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

Status
Not open for further replies.
This sounds like you are against female only spaces of any kind and by extension, sex-based rights of females. Is that the case?


That appears to be the case. It's interesting to watch certain posters in this thread emerge from behind a screen of "be kind to the poor vulnerable marginalised (straight white male, mainly aggressive, entitled and narcissistic) transwomen)" and emerge as utterly opposed to women having any sex-segregated spaces at all.
 
That appears to be the case. It's interesting to watch certain posters in this thread emerge from behind a screen of "be kind to the poor vulnerable marginalised (straight white male, mainly aggressive, entitled and narcissistic) transwomen)" and emerge as utterly opposed to women having any sex-segregated spaces at all.

I think part of the problem here is that there's rarely a rigorous formal logic solution to a social problem.

Chesterton's Fence gets at this problem, a little obliquely. The point is, societies spend thousands of years evolving little easements and compromises (and regulations and laws) to try to balance competing goods and ill-defined (or even undefinable) values.

There was never supposed to be some hard and fast rule that fulfills all the requirements and addresses all the use cases. There's just supposed to be a gradual evolution of what works and what doesn't. So Joe is never going to have a logical solution that satisfies. Trying to get a logical solution ends up forcing him into the conclusion that women's spaces shouldn't exist at all. Because that's one of the few ways to have a logical rule that covers all cases.

He's basically going for a Solomon's Baby approach for the simplicity and clarity of it.
 
(straight white male, mainly aggressive, entitled and narcissistic) transwomen)"

Does that really describe transwomen? I don't know any personally well enough to be able to say. I certainly have heard of people who are described that way, but is it "mainly"?


I suppose we might expect males to be more aggressive. I'm not sure about entitled or narcissistic.
 
You haven't answered Rolfe's very obvious question: Why is your default position not that men's spaces need to be modified to accept a subset of men instead of foisting that subset of men onto women?

There's an inherent contradiction at play here. Joe objects to transmen being excluded on the basis that they're men because he doesn't like the stereotype of men being predatory towards women. But the justification for why transwomen supposedly need access to women-only spaces is that men are predatory towards transwomen so it's not safe for them to be in men-only spaces, ie, a stereotype that men are dangerous. The problem can't be solved as a binary of either males are dangerous or males are not dangerous, in either direction. If males are dangerous, end of story, then transwomen cannot be forced to use males spaces, but neither can males be allowed into female spaces. If males are safe, then allowing transmen into female spaces isn't a problem, but neither is keeping them in male spaces. Such a shallow level of analysis clearly doesn't suffice. And whether or not Joe is dangerous is actually irrelevant to the population-level problem.
 
And since we now seem to be back to "so why is it wrong to segregate bathrooms by skin colour", I'm out. I have better things to do than address this nonsense.

At this rate everyone who actually has an opinion on this is going to flounce and we'll be back to "lookit me I'm progressive" people telling us second hand how all we have to do is "compromise" and that will solve everything.
 
I'm not.

I'm comparing segregated bathrooms with segregated bathrooms.

A good comparison would acknowledge the obvious discrepancies and discard the analogy for lacking applicable characteristics.

For example, race is a made-up distinction to rationalize oppression. But gender is a real distinction that is widely used to mitigate oppression. It's also used to rationalize oppression, but that doesn't make gender-segregated bathrooms analogous to race-segregated bathrooms.

You're oversimplifying because it's easier than actually dealing with a complex problem that doesn't have easy solutions.
 
It still think it's odd that if you take sports segregation, segregation of private but publically accessible spaces like rest rooms and locker rooms, and pronouns off the table there is absolutely nothing here to discuss.

To be fair, I think there's nothing else that needs to be discussed here, but in the broader culture in the USA there are issues.

I'm still a solid dozen pages behind here, but no... this isn't all that needs to be discussed. These, in my opinion, are the red herrings. Each has some merit in its own, but these aren't the larger issues.

It's easy to bring up bathrooms and scoff, because nobody with an ounce of critical thinking should be overly concerned about toilet usage. That makes it simple to erect the specter of the evil right-wing religious hate-filled zealot. It's easy to bring up sports, because no-one who has ever experienced actual reality could pretend that there's not a real and meaningful physical difference between the capabilities of male and female bodies. There's no challenge in lampooning that topic.

The larger issues, however, get glossed over or simply dismissed. They get swept under the rug and sacrificed to the back-and-forth over who gets to pee where.

These are issues around equality and safety for females.

Females are under-represented in leadership and politics. We fought for the right to be recognized as equal participants in our society over a hundred years ago. Despite being more than half of the population, we have far less than half the voice in determining our societies. Now, with the 'progress' made by the trans-activist agenda, we're losing what forward momentum we had. Positions held for females, to encourage equality and equity, are now being granted to male-bodied people, who have the lived experience of males. All under the auspices of a propagandistic slogan that these males are so indistinguishable form females that they can accurately and appropriately represent the interests and needs of females and speak for us. Let me make that clearer: females are being told that their interests as females are best represented by males.

Females experience abhorrent rates of sexual violence, almost all of which is perpetrated by males. Those assaults are rarely prosecuted, and frequently aren't even reported. This is a problem that has gone on for most of human history, and can be observed across every society. Escaping an abusive relationship, where one party has a physical advantage over the other complements of being a sexually dimorphic species, is a challenge with little support. Now, with the assistance of the trans-activist agenda, male-bodied prisoners with histories of violence against females and children can be housed in female prisons populations, on the basis of their claim to be women in their souls. Male-bodied prisoners cite their constant fear of assault from other male prisoners, and the toll it takes on their mental health as justification for them being placed in a position where the other prisoners have no safety from them. The risk of harm to those transgender prisoners is seen as being far more important than the risk of harm to females. Additionally, the trans-activist agenda insists that shelters and refuges for raped and abused females must allow male-bodied people to enter those premises, solely on the claim that they feel like a woman in their minds. The traumatized survivors of rape and violence must accept these male-bodied and male-appearing people into their midst with no complaint, on fear of being labeled a bigot. The risk of harm to the feelings of the transgender males is considered far more important than the trauma and health (not to mention the safety) of the females seeking shelter.

For nearly a century, females have fought to be recognized as fully-fledged humans in our own rights, with our own thoughts and interests, rather than as appendages for males. We've fought, and continue to fight, against repressive stereotypes of what a "proper" woman should be. We've been called domineering where a male would be called dominant; we've been labeled bitch where a male would be labeled boss; we've been scolded as controlling where a male would be commanding. We've had to walk the fine line between being dismissed for being too masculine and assertive... and being accused of using our 'feminine wiles' to advance in our careers. And the outfit we wear? It's a suit, not a pant-suit. Now, with the risk of the trans-ideology, we see those stereotypes being reinforced and embraced as the hallmarks of gender. We see the insistence that pink sparkly things are the true identifiers of womanliness.

We have fought, and continue to fight, to be treated with respect rather than as an object for the male sexual gaze. We've fought against having our personal boundaries pushed aside, at being cat-called, at being sexualized. We've fought to be recognized as humans with minds capable of far, far more than merely providing a sexual outlet for males. Yet the trans agenda embraces sissy-porn, stripper-couture, and the image of a female as a mindless receptacle as the highest calling of a woman. So much so, that a male-borne and male-raised transwoman gets lauded for a book in which she argues that the very essence of femaleness is being “an open mouth, an expectant *******, blank, blank eyes”.

Throughout human history, females have been systematically dominated and oppressed as a result of our biology. We've been treated as chattel and the property of males, in order to ensure the progression of their bloodlines by controlling our bodies. We've been viewed as breeding stock. We have pushed back against this for ages. Yet now, we are referred to as "uterus havers" and "menstruators" and "people with cervixes", all to avoid incurring the wrath and injured feelings of males who identify as women. We have lost the right to be referred to as women, and have been reduced to a collection of reproductive organs.

If you think that toilets and sports and pronouns are the only things to be discussed in this conflict, you really haven't been paying attention to what the females around you have been saying.
 
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.

Happy button
The man in the boat
Gertrude
 
That's one of the strange things about this whole debate. There's a contradiction that I can't fully wrap my head around. On the one hand, biology is supposed to be irrelevant. We're all supposed to say that, anyways.

But it's clearly not. It's not even irrelevant to trans people. It's certainly not irrelevant to Boudicca90. She takes hormones to change her body, because she doesn't want the body that biology gave her. If biology didn't matter, there would be no point in medical intervention. So biology is still essential in some manner, even to those who try hardest to deny it.

Biology is also quite relevant to females. It's that whole being smaller and weaker than males (who also tend to be a lot more aggressive and violent). 's that bit about bearing the entire burden of reproduction. It's about eons of oppression by those who want to control our bodies and our reproduction.
 
I'm not.

I'm comparing segregated bathrooms with segregated bathrooms.

If you are going to make this argument are you also saying that women’s sports are comparable to the baseball Negro Leagues?

We don’t have them anymore so maybe we should abolish the totally morally equivalent women’s leagues in sports?
 
One that actually came up on another board was what happens if I have a high school robotics team that includes a trans girl? Is she welcome at the all girl robotics competition? I will say yes. Emily's Cat might have a problem with that one, but I don't.

I would say it really only matters if there's a scholarship on the line AND there's a substantial disparity on female/male representation that suggests sexism. Honestly though, I don't see why robotics would be sex-segregated in the first place.
 
I would say it really only matters if there's a scholarship on the line AND there's a substantial disparity on female/male representation that suggests sexism. Honestly though, I don't see why robotics would be sex-segregated in the first place.

There is a huge disparity in participation. I have observed sexism from one of the coaches of my own team, but the ones who replaced him when he left haven't seemed to be a problem.

Mostly, robotics isn't sex-segregated, and never in the official season, but every once in a while someone holds an all girl competition in the off season, where boys aren't allowed to participate, and there are a few teams that are specifically organized as all girl teams. These are usually teams that represent an all girls school.
 
What reason do you have to believe it is woo when the vast majority of experts who study it disagree with you?

Argumentum ad populum (or some such latin).

Lots of experts also thought that the sun revolved around the earth, that the moon was a god, that stars were painted on a dome surrounding the earth, and that sexual orientation could be changed by shock therapy.

I'll also point out (again) that "experts" who specialize in gender identity theory and gender identity treatment have a particular opinion about it all... not that it's a widespread accepted cornerstone of medicine or science in and of itself. Similarly, all of the experts in homeopathy agree that homeopathy is effective...
 
a.k.a. transwomen?

No, and if you check the context of the post I was responding to, that should have been obvious.

I sometimes wonder whether most transmen who are not medically transitioned (ie. identify as men but have female presentation and anatomy) would want to change/shower with males or prefer to be placed in male prisons.

I can only go on the evidence of the two I've known personally, and they would certainly prefer to be in male spaces, although that may differ if prison is involved.

Mostly, robotics isn't sex-segregated...

What????

We're allowing male robots to compete against female robots? How's that fair? Just wait until some of those 'bots decide they're the wrong gender!
 
This is another point that just literally never gets addressed.

When did decide that everything was split up by gender and not sex?

That's just straight up semantic bait-and-switch. They've always been based on sex, and used the term "gender" as synonymous with sex, while avoiding the association of the term "sex" with the act of intercourse which makes many puritanical folk feel icky.

Then... gender got "redefined" into something internal to one's mind. And at that point, folk started trying to retroactively apply the new definition to the old meaning.

It makes as much sense as insisting that when Shakespeare used the term "gay" in his plays, he was actually literally talking about homosexuality. :rolleyes:
 
Hope you aren't holding your breath for it.

A huge proportion of the people arguing for all these awful consequences couldn't and never did give the slightest **** about these topics until they became an anti-trans hobby horse.

[insert loud angry shouting]

A whole lot of us, who happen to be female, actually do care a whole ******* lot about these things that infringe on our rights, take away our safety, and smilingly hand over our representation in politics to people with ******* penises!

Once again, your willingness to completely dismiss the views of actual ******* females in this thread are disturbing. I cannot find a difference between your TRA approach and that of any given misogynistic MRA bloke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom