Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,641
It's been too long since I read it.
Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
- Status
It's been too long since I read it.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
This is in opposition to what you pasted just a couple of days ago.
What do you think "diversion" means in this context?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12865976&postcount=602
Any? Probably. Some of the church ladies I grew up with attended Bible studies exclusively for females, rooted in the principles of Proverbs 31 and Ephesians 5. While I recognize the legal right of these folks to assemble and conduct their little book club, I'm foursquare against their faith-based ideas about gender and much else.
ETA: Upon review, I misunderstood the question. I'm not against sex-segregation when there is ample reason to segregate people by sex, e.g. rugby.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,641
What do you think "diversion" means in this context?
I could easily be wrong, but I think that he thinks you were using "diversion" as a label for the thing he was describing, rather than a description of him avoiding a direct answer to your question. So now he's trying to adopt the vocabulary he thought you were using.
Yes. I have been coming around to such suspicions.
As to Boudicca, she's probably a troll. Then again, when she said she has a "female penis", maybe she did mean some kind of intersex structure, who knows?
An untransitioned trans woman with no intersex features is definitely a biological male in a reasonable sense of the phrase. There might be something that makes a brain biologically male or female, but as far as I know that's still an open scientific question, and I wouldn't approve of using that uncertainty to weasel the phrase.
I consider being trans a VLC. I also consider feeling afraid about being with trans people a VLC. What I do not consider a VLC is building one's philosophy around lists of crimes. And I mean any crimes, not just sexual.
ETA: Maybe I'm missing something, but why would anyone in a robotics club outing care which cabin a trans person is in?
Last edited:
Yes. I had originally answered the question as a generic opinion. Given criteria that made my general answer untenable, and given a requirement to provide a direct answer anyway, I'm giving a recommendation of full rights as the only way out of the maze.
Louden Wilde
Muse
Wow, that's quite a diversionary tactic - I don't see why you would put having female only sports, representation, shelters (etc.) in the same category as religious dogma.
So in cases where there is supposed to be equal representation between men and women, you would be fine with the groups being all male (meaning all the "women" reps are transwomen)?
I must admit, I find being against any female only spaces sounds fairly close to admitting misogyny. I take it you deny that females have faced discrimination?
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What full rights would those be, exactly? Male students have full rights, but those rights don't necessarily include participation in women's sports, nor access to women's locker rooms.
President Biden is looking at Title IX, and he's deciding how he wants his agencies to interpret it and enforce it.
You can look at Title IX, and you can look at how Biden is applying it, and you can say, "I agree with this." Or you can say, "I don't agree with this." Or you can say, "I would do it differently." Or you can say something else.
That's the question you're being asked: When you look at Title IX, and you look at how President Biden is applying it, what's your response? Do you agree? Would you do it differently? Why?
The first target of a 'transphobic hate crime' charge was Miranda Yardley, a transsexual who was accused of harassing a woman and her transgender child on social media. The underlying reason was conflicting views on transgender issues.
The charge was entirely baseless and collapsed as soon as it came to court.
The complainant worked for Mermaids, who have powerful influence with the police through their diversity training.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
For what it's worth, that isn't really the question I'm asking, so I don't know if there are two sets of questions. I may have missed something in the last few pages.
My question was to ignore interpretation of existing law. Just what ought to be done?
In other words, I asked about a specific case, but really it's just a generic situation. We have locker rooms. People in locker rooms are frequently seen in their underwear, and sometimes seen naked. Should an untransitioned transgirl be allowed to use the girls' locker room in a high school? I provided a specific case and the details of that case so that it wouldn't devolve into a whole lot of hypotheticals. The specific case allowed an answer to some specific variations, such as who objected, was an alternate dressing room available, etc?
ETA: It is a closely related question to the question of how President Biden ought to interpret title IX, but it's subtly different.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Please see my edit above. I initially misread your question to be asking whether there are any female-only spaces which I would argue against.
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I wonder how long before we reach "peak troll" and Collin realises that everyone in the thread (apart from him) is actually a troll.
Louden Wilde
Muse
Hadn't seen this summary of alternate "woman" definitions posted here:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I think it was Gravy who hypothesized that every conspiracy theory ends up implicating everyone in the world except the theorist himself.
I just checked the website of the White House. I see nothing about trans rights policy except diversionary tactics like mine.I have nothing against including myself. If we're all trolls, it kinda takes the sting out of the allegation.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Well I've definitely reached peak whatever-the-****-this-is.
Joe Random
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 3,429
Sure, the above is a bit on the humorous side of things, but I think it's rooted in something important. I strongly feel that (as others have also said several times across all incarnations of this thread) a good portion of the trans issues are asking the wrong questions. "Am I a woman if I feel more comfortable in dresses and heels, wear makeup, etc.?". The answer isn't yes or no, it's "women don't have to wear dresses and heels, and men ought to be able to if that's what makes them comfortable".
It's been said several times by several people, but many of us grew up in an environment and at a time where progress was measured by how many sex-based stereotypes we could get rid of in society. Personally I'm far more comfortable around women who don't feel the need to 'put on their face' before going out for the night. Nice and clean and well-groomed, but no panic attacks if they're not able to put on makeup before going out the door. But now we're apparently supposed to bring all that crap back. We have to look askance at a woman who doesn't shave her armpits because if we don't have these sex-based stereotypes in our culture then it's that much harder for a trans person to say "I identify as <x> because ...".
And when denied that first toe-hold, then it's even harder to claim "Me and my ladypenis deserve a STEM scholarship earmarked for women because ...".
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Is anyone really making this argument, though? Gender-based norms for grooming (e.g. men shave faces, women shave legs) and fashion and other forms of self-presentation are plentiful and don't appear to be endangered.
That begs the question, what relevance does sorting the top .01%-or-whatever intelligence bracket by gender have toward promoting STEM skills for women at large?
- Status