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

[Louden Wilde]

I suspect the actual argument has been unstated (and perhaps unrecognized) so far, but goes something like this:

Females should have the rights/spaces/representation (etc.) that have evolved over time, and that feminists have fought for and are still fighting for... And transwomen should be able to piggy-back on these norms and efforts by self-ID alone.

I think you're correct (that this is the unstated argument) - which is really that there should not be any sex-specific rights/spaces/etc., but that any segregation should be based on gender. I've seen many trans-activists say this on twitter. Of course, it's never framed as saying that there should be no female-specific rights, rather that TW/TIMs are entitled to those rights (which of course negates them by definition).

After all, without a distinct norm in law and custom, transwomen have nothing to transition to. At that point, transwomanhood becomes just another expression of masculinity, alongside jocks, frat boys, hipsters, metrosexuals, and effeminate men. If you're not allowed in a women's shelter because you're wearing a popped collar and a backwards ball cap, why should you be allowed in a women's shelter because you're wearing a dress and makeup?

There seems to be an increasing movement (going along with self-ID) that says presentation isn't necessarily important. So the answer to that last question is 'because you identify as a woman'. If we accept the Eddie Izzard/gender-fluid model, the answer may be because you ID as a woman that particular day.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Do you even know any lesbians? Females don't do that, even the lesbians. Not in female-spaces.

Maybe in lesbian bars, that's a possibility. But not at the goddamned korean spa!

 

[Emily's Cat]

On the same "completely meaningless purely semantic question of nothing but arbitrary categorization" level as everything else in this topic I suppose.

Again:

"I HAVE FIVE FINGERS!"
"NO I HAVE FOUR FINGERS AND A THUMB!"

is not an actual disagreement. Everyone gets that right?

It's not the same. If that were literally all it was, this wouldn't be a five-and-counting volume thread.

The appropriation of transwomen of the classification "women" is the wedge that is being used to replace sex-based rights with gender-identity-based rights in policy. It's the appropriation of the term "woman" in it's entirety that is now allowing self-identified transwomen (regardless of their physiology) to be housed in the female prison.

The assertion to being a woman is exactly the cornerstone of the activist arguments that they should gain access to all things female, including sports.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Emily.

Too much of your identity as a woman is tied up in fear.

I honestly wonder if you consider anyone who doesn't live in total fear a "real woman."

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let me be absolutely clear about one thing: I vehemently reject the "no empathy for criminals" argument. If you thought that might be something that's going on here, or could start up here soon, let me put that misconception to rest right now.

Absolutely!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Men rape women way more often than gay men rape men. The reason for this is at least partially due to women's physical weakness, I would imagine. We're easy to catch, easy to overpower, etc. Also, there are way more straight men than gay men in the population.

I'm sorry, but I've read you make this point several times now, and I just cannot see a way to agree with it. It's actually mystifying to me that you think it's misandry to acknowledge the fact that lots of men peep and creep, and women have no way of knowing which are which, so many would rather change without any men around. Big deal! Not worth taking offense.

To use Joe's terminology... suggesting that males in general are more likely to be sexually aggressive and inappropriate huwts his poor widdle feewings...

 

[Lithrael]

Hypothetically. Say 90% of instances of (b) are done by x, and 5% of x do (b).

That doesn’t make me think x’s in general do (b). It doesn’t even make me think x’s should be excluded from anything, unless having x’s around has no benefit at all to anyone.

There are better ways to mitigate risk than excluding a group that’s 95% ok.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Do you even know any lesbians? Females don't do that, even the lesbians. Not in female-spaces.

Maybe in lesbian bars, that's a possibility. But not at the goddamned korean spa!

If the proprietors of a sauna allow it to happen, it could easily become a spa equivalent to a lesbian bar.

That's the point. Reputations travel. None of the gyms I use have open gay sex happening because they don't have reputations as places for gay hookups. If I was getting hit on all the time, I would stop going, and eventually the place might get known as the gay gym.

Enforcing a ban on public sex at a sauna isn't actually that hard. It's not like they guys are palming eachother tiny bags of black tar heroin in a blink of an eye. It's obvious what is happening, and would be easy to stop if the people running the sauna wanted to stop it.

Whether or not the korean sauna wants to be a normal sauna or a hookup joint is largely at the discretion of the people running the place.

 

[Louden Wilde]

I've never encountered men having sex inside the saunas or changing rooms of any of the multiple gyms I've been a member of for years. This kind of behavior would almost certainly result in loss of membership in any of these businesses, and would draw the ire of other gym members who were witnessing it. Men don't like finding used condoms in public spaces either, ya know.

Men like using saunas for the same reason women do, it's nice to sit in the steam.

The closest thing to a pervert in the men's room I've ever experienced was some weirdo taking video of himself flexing in the locker area where people are nude. I reported this guy to the front desk.

Hmm- I've actually seen this kind of behavior in at least two gyms (that I can remember), and signs saying that behavior won't be tolerated in many.
Granted, I have spent a lot of time in urban areas and a lot of time in gyms.

To be clear, I think is only a 'gay thing' in that you've removed the limiting factor- females (meaning straight men would do this as well if they could find willing partners that easily). The point being, it seems pretty clear that human males are more sexually aggressive than females - it strikes me as either disingenuous or naïve to argue against that.

 

[Rolfe]

Normal female behavior isn't really to shut oneself off in restrooms and showers and pretend that other people don't exist. We talk to each other in the restroom, where men generally don't. We have all kinds of interactions in restrooms and locker rooms, because to most females those are safe areas, free of male influence and male gaze. If a girl is having a rough time with her boyfriend or with something personal, she goes and cries in the bathroom at school, and that's where she talks to her female friends about the problem. Changing that behavior to one where we're all hidden away is going to be challenging.

Heck, I regularly share dressing rooms at the store with my mother or with a female friend, if the room is large enough. It makes it easier to get opinions on outfits, and it also frees up a room for someone else to use. I don't think this is particularly uncommon, I've seen plenty of other females doubled up in the dressing rooms when they're spacious, especially if the store is busy.

Exactly. Men seem incapable of understanding how women use and behave in our single-sex spaces, as it seems they don't behave like this. Indeed, I have heard of one or two recently transitioned transmen who made fools of themselves trying to strike up random conversations with guys in the gents, when that simply isn't done and is likely to be seen as you trying to hit on someone.

We value our safe spaces so that we can meet and interact with other women without a male presence, and get help with anything from an outfit malfuntion to a miscarriage, with a lot of period problems on the way. The creepy thing is that AGP men know this, and what they crave above all else is to be included in these "feminine mysteries". Women find this craving creepy in the extreme, because these guys are virtually always extremely obviously male.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Hmm- I've actually seen this kind of behavior in at least two gyms (that I can remember), and signs saying that behavior won't be tolerated in many.
Granted, I have spent a lot of time in urban areas and a lot of time in gyms.

To be clear, I think is only a 'gay thing' in that you've removed the limiting factor- females (meaning straight men would do this as well if they could find willing partners that easily). The point being, it seems pretty clear that human males are more sexually aggressive than females - it strikes me as either disingenuous or naïve to argue against that.

I have no problem with gay bathhouses. It's great there's places for people what want to meet up for casual sex or whatever.

I just reject the notion that this is some spontaneous, unstoppable male behavior. Gay bathhouse owners absolutely know what is happening in their establishments, and they are happy to host it. It makes them money. That's fine with me. If these Korean saunas have turned into gay bathhouses, you can bet your ass the owner knows and is at least unmotivated to stop it.

Gay men, straight men, or trans women are not some menace to saunas looking for any opportunity to turn them into orgy pits.

Sexual predators come in all varieties and there is no need to adopt anti-trans policies to combat this criminal behavior.

 

[Butter!]

Absolutely. That's entirely the justification we are being given.

If I'm in a bathroom with a woman, I can't be trusted to not rape her.

What other possible reason has even been discussed?

We can't be expected to just not take that at least a little personally.

I guess I'm interpreting the arguments differently than you. The existence of separate peeing and changing facilities has always been largely about modesty at least as much as safety, if not more so.

 

[caveman1917]

It should be enough to say that if most people in a given society made the exception you describe here, in that society it wouldn't be particularly bizarre to say that trans women are fulfilling the same social role as cis women, a role which we might call "womanhood" in that cultural context.

You give a definition that's based on the opinion of a specific group of people but then don't think it would be required to demonstrate what that opinion of that specific group of people is? In that case your definition of "woman" is rejected as useless, since we can't tell whether transwomen are women or men by your definition.

This is literally how language works; words mean what people generally take them to mean.

No it isn't, take any dictionary and you'll quickly see that very few words are explicitly defined as: "X is whatever people think X is."

 

[theprestige]

There's no way that a very small zealous minority can "capture" the entire infrastructure of one of the world's most powerful countries.

One, a zelous minority absolutely can capture a government agency, if they're zealous enough.

Two, the fact that a government agency has been captured should be a clue that the captor is not as small or insigificant as you originally assumed.

Three, the captor has not captured "the entire infrastructure of one of the world's most powerful countries". This is a straw man of your invention.

Four, this is all waffle anyway. Say what you really mean in plain language:

Do you really mean you don't believe the policy to include transwomen in women's crime statistics is real?

Or do you really mean you don't believe this policy change was brought about in part by the influence of trans-activists?

 

[Rolfe]

I think it would be more appropriate to say that Stonewall is misogynistic, or even that they're homophobic. Stonewall isn't "posing" as a trans rights lobby, that's what they actually are, and have been for a long time.

It's not that long since 2015. I think that's when their then CEO made the decision to transform the organisation into a trans rights lobby, because the alternative was to fade away into gradual irrelevance now that all their original objectives on gay rights had been accomplished. She was aware that they had a lot of well-paid employees, including her of course, and the loss of income they were looking at down the line as funding bodies re-allocated funding to causes that were still struggling, would mean that a lot of redundancies were inevitable as the organisation contracted.

So she took the decision to centre trans rights (and effectively throw lesbians under the bus), and then used the organisation's existing reputation and influence to penetrate where a new organisation would probably have found it very difficult to go, and got paid to indoctrinate the police, the judiciary, universities, schools and so on in the TRA ideology. Policy capture for fun and profit. Especially profit.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I guess I'm interpreting the arguments differently than you. The existence of separate peeing and changing facilities has always been largely about modesty at least as much as safety, if not more so.

The assumption has been, historically, that everyone is straight and cis. Therefore, by achieving a sex segregated space, there are less reasons to feel immodest or shy about the nude body.

Of course, this only works under the heteronormative assumption.

Gay men and lesbian women do not benefit from the same modesty measures of a single sex space. Plenty of people are still self-conscious about their bodies in single sex spaces, even if sexual attraction plays no part. Trans people may or may not feel welcome or comfortable in either or both places.

Seems we should just build in as much individual privacy into these spaces as possible and let people use as much or little as they feel comfortable with.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This is all very good as a hypothetical thought experience based on assumptions that you've made without any real evidence. I agree that this is *how it should be*. But it's not. Even the most progressive countries on the planet still have appalling rates of sexual violence against women.

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.

Perhaps you think this is what you do... but it really seems as if you take good-faith claims of a need for male-free spaces and then you narratively frame them as being evidence of clear animus against trans people.

 

[theprestige]

I think you're correct (that this is the unstated argument) - which is really that there should not be any sex-specific rights/spaces/etc., but that any segregation should be based on gender. I've seen many trans-activists say this on twitter. Of course, it's never framed as saying that there should be no female-specific rights, rather that TW/TIMs are entitled to those rights (which of course negates them by definition).

That makes sense. I'm probably the only one who thinks the only way this really works is to establish female rights, and then include transwomen as honorary females for those rights. I think that if we follow the elephants all the way down, we'll see that the bottom elephant is standing on a cake and eating it too.

There seems to be an increasing movement (going along with self-ID) that says presentation isn't necessarily important. So the answer to that last question is 'because you identify as a woman'. If we accept the Eddie Izzard/gender-fluid model, the answer may be because you ID as a woman that particular day.

I'm coming to the conclusion that a dude who identifies as another dude who identifies as not a dude, is, at the end of the day, a dude.

 

[Lithrael]

This talk of how women feel about things and what they want to use bathrooms for makes me feel excluded. Good thing I have the ultimate bathroom pass of never having owned anything tuckable.

ETA: the whole entire thing seems so incredibly arbitrary. I’m allowed because of my anatomy even though I couldn’t care less about presentation or social expectations. Someone else is allowed only if they pass. Someone else again is passing as male so should probably not go in even though they have the same anatomy as me. Someone even more else isn’t trying to pass as male but clocks weird to someone else else and now there’s a ruckus even though they’re just butch. So it’s presentation except when it’s not, and it’s gender except when it’s not, and it’s sex except when it’s not. I really honestly can’t see how any of it can mean more or less than it means to each individual person. Wanting neat defined categories seems doomed to failure. We’re going to end up either with a whole flowchart or just not caring anymore. Or both.

 

[Rolfe]

For the females:

If you had a "room share" choice (whether through your company, student living, retreat, or cruise ship, etc...), how would you rank your choice, knowing nothing else?

1. Male gay, femme
2. Male gay, manly
2. Female, lesbian
3. Female, straight
4. Transwoman, lesbian
5. Transwoman, straight
6. Male, straight
7. Transman (any persuasion)

If you're talking about a real two-person room-share like a ship cabin, rather than everyone mucking in together, my answer is...

1. Female, straight
2, almost 1=. Female, lesbian
3 but a long way down. Transman who had had no "bottom surgery", maybe. Might depend on who she was and how well I knew her.

and there I stick. You make me room with a male and I'm not going. I'm resigining, or passing up on the cruise, or leaving the club or whatever. Not going to happen.

On the other hand if it's an all-in-together thing, I don't care. I bunked up in a completely mixed group on an Icelandic trail riding holiday a few years ago. The leader tried to separate the sexes as much as she could but some of those mountain huts were essentially a single space with bunks in. I slept on the top bunk with an Icelandic guy on the bunk below me one night. (I shared a double bunk with an English woman a couple of other nights, in our separate sleeping bags. I don't think anyone would have tried to get a male and female who weren't a couple to share these.)

It was cold and we were all pretty motivated to get dressed as fast as we could anyway. People were pretty polite about neither showing more than they could help, or looking at anyone else. But no way am I sharing a closed 2-person cabin with a man of any persuasion under similar circumstances.