Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Yeah I'm sure answering the question of whether transwomen should be given the opportunity to play rugby in the female leagues is going to be helped quite a lot by not having definitions for "transwomen" nor "female."
That's where the ideological capture comes in. Transwomen are women, for an undefined (and undefinable) meaning of woman which does not align with any commonly understood meaning of woman.
Women's rugby is for women. And since transwomen are women, transwomen should be allowed to play women's rugby. And if you disagree, you're a transphobe.
So we're back where we started. "Woman", by your definition is anyone who has a self image as a female.
Let's apply that to transwomen. They don't think they are female, but they are in fact women. They are women because they have a self image of themselves as female, even though they know they are not female.
Ok. It might not be circular. On the face it seems to be that way. It also doesn't define womanhood in terms of behavior, so it doesn't include tomboys. It avoids the most common traps.
Let me think about this for a bit. I must confess, my impression is that it's a totally vacuous and useless definition, but it avoids the obvious traps. I'll think about this one. I'm trying to figure out how this might be useful in deciding whether or not someone is a woman.
It's because "self-image" is implicitly taken to be something other than belief and left undefined. In particular, the statement "my self-image is of having physical characteristics X" is taken as not equivalent to "I believe myself to have the physical characteristics X."
This is one I can get on board with though, only because I can actually make that leap.
I've mentioned before - my mental image of myself is about 4 inches taller than I actually am. I don't believe that I'm 4 inches taller, but my subconscious representation of myself is. So when I reach for things on a high shelf, I'm frequently a bit surprised that I can't reach it... for that split second until I remember that my brain is a stupid liar.
I don't have a problem with the concept of a transwoman having an internal view of herself as a woman. I think there's an extremely high likelihood that her mental construct of "woman" differs materially from what most females would describe it to be, because there is no feasible way for her to have any of the experiences of being female - either the biological experiences, the sexual experiences, or the social experiences. But I can accept that her mental construct of herself - outside of her conscious control - is that of a not-male being that she perceives of as being a woman. I've never really objected to that.
Where it gets stickier is whether or not that mental construct and self-image should be honored by the rest of society, and to what extent. Because the mental image of oneself as a woman doesn't actually make one a woman.
No more so than my mental image of myself as 4 inches taller than I objectively am actually makes me any taller. It also, by the way, doesn't mean that I get to ride the big roller coaster just because I view myself as being tall enough to so, even though I don't reach the cartoon character's hand on the "you must be this tall to ride this ride" thing.
As we've noted a few times, however, that slur tends to be reserved for females. Most of the male posters get treated with civility and engaged in discussion about the nuances of their views, even when those views are indistinguishable from the views put forth by females.
Which makes for some interesting, and frequently frustrating, dynamics.
Equating a valid identity with having every single civil right that someone with such an identity could possibly want to have (and equivalently, equating denial of specific rights with denial of valid identity) is a political tactic that's no less fallacious when employed by progressives as when employed by libertarians or the religious right.
This podcast is a little less than an hour long, and the entire thing is very good and well worth listening to, but I've left some timestamps to the relevant sections. The guest, Ethan Watters, co-wrote (along with Richard Ofshe) the book "Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, And Sexual Hysteria".
Amazon review of Making Monsters:
A SOCIOLOGIST AND A WRITER LOOK AT "RECOVERED MEMORY" THERAPY
Richard Jay Ofshe is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American sociologist and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at UC Berkeley, and a member of the advisory board of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation; Ethan Watters is a freelance writer. They have also written Therapy's Delusions: The Myth of the Unconscious and the Exploitation of Today's Walking Worried. [NOTE: page numbers below refer to the 340-page hardcover edition.]
They wrote in the Preface to this 1994 book, "We have written this book as a bitter debate has raged over the practices of recovered memory therapy and the treatment of multiple personality disorder... Our goal is to prove beyond doubt that devastating mistakes are being made within certain therapy settings..." (Pg. ix) They added in the Introduction, "We believe there is now sufficient evidence... to show that a significant cadre of poorly-trained, overzealous, or ideologically driven psychotherapists have pursued a series of pseudoscientific notions that have ultimately damaged the patients that have come to them for help... the epidemic of repressed memories 'discovered' daily in therapy settings prove not that our society is exploding with the most vicious sort of child molesters and satanists, but rather than psychotherapists... can unintentionally spark and then build false beliefs in a patient's mind." (Pg. 5-6)
They assert, "While a therapist, conscious of the problems of memory retrieval, may be able to maintain the core veracity of a client's recall over the course of therapy, recovered memory retrieval... does not concern itself with this problem... Within the recovered memory world, the longer and more intense the process is, the better. Recovered memory therapists pursue hidden memories for years... unaware that their process destroys the fragile treasure they claim to seek." (Pg. 62-63)
They suggest, "That the pain of therapy is real should not be accepted, however, as an argument that the memories uncovered are accurate. One's emotional reaction to a mental image memory need not correlate with the truth of that image but rather only to whether one BELIEVES that visualized event to be true." (Pg. 109) They add, "The primary mistake of the recovered memory therapists is not their investment in the satanic-cult belief, but the use of methods that coerce patients into reclassifying imagined events... as memory." (Pg. 187)
They state, "Examining the history of MPD [Multiple Personality Disorder], we find myriad clues suggesting that this supposed disorder is ... influenced by cultural cues... it was not until the popular book Sybil ... and the subsequent movie ], that child abuse was offered as the cause of its symptoms... It was only after Sybil that therapists, often using hypnosis, began finding alter personalities and supposedly 'repressed' abuse histories to match." (Pg. 221)
They observe in conclusion, "While many in the mental health field have identified recovered memory therapy as an inexcusable mistake that is causing enormous harm, there is, unfortunately, no regulatory body that can stop its practice. Some look to ... the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association... Unfortunately, these organizations function less as regulatory bodies insuring the safety of the patients than they do as guilds protecting and promoting their membership... It is probably unrealistic to believe that any committee called by these organizations will be unable to take a strong stand on an issue... which so divides its membership." (Pg. 299-300) They add, "One dimension ... that has not been discussed in this book is its economic impact... hundreds of millions of scarce health-care dollars are being wasted... more than half... of the money funding recovered memory therapy comes from either insurance company or government sources." (Pg. 302)
This is an excellent book, that will be of great interest to anyone studying this highly controversial issue.
ETA: This podcast is primarily about the "Satanic Panic" and the Repressed Memory/DID controversy. The trans discussion is a fairly brief sidenote.
35:40 — SRA/RM therapists are now involved in gender therapy (they specifically name Diane Ehrensaft)
(to approx 37)
37: Watters comments on becoming a pariah for questioning a popular, mainstream belief (much like the "canceling" and de-platforming of experts who question current gender ideology. At one point Watters said they'd have never been able to publish Making Monsters in today's social climate)
38: points out that he was accused of being part of a Satanic cult himself; goes on to discuss how around the time their book came out, Loftus’s research was getting attention, there had been some major lawsuits, and the SRA/RM "fever broke" — which meant the voices of critics and skeptics were gaining momentum, there was less blowback than there might have been otherwise and the profession itself remained silent rather than launching an attack.
46:21 — 76% of psychologists today believe in traumatic repression (in other words, pseudoscience is firmly entrenched in the field)
46:50 — Watters reminds listeners that the Left were the ones pushing the conspiracy theory, prominent experts in psychology, liberal/progressive talk show hosts, magazines, etc
43:40 — 1993 survey of psychotherapists revealed that 12% of them had at least one SRA/RM case. Knowing now that SRA wasn't happening, those professionals (and both of the APAs) should have been called on to explain how that belief was being propagated.
47:50 — With the exception of the ones who were sued, most therapists experienced no consequences, they just quietly backed away from it, stopped using those methods (or simple stopped advertising it) and many pretended they never had to begin with. There was no accountability, they never had to explain themselves, they learned nothing from the experience
My own conclusion: all of this reinforces my conviction that there is very good reason to be skeptical of the "experts" here, whether they're talking about repressed memories or trans/gender identity issues. I usually agree with deferring to experts, but in this particular field, with this history of jumping headfirst into pseudoscience and wholeheartedly promoting it while viciously silencing dissenters, their credibility is in question.
From what I gather, Emily's Cat believes that trans women belong with men, and trans men belong with women, because that's what they "are". I believe they deserve a space of their own in prisons and shelters.
Actually, I would be perfectly satisfied to provide a separate space for trans women or men when it comes to prisons. If, however, that is not an option, I do not believe that penis-bearers should be places in with the women.
You should consider asking Suburban Turkey his view on where transwomen should belong in prisons or shelters, what compromises he is willing to make, and whether or not any clinical treatment should be required.
Also, Emily's Cat is a feminist (which is what the F in TERF stands for). I'm a man, and I've already objected to her brand of feminism and gotten a snappy reply from her.
Which brand of feminist am I? Because the R in TERF stands for Radical... So the term is actually referring specifically to "Radical Feminists". That's not saying that they are feminists who are totally rad - Radical Feminism is it's own type or feminism, and there's a huge amount of RF concepts that I think are ridiculously exaggerated. Also, men can be feminists too
I've alluded to my fondness for women by mentioning the danger of someone smuggling a camera into a Korean spa. That makes me a non-ally to feminists, which Emily's Cat acknowledged by putting a smile after the words "strip clubs".
Nope. The vast majority of men are fond of women. I myself am quite fond of men. I enjoy seeing nude men, I think penises are lovely. I also think most boobies are lovely, and I like looking at them too. Sexuality is a normal healthy thing for humans. That doesn't make you a non-ally to all feminists. It might, however, make you a non-ally to most Radical Feminists who are extremely anti-porn. Me, I like the occasional foray into porn.
I generally do believe that nudity among same-sex people is not a problem in appropriate venues. A lot of that is because of the way that women interact in those spaces. I'd prefer a solution that allows the continuance of sex-segregated locker rooms... but if that can't be agreed upon, fully private is the next best option. I don't oppose that solution.
It really might be worth reading through this thread and its predecessors. I'm not trying to inveigle you. I'm pretty up-front about my positions, and they've been pretty consistent.
TL,DR: It's probably wiser not to make assumptions about people you barely know, and rather try to determine their actual positions on these topics.
Remember the man who was admitted to the ER with abdominal distress, who was triaged as a man, diagnosed as a man, and treated as a man? And it ended more badly than it should have, because he was female and pregnant?
Performing manhood was more important than telling the medical staff, "I know I'm a man, but you should probably be aware that a few months ago someone put their dude-stick up my mangina, and it's entirely possible I've got a baby growing in my dude-terus. Or as I like to call it, my lady-scrote."
Personally I'm impressed at the set of brass balls on someone who chooses the role of a fully-operational female in vanilla PiV sex, and still confidently insists to medical professionals that they're a man.
ETA: I can't decide whether to view it as laughable or offensive when you try to ridicule (in a post which is dripping with patronisation) my analogy by equating "Nazis are bad" (a statement that is universally accepted and universally endorsed by every relevant authority) with "Transwomen are not women" (which is not only a statement that is not universally accepted/endorsed, but a statement that is wholly contradicted and refuted by every relevant authority. (And this, of course, is why "Gayers are mentalists" is a pertinent analogy, while "Nazis are bad" is not.)
Baloney.
You have not produced any evidence of this, no links, no authorities, nothing at all. It's up there with your "valid lived condition" which I cannot find anywhere except this thread.
My current conclusion is that you are literally inventing this as you go along.
Feel free to prove me wrong by supporting your assertions with some actual evidence. Your say so and appeals to imaginary authority are insufficient.
Gosh. From what you're stating as truth, it's obvious then that the World's pre-eminent psychiatrists and psychologists - the people whose cumulative experience and expertise actually gives them the authority to analyse/assess these sorts of conditions (in a way that neither we nor any politician will ever be able to) - must have looked at all the evidence and concluded along the lines of "Pffft, how can a male validly think he's a woman (or vice versa)? This is clear nonsense. Gender dysphoria and transgender identity are nothing but mental health aberrations or illnesses, and people who claim to suffer from these conditions should be classified as broken and should be offered treatment accordingly"
I've got one of those. It was stray, and pregnant when the shelter picked it up. No complications with the birth, and we adopted the parent cat shortly thereafter. All nicely documented by the shelter in the adoption paperwork.
Except for the gender. For some reason, all the paperwork reads "female". Just to be safe, we've continued that practice with our veterinarian.
Also I'm pretty sure the cat considers herself all lady, and maybe part dog.
In order to convince me of that, you'd need a survey of TRAs evaluating those opinions as to whether they count as "trans-exclusionary". But since you have no evidence that those opinions appear anywhere except my own writing, that would prove only that you were spamming them.
Speaking of dating sites, Tom's example made me think of a moral dilemma.
Suppose that, like Tom and a lot of people, my self image of myself is more youthful than the reality of my body.
If I have to enter my birthdate into my profile for the dating site, should I use a birthdate that more closely aligns with my maturity identification, or should I use the birthdate that was assigned to me at birth?
I really don't know the answer to this dilemma. I do, however, know that if you lie about your age, then when you get raped it might be considered okay because you lied on your profile...
The example I like to use is my height vs my 'stature'. A woman's on-line dating profile says she's only interested in men over 6'4". My 5'9" self shows up and tells her I may only be 5'9" physically, but my internal sense of stature is 6'6", so she's a bigot if she says she's not interested. Kinda don't think that would fly, and for good reason.
I was thinking about whether to respond, and how, to this, when I read LondonJohn's response. His response illustrated very well the significance of the definition question.
Despite the fact that I have pushed the definition question as much or more than anyone else here, the truth is that I am much more interested in, as you say, handling real world situations. So why do I insist on definitions?
London John provided the illustration. He told you that you were not qualified to pass judgement on the matter. Experts have "definitively" passed judgement, and your opinion really doesn't matter.
In other words, the TRAs are saying the debate is settled. Transwomen are women. The experts say so, and that's a done deal. They are claiming victory by definition. They don't want to discuss the practical concerns about whether the person formerly known as Steven ought to share the girls' locker room with the swim team. That is unfair and prejudicial and bigoted because Stephanie is a woman and there should be no special consideration for women who happen to have penises, any more than for women with different color hair or skin.
I would prefer discussion about real world considerations, but the TRA side is demanding complete acquiescence, by definition.
Can't seem to find references to it now, but a couple of years ago there was a case in (I think) the UK where a 50-60 year old man publicly 'identified' as a pre-teen girl, to the point of having 'parents' in a photo op with him. Between that and Rachel Dolezal we're pretty much at a point where the only rational response to someone saying "I identify as <x>" is "Yes, and so what?".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
You really should read the thread, and look into the what the activist organizations are pushing for.