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

[Emily's Cat]

I told you! Another person has stated it.

This discussion won't move because one side doesn't believe the other side's positions are honest. They think anyone with concerns about sports, jails, medicine, terminology, statistics, or whatever is lying and making up those concerns to use as shields. Shields for, I'm assuming, just plain old dislike of trans people, or in the case of ladies, dislike of trans people mixed with gatekeeping of the feminine essence.

It's so insulting, because the whole point of this forum is to discuss things to death. But more than that, it's disheartening, because MOST of the people in here posting questions or concerns do not sound bigoted in the slightest. (Again, I said most. I will not deny that there has been some charged rhetoric at times, but those people aren't posting anymore.)

It's not even that they think the positions are dishonest. It's that they (or at least some) ascribe those views to "old white men" and completely discount the mere possibility that females can have meaningful opinions and concerns of their own.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Transwomen aren't men

Transwomen are transwomen.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I know this is a late hit, but is anyone else (belatedly) struck by Boudicca's mental image of a male looking down at their chemically-castrated penis and thinking, "I get it now! This is what it must be like to have a clitoris!"

It's been a couple of weeks, but I think I had a rather colorful response to her prompted by that image.

 

[Rolfe]

Transwomen are transwomen.

Now who's using a circular definition?

Transwomen are adult males. Thus they are men. Being a man is actually a prerequisite for being a transwoman.

 

[Rolfe]

It's been a couple of weeks, but I think I had a rather colorful response to her prompted by that image.

I must have missed that. Oh goodie.

 

[Emily's Cat]

They do not seem to have the same dysphoria nor 100% female identity like Boudicca has explained in her posts. And there are seemingly a lot of them out there!

This, so very much.

There really does seem to be two groups out there, maybe a fuzzy edge, but still two strong clusters. There are people who have been persistently (and clinically) dysphoric since a very young age, who have a traumatic and stressful discontinuity between their physical body and their mental image of themselves. Boudicca (and several other transwomen I've interacted with) seem to fit into that category, and my heart goes out to them.

Then... there's this other group who "found their true self" much later in life. And a good number of folks in that second group are very, very different from Boudicca. The Boudiccas of the world aren't the ones out there threatening females and telling them to suck their girldicks, and making horribly misogynistic comments, and fantasizing (on public forums no less) about being a dumb bimbo who wants nothing more in life than to be a hole for some man to get off in.

This discussion would be a lot easier if many of the posters would at least acknowledge that the second group of self-proclaimed transwomen do exist, and that females are not being irrational and hysterical to view those people as offensive caricatures of women, and potential predators.

At least then, we could focus on trying to come up with policies and guidelines for allowing the Boudiccas to have fair and reasonable access to most things female, while preventing the second group from waggling their penises around in front of pubescent girls with impunity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Add to that "detrasitioners were never real transgender"

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sorry, I forgot.

I will chant the TWAW mantra 1000 times for absolution. Is that enough do you think?

I would say 500 would be enough for Dr James Cantor and perhaps also enough for Dr Ken Zucker as they are also quite bad but not quite as discredited as Blanchard. Although they do tend to collaborate with and retweet Blanchard which is guilt by association. One might have gotten away with 100 for Cantor until recently but he seems to be increasingly tweeting unacceptable thoughts. Just look at his twitter feed. Disgraceful.

https://twitter.com/JamesCantorPhD

Fortunately in the future all experts will be activists who already know what findings are discredited before obtaining them and we won't have to put up with this.

I can't stop giggling at this post...

 

[Emily's Cat]

The vagueness of this thread is becoming weird.

Admittedly I have never heard of the Drs being name dropped with no context.

They're all gender and sex specialists with lots of research behind them... who are still somehow not in agreement with the London John and AGG claim of "all the experts in this field agree".

 

[Emily's Cat]

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).

Hey, if you can provide me with a safeguarding plan that allows self-identification alone without increasing the risk of harm and being creeped on, I will reconsider. As it stands, self-proclamation as the end-all criteria for who is transgender doesn't seem to provide ANY safeguards at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Depends on whether or not she has a dick.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That avoided answering the question.

No it doesn't. If the person in question has a penis, they should not be changing in the ladies. They can use the mens (where all the other penises are) or use a unisex or disabled room. Same rules if they've got a vulva - use the ladies or a unisex, do not use the mens.

 

[Rolfe]

This, so very much.

There really does seem to be two groups out there, maybe a fuzzy edge, but still two strong clusters. There are people who have been persistently (and clinically) dysphoric since a very young age, who have a traumatic and stressful discontinuity between their physical body and their mental image of themselves. Boudicca (and several other transwomen I've interacted with) seem to fit into that category, and my heart goes out to them.

Then... there's this other group who "found their true self" much later in life. And a good number of folks in that second group are very, very different from Boudicca. The Boudiccas of the world aren't the ones out there threatening females and telling them to suck their girldicks, and making horribly misogynistic comments, and fantasizing (on public forums no less) about being a dumb bimbo who wants nothing more in life than to be a hole for some man to get off in.

This discussion would be a lot easier if many of the posters would at least acknowledge that the second group of self-proclaimed transwomen do exist, and that females are not being irrational and hysterical to view those people as offensive caricatures of women, and potential predators.

At least then, we could focus on trying to come up with policies and guidelines for allowing the Boudiccas to have fair and reasonable access to most things female, while preventing the second group from waggling their penises around in front of pubescent girls with impunity.

Really, look again at the HSTS and AGP categories of trans identity and an awful lot makes an awful lot of sense. People describe their experiences in different words, using different analogies, but mostly it boils down to one of these two presentations.

Neither of which involves a lady brain or some inner essence of woman.

And you know what? I have no idea who Boudicca is. All we have are some words typed on the forum. The entire persona could be made up for the purposes of the thread. I'm certainly not wasting my sympathy, whether he's HSTS (as he seems to be indicating), or AGP, or someone of indeterminate sex posting inflammatory material for giggles.

 

[theprestige]

Add to that "detrasitioners were never real transgender"

Or the anti-trans conspiracy got to them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's cute the way some people seem to think that "trends in public opinion" are fated to continue in one direction.

I'm about 95% sure that you should read damion's post there with an inherent sadness and despair...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Which people reading this thread actually think that?

AGG for one. Boudicca for another (recall the "there's nothing you can do to stop it" quip).

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay so we've established:

1. Boudicca is a woman in literally every situation, even biologically.
2. Rolfe wants no men of any kind in literally any female-only space.

Amend Rolfe's view to "as a right". That's a key point that keeps getting swept aside. If I understand her view on this, she doesn't want any males at all to have a RIGHT to female spaces. Some males may have the PRIVILEGE granted to them in some cases. But not as a RIGHT.

3. Straight Cis Men are the bad guys because we can't make both of those statements true.

It's not about you. Stop trying to center your "oh poor cis men" in this discussion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is some truth to this. We have seen a very large number of men, including many in this thread, leap on to the trans side of every argument, berating and scolding and bullying women to "be kind" and give in to the trans demands. Absolutely no sympathy or empathy with the women whose hard-won safe spaces are being lost. Only the feelings of the transwomen, that is the males, are valid and must be accommodated.

I'm going to disagree with you here. There've only been a few (maybe five or six?) men taking this stance. The majority of the male posters in this thread have been largely in support of protecting the rights of women, with a great many wanting to find some reasonable common ground.

There have been far more men in this thread supporting the view of women wanting safety and dignity than those dismissing us.

It has many of the hallmarks of a men's rights movement. What men want men must have, and the wishes of women are selfish, irrational and indeed hysterical. They're not trying to "make both statements true". They're trying to force the people who espouse statement 2 to behave as if statement 1 was true, even though they know it isn't.

This is an interpretation that I agree with, in regards to the TRAs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Rolfe,

Take a second to appreciate how weird it is that you're demanding I be on "your side" when your side is "Men are inherently predatory monsters."

You're basically asking me to take part in my own demonization.

Why trust my opinion on a matter if you don't trust me to be alone with you for 30 seconds without going into "Default Male Rape Mode."

Oh just stop. This is ridiculous. You aren't a complete stranger. I would suspect that none of the female posters here would think you personally might go into male rape mode. I'd say that the vast majority of males posting in this thread are people that women in general would not view as threats, and would probably think are safe. That doesn't mean we want to be naked around you, nor that we want you naked around us... but I sincerely doubt any of us think you're likely to be a rapist.

But YOU aren't ALL MEN. And again... when we're talking about strangers that we have no knowledge of, WE CAN'T TELL WHICH ARE SAFE AND WHICH ARE NOT.

I get that this hurts your feelings. But for christ's sakes, man, don't be so arrogant as to think that because you personally aren't a risk, we shouldn't view men in general as a potential risk. Don't play the poor wronged gentleman by insisting that we extend some kind of gracious trust to ALL men. That's naïve and inconsiderate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

For the same reason my default position isn't separate white and black bathrooms, not making a special category for "Special non-threatening black people who are allowed into white bathrooms."

And before the "poor widdle scared women" start quoting crime statistics at me, every racists I know has that "Blacks are only X percent of the population commit Y percent of the violent crimes" statistic memorized as well.

Every racist white person thinks their fear of black people justifies their racism. I'm not open to entertaining the same argument just based on gender.

Biological females/women do not have some sort of special kind of super-fear that gives them rights the rest of us don't have.

Do you have any idea at all how insulting, offensive, and derisive that is? You've said it several times through these threads. Stop.