressive, demanding) individuals. Leave women's hard-won spaces alone.

 

[Meadmaker]

No. Not as a legal right. Absolutely not.

Thanks for your correction.

And, I think your reasoning is sound.

If I were actually part of a legislative committee trying to draft policy, I might work to try and find some sort of compromise, but I also recognize that compromise is anathema to a lot of the activists, which makes things rather difficult.

 

[Meadmaker]

Can you explain why a "valid condition" (not a disorder) requires medical intervention?

(To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a disorder requiring medical intervention. It will happen to most of us, provided we live long enough.)

Seems to me it's yet another case where some people are trying to change reality through the use of language.

 

[Airfix]

Really couldn't care less how they think of themselves.

I'd rather have a pint with a bloke in a dress who is polite and well mannered, to some hole who picks on people because of what they look like.

 

[Olmstead]

[...]

Thinking as I type.....It has been speculated that trans identity comes about when an abnormal hormonal mixture occurs at specific points during pregnancy. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that that can be confirmed. Moreover, suppose it were known exactly when that point occurs, and the condition can be corrected, and the mother could have some treatment performed that has no known side effects, but would prevent the fetus from developing into a transperson. Would you do it? I think the vast majority of people would do that. If so, I think it has to be considered a disorder. It's something that people would "fix" if they could. I think that's the definition of disorder.

[...]

Ehhhhh... can of worms.

There's a lot of things that are considered to be a detriment to a person's life but shouldn't necessarily be fixed.

A better question might be whether a transperson would wish for that to have happened. I feel like the answer would usually be no. The resulting person would have been someone else.