• 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.
theprestige said:
The claim is entirely dependent on a subjective paradigm.

We're not asking, "what are the consequences if this statement is true?" We're asking "what are the consequences if we adopt this statement as a public policy axiom?"
Click to expand...

But I understand what Turkey is saying.

If transwomen are women, the default position should be that they should be treated as women.
If transwomen are men, the default position should be that they should be treated as men.

I disagree slightly with ST. If there were consequences for treating them differently, then it could still be done, but I think the burden of proof shifts in that case. If transwomen are women, the burden of proof would be on the person saying that transwomen and women should be treated differently. If transwomen are men, the burden of proof would be on those wishing to treat transwomen and men differently.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
A person might lie about their sexuality in order to effect a sham marriage for the various benefits that come with being married (taxes, insurance, citizenship status, etc).
Click to expand...

As a legal matter, current marriage law doesn't care about sexuality, and never asks for it. So you don't even need to lie about your sexuality. Sham marriages for something like citizenship status are prohibited, and the state tries to prevent that, but such shams can occur with two heterosexual people too, so sexuality isn't really the deciding factor there either. And as long as you file all the paperwork correctly (ie, both people exist, are of age and competence, agree to it, and aren't already married), then I don't think there even is such a thing as a sham marriage for tax or insurance purposes.

How long are you expecting this to take? Canada has had self-ID since 2017.
Click to expand...

More than a decade, to be honest. I want to find out how people who grow up with that setup behave.

Seems to me the choice of definition is very important.
Click to expand...

The government's choice may be, but our choice of definitions isn't. And nothing we do here will affect the government's choice.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Yes because if you appreciate that what we are talking about is discrimination as in 'anti-discrimination law' then you type in discrimination and it comes up as the obvious 1st definition.

If you want to be disingenuous you try to pretend that's not what we are talking about when we discuss discrimination or to discriminate against transgender people.
Click to expand...

Oh for Pete's sake this is such a stupid answer.

I typed the word "discriminate" into google. The definition I gave was definition number 1. Period. There's no appreciation and there's no pretending. I didn't type in "anti-discrimination law.

And it wasn't the "obvious" first defintion. it was just definition number 1. I copied and pasted, without editing. I didn't add the 1. Google did. The attribution of the definition was "Definitions from Oxford Languages"


Is it conceivable you could take a question and not get on your high horse about politics? I'm interested in whether google serves different definitions to different people. If they do, it would be interesting to know whether there's a pattern. Is it based on region of the user? Search history?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
No, it was nothing to do with what Colin said it was a direct question to you reharding the fact that Meadmake had said explicitly in his post 2 or 3 before it 'transwomen are not women' and I was genuinely asking where that fit into your perception that this thread is mostly reasonable people not being transphobic in the least?

Given that you have explicitly said you think the title of this thread is inappropriate and given that Meadmaker has unprompted repeated it as their own view can we agree that is a transphobic statement from them?
Click to expand...

One thing that AGG has not misrepresented is my opinion on the subject of the thread title. I do indeed say that transwomen are not women.


I have no objection to being labelled transphobic on that account, if it makes anyone happy to do so. If this be transphobia, then let's make the most of it.


Sadly, someone will almost certainly say, "Aha, that must mean you believe...(insert something stupid)". That happens. It's an occupational hazard of these discussions. I don't care. If you misrepresent my position, that's on you. I'll call you on it if I think it's worth the effort.
 
[*]Use guidelines for public restrooms, including in public schools
No legally enforced guidelines. Return to the status quo from before bathroom bills were proposed, except mandate an additional single-user unisex restroom.

[*]Use guidelines for restrooms on private property, including in employment
Default to individual right of property holder.

[*]Use guidelines for public showers and locker rooms where nudity sometimes occurs, including in public schools
Only guidelines for minimizing the occurrence of nudity.

[*]Use guidelines for showers and locker rooms on private property
Default to individual right of property holder.

[*]Sex versus gender identity with respect to employment that is limited by sex, including as caregivers in intimate settings
Please be more specific.

[*]Right to deny intimate services to a person on the basis of their sex versus their gender identity, such as genital waxing services offered for females and denied to physically intact transwomen
Yes.

[*]Appropriate housing in prison populations on the basis of gender identity
Separate housing for trans people.

[*]Eligibility for sex-based positions, scholarships, grants, and short-lists in organizations that have defined objectives for sex equality and representation
Separate tallies for trans people.

[*]Honorifics based on gender identity rather than sex such as "woman of the year" or "most highly paid woman CEO"
Gender recognition for purposes of publicity. Separate tallies for trans people in technical contexts.

[*]Access to sex-segregated services for high vulnerability populations such as rape shelters and domestic violence refuges
Separate housing for trans people.

[*]Access to subsidized health care for gender transition treatment, including surgeries, as a right rather than as cosmetic procedures (such as breast augmentations, genital surgery, facial and tracheal shaving, hair removal)
Only by official diagnosis.

[*]Eligibility for participation in sex-segregated sports including middle and high school sports where the affect of testosterone has a material impact on athleticism
Yes, on the condition of freely provided hormone therapy to mitigate the advantage.

[*]Access of minors to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgical procedures without parental consent
No.
 
Meadmaker said:
Oh for Pete's sake this is such a stupid answer.

I typed the word "discriminate" into google. The definition I gave was definition number 1. Period. There's no appreciation and there's no pretending. I didn't type in "anti-discrimination law.

And it wasn't the "obvious" first defintion. it was just definition number 1. I copied and pasted, without editing. I didn't add the 1. Google did. The attribution of the definition was "Definitions from Oxford Languages"


Is it conceivable you could take a question and not get on your high horse about politics? I'm interested in whether google serves different definitions to different people. If they do, it would be interesting to know whether there's a pattern. Is it based on region of the user? Search history?
Click to expand...

If someone says 'it's bad to discriminate against black people' are you going to go Google 'discriminate' and say no it's fine to recognise a distinction. Or are you going to parse normal English and recognise what it means?

I think you will. So when you don't do the same for transpeople it's pretty obvious what you are.
 
theprestige said:
It's probably time to stop harping on this single data point, but it's worth noting that Self-ID has been the law in Canada since 2017, and Canada has been dealing with Jessica Yaniv since 2017.
Click to expand...

Successfully dealing with her, you should say.

Her tactics have resulted in resounding failure for her, including having to pay damages to the victims of her frivolous litigation.

Vexatious litigation is a problem universal in scope, not just on the trans rights issue.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
With you? No.

Feel free not to talk to me again.
Click to expand...

Since you seem to be hard of reading, I will try again, just for you.

You said:

"So it's OK to discriminate against trans people because they aren't black or gay. Interesting logic."

Nobody suggested this, so this was a straw man on your part. When pressed, you said:

"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."

This is different to what you first said. Even you can probably see that.

Also, you're suggesting that just because discriminating against X and Y is wrong, then discriminating against Z must be wrong also. This is stupid.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
If someone says 'it's bad to discriminate against black people' are you going to go Google 'discriminate' and say no it's fine to recognise a distinction. Or are you going to parse normal English and recognise what it means?

I think you will. So when you don't do the same for transpeople it's pretty obvious what you are.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

You edited the definition when you pasted, didn't you? You changed 2 to 1. Am I right?


ETA: Now I'm curious what googles dictionary entry will be for "transphobic."
 
Last edited:
trans·pho·bic
/ˌtranzˈfōbik/

adjective
having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.
"bullying is commonly underpinned by sexist, homophobic, or transphobic attitudes"

Well, it doesn't really fit very well, but whatever. Men can't have babies. If saying that makes me transphobic, so be it. I mostly think of "transphobic" as a word that means, "I don't have to listen to anything you say because I've created a mean label for you."

ETA: And I think most TRAs are actually using a third definition of "discriminate", which is

dicriminate:
noun

3. A magic word that, if I used in a sentence, makes the speaker automatically win.
 
Last edited:
"Jessica" Yaniv was still Jonathan in 2017. He had a clean-cut, chubby avatar on twitter as a man with short, straight, slicked-back hair, wearing as I recall a blue shirt. He had a web site called "Trusted Nerd" and was saying very little about being trans. He had attempted to groom a young teenage girl called Jessica, and took her name when he decided to be trans. She has a blog post somewhere recounting what he did to her (which she didn't realise was unacceptable at the time, being very young) and her outrage that he took her name. She has posted the DMs he sent to her and his behaviour was grossly unacceptable. He has always had an unhealthy interest in pubescent girls and menstruation.

His development into trans seems to have happened subsequently to the change of law in Canada and in my opinion was triggered by it, as he realised how much easier it would be to get close to young girls having their first periods if he could enter public women's lavatories. He also seems to have caught on very quickly that playing the transphobia card was a really good way of deflecting attention from his predatory behaviour.

I don't know whether it's all an act to get close to young girls, or whether he's "really trans", but for what it's worth I think he is genuinely autogynaephilic and that kink is wrapped up with his menstruation fetish. I do think that the coming out of the apparently respectable Jonathan who was concealing his creepy behaviour around young girls to the outrageous exhibitionist Jessica who demands access as of right to places where he hopes to see young girls dealing with menstruation has very much been facilitated by the new Canadian self-ID laws.
 
Last edited:
The two do not necessarily, or even all that frequently, go together. Autogynaephilia as such is not a reprehensible condition.
 
Meadmaker said:
:rolleyes:

You edited the definition when you pasted, didn't you? You changed 2 to 1. Am I right?


ETA: Now I'm curious what googles dictionary entry will be for "transphobic."
Click to expand...

No, you aren't right. I googled discrimination and that was the first definition.

Sometimes things are just as they appear and other times they aren't. Nuance. Who'd a thunk it might matter?

ETA I'm not going to ask you for an apology but it will be interesting to see if one comes.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
trans·pho·bic
/ˌtranzˈfōbik/

adjective
having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.
"bullying is commonly underpinned by sexist, homophobic, or transphobic attitudes"

Well, it doesn't really fit very well, but whatever. Men can't have babies. If saying that makes me transphobic, so be it. I mostly think of "transphobic" as a word that means, "I don't have to listen to anything you say because I've created a mean label for you."

ETA: And I think most TRAs are actually using a third definition of "discriminate", which is

dicriminate:
noun

3. A magic word that, if I used in a sentence, makes the speaker automatically win.
Click to expand...

Hang on you said you were transphobic and now you want to query the definition?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom