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

[Emily's Cat]

https://logcabin.org/

Huh, I have to admit that I'm floored that the only trans rights organization you can find that doesn't embrace intersectionalism is a pro-gay republican group.

I'm not sure where that leaves us on the topic of progressive lobbyist organizations with respect to transgender advocacy.

 

[caveman1917]

I'm genuinely surprised.

Me too. That "well my grandmother was a Lithuanian philosopher!" thing sounded a bit like that "well my dad is a cop!" playground kind of thing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Rose actually thinks the treatment itself is helpful when appropriately applied. She cites a couple other trans- youtubers who transitioned young and had a great outcome. I think her concern is the possibility and consequences of misdiagnosis. Or more bluntly, that the diagnosis step seems to be lax or, at some clinics, effectively skipped due to political pressure from some activist groups.

That is more or less my own view on it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A day of remembrance for all 20-ish of the murdered transwomen in the western world (of whom 18 are sex workers).

Nobody gives a crap about remembering the four women a day murdered in the US alone by their intimate partners though.

And for damned sure nobody seems to give a crap about the abhorrent rate of intimate partner killings and domestic violence faced by women of color in the US.

I guess we know what the priorities are.

???

this is beyond parody. Domestic violence and violence against women is an extremely public issue, and there is tremendous organized and visible work done to address these issues. There are multiple advocacy groups and politicians talk about this very important issue all the time.

You're really giving away how much personal distaste you have for trans people to become outraged that PFLAG put out a flyer to bring awareness to violence against trans people. An excellent example of a zero-sum view of civil rights.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just so we are clear is it your view that if they are sex workers their murders don't count or matter less or somehow doesn't make them transphobic?

It means that 90% of the murdered transpeople were prostitutes, and that prostitution, as a whole, is incredibly dangerous. It means that the inherent danger of prostitution isn't being controlled for when people speak of the rate of sexual assault and violence faced by transgender people.

Especially when they're quoting such statistics to claim that transgender people are sexually assaulted and murdered at higher per-capita rates than females.

I'm certain there are still some cases where the cause of the death or the violence is directly relatable to them being transgender. Just not as much as it's made out to be.

I do get a bit frustrated when the talking points used by lobbyists rely on data that includes a really high cluster of transgender prostitutes in Brazil when discussion policy and rights in UK and US. It's not a direct comparison.

 

[Emily's Cat]

as far as I can tell, most of the arguments for trans inclusion into female spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms has more to do with human dignity and psychological impact rather than any particular safety concern.

Translation: The feelings of males are more important than any other rights.

the anti-trans bathroom defenders are the ones raising the specter of danger of physical violence. The claim that allowing trans people into bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity would result in violence against women and children there has been debunked.

It has not been "debunked". You saying it is debunked does not actually result in anything remotely resembling debunking. Your assertion is not truth. Especially when you have repeatedly been provided with case references... and you just dismiss them as not being a big deal. Just because you don't personally give a crap about harm to women and girls doesn't in any way imply that it doesn't happen.

Excluding trans women is usually seen as a form of gender-identity harassment. Trans women aren't in particular danger if they are forced to use the men's washroom, but it is certainly outs their trans status in a very embarrassing way. It is needlessly cruel and serves no legitimate purpose.

Physical safety is more of a concern when it comes to things like domestic abuse shelters or prisons, but that's a significantly different context than bathrooms.

And what's your position with respect to domestic abuse shelters and prisons?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It would be, but nobody has suggested this. It looks to me like you're deliberately misunderstanding what Rolfe is saying for some reason.

Perhaps you can translate then because I think the meaning of the post is quite clear.

If we were discriminating against X it would be wrong
If we were discriminating against Y it would be wrong

But we aren't, we are discriminating against Z, so it's fine.

 

[Joe Random]

Keep in mind that caveman is looking specifically at men who want easy access to women's locker rooms.

The argument is that there are two kinds of men who want easy access to women's locker rooms: transwomen, and voy/exhibs. Since voy/exhibs are roughly ten times more common than transwomen, a random sampling of men who want easy access is likely to have many more voy/exhibs than transwomen.

This touches on a scenario I'd thrown out in one of the prior iterations of this thread. Assume self-ID only is the law for the following : I'm a solidly cis-het-male. Let's say I head into the ladies' locker room, disrobe, and hop into the shower to get ready for a swim. I don't do any sort of visual creeping on other occupants, nor do I try to flash my anatomy to anyone else. Head down, eyes front the whole time. How should the other occupants react to me vs a biologically intact transwomen? More importantly, how would they be expected to know the difference? I mean, I'm not waving anything around, nor am I trying to strike up conversation or sneak any surreptitious glances.

Yet still, there's a cock-jockey in the ladies'. Depending on an internal state of mind knowable only to me, an alarmed reaction on the part of others is either a sound defensive move or an act of naked (pun intended) bigotry.

 

[Emily's Cat]

NI suppose in a way voyeurism and exhibitionism are technically impossible in places where nudity is expected. Except voyeurism with things like cameras or such I guess.

It walks the line though. Nudity is expected... but it is also expected to be same-sex nudity.

If a cisgender male went into a ladies locker room and got naked, would that be considered acceptable?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think another way that transwomen might be outed is if they reveal their penises in a locker room.

Which would be THEIR choice whether to do or not rather than yours or any of the TERFs we see posting here.

Their body, their choice? No?

 

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps you can translate then because I think the meaning of the post is quite clear.

If we were discriminating against X it would be wrong
If we were discriminating against Y it would be wrong

But we aren't, we are discriminating against Z, so it's fine.

For certain values of Z, discrimination is indeed fine.

The "against" part is not accurate.

 

[Meadmaker]

Which would be THEIR choice whether to do or not rather than yours or any of the TERFs we see posting here.

Their body, their choice? No?

No.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Also, I don't think self-ID is going to erase all the social taboos overnight. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect an immediate surge in cases, with the passage of these laws. As strict segregation becomes less of a norm, and self-ID becomes more of a norm, I wouldn't be surprised if the possibilities start to sink in. The generation of perverts who came up under the old norms are probably going to be more constrained than the next generation of perverts.

But we'll see.

As more and more convicted and incarcerated sexual offenders self-id their way into women's prisons without significant pushback, I expect we'll see a rise in behaviors like voyeurism and exhibitionism and "creeping" in those previously-single-sex places... because there will no longer be a way for females to prevent it from happening and it can't be challenged in any reasonable way.

 

[theprestige]

I trust you are aware of the long history of bigots drumming up baseless fears about trans people (and queer people generally) as a propaganda effort to deny these people their civil rights. While the claims about the trans bathroom menace may be total fiction, the damage done is not. Trans people trying to use a toilet and getting confronted or assaulted by reactionary freaks is a very real problem.

Claims about the unique dangers of queer people should be treated with heightened skepticism, given what we know of the history of demonization of these marginalized groups. Queer bashing is a very real problem for these communities, and we should not pretend the smears that motivate them have any validity.

No.

This is you trying to turn the conversation back into trans-bashing, even after I've explicitly told you that I'm not worried about trans people behaving badly.

If you were to complain that I was drumming up baseless fears about cismale perverts, that would make sense. This non sequitur of yours does not. I'm not an anti-trans bigot. I'm not drumming up baseless fears about trans people. I'm not drumming up any fears about trans people at all.

But somehow that's all you seem to be able to get from my posts. Why don't you stick to the topic we're actually discussing?

I'm honestly curious. How much abuse of the self-ID system would be enough for you to consider it a failed policy? No policy is perfect, and you can practically guarantee that someone, somewhere will eventually attempt to game such a system for some illicit purpose.

How much gender ID fraud is enough to curtail the easy access to civil rights for trans people?

Good questions that I will answer after I get some commitment from you to stay on this topic and stop trying to turn it back into anti-trans bigotry.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I trust you are aware of the long history of bigots drumming up baseless fears about trans people (and queer people generally) as a propaganda effort to deny these people their civil rights. While the claims about the trans bathroom menace may be total fiction, the damage done is not. Trans people trying to use a toilet and getting confronted or assaulted by reactionary freaks is a very real problem.

Claims about the unique dangers of queer people should be treated with heightened skepticism, given what we know of the history of demonization of these marginalized groups. Queer bashing is a very real problem for these communities, and we should not pretend the smears that motivate them have any validity.
I'm honestly curious. How much abuse of the self-ID system would be enough for you to consider it a failed policy? No policy is perfect, and you can practically guarantee that someone, somewhere will eventually attempt to game such a system for some illicit purpose.
How much gender ID fraud is enough to curtail the easy access to civil rights for trans people?

This is where I get ruffled.

It sounds very noble to talk about the "civil rights" of trans people. But you've already acknowledged that the "right" of trans people in question is about their feelings and their dignity, not about safety.

On the other hand, you seem to have no qualms at all with sacrificing the feelings and dignity of females without a second thought - their feelings and dignity are not nearly as important to you as the feelings and dignity of transwomen. Additionally, you're perfectly happy to gamble with the safety of females in order to assuage the feelings of transwomen.

How much abuse of females are you willing to sacrifice in order to affirm the feelings of transwoman?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Likely not. I've known women who dress like that and trans men who dress similarly. Need a few more cues (e.g. chin stubble) before I'd hazard a guess.

That suggests to me that you're giving far more weight to sexually dimorphic features than you are to the social performance of femininity and masculinity.

I also suspect that it is not a balanced approach though. A woman in trousers is more common a sight than a man in a skirt.

 

[theprestige]

Oh? You're a reactionary conservative? And you expect me to believe your fears about a liberal agenda?

I don't expect you to believe my fears. I know you already have the same fears:

- Self-ID becoming part of the mainstream TRA agenda.

- Policy capture by intersectionalists.

I mean, you come down harder on intersectionalists than I do. We actually agree on a lot more than I expected.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No.

This is you trying to turn the conversation back into trans-bashing, even after I've explicitly told you that I'm not worried about trans people behaving badly.

If you were to complain that I was drumming up baseless fears about cismale perverts, that would make sense. This non sequitur of yours does not. I'm not an anti-trans bigot. I'm not drumming up baseless fears about trans people. I'm not drumming up any fears about trans people at all.

But somehow that's all you seem to be able to get from my posts. Why don't you stick to the topic we're actually discussing?


Good questions that I will answer after I get some commitment from you to stay on this topic and stop trying to turn it back into anti-trans bigotry.

Apologies. While I generally stand by what I say in that quoted material above, looking back I can see that it isn't really fair to apply this to you specifically.

I very much stand by the idea that these boogieman fears are drummed up by transphobes to whip up animus towards trans people just trying to live their lives in peace, but it is wrong to smear you with this.

While there are clearly people in this thread I do not apologize for treating with open contempt, I should be more careful how I sling around such insulting insinuations.

I trust that's an adequate commitment. I'm legitimately interested in your response to that question.

 

[theprestige]

Huh, I have to admit that I'm floored that the only trans rights organization you can find that doesn't embrace intersectionalism is a pro-gay republican group.

I'm not sure where that leaves us on the topic of progressive lobbyist organizations with respect to transgender advocacy.

Intersectionalists have occupied the mainstream of trans-rights activism, and are likely to drive future policy decisions along intersectionlist lines?

(This assumes that Log Cabin is outside the mainstream of trans-rights activism, and that the mainstream is represented by the progressive activists.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

???

this is beyond parody. Domestic violence and violence against women is an extremely public issue, and there is tremendous organized and visible work done to address these issues. There are multiple advocacy groups and politicians talk about this very important issue all the time.

And yet... policies to curb that violence and those murders don't really seem to make any headway. On the other hand, policies that INCREASE the risk and danger faced by women ARE making headway. You know, things like placing self-declared transwomen with fully intact male biology into female prisons. But you're fine with that.

You're really giving away how much personal distaste you have for trans people..

I have no more or less distaste for trans people than I have for vegans. Most are wonderful people, some are outright zealous jerks busy trying to beat people about the head and shoulders with their ideology and their belief that they are extra super special.

In either case, however, the state of being vegan doesn't mean that I am required to provide an entire meal which includes zero animal products if said vegan is invited to a dinner party at my house. I think it's perfectly reasonable to provide a couple of sides which are vegan, or to ask them to bring a dish of their own.

Same concept goes with trans people. Their being trans doesn't mean that females have to give over all of our sex-based rights to them. IT should be perfectly acceptable to make reasonable accommodations, and to ask them to seek an alternative solution in some cases.