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

[caveman1917]

So there's no reason to believe this jump in crime stats is attributable to trans women other than gut feeling, yes?

Sure there is, the prison statistics someone gave showed that about a third of all prisoners for sexual crimes recorded as perpetrated by women are transwomen and about two thirds are ciswomen. So the change in policy in recording transwomens' sexual crimes should have led to an increase of about 50% more such crimes recorded as being perpetrated by women.

 

[d4m10n]

...in order to determine whether a transwoman is a man or a woman, we'd have to know whether most genderists expect either masculinity or femininity from them.

All you'd really is the ability to discern whether people in a given culture would (by-and-large) tend towards using masculine or feminine modes of address, for starters. If you see someone (like myself) with a shaved head and a beard, it's a safe bet that people will say he/him/sir and expect me to respond normally. If I ask where to find tops, people don't point me to the blouses. This isn't exactly rocket surgery.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay. Even beyond finding it morally problematic I can't find any concept any less useful then "A woman is what society expects a woman to be, therefore if a man acts like a woman he's not a man he's really a woman."

 

[Collin237]

Sure there is, the prison statistics someone gave showed that about a third of all prisoners for sexual crimes recorded as perpetrated by women are transwomen and about two thirds are ciswomen. So the change in policy in recording transwomens' sexual crimes should have led to an increase of about 50% more such crimes recorded as being perpetrated by women.

If -- as has been alleged -- most of the people counted as trans women did not have gender recognition certificates, then for legal purposes they were not trans women and the count was wrong, in the sense that the counters could be tried and found guilty of fraud or perjury. Any other definition of right, wrong, man, or woman is irrelevant to this example.

 

[d4m10n]

Okay. Even beyond finding it morally problematic I can't find any concept any less useful then "A woman is what society expects a woman to be..."

This isn't a good paraphrase at all. For one thing, it's obviously circular and makes no reference to the distinction between males and females.

 

[Collin237]

Okay. Even beyond finding it morally problematic I can't find any concept any less useful then "A woman is what society expects a woman to be, therefore if a man acts like a woman he's not a man he's really a woman."

Or less frequently claimed.

 

[theprestige]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_network_(Mars)

Of course this has nothing to do with what Shiaparrelli thought he saw. But if one says "canal" instead of "valley", no sane person automatically assumes that one is advocating Shiapparrelli's theory.

Do you assume that everyone who uses the words "sunrise" and "sunset" believes the sun goes around the earth?

The word "canals" appears nowhere in that link. Which discusses drainage networks in river basins. Even here on earth, we don't refer to such streams, creeks, brooks, and rivers as "canals". I'm pretty sure everybody still uses "canals" colloquially to mean Schiaparelli's error, and "valleys" colloquially to mean the terrain features that actually do exist on Mars.

Sunrise and sunset don't have a lot of ideological and mental health baggage, and aren't at the center of a contentious debate about scientific reality, public policy, and the meaning of words. It's not really an analogous situation. Same with the Martian canals, really.

I do assume that anyone who uses "canals" to refer to Martian valleys is either ignorant or being careless on purpose.

 

[caveman1917]

All you'd really is the ability to discern whether people in a given culture would (by-and-large) tend towards using masculine or feminine modes of address, for starters. If you see someone (like myself) with a shaved head and a beard, it's a safe bet that people will say he/him/sir and expect me to respond normally. If I ask where to find tops, people don't point me to the blouses. This isn't exactly rocket surgery.

No, your definition was about being expected to perform femininity/masculinity. Me using the pronoun "he" for you isn't the same as me expecting you to perform masculinity (or perform anything else for that matter). Are you changing your definition to "a woman is anyone who is generally referred to as 'she'"?

 

[theprestige]

The point is that no sane person would interrupt someone to say that just because they hear the word "canal".

Up until half an hour ago, I would have said that no sane person would interrupt someone who's talking about Schiaparelli's canals, just to argue that there are real valleys on Mars and some people call them "canals".

And yet here we are.

 

[d4m10n]

No, your definition was about being expected to perform femininity/masculinity. Me using the pronoun "he" for you isn't the same as me expecting you to perform masculinity (or perform anything else for that matter). Are you changing your definition to "a woman is anyone who is generally referred to as 'she'"?

Being referred to with feminine or masculine pronouns and being expected to respond normally *is* a significant aspect of the gendered expectations I've been talking about here.

Why would you think that it's not?

 

[Matthew Best]

If -- as has been alleged -- most of the people counted as trans women did not have gender recognition certificates, then for legal purposes they were not trans women and the count was wrong, in the sense that the counters could be tried and found guilty of fraud or perjury. Any other definition of right, wrong, man, or woman is irrelevant to this example.

So why is it you think that the counters have not been tried and found guilty of fraud or perjury? Perhaps it's because you're completely wrong?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I guess they're **** outta luck. Anti-discrimination law generally isn't optional.

It's not discrimination to protect sex-based rights.

On the other hand, you've made it very, very clear on numerous occasions that you don't give a **** about female rights and safety at all - at least not when compared to the desire for a feeling of affirmation that some male-bodied people want to have.

 

[Collin237]

I do assume that anyone who uses "canals" to refer to Martian valleys is either ignorant or being careless on purpose.

I think most people assume something similar about anyone who uses "men" to refer to trans women.

In both cases, it's a rushed judgment.

 

[caveman1917]

If -- as has been alleged -- most of the people counted as trans women did not have gender recognition certificates, then for legal purposes they were not trans women and the count was wrong, in the sense that the counters could be tried and found guilty of fraud or perjury. Any other definition of right, wrong, man, or woman is irrelevant to this example.

My post wasn't about any alleged fraud or perjury but about there, to the contrary of ST's claims, actually being good reason to think that the 84% jump in recorded sexual crimes by women to be due, at least to significant degree, to the policy change of including transwomen in those records.

 

[Louden Wilde]

And yet...

This past year, New York very quietly re-wrote a requirement that required one male and one female representative from each borough in political parties so that it now reads "any two people who don't identify as the same gender unless they both identify as non-binary"... and now one of the boroughs is being represented by a self-declared transwoman who has had no hormone therapy or surgery at all.

We aren't having this long-running discussion because of hypothetical possibilities - we're having it because these policies are already going into place.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I am concerned about. I'd like to hear a defense of this generally from the TWaW crowd. That is, in cases where females are supposed to have representation, is it OK to change this to gender and have the slots filled by TW? If so, why?

Second, if there are any takers from those concerned- how do we raise concerns in non-anonymous settings without being conflated with right-wingers?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Emily, Rolfe (and anyone else.)

Serious proposal which I am presenting without malice or ill intent and I would appreciate a response in kind.

Would something along the lines of pushing (maybe legally, maybe just socially) for more privacy in spaces such as locker rooms and public bathrooms at least be steps toward (not necessarily 100% perfect solutions, but just steps toward) providing you with the comfort and safety you are seeking? Because I feel it would also tone down the feeling that men are being assumed to be predators.

It may end up being the only viable option if sex-based rights are erased and replaced with gender-identity-based rights, at least within the context of locker rooms etc.

I mentioned this many pages ago, but restrooms and locker rooms in public arenas are the least of my concerns. They're a wedge-end... but there are possible solutions to that including heightened privacy all around.

Socially, it is a barrier for females to not have access to any male-free spaces, for a variety of reasons that have repeatedly been explained.

It doesn't, however, address any of the multitude of other policy problems that people veer away from. It doesn't address placing penis havers into women's prisons. It doesn't address prostate owners being counted as women in political arenas and presuming to represent the interests and needs of females. It doesn't address whether sperm-producers compete against females in sports as a right.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The point is that no sane person would interrupt someone to say that just because they hear the word "canal".

Depends on context really. I mean, if the context is around canals and sculptures of faces on Mars... it wouldn't be a lack of sanity to point that out, would it?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This isn't a good paraphrase at all. For one thing, it's obviously circular and makes no reference to the distinction between males and females.

neither does "expected to perform femininity"

 

[caveman1917]

Being referred to with feminine or masculine pronouns and being expected to respond normally *is* a significant aspect of the gendered expectations I've been talking about here.

Not at all. If you check the definitions, it's "he -> man -> male" and "she -> woman -> female." In other words, using the pronoun "he" for you is nothing more than describing you as male (a biologically objective fact), there is nothing about gender in there let alone about any expectation. It's not even clear what you mean by "respond normally." Could you define or give example of what would be a "normal response" and what would be a "abnormal response" to being referred to with pronouns?

Why would you think that it's not?

Because it isn't. But even if we accept this pronoun-based definition, it's still improper since you still need to know what pronouns most people use for trans people. Also, is it even possible to "misgender" a transwoman if the very act of "misgendering" stops the person being a woman?

 

[d4m10n]

neither does "expected to perform femininity"

Please see my original definition for the linkage to sex, which was made fairly explicit at the time.