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

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, you support very surface level rights. Ones that should be guaranteed to everybody regardless of what sex or gender they are. Those that don't conflict with your views of us as "male". But in every other way you want to discriminate against us. In restrooms, locker rooms, prisons, shelters, sports, opportunities, etc. you want to exclude us from other women. And that's what makes you a TERF and transphobe.

You ARE male!

I'll make you a deal: get rid of the penis, and you can take part in all of those places you want so much to be in. Except sports - you have to meet a testosterone threshold first.

I AM a woman, I don't "present" as a woman. And as I am a woman and female, I don't override our rights one bit.

In what way are you a woman? In what way are you female?

You say you treat me that way, but your views on us say otherwise.

When have I treated you uncivilly or with disrespect?
What views do I hold that make you feel that I don't respect you as a human being?

You can play the harmless victim all you want, but I call out bigots when I encounter them. And I absolutely have the moral right to do so.

I'm not a victim, I'm a female, and I should be able to protect my sex-based rights.

 

[Aber]

Is this prompted by the hordes of transwomen who were made to feel "unsafe" because the law now lets rape victims specify the SEX of their examiner, rather than the gender?

Honestly, what happened that made them feel so "unsafe" in the party?

Joanna Cherry

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/joanna-cherry-blocks-snp-colleague-kirsty-blackman-twitter-amid-lgbt-row-3116605

 

[theprestige]

The issue seems to have started some internal debate in the SNP:

https://twitter.com/theSNP/status/1354851538548760577

"Transphobia under a guise of concern for women's rights is still transphobia".

I was gonna make a crack about how some phobias are healthy. Like, I have a severe phobia of falling from great heights. No rational person would try to shame or pathologize me for this fear.

But then I remembered that phobias, by definition, are unhealthy. My fear of falling is not a phobia. It's a healthy fear.

Bringing this back around: Transphobia is by definition an unhealthy fear. So we are now to the point where people are telling us that if you're at odds with your physical body, to the point of mental anguish and loss of function, that's a perfectly healthy thing... But anyone who finds that creepy and weird is crazy.

 

[Rolfe]

Is this prompted by the hordes of transwomen who were made to feel "unsafe" because the law now lets rape victims specify the SEX of their examiner, rather than the gender?

Honestly, what happened that made them feel so "unsafe" in the party?

Yes. It's possibly also a distraction on Sturgeon's part from the revelations about her part in framing Alex Salmond for sexual assault. See the thread in the Trials and Errors subforum.

All hell is busy breaking loose over this. She needs to go and we probably need a new party. I'm just staying in for the entertainment value of being thrown out for believing mammals can't change sex, at this rate.

 

[Collin237]

totally on the idea that "Self Identity" is sacrosanct.

That's not what we're saying. We're saying it should be legally binding. The whole point of making a legally binding statement is that you're indicating that you're so sure the statement is true that you're willing to dare the authorities to prove it false.

Unless a country can provide free access to a reputable gender expert to verify your gender identity, self-identity is acceptable pragmatically.

Is it valid epistemically? Of course not. But neither is most any social ritual.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes. It's possibly also a distraction on Sturgeon's part from the revelations about her part in framing Alex Salmond for sexual assault. See the thread in the Trials and Errors subforum.

All hell is busy breaking loose over this. She needs to go and we probably need a new party. I'm just staying in for the entertainment value of being thrown out for believing mammals can't change sex, at this rate.

It's interesting to watch from afar, having only a very vague understanding of the SNP overall.

It seems like there's an unavoidable loggerheads on the horizon. Either a bunch of TRAs are going to leave citing that they feel unsafe because transwomen aren't being accepted as 100% female and some women express concerns over self-identification and the impact on females... Or females are going to leave citing that they feel unsafe because their rights are being removed and they are being put in danger.

I'm getting really tired of the "I feel unsafe" canard.

 

[Elaedith]

It's interesting to watch from afar, having only a very vague understanding of the SNP overall.

It seems like there's an unavoidable loggerheads on the horizon. Either a bunch of TRAs are going to leave citing that they feel unsafe because transwomen aren't being accepted as 100% female and some women express concerns over self-identification and the impact on females... Or females are going to leave citing that they feel unsafe because their rights are being removed and they are being put in danger.

I'm getting really tired of the "I feel unsafe" canard.

'I feel unsafe' to silence disagreement with gender identity ideology/queer theory is part of Stonewall indoctrination.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's not what we're saying. We're saying it should be legally binding. The whole point of making a legally binding statement is that you're indicating that you're so sure the statement is true that you're willing to dare the authorities to prove it false.

Unless a country can provide free access to a reputable gender expert to verify your gender identity, self-identity is acceptable pragmatically.

Okay, I get what you're saying. But I think it has some flaws - like huge gaping holes of flaws.

The current push is that in order to be transgender, a person shouldn't need to present as their identified gender, nor should they need to undergo any treatment of any sort, right? Thus, a person who is fully male-bodied, and who has a beard, and who doesn't wear makeup or heels, but who self-identifies as a woman should be accepted at their word as a woman.

You say that such self-identification should be legally binding.

How could it ever be challenged? If a male can self-identify as a woman without a diagnosis, without hormone therapy or surgery, and without even being expected to wear traditional female clothing and make-up... in what way can their claim to be transgender be challenged?

And even if it is legally binding in some sense, how does that play out in the real world? Do we require everyone to carry a gender id of some sort and show it when entering sex-segregated spaces or when being placed in prison?

Or are we supposed to take people at their word and assume that anyone entering a space where females are vulnerable or naked must be a woman or a transwoman, no matter what they look like? If that's the case... what recourse is there to prevent sexual predators from entering those same spaces with malicious intent?

Let's consider an alternative scenario. If a person can self-id legally as a woman, with no diagnosis and no medical transition at all... then wouldn't that allow a person born male, raised male, and with all of the social privileges of a male to self-id into a women's position in politics or executive positions? As far fetched as it might sound... wouldn't this allow Trump to legally change his gender, run again in 2024, and potentially go into the books as the first "woman" president of the US?

 

[Emily's Cat]

'I feel unsafe' to silence disagreement with gender identity ideology/queer theory is part of Stonewall indoctrination.

The breadth of policy capture that Stonewall and Mermaids has achieved is mind-boggling. The US is following in their footsteps.

 

[Collin237]

For a first offense I think that will be acceptable.

Go and sin no more.

So you're an aporia-apologist?

 

[theprestige]

'I feel unsafe' to silence disagreement with gender identity ideology/queer theory is part of Stonewall indoctrination.

It's especially ironic when you're watching some youtube video of a police cam at a routine traffic stop.

"License and registration please."

"No."

"Ma'am, step out of the car, please."

"No! I feel unsafe! You're armed!"

And then a physical altercation ensues that is substantially less safe than if they'd simply produced their license and registration and taken their speeding ticket.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's especially ironic when you're watching some youtube video of a police cam at a routine traffic stop.

"License and registration please."

"No."

"Ma'am, step out of the car, please."

"No! I feel unsafe! You're armed!"

And then a physical altercation ensues that is substantially less safe than if they'd simply produced their license and registration and taken their speeding ticket.

Lol

That still makes more sense than "Allowing rape victims to specify the sex of their medical examiner makes me feel unsafe as a transperson".

Or seemingly in this most recent tidbit "Someone in the party upvoted a tweet by someone who isn't in the party that challenged trans ideology so I feel unsafe being part of the party".

I mean, as absurd as it is in your scenario, at least there's something concrete that can be viewed as dangerous by a rational person. Not me, personally, but I can at least follow the mental road to get to gun = unsafe.

 

[Collin237]

And, I think your reasoning is sound.

Hate speech is never sound reasoning.

 

[Collin237]

From what I can see, the Bad Guys are usually referred to as the TERFS or the trans athletes or trans users of bathrooms or prisons. Obviously they have mutually incompatible aims, like the Palestinians and the Israelis, or the Republicans and the Unionists in Northern Ireland. But basically they are blowing each other up, not those who wander onto the battlefield.

Everybody uses a bathroom. You're saying you're okay with TERFS "blowing up" (whatever that means) everyone who happens to be trans?

TERFS believe that all women are being persecuted by a demon called Patriarchy. In a democracy, such viewpoints are not supposed to be allowed to interfere with individual lives.

 

[theprestige]

Fringe reset it is, I see.

 

[Collin237]

Collin, I get that you're catching up on the thread, and that you're new to ISF. It's generally considered appropriate to supply either supporting evidence of your position or at least your rationale for the disagreement.

In this case, simply declaring "bull" doesn't refute Rolfe's position in any way at all. Additionally, claiming that she sounds like a right-wing CTer is an ad-hominem and a personal attack that doesn't support any view at all.

I welcome a reasoned discussion of alternative views, so I hope that you'll take this advice in the friendly manner in which it is intended.

It's like saying "There's plenty of research on krakens, but it's being suppressed by all those krakens insisting that they're squids." I know that's a logical fallacy, but I don't know the fancy name for it.

 

[Rolfe]

It's interesting to watch from afar, having only a very vague understanding of the SNP overall.

It seems like there's an unavoidable loggerheads on the horizon. Either a bunch of TRAs are going to leave citing that they feel unsafe because transwomen aren't being accepted as 100% female and some women express concerns over self-identification and the impact on females... Or females are going to leave citing that they feel unsafe because their rights are being removed and they are being put in danger.

I'm getting really tired of the "I feel unsafe" canard.

It's already happening, we're on about Act 3 by now. A lot of women have left saying they don't want any part of a party that supports the removal of women's rights, I don't know how many but the party has shed 40,000 members in total in the past four or five years. The women who sent impassioned emails explaining their position were rewarded with a form reply thanking them for their past support.

Now a bit of traction has been gained. The right to have a medical examiner of your preferred sex was won, after a lot of pointless shouting that it didn't make any difference what word was used because gender and sex are the same thing, while at the same time it was the most important thing in the world to keep the word gender as any change would be hurtful to trans people. (The SNP government capitulated because they realised there was such a big rebellion brewing in their own ranks that they were going to lose anyway.) Then there was a bit of a rout of the woke at the recent National Executive Council elections, although some of the defeated candidates were promptly co-opted back in again presumably at the instigation of the leadership.

These events triggered a huge whine from about 15 crybullies in Out For Indy, saying the SNP wasn't a safe space for trans people and they were going to join the Greens. This occurrence then triggered a personal public plea from the FM for them to reconsider, with the veiled threat that she was going to deal with the anti-woke rebellion.

She did that late in the evening of the same day that Craig Murray published his evidence submitted to court explaining in some detail just how she had been the spider in the centre of the web of conspiracy that was woven to try to get her predecessor and mentor jailed on fabricated allegations of sexual abuse. Which hasn't been reported in the press at all.

Add to that the obvious fact that she has no intention of allowing Scotland to become independent if she can possibly prevent it, and you have a pretty toxic mix. Even before you add in 8,000 people dead of covid, entirely because she chose to shadow Boris Johnson's lethal strategies uncritically.

I've been a party member since 1992. Nearly 30 years. And by the way the party is pretty left-wing, further to the left than Labour for example. It's mostly women on the left who are fighting this thing in Britain. I've just about had enough, but I think getting thrown out for declaring that a woman is an adult human female and that mammalian males cannot transform into females would be more entertaining than a bland email thanking me for my decades of work for the party and don't let the door hit me on the way out.

 

[theprestige]

It's like saying "There's plenty of research on krakens, but it's being suppressed by all those krakens insisting that they're squids." I know that's a logical fallacy, but I don't know the fancy name for it.

Good luck with that analogy.

 

[Lithrael]

It seems to me though that “the trans lobby is largely made up of autogynaephiles, many of them narcissists” is simply a bald assertion.

I’m in favor of the actual goal of rape victims being able to choose which medical professional will examine them. I’m confident that it’s possible to have these conversations without all the drama. That is to say, I don’t believe all the drama is intrinsic to these situations. People are bringing it. I don’t honestly care who all are on the drama-bringing roll call. People need to knock it off. But people are terrible at knocking off the drama when they feel wronged, and a whole lot of people feel wronged.

 

[Meadmaker]

So you're an aporia-apologist?

I have no idea what that means, and I doubt that I care.