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

[Emily's Cat]

Sounds like they're leaning towards a policy that treats trans children with dignity and respect.

I'm all for treating trans anybody (child or adult) with dignity and respect. But I'm also for treating females with dignity and respect too.

Allowing males, regardless of how they feel on the inside, access to female spaces and sports REMOVES dignity and respect from females. It removes the right of females to define our own boundaries. It makes females subordinate to males in terms of privacy and safety - the dignity and respect of females is deemed to be less important than the affirmation of males.

Suburban Turkey - why do you constantly and consistently dismiss the impact on females? Why do you persistently demean females who wish to define their own boundaries and have spaces safe from males?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm all for treating trans anybody (child or adult) with dignity and respect. But I'm also for treating females with dignity and respect too.

Allowing males, regardless of how they feel on the inside, access to female spaces and sports REMOVES dignity and respect from females. It removes the right of females to define our own boundaries. It makes females subordinate to males in terms of privacy and safety - the dignity and respect of females is deemed to be less important than the affirmation of males.

Suburban Turkey - why do you constantly and consistently dismiss the impact on females? Why do you persistently demean females who wish to define their own boundaries and have spaces safe from males?

In brief, because I find that these concerns are either misguided at best, bad faith at worst, and show a clear preference to preferring a status quo that is extremely detrimental to trans people.

 

[The Atheist]

So they've got their priorities straight in order.

Nice!

Oh, I didn't realize sports was included.

Terribly worded and thought-through piece of legislation. It's basically removing women's sport entirely, so we won't need men's and women's events or competition in future.

Think of the money saved on Olympic medals alone!

 

[Emily's Cat]

In brief, because I find that these concerns are either misguided at best, bad faith at worst, and show a clear preference to preferring a status quo that is extremely detrimental to trans people.

How about you elaborate on that? Because "I don't like it" isn't really an argument. You think it's misguided... why?

What is extremely detrimental to trans people? How is it extremely detrimental to trans people to retain sex-segregation in sports? How is it NOT extremely detrimental to females to replace sex-segregation with gender-identity-segregation in sports?

How is it extremely detrimental to trans people to not allow access to sex-segregated vulnerable spaces on the basis of their self-declaration? How is it NOT extremely detrimental to females to allow access to sex-segregated vulnerable spaces on the basis of self-declaration of internal feelings?

Transwomen commit violent and sexual crimes at the same rate as other males - a rate that is orders of magnitude higher than the rate at which females commit those types of crimes. How is it NOT extremely detrimental to females to place those violent people into female prison wards solely on the basis of their claimed gender identity?

 

[theprestige]

In brief, because I find that these concerns are either misguided at best, bad faith at worst, and show a clear preference to preferring a status quo that is extremely detrimental to trans people.

What's the extreme detriment to trans people that you feel is shown by restricting women's sports to biological females?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

How about you elaborate on that? snip for brevity

no, not really. I've already come to the conclusion that this extremely long running thread is hopeless. Those that see trans people unworthy of civil rights will not be dissuaded.

I mostly just pop in every once in a while to post stories that show that transphobes are losing and are becoming an increasingly fringe, dead-end alley in the larger reactionary, anti-civil rights project. Rattling the cage is fun way to pass the time.

Even a dinosaur like Biden can see which way the wind is blowing. The best hope for American transphobes is probably to throw in with the reactionary right, there is no future in liberal circles. Sucks to suck, I guess.

 

[Lithrael]

Still not understanding the depth of the negative reaction people have to being called or implied things like racist, terf, homophobic, transphobic. Whether you feel they’re accurately applied to you or not. These are dead common human traits and while they are not (IMO) desirable they also don’t make you a dumpster fire (or get you fired) all by themselves. Only extremists think so and those are the people we should not be paying attention to.

 

[LondonJohn]

Imagine two roommates who kiss each other on the lips in public. Are they closeted? No, they are not.

I don't pay any attention to Izzard, so I cannot speak to the accuracy of this. But Emily explicitly stated that nothing about Izzard's behavior has changed. If that is correct (and I have no knowledge either way), that's a pretty strong indicator that there is no closet involved here, at least not one that Izzard has actually come out of. The whole point of coming out of the closet isn't to get people to change the labels they apply to you, it's so that you can act publicly the way you want to act instead of putting up a fake front. There's no point in "coming out" if you already act the way you want to OR you continue to put up a fake front.

This has relatively little to do with external observers' consideration of externalities.

It's perfectly conceivable (and in fact I suspect it's the case*) that for many years of his early adult life, Izzard considered herself to be a man who preferred to adopt many of the external presentations of a woman - in other words, a transvestite man. But that then, more recently, Izzard has begun to consider herself to be actually gender-fluid - in other words, moving away from cisman, in the direction of transwoman.

Just as in gender fluidity itself, one's own internalised understanding of oneself can also change over time. People who've considered themselves to be cismen for the first several decades of their lives (whether or not they've ever chosen to present themselves as transvestite cismen during that time) can - entirely justifiably and truthfully - later come to consider themselves as transwomen. One doesn't have to be effectively born with one's consideration of one's place on the gender spectrum.


* But, as I said before, the only way to gain any genuine clarity on this matter would be to solicit Izzard's own understanding - which she might or might not be ready/willing to share. It's not for outside observers to guess or presume.

 

[Ziggurat]

Still not understanding the depth of the negative reaction people have to being called or implied things like racist, terf, homophobic, transphobic. Whether you feel they’re accurately applied to you or not. These are dead common human traits and while they are not (IMO) desirable they also don’t make you a dumpster fire (or get you fired) all by themselves.

They can get you fired from some places. I'm not worried about that in this context (I'm anonymous for a reason), but the entire point of calling someone these names is to indicate that they are a dumpster fire. That's what it's used to mean.

Only extremists think so and those are the people we should not be paying attention to.

I'm sympathetic to the "sticks and stones" perspective, but it's still a pretty understandable reaction, even if not ideal. Nobody likes to be thought of as a fundamentally bad person, and that is what those words are intended to mean. Even if on an intellectual level we can recognize that an emotional response to an insult doesn't accomplish anything, that doesn't mean we can avoid the response.

There's a certain irony to it, though. The whole pronoun thing is based on the idea that we should be able to control the language that people use to describe us. But if you're throwing insults like "terf" and "transphobe" at people who don't embrace those labels, then you don't actually believe that people should be able to control the language that's used to describe them. Maybe it's one of those "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" things. The pigs don't drink milk because they like to, they need the nutrients, and they consume it for our benefit.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's perfectly conceivable (and in fact I suspect it's the case*) that for many years of his early adult life, Izzard considered herself to be a man who preferred to adopt many of the external presentations of a woman - in other words, a transvestite man. But that then, more recently, Izzard has begun to consider herself to be actually gender-fluid - in other words, moving away from cisman, in the direction of transwoman.

Sure, that's possible. But that isn't coming out of the closet. And given that there's apparently no behavioral change other than self-descriptive language, any such shift in self-conception is pretty abstract.

 

[Butter!]

Still not understanding the depth of the negative reaction people have to being called or implied things like racist, terf, homophobic, transphobic. Whether you feel they’re accurately applied to you or not. These are dead common human traits and while they are not (IMO) desirable they also don’t make you a dumpster fire (or get you fired) all by themselves. Only extremists think so and those are the people we should not be paying attention to.

I don't get this argument. If someone (especially someone you "know" and like from around the boards) mislabels you as a member of a group you literally hate, and then continues to insist that you are one even when you try to explain your questions, why can't you get upset?

 

[LondonJohn]

Izzard was pretty open about his penchant for wearing women's clothing and make-up. There only closet involved is the one in which he kept his dresses. He did an entire comedy special dressed in a very flattering chinese-styled dress.

At the end of the day, Izzard is a penis-bearing adult male who dresses in clothing traditionally assumed to be worn by females of the species, and who adorns their face with make-up traditionally assumed to be used by females of the species. Izzard has stated no intention of undergoing any hormone therapy, nor of having any surgery at all.

The only difference is literally the label being used... and that NOW a pile of people would jump at the chance to demand that Izzard (who is sexually attracted to females) should have unfettered access to all women's spaces on the basis of his self-proclamation that he is now a woman.

I think Izzard is a great person. Funny and charismatic. But there's LITERALLY no difference between Izzard's prior behavior and comportment and Izzard's current behavior and comportment.

But somehow, with Izzard's claim to a specific label, the entire rest of humanity is expected to THINK differently about him, and to PRETEND that there's no difference between him and any other female person.

It's absurd to think that a personal proclamation dictates an obligation to the rest of society.

[qimg]http://financialliteracy-phs.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/3/4/38347803/9606203.jpg?458[/qimg]

Please don't tell me you're implying here that Izzard (or anyone else, for that matter) should still be considered as a transvestite man - rather than a transwoman - simply on the basis that he's not seeking (whether or not he's announced it to the world) hormone treatment or surgery.

And please don't tell me that simply because you don't observe any noticeable difference in Izzard's external presentation between (say) 10 years ago and today, this therefore implies that nothing about Izzard's own understanding of her gender fluidity can have changed either.


(To be clear, I think what you've written indicates pretty strongly that you are drawing those two inferences - it's just that I still retain some vestige of hope that someone with apparently a relatively good grasp of the issues and terminologies associated with this topic could know better than to think and state those things....)

 

[LondonJohn]

Sure, that's possible. But that isn't coming out of the closet. And given that there's apparently no behavioral change other than self-descriptive language, any such shift in self-conception is pretty abstract.

It's not abstract in the slightest - only in your own thinking.

But it's interesting and informative to witness how you and others here are focussing purely on observable externalities wrt this matter.

Let's try another approach:

Person A is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person A considers himself to be a man. Person A is a transvestite man.

Person B is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person B considers herself to be a woman. Person B is a transwoman.

Person C is a male who likes to wear jeans, t-shirts and Converse trainers in public. Person C considers herself to be a woman. Person C is a transwoman.


What you appear to be arguing is that Person A and Person B are effectively the same thing - purely on what you observe about their known biological sex and their external visual presentation to you.

And heaven knows what you consider Person C to be, on the same observational basis.


Yet it's entirely logical and feasible for somebody matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person B's characteristics. You, however, appear to be arguing that such a transition is more-or-less meaningless (to you, that is), purely on the basis that they "both look the same" to you.


It's also entirely logical and feasible, by the way, for someone matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person C's characteristics. Heaven knows what you'd make of that, though.

 

[LondonJohn]

no, not really. I've already come to the conclusion that this extremely long running thread is hopeless. Those that see trans people unworthy of civil rights will not be dissuaded.

I mostly just pop in every once in a while to post stories that show that transphobes are losing and are becoming an increasingly fringe, dead-end alley in the larger reactionary, anti-civil rights project. Rattling the cage is fun way to pass the time.

Even a dinosaur like Biden can see which way the wind is blowing. The best hope for American transphobes is probably to throw in with the reactionary right, there is no future in liberal circles. Sucks to suck, I guess.

On this, I'm in agreement.

And on Biden, there appears to have been a hysterical reaction in certain quarters to his having signed the trans-rights executive order* since assuming office. Most of it is (sad to say) highly reminiscent of reading certain bodies of work within this thread.


* I do, incidentally, happen to think that an executive order was probably not the right instrument/process for the new US Govt to have sought to pass this into law - I think it should have gone before Congress, where I'd like to think that (as with, for example, the UK Parliament) the legislature would be sufficiently well-informed, liberal and sensitive to have voted it into law in any case.

 

[theprestige]

Only extremists think so and those are the people we should not be paying attention to.

Social change is generally pushed by a vocal minority that makes a strong effort to change the course of public opinion, or put pressure on policymakers, or both.

In this case, you're begging the question that the "extremists" represent a fringe element that nobody is paying attention to, rather than a core group of activists who are making progress towards a new normal where dissent from policy proposals is in fact persecuted as "racist, terf, homophobic, transphobic".

When SuburbanTurkey or LondonJohn calls me a transphobe, I don't push back because I'm concerned about the slings and arrows of outrageous extremists. I push back because they don't want that name-calling to be extreme. They want it to be the norm.

When you push the idea that their name-calling is no big deal, do you actually believe it's no big deal regardless? Or do you believe it would be a big deal if it ever got normalized? Because if you're worried about it ever becoming normalized, then you should totally understand pushing back against the people trying to normalize it.

Do you want it to be normalized? Is that why you're minimizing the objections raised?

 

[theprestige]

I do, incidentally, happen to think that an executive order was probably not the right instrument/process for the new US Govt to have sought to pass this into law - I think it should have gone before Congress, where I'd like to think that (as with, for example, the UK Parliament) the legislature would be sufficiently well-informed, liberal and sensitive to have voted it into law in any case.

Executive orders are not an instrument or process for passing things into law.

This executive order was absolutely the right instrument/process for the new Executive Administration* to implement its desired policies within the bounds of the law already passed, and within the bounds of the authority of the Executive branch.

Executive orders are merely an instruction from the President, to the agencies under his authority, for how they are to interpret and apply the laws they are charged with interpreting and applying.

Passing things into law is an entirely separate process, over which the office of the President has very little influence or control.**
---
*Not "the new US Government", which is actually a tripartite system with each part renewing at different rates and to different degrees.

**The one thing the President can do about lawmaking, ex cathedra, is sign into law the bills passed by the legislature. This is a veto power, which the legislature can override with a supermajority.

 

[Emily's Cat]

no, not really. I've already come to the conclusion that this extremely long running thread is hopeless. Those that see trans people unworthy of civil rights will not be dissuaded.

That's some downright propaganda BS right there. I am all for civil rights. That's not what's being asked for. Competing against females - which destroys women's sports and puts females at risk of significant injury - is NOT a civil right! Making sex-segregated spaces effectively open to EVERYONE and any male that wants to come in is NOT a civil right! All it does is put females at increased danger of assault and removes our right to define our boundaries and retain our dignity.

What the hell civil rights do you think are at stake here?

I mostly just pop in every once in a while to post stories that show that transphobes are losing and are becoming an increasingly fringe, dead-end alley in the larger reactionary, anti-civil rights project. Rattling the cage is fun way to pass the time.

So... trolling then.

Even a dinosaur like Biden can see which way the wind is blowing. The best hope for American transphobes is probably to throw in with the reactionary right, there is no future in liberal circles. Sucks to suck, I guess.

It's got to be gratifying to steamroll those pesky civil rights for females within the "party of equality", eh?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This has relatively little to do with external observers' consideration of externalities.

It's perfectly conceivable (and in fact I suspect it's the case*) that for many years of his early adult life, Izzard considered herself to be a man who preferred to adopt many of the external presentations of a woman - in other words, a transvestite man. But that then, more recently, Izzard has begun to consider herself to be actually gender-fluid - in other words, moving away from cisman, in the direction of transwoman.

Just as in gender fluidity itself, one's own internalised understanding of oneself can also change over time. People who've considered themselves to be cismen for the first several decades of their lives (whether or not they've ever chosen to present themselves as transvestite cismen during that time) can - entirely justifiably and truthfully - later come to consider themselves as transwomen. One doesn't have to be effectively born with one's consideration of one's place on the gender spectrum.

So... it's not fixed and immutable, an inherent and unambigous truth of a person? It is something that can change over time?

Where does that put thopse who have detransitioned? Did they change their minds? Or did their gender shift over time from their natal sex to the opposite and then back again?

What are the consequences of gender NOT being fixed and immutable, when it comes to the current approach of gender-affirmation-only approaches by the medical industry, and the propensity to prescribe puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital surgery? If gender is NOT fixed and immutable, then these are approaches that can ostensibly cause significant bodily harm including sterility. Is it appropriate to pursue such irreversible and harmful approaches if one's gender identity can change over time?

* But, as I said before, the only way to gain any genuine clarity on this matter would be to solicit Izzard's own understanding - which she might or might not be ready/willing to share. It's not for outside observers to guess or presume.

The problem is that it puts an obligation on outside observers - who have zero insight into a person's mind - to change society and our own behaviors in order to accommodate this 100% internal thing.

It's tantamount to a devout christian saying that they know god is real in their hearts... and therefore all of the rest of us must convert to their belief and pray to their god.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Please don't tell me you're implying here that Izzard (or anyone else, for that matter) should still be considered as a transvestite man - rather than a transwoman - simply on the basis that he's not seeking (whether or not he's announced it to the world) hormone treatment or surgery.

And please don't tell me that simply because you don't observe any noticeable difference in Izzard's external presentation between (say) 10 years ago and today, this therefore implies that nothing about Izzard's own understanding of her gender fluidity can have changed either.


(To be clear, I think what you've written indicates pretty strongly that you are drawing those two inferences - it's just that I still retain some vestige of hope that someone with apparently a relatively good grasp of the issues and terminologies associated with this topic could know better than to think and state those things....)

Just to clarify... Your view here suggests that you feel that any male who proclaims themselves to be a woman must by obligation be accepted by their claim as being a woman, yes? That their claim alone is all it takes?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Person A is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person A considers himself to be a man. Person A is a transvestite man.

Person B is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person B considers herself to be a woman. Person B is a transwoman.

Person C is a male who likes to wear jeans, t-shirts and Converse trainers in public. Person C considers herself to be a woman. Person C is a transwoman.

A, B, and C are all MALE. Their own beliefs about themselves and their internal state doesn't change that in the least. How they dress makes absolutely zero difference to that.