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

[Distracted1]

Self-ID actually has been implemented in Canada. I hope this puts to rest your (mistaken) claim that self-ID was an exaggeration by anti-trans extremists with no real support from "actual liberals".

Perhaps the Canadiens who put such a policy in place were Conservatives.

 

[Butter!]

I am not arguing that anything has actually been.

I AM A SCIENTIFIC REALIST!!!!! Do you know what that means?

IT IS AN EMPIRICAL QUESTION!!!!! Do you know what that means?

Why are you playing games with me?????

Bud, no one is trying to play games with you. Seriously. You aren't making clear sense, that's all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A person is a woman if her permanent internal perception of her body indicates that she has a female body. It's that simple.

Nobody is going to explain, on a blog, what it's like to be unaware of what their own genitalia is shaped like. That's too personal to put into words. So they find ways to avoid the question.

1) regarding "permanent internal perception"
Item a) How are you defining "permanent", and what is your stance on detransitioners?
Item b) How does one verify that internal perception? How does one, for example, weed out predators willing to lie?

2) regarding "female body"
Item 1) How do you define "female"?
Item 2) What constitutes a "female body"?

 

[d4m10n]

Women have been kicking out against being expected to behave in a stereotypical "feminine" way for generations. Now we're being told that the definition of a woman is either behaving in such a way, or being expected to behave in such a way?

Have you never been expected to be feminine?

 

[theprestige]

A person is a woman if her permanent internal perception of her body indicates that she has a female body. It's that simple.

That doesn't seem simple at all. That seems complicated to the point of inscrutability.

Does this same principle of "permanent internal perception" apply to other conditions of mismatch between perception and physical reality?

Is a person legless if their permanent internal perception of their body indicates that they shouldn't have legs? Should the medical community accommodate them with amputations?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19132621/

Does a person have a severe physical flaw if their permanent internal perception of their body indicates that the flaw exists? Should we accommodate their perception by agreeing the flaw exists and treating them as if the flaw exists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dysmorphic_disorder

Why is gender dysmorphia a human right that must be accommodated, but BIID and BDD are medical conditions that should be treated?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, it's usually quite easy in practice. Just look to see if someone is wearing clothes which are cut and styled for ladies, along with other common indicators of femininity within your own cultural context, e.g. shaved legs, eye makeup, willingness to listen rather than talking over others, etc.

So... a butch female who prefers workboots and overalls isn't a woman? A female who stops shaving her legs and pits isn't a woman?

Holy hell. I've been on lockdown since last March, and I stopped shaving my legs and pits then, and I almost never wear make-up. Apparently I'm a man now?

I know you're trying to find a reasonable and conciliatory definition... but I reject this one completely. I don't consent to have my gender changed by other people, just because I don't conform to regressive stereotypes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sorry to quibble, but not Me.
I am in favor of trans-gender people being protected from violence on the basis of their humanity.
Or, if your sentence is meant to mean that "on the basis of their gender" is the particular form of violence that they are to be protected from, I would claim that the basis of the violence is irrelavent to a humans right to be protected from it.

Sorry.

I suspect this is a difference in reading and unclear language.

My position is that it should not be considered acceptable to enact violence on anyone when the reason for that violence is that they are transgender.

Just like you, I oppose violence against ANY human. But I am perfectly fine with clarifying that "just because a dude is in a dress doesn't make it okay to beat them up". It shouldn't need to be said, but there are a LOT of people who ASSUME that because I don't want a 17 year old male highschool student competing for college scholarships against a female... I somehow support harm being done to that male.

 

[Meadmaker]

My recollection in brief is that Rolfe started out much more tolerant years ago. But as the trans activists have become increasingly aggressive and violent in their approaches, and as the agenda has mutated from "stop firing us for how we identity" to "we're just as much a female as any biological female and we should have the right to go wherever we want" her view has shifted to be less tolerant.

I believe that's happened with several of the female posters in this thread. For me, I started out a lot more tolerant, looking for common ground, understanding, and a reasonable path forward. What I've found, however, is rather blatant misogyny being expressed by a LOT of trans activists, policies that increase the risk of harm to females and reduce our rights, and a very clear indication that *some* transwomen aren't transsexual in the way we had previously understood, but are actually acting on a sexual paraphilia. That has resulted in me pulling back on my support, and being more critical of the consequences of the policies proposed.

Yep.

 

[Ziggurat]

A person is a woman if her permanent internal perception of her body indicates that she has a female body. It's that simple.

Aside from the problem that we have no access to someone else's internal perception, even THEY don't have any way of determining conclusively that their perception is permanent. Certainly people who have said they were transgender later say they are not. How can you tell the difference? How can they tell the difference? I don't think there is any way.

 

[Rolfe]

Have you never been expected to be feminine?

In what way is that relevant? I don't accept that I need to perform any sort of paticular behaviour to justify my inclusion in the class of "women". I am female, and over 16. That's it. I'm still a woman if I choose to go around all day in dungarees, smoking a pipe.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Good post overall.

Would all these people still be men or would we become a society of procreating lesbians?

I ran across a group of people claiming to be "butch lesbian transwomen" They were masculine in appearance and behavior, had undergone no hormone therapy or surgery, were genitally intact, and were sexually attracted to females. They were for-realsies calling lesbians transphobes and vagina fetishists because they didn't want to have penis-in-vagina sex with them.

I still don't see how that is meaningfully different from "straight man who wants to get away with banging lesbians."

 

[theprestige]

Well, it's usually quite easy in practice. Just look to see if someone is wearing clothes which are cut and styled for ladies, along with other common indicators of femininity within your own cultural context, e.g. shaved legs, eye makeup, willingness to listen rather than talking over others, etc.

What about a dude who's performing as another dude who thinks he's not a dude?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Good point.

Canada made gender identity a protected civil right in June 2017. Self-ID is the law of the land.

I've been reassured that such a policy would open the floodgates of violence. Open season for sex perverts and scammers.

It's been over 3 years, surely there's some evidence now of the trans menace.

There is, and you've been presented it. You just ignore it and hand-wave it away.

 

[Distracted1]

I suspect this is a difference in reading and unclear language.

My position is that it should not be considered acceptable to enact violence on anyone when the reason for that violence is that they are transgender.

Just like you, I oppose violence against ANY human. But I am perfectly fine with clarifying that "just because a dude is in a dress doesn't make it okay to beat them up". It shouldn't need to be said, but there are a LOT of people who ASSUME that because I don't want a 17 year old male highschool student competing for college scholarships against a female... I somehow support harm being done to that male.

This is a long way in to say that you are beginning to see that "slippery slope" is not always a fallacy.

 

[Meadmaker]

Earlier in this thread, there was the case of the transwoman in Oregon that stands to be recapped. The transwoman was genitally intact, and habitually used the showers and locker rooms at the community college at the same time that the local middle-school and children's swim teams used the pool.

One of the young girls saw the transwoman, and saw her exposed penis. The girl complained to her coach (I believe) who contacted the school board. Several parents complained.

When the police were involved, it was determined that because the transwoman had legally changed her gender, she had a right to use the facility, and that the female minors who used that facility had no right to change in a space that contained no penises. The girls of the swim teams were told that if they were uncomfortable changing in the presence of a biologically intact adult male, they must use a different, significantly smaller changing room that is usually reserved for staff. Now, the swim team takes turns using the small shower in order to avoid being naked in front of an adult male.

These female minors have been repeatedly treated as "transphobes" and "hateful", and the law came down on the side of the be-penised person rather than on the side of protecting the safety and the dignity of females.

Just in case Colin, or anyone else, wants to understand this story, google Colleen Brenna Francis. She has the story exactly right, but for some minor and irrelevant details, like the fact that it was in Washington, not Oregon. (Is there really a difference anyway? Trees. Mountains. Rain)

 

[Meadmaker]

A person is a woman if her permanent internal perception of her body indicates that she has a female body. It's that simple.

Nobody is going to explain, on a blog, what it's like to be unaware of what their own genitalia is shaped like. That's too personal to put into words. So they find ways to avoid the question.

This is incorrect. Transwomen are very much aware of what their real bodies are. A transwoman does not perceive that she has a female body. They are very much aware of the shape of their own genitalia.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What about a dude who's performing as another dude who thinks he's not a dude?

Or even easier... drag queens who view themselves as gay men, but most certainly "perform femininity".

Related: I used to think that drag shows were humorous and fun. My view has shifted, and I now see them as essentially minstrel shows caricaturing women. They're putting on "womanface" and enacting a demeaning and negative stereotype of womanhood.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Or even easier... drag queens who view themselves as gay men, but most certainly "perform femininity".

Related: I used to think that drag shows were humorous and fun. My view has shifted, and I now see them as essentially minstrel shows caricaturing women. They're putting on "womanface" and enacting a demeaning and negative stereotype of womanhood.

Becoming more regressive as you dig into an anti-trans stance? Color me shocked!

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is a long way in to say that you are beginning to see that "slippery slope" is not always a fallacy.

I'm well aware that slippery-slopes are not always fallacies. It's one that is very similar to arguments from authority - sometimes an argument from authority as an appropriate argument.

Slippery slopes end up relying on how likely it is for a current state to reach the end state being used in the argument.

For example... the "slippery slope" that allowing gay people to get married will lead to people marrying goats is fallacious. It's extraordinarily unlikely to happen, because marriage is contract between two consenting people. Goats are unable to consent, as they lack the mental faculty to make an informed opinion.

On the other hand, the "slippery slope" that allowing self-id alone to grant male-bodied people who claim to be transwomen access to female-only spaces will result in an increase in peeping, voyeurism, and sexual misbehavior isn't far fetched at all. Male people already do those things... this would just make it easier for them to do so.

I mean, seriously - if some males are willing to submerge themselves in the effluvia at the bottom of a port-a-potty in order to get a glimpse of a vulva... I'm pretty sure they'd be willing to toss on a wig in order to get into the locker room at the local gym.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just in case Colin, or anyone else, wants to understand this story, google Colleen Brenna Francis. She has the story exactly right, but for some minor and irrelevant details, like the fact that it was in Washington, not Oregon. (Is there really a difference anyway? Trees. Mountains. Rain)

Yeah, the only real difference is which side of the river you're on. They're pretty much the same place.

Doesn't surprise me though. The amount of weirdly thoughtless policies in place in both Seattle and Portland (and their surrounding MSAs) is just baffling sometimes. I love the landscape and the weather there, but holy cow it's like some kind of mass insanity sometimes.