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

[Ziggurat]

Yes.

It’s hated to understand probability?

If I'm scared of a gay man's penis because it might rape me, I'm homophobic.

That’s... not how rape works.

I've spend about 5 threads trying to figure out why that's different.

You still haven’t figured out that males are usually much stronger than females, but males are not usually much stronger than males?

"Because men are evil because I'm a scared widdle woman and you'll never understand what that is like" is not an answer yet it's the only answer I've gotten.

Wow.

I’m pretty critical of feminism (for example, the wage gap is ********) and I’m no fan of victim mentality. But even for me, this is sexist.

Women's fear of men is not so magically unique and special OR justified as to make it so obvious and logical and that straight cis-men are the ones we have to protect everyone else from.

Obviousness isn’t really a good criteria. Some obvious things are false and some nonobvious things are true. But not logical? Yeah, no. You are wrong on that front. The statistics on stranger sexual assault are clear enough. Arguments to the contrary tend to focus on false analogies or political correctness.

Women do not own the concept of being scared of "the other" enough to make it not problematic for them.

**** “problematic”. How is it wrong? I don’t see any actual argument from you that it is. It’s just you taking offense.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Are you arguing that females should have no rights/spaces/representation (etc.) based solely on their sex ?

No, i'm not.

 

[Butter!]

Why is this so shocking, that even the question is asked in hushed "You can't really be serious?" tones?

I don't know, I find it crazy. I'm someone who wouldn't even mind changing in a unisex facility, but the idea that everyone should HAVE to strikes me as wacko.

 

[Collin237]

Here's the thing Archie.

Go look at the reviews of Korean spas (there are several large ones here operating for decades)

I doubt that I'm the only person whose first reaction to hearing about these places is wanting to see a photo of the women. Inevitably someone is going to smuggle in a camera. A male would almost certainly not get away with this. However, a female paparazza from a Gawker-style website probably would.

This is a child pornography exhibit waiting to happen. Did everyone just ignore the danger until a trans woman showed up and they could say "Aha! Now we have a reason to protest this place"?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Here's the thing Archie.

Before you change the topic can you acknowledge my response to what you posted which was that it is confusing? Otherwise it seems like you aren't actually here to have a reasonable discussion but just want to keep throwing out objections without listening to the responses

 

[Butter!]

It seems to me the idea that men are inherently predatory and women can only be safe if isolated from them is deeply baked into TERF opposition to trans rights.

There's a reason why TERFs are almost entirely focused on trans-women and could not care less about trans men. It's an ideology driven deeply by hatred of men.

I actually think it's more a fear of men with the majority of them, but I do also acknowledge that fear is frequently the bedrock for hate and intolerance.

 

[Butter!]

I doubt that I'm the only person whose first reaction to hearing about these places is wanting to see a photo of the women. Inevitably someone is going to smuggle in a camera. A male would almost certainly not get away with this. However, a female paparazza from a Gawker-style website probably would.

This is a child pornography exhibit waiting to happen. Did everyone just ignore the danger until a trans woman showed up and they could say "Aha! Now we have a reason to protest this place"?

This is a really confusing post.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know, I find it crazy. I'm someone who wouldn't even mind changing in a unisex facility, but the idea that everyone should HAVE to strikes me as wacko.

I don't think it's fair to expect straight cis-men to just gladly assume the role of "the only inherently predatory gender/sex identity" without any questions or concerns.

You can disagree with that of course, but the idea that it's some shocking far outside the Overton Window idea is rather eyebrow raising to me.

 

[Meadmaker]

There are a number of traits I like very much in men and women - as long as it's not the crazy ones.

Sometimes you just want a clean, well-lighted place that's free of the risk of the crazy ones.

Indeed.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I actually think it's more a fear of men with the majority of them, but I do also acknowledge that fear is frequently the bedrock for hate and intolerance.

I don't mean to imply this fear isn't rooted in lived experience.

I would point out that it is more regressive countries that generally have a need for more sex segregated spaces.

Places that countries that have sex segregated rail-cars are generally not places that are doing a good job battling sexual violence. In many ways, sex segregation is a crutch for societies that are unwilling or unable to deal with sexual based violence directly. In more civilized parts of the world, people who grope others on trains face severe social and/or criminal consequences, and ideally such incidences are rare enough that it is reasonably safe for everyone to mix together. If you live in a place where sexual violence is so normalized to be unpoliceable, sex segregation makes a lot of sense, but that's an extremely damning indicator.

A more progressive society is one where there is a generally understood and followed expectation that mixed-company spaces are safe for everyone, and violators of that expectation are punished.

I respect women who make good-faith claims of need for these spaces, but we shouldn't accept these claims uncritically, especially in the context of where clear animus towards trans people is in play.

In the example of the spa, it seems pretty clear to me that there are many remedies that could be implemented to solve the problem of sexual aggression, and I'm deeply skeptical of the kneejerk reaction to throw trans women under the bus as a first resort.

Prestige's point about male prisons is an excellent example of this tacit endorsement of sexual violence. It's deeply shameful that our society has normalized the idea that men's prisons are just rife with sexual violence and nothing is meaningfully done to stop it. These places aren't dangerous because men, as a class, are inherently dangerous, they are dangerous because society permits them to be dangerous.

 

[Lithrael]

Not actually on topic, but,

Dogs that attack people represent a small percentage of the total population of dogs. The fact that a dog is there just makes me take a second to evaluate the dog. I’m never nervous sharing my space with a dog unless it’s actually acting aggressive or frightened or weird. Its presence alone doesn’t put me on edge. The fact that some small percentage of dogs might actually attack, vs say cats who will essentially never attack unless cornered, doesn’t actually mean it’s useful to be nervous of dogs always and of cats never.

On the other hand how much should we do to accommodate people who are terrified of dogs anyway? I have a friend who’s legit afraid of any dog over five pounds. He doesn’t need anyone quibbling with him about how much of a statistical likelyhood it is that any particular dog might actually ever try to hurt him. It’s easier for everyone just to put the dog somewhere else away from him.

But what if I had a friend that was legit afraid of any (example human demographic?)

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think it's fair to expect straight cis-men to just gladly assume the role of "the only inherently predatory gender/sex identity" without any questions or concerns.

You picked the wrong fight for this. Much more relevant is antipathy towards male educators, for example. And there are plenty of news stories about female teachers who sexually exploit underage boys.

But the patterns of sexual predation aren’t the same. Female violent sexual assault of strangers is in fact much rarer than male violent sexual assault of strangers. Fair or not, thems the facts. Separating male and female spaces where people undress isn’t an unreasonable response to that fact (plus, as I have pointed out before, males are more sexually aroused by nudity than females). And you aren’t even arguing against that. You aren’t on a crusade to end sex segregation in general. That’s the real kicker here. Having spaces separated in the first place is apparently ok, it’s just not ok to talk about why that’s a good idea. How does that make any sense?

 

[Collin237]

If I follow the 'logic', body integrity dysphoria (BID) will become a 'valid lived condition' as opposed to an 'invalid lived condition' when it is recognised by the psychiatric/medical community as not being 'aberrant'. Just as, if for any reason in the future some fundamentalists manage to get homosexuality classified as a disorder, homosexuality will become 'invalid'.

BID is now included in the ICD11 but was previously known as Body Identity Integrity Disorder. Note how similar this is to gender identity disorder being renamed gender dysphoria. Currently it is under the mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders chapter. So we are part way there (removing 'disorder' from the title). Transabled activists presumably just need to get it moved to another section to make it 'valid'.

The difference is that the intact male and female human anatomies have been stable biological templates for at least a million years, and trans people have only the condition of perceiving one instead of the other. Whereas people with BID are perceiving themselves to be a form that almost never occurs naturally in anyone.

 

[d4m10n]

I trust all these family friendly spa patrons would be thrilled to have a lesbian cis-woman soliciting them for sex and drugs while out with their children.

Sexually aggressive behavior remains the most obvious problem, and it's entirely possible to address this directly without making sweeping generalizations about trans women or men.

I've read this reply twice and cannot derive an answer to my question at #2341.

 

[Collin237]

Not actually on topic, but,

Dogs that attack people represent a small percentage of the total population of dogs. The fact that a dog is there just makes me take a second to evaluate the dog. I’m never nervous sharing my space with a dog unless it’s actually acting aggressive or frightened or weird. Its presence alone doesn’t put me on edge. The fact that some small percentage of dogs might actually attack, vs say cats who will essentially never attack unless cornered, doesn’t actually mean it’s useful to be nervous of dogs always and of cats never.

On the other hand how much should we do to accommodate people who are terrified of dogs anyway? I have a friend who’s legit afraid of any dog over five pounds. He doesn’t need anyone quibbling with him about how much of a statistical likelyhood it is that any particular dog might actually ever try to hurt him. It’s easier for everyone just to put the dog somewhere else away from him.

But what if I had a friend that was legit afraid of any (example human demographic?)

Like the Masterpiece Cake incident? Sometimes society is justified in being afraid of fear itself (which in that case would mean shutting down the bakery).

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I've read this reply twice and cannot derive an answer to my question at #2341.

Third time's the charm!

 

[Sherkeu]

The difference is that the intact male and female human anatomies have been stable biological templates for at least a million years, and trans people have only the condition of perceiving one instead of the other. Whereas people with BID are perceiving themselves to be a form that almost never occurs naturally in anyone.

The best theory of BIID is that it happens in the brain's 'mapping system' of nerves that go out to our various body parts. It has been long known in history.

But yeah, a small minority must make them insignificant? How small til we ignore a condition?

Like all the 10%'ers used to be, eh?

 

[Emily's Cat]

We apparently agree that certain virtues have been extolled to young women and girls much more than the same traits have been extolled to their brothers and fathers. Where we disagree is that you think I'm somehow trying to justify this practice rather than taking note of it as historical fact.

When you're suggesting a categorization method that relies on the reinforcement of those traits being associated with both sex and gender... it is essentially sexist.

Your attempt at a usable definition is appreciated, but I think the definition is too vague as well as being a definition that entrenches sexist stereotypes - even if that's not your intention.

By relying on "expected to perform femininity", with femininity encompassing "traditional feminine behaviors and virtues" it is reinforcing the roles and expectations that we females have been trying to break down for generations. It reinforces "women are sweet and kind and compassionate, men are strong and decisive and competitive". It carries forward the stereotype of "proper women don't speak out, proper men don't cry".

 

[Lithrael]

Yay! Thanks .

Yeah, I thought about this a little more last night (using your post as a jumping-off point), and I came to the conclusion that it shouldn't actually be so easy for people to "switch sides," not if their original core beliefs are genuine. It's a common claim, but I kind of think it's almost always a lie (unless the person is very young or new to a set of sociopolitical issues).

I did phrase that poorly. I meant that it was a good example of what that radicalizing pressure looks like, not that you were being unduly influenced by it. And yes it does typically ‘work’ on very young and/or inexperienced people (fence sitters etc) on forums/boards/social media etc.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, you can't do that, that would be invalidating the lived experience. It is essential that transwomen are locked up with women because otherwise the trans activists will call you names.

Pretty much.

It seems like a very reaosnable and appropriate solution to a great many people. But the transwomen and their allies rather strongly object to this common-sense pragmatic solution. They see it as being transphobic and bigoted.

That's probably the biggest problem with this whole ideology. Most people, including most females, are willing to compromise to a degree. We're willing and supportive of accommodations that allow transgender people dignity without infringing on the rights and safety of females.

But the trans activists are unwilling to compromise. Anything that doesn't fully and unquestionably "affirm" their internal feeling about themselves is unacceptable.

Even to the degree of saying that they feel "unsafe" because rape victims are allowed to specify the sex of their examiner rather than the gender. That one just still boggles my mind. How the hell selfish do you have to be to put your feeling of acceptance above the trauma of a rape victim?