• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
SuburbanTurkey said:
Any such balancing of interests has to be predicated in the idea that trans people are valid and that they cannot be discriminated against as a class, which is probably a non-starter for the large population of transphobes in our society. The religious right and TERFs reject such a notion outright.
Click to expand...

TRans people are valid human beings, and they shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity.

That's not where the disagreement is. Literally nobody in this thread thinks that transgender people don't exist, nor that they *should* be discriminated against.

The disagreement is around when the segregation is and should be based on sex as opposed to gender identity.
 
Louden Wilde said:
Hypothetical scenario- there's a large organization that has pledged proportional representation on it's board . The org is ~50:50 male: female. The board, however, is 5 men and 5 transwomen. I'd be curious to see if the posters here who feel that 'Transwomen are women' would be willing to say that the organization has lived up to its promise of equal representation.
Click to expand...

I'm also curious - anyone who supports transwomen being viewed as identical to females in all legal and social scenarios care to comment?
 
theprestige said:
I though it was already well-understood that males and females have observably different hip structure, resulting in observably different gaits.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. That would definitely have to be compensated for. As far as computer programming, that's way above my league. But I wager someone would be able to figure something out.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And this is sports. Sports fans don't like change. People are still mad the football team stopped using the Racial Slur as their team name. Every rule change is the one that ruined the sport forever according to *checks notes* every sports fan ever. Every uniform is the worst one the team's ever had. Every team was better when it was in City So and So before it moved to City This or That even if the team moved a hundred years ago.
Click to expand...

Heh. The name of my high school sports teams was the Chinks from 1930 to 1980. (A couple years before I started high school.) You can still find merchandise online. In fairness, growing up, we never had any concept of the word as a slur or derogatory term. To us, it was a positive term.

Anyway, sorry, that was off topic. I just couldn't resist the parallel. There will be merchandise available for decades.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I've heard rumors (might be a total UL) that they became popular in the big drug fear craze of the 70s/80s, with the idea that you can't hide in the stall to do drugs.
Click to expand...

Also for schools and mixed-age restrooms where there's a concern about children locking themselves in to a restroom and coming to harm (intentional or not).

It's also why the standard interior door lock has an easily accessible override from the outside. For safety and in case of emergency.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Being cheapskates simply isn't an adequate reason to continue to mistreat trans people.
Click to expand...

Genuine question, looking for a genuine answer.

Why is it considered mistreatment to not allow male-bodied transwomen into spaces where females are vulnerable... but it is NOT considered mistreatment to not allow male-bodied cismen into those same spaces?
 
theprestige said:
I though it was already well-established that males and females have observably different hip structure, resulting in observably different gaits.

And I thought it was already well-established that gatekeeping on such observable biological differences is an absolute non-starter for TRAs. If the clear binary nature of sexual expression isn't a starter... If the clear distinction between XX and XY isn't a starter... Why would the clear difference in hip structure and walking gait be a starter?

Collin, it seems like your heart and your reason are in the right place, but your familiarity with the current state of play needs to catch up. Criteria like chromosomes and the SRY gene have already been proposed, discussed, and rejected (or ignored) by TRAs in this thread.
Click to expand...

Activists will never be satisfied with reasonable political progress, on any topic. After a certain point, you just have to ignore them and find a compromise between moderates.
 
d4m10n said:
How so? It's not difficult to define femininityWP as a specific set of cultural expectations typically based on sex at birth.
Click to expand...

A woman is a person who is expected to behave like a female is expected to behave?

Is that your definition?
 
Louden Wilde said:
I have become increasingly convinced that there is an intrinsic misogyny in the movement and that the feminists are correct that are many activists who seem to think that being a woman is a costume/performance.
Click to expand...

I've become more and more convinced that there is are two categories of people in the "transgender" umbrella term. I think there are transsexuals - people who have definitive gender dysphoria that would be diagnosed as such by objective clinicians. I also think there are those who have a sexual target identification error, Erotic target location error or a paraphilia. I think that the paraphiliacs have glommed on and taken over the trans-rights activism, and are driving the "self-id" mantra.

If there were a way to separate those two conditions clinically, I think we'd have a lot less pushback. But right now, there are a lot of transgender and activist allies out there who absolutely refuse the entire concept of autogynephilia... despite the number of trans-identified people who admit to that being their motivation.

*I mixed up terms there
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I still don't see what's wrong with "Women are the set of people who are generally expected to perform femininity, either on account of sex or self-presentation."
Click to expand...

I've seen your argument, and I've seen the rebuttal. I know you've seen the rebuttal. I think the rebuttal is sound, and see no need to re-hash it here. I'm confident you understand it. If you reject it anyway, then there's nothing left for me to do but agree that we disagree.
 
TomB said:
Heh. The name of my high school sports teams was the Chinks from 1930 to 1980. (A couple years before I started high school.) You can still find merchandise online. In fairness, growing up, we never had any concept of the word as a slur or derogatory term. To us, it was a positive term.

Anyway, sorry, that was off topic. I just couldn't resist the parallel. There will be merchandise available for decades.
Click to expand...

But "Dragons" is a fine name. (I grew up nearby.)
 
Olmstead said:
A woman is a person who is expected to behave like a female is expected to behave?
Click to expand...
Throw in "adult" and "human," narrow the context to a specific culture, and bear in mind that it isn't necessarily ethical to impose gendered expectations on those who have no use for them. With all that in mind, pretty much, yes.

theprestige said:
I've seen your argument, and I've seen the rebuttal. I know you've seen the rebuttal.
Click to expand...
Said rebuttal assumes that to acknowledge the existence of gendered norms is to facilitate and perpetuate them. That's ********, obviously, and I'm surprised anyone falls for it.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
1. Valid lived condition: gay males are sexually attracted exclusively to males.

2. "person really believes it": gay males really believe that they are sexually attracted exclusively to males.
Click to expand...

Item 1 is directly observable in a meaningful manner, and sexual attraction is actually measurable. This is not true with respect to transgender people.

That's also, by the way, not a definition of what your phrase means. It's a poorly thought out analogy that rests on a fallacious comparison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom