• 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.
Boudicca90 said:
Yes to the first and no to the second. Cisgender men are men and shouldn't be allowed in women only spaces if we don't want them in there. Same goes with transgender men as well since they are men as well.
Click to expand...

Alright, I agree with you on that basis.

Here's the hard part though. How do I tell? How can I know if the person in question is a cisman or a transwoman? Is there some rubric that makes sense, that would allow both you and I to let in transwomen, and eject cismen?

Also, as a bit more of a humorous aside... do we let Eddie Izzard in or not?
 
Collin237 said:
Civil dialogue! Which both women and men are equally capable of.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you mean that if I see a person that I perceive to be male entering a women's space, I should engage them in conversation and ask them whether they are transwomen or cismen?

If that is not correct, stop reading here, and please add more info so I know what you mean.

If that is correct, carry on.

What if they lie? What method is there for me to determine whether the person in question in a transwomen who unfortunately doesn't pass well, or is instead a cisman with malicious intent?

In what circumstances, and on what criteria, am I allowed to complain to the management?
 
Emily's Cat said:
If that is not correct, stop reading here, and please add more info so I know what you mean.
Click to expand...

I mean that woman and trans women, collectively, at the worldwide grass roots level, need to reach a peaceful consensus, and capture the world with it.

Remember that the most privileged identity of all is the non-identifier.
 
Boudicca90 said:
As a "physically untransitioned transgender woman" based on your criteria here, if a cisgender woman wanted to kick me out of such a place, she shouldn't be allowed to as I have the right to be in there as a woman.
Click to expand...

I don't like to put words into people's mouths, but sometimes it can't be helped. I want to be sure I understand your answer.

Here is what I asked.

Meadmaker said:
Can you provide a reason that the cisgender woman should be supported in her desire to exclude cisgender men from from the changing area she is using, but she should not be supported in her desire to exclude transgender women from that locker room.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking whether her desire ought to be supported, but asking for a reason it should not be supported. You stated your opinion on whether, but it seems like the only hint as to why was when you said, "as a woman". I think, and this is where I might be putting words in your mouth, so forgive me if I am getting this wrong, but I think your answer is that the transwoman ought to be allowed into the locker room used by the ciswomen because the transwoman is a woman. (You answered in terms of yourself, specifically, but I am assuming the answer would apply to any transwoman. Once again, correct me if I'm wrong.)

That doesn't really explain much. It's just kind of an assertion, with no justification.

Moreover, I also was trying to avoid getting hung up on definitions, because you said you weren't going to do that, but you have used an undefined term in your answer. You used the term "woman", which is not a term whose definition is agreed upon.

Is there any way you can answer without depending on that term? We know what "cisgender woman" means, and we know what "transgender woman" means, but I'm afraid we don't know what "woman" means in this context, so any answer that depends on the definition of a woman leads us to a space where we are hung up on definitions.

So is there a reason that can be stated why it ought to be acceptable for the cis-woman to object to the presence of a cis-man, but it would not be acceptable for the cis-woman to object to the presence of a trans-woman? Can such a reason be stated that doesn't depend on undefined terms?

Or is it just "common sense", or "just the way it is", or some similar expression to describe conditions that are difficult or impossible to put into English words?
 
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove reference to material sent to AAH

I'm not worried about Boudicca (or anyone) in particular so much as I'm interested in upcoming policy proposals and what they mean for all concerned. Now that self-i.d. is the law in California (for example) what is the downside, if any?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
d4m10n said:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to match originating post


I'm not worried about Boudicca (or anyone) in particular so much as I'm interested in upcoming policy proposals and what they mean for all concerned. Now that self-i.d. is the law in California (for example) what is the downside, if any?
Click to expand...
It depends on exactly what the law says. But probably the downside is it's now some kind of crime to object to a man in a space reserved for women. Probably crappy outcomes for female athletes who go to to school with a transwoman athlete.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
d4m10n said:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove reference to material sent to AAH


I'm not worried about Boudicca (or anyone) in particular so much as I'm interested in upcoming policy proposals and what they mean for all concerned. Now that self-i.d. is the law in California (for example) what is the downside, if any?
Click to expand...



Thank you for trying to tug this thread back towards a proper debate. And one which seeks to discuss this issue within the framework of both mainstream medical classification and current legislation.

As I see it, those who are *arguing* (ish) that self-ID and access to women-only spaces by transwomen is going to create an armageddon of rape and other related crimes - whether by genuine self-ID transwomen, or by cismen who are masquerading as transwomen....... are arguing about something for which there's currently pretty much zero supporting evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, of course the safety of ciswomen in women-only spaces should be a high priority. And that's why I'd say that in those countries where the combo of self-ID and transgender rights protections are in the statute book, governments and regulators have a duty of care to provide all reasonable safeguards - e.g. multiple panic buttons in places such as women's changing rooms in sportscentres, very careful monitoring in women's refuges, cctv recordings which can only ever be accessed if a crime is alleged (so that a) these recordings can be used in evidence, and b) the presence of the cameras can act as a deterrent), and so on.

And, once those reasonable safeguards are in place, there should be a sustained period of monitoring and feedback loops. Nobody yet knows whether there truly would be many instances of criminal acts by cis- or transmen in women-only spaces. But if the evidence does show these sorts of crimes starting to occur, then it would be incumbent upon legislators to either increase/improve safeguarding measures for ciswomen, or (if that doesn't work) consider altering or reversing certain laws.

There's one scenario which I think will never happen: I don't think there'll ever be a time when a) there is anything more than a tiny number of sex crimes being committed by males against ciswomen in women-only spaces, where b) legislators sit back and say "oh well, there's nothing we can really do about that: it's fundamentally important that we allow self-ID transwomen to access women-only spaces, irrespective of any negative outcomes that result".

In other words, I believe that if anything more than a tiny number of sex crimes are being committed by males (whether by genuine self-ID transwomen or by cismen masquerating as transwomen) in women-only spaces, governments and legislators will - quite rightly - have no choice but to act in order to protect ciswomen in these scenarios.

But..... these sorts of things must be primarily evidence-based. I don't think there's yet any evidence suggesting that this is a problem (and there are already many jurisdictions where self-ID transwomen - and therefore also cismen masquerading as self-ID transwomen - can access women-only spaces), but it will need careful and constant monitoring as transgender rights protection is legislated more and more. If the actual evidence shows that there is a problem in this respect, then things will absolutely have to change one way or the other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
theprestige said:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove reference to material sent to AAH
Stay on target: What's your definition of "woman"?
Click to expand...


What a strange request to make. Are you totally missing all the times I've shown you what my definitions are? Oh and they're not just *my* idiosyncratic definitions, you know. They're the accepted definitions that are used by the global experts and various national legislatures. You really ought to know and understand them by now.

But, once more for those in the cheap seats up in the Gods:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21


Please don't bother me again with this request for something I've already given you (and others) several times now, eh?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LondonJohn said:
What a strange request to make. Are you totally missing all the times I've shown you what my definitions are?
Click to expand...

He didn't ask for your definitions. He asked for your definition.

One. Singular.

And he specified the word for which he wanted a definition. "Woman".

The definition isn't in your link. It wasn't last time, either.
 
LondonJohn said:
What a strange request to make. Are you totally missing all the times I've shown you what my definitions are? Oh and they're not just *my* idiosyncratic definitions, you know. They're the accepted definitions that are used by the global experts and various national legislatures. You really ought to know and understand them by now.

But, once more for those in the cheap seats up in the Gods:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21


Please don't bother me again with this request for something I've already given you (and others) several times now, eh?
Click to expand...

There is no definition of "woman" at that link.

Why do you keep spamming that link even though you know it doesn't answer the question?

I guess we're back to the "TRA side" steadfastly refusing to define terms.

(And that's before we even get to the problem of the Office of National Statistics being neither a medical nor a government authority on these definitions.)
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Private clubs are generally exempt from anti-discrimination laws. There are still many fine establishments in this country that limit their membership based on their personal prejudices, such as KKK chapters, Christian identity movements, Neo-Nazis, and so on. TERFs can still have their own discriminatory membership rules for their organizations, so long as they are private.
Click to expand...

Women who want a fellow female examining them after a sexual assault are as bad as Nazis is a red-hot take :thumbsup:
 
I'm tired of spoonfeeding people. I wonder if these questions are borne of something other than an attempt to understand....

It's extremely easily inferred from that link. But jeez, if you want me to pander to all this "playing dumb" and provide you with my* definition of "woman", in the strict context of transgender identity:

Woman:
a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself, and so the gender category of "woman" which someone identifies with may not match the sex (male or female) they were assigned at birth.


* Not just my definition, but in fact the definition used by the UK govt, the definition used in DSM5, teh definition used by the WHO, the definition used by the UN, the definition used by academics and clinicians the world over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom