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

[LondonJohn]

Oh, FFS.

No. This isn't misandry. Misandry is a real thing and it's a problem, but this isn't it. Not allowing males to compete against females in sex-segregated sports isn't hatred towards men, for example. And the arguments asserting fundamental rights don't actually manage to distinguish cisgender men from transwomen. Arguments which would distinguish between cisgender men and transwomen require something beyond self ID in order to make that distinction, but that's become verboten because reasons.

You aren't being picked on, you aren't oppressed. Stop trying to claim victimhood on behalf of other people.

You've got entirely the wrong end of the stick.

(Hint: I absolutely was not referring to discussions about women's sport, or (mostly) women's prisons, or (mostly) women's locker rooms. I was referring to..... *other* opinions which uncovered themselves during the general debate)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Anyone using an appeal to authority without being able to effectively back that authority up should take a look into the past and consider what else they would've supported.

Let's not be naïve how civil rights gets accomplished, at least in the US. Sometimes people decide to end bigoted practices peacefully, sometimes it's forced by authority.

Slavery was ended with the bayonet, segregation after the Civil Rights Act became law with near unanimous opposition from the Southern states, gay rights ordered onto an unwilling public by the SCOTUS, Bostock likewise ordering trans rights from the judicial bench.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You've got entirely the wrong end of the stick.

(Hint: I absolutely was not referring to discussions about women's sport, or (mostly) women's prisons, or (mostly) women's locker rooms. I was referring to..... *other* opinions which uncovered themselves during the general debate)

Yeah, clearly, females wanting to have the right to not be looked while nude by males is misandry. Females not wanting to have the right to a space where their risk of sexual assault or harassments is nearly nonexistent is misandry. Females wanting to have a fair delineation in sports that accommodates biological differences between the sexes is misandry. Acknowledging that the victims of sexual assault are overwhelmingly female across the entire globe, and that the perpetrators of sexual assault are overwhelmingly male across the entire globe is misandry.

You've got a very strange interpretation of misandry.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let's not be naïve how civil rights gets accomplished, at least in the US. Sometimes people decide to end bigoted practices peacefully, sometimes it's forced by authority.

Slavery was ended with the bayonet, segregation after the Civil Rights Act became law with near unanimous opposition from the Southern states, gay rights ordered onto an unwilling public by the SCOTUS, Bostock likewise ordering trans rights from the judicial bench.

In none of those prior cases has the extension of rights been based on affirming the feelings of the oppressed group... nor have any of them come at increased risk of harm to another group.

But hey, we're only talking about females, so no big, right?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In none of those prior cases has the extension of rights been based on affirming the feelings of the oppressed group... nor have any of them come at increased risk of harm to another group.

I assure you, racist white people and anti-gay bigots talked nonstop about the dangers that expanding civil rights would have. They still do. Every white supremacist out there is nonstop talking about the dangers of black crime, and every antigay bigot still smears gays and lesbians as child molesters and sexual deviants.

 

[Paul2]

There are some recent disturbing trends in that direction - especially in informal sources like that. But suppose you do a pubmed search on "gene expression differences between men and women". You can go through hundreds of papers and it's clear that the authors mean adult male females and males (i.e. not how the person identified).

 

[Olmstead]

Let's not be naïve how civil rights gets accomplished, at least in the US. Sometimes people decide to end bigoted practices peacefully, sometimes it's forced by authority.

Slavery was ended with the bayonet, segregation after the Civil Rights Act became law with near unanimous opposition from the Southern states, gay rights ordered onto an unwilling public by the SCOTUS, Bostock likewise ordering trans rights from the judicial bench.

However, when someone pokes holes into an expert's conclusion on a forum, the appropriate response is to make a coherent argument for that expert's conclusion. Copy-pasting the same expert conclusion without any useful commentary gets us nowhere.

 

[theprestige]

For what it's worth, neither "man" nor "woman" appears in Harvard's online medical dictionary

I guess we'll just have to comb through every medical authority, ruling each one out, until we find the one that LJ is referring to.

I feel like we're playing Riddles in the Dark, and LJ has just asked us what's in his pocket.

 

[Joe Random]

Seen on these boards : 'It's totally fine and morally defensibly to refer to anyone wearing a MAGA hat as an inhuman Nazi CHUD'.

Also seen on these boards : 'not letting a person with a penis play sport on Team Vagina is violating their human rights'.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Seen on these boards : 'It's totally fine and morally defensibly to refer to anyone wearing a MAGA hat as an inhuman Nazi CHUD'.

Also seen on these boards : 'not letting a person with a penis play sport on Team Vagina is violating their human rights'.

You're almost there, see if you can figure out the difference. Show your work, learning is fun!

 

[theprestige]

For not-a-real-god's sake.

If an official paper from the ONS states that "The UK Government defines xyz as abc" , then the UK Government does indeed define xyz as abc

Where has the UK government recorded that definition? Does it exist on any official paper from any part of the UK government other than that one ONS webpage?

 

[Boudicca90]

Nope, they wont' be regressive at all. They'll just make sure that females don't have the right to prevent males from looking at them when they're naked... nor will females have any right to object if a male exposes their penis to a female. Females will certainly not have a right to compete in sports fairly. And of course, they won't have the right to fair representation in politics or to fully participate in the economy on equal footing. They won't even have the right to be reasonably protected from sexual assault in prison, because the won't have the right to expect that penises won't be present.

And in the future, it won't be so regressive. We'll be able to identify people's genders based on how well they conform to social stereotypes. If a person isn't wearing a dress, make-up, and high heels, they're obviously a man. Biology won't matter, it's completely irrelevant. What will be most important is that women like to cook and clean and do scrapbooking and take care of babies and they really just LOVE being a receptacle for male lust - that's really their highest calling in life. And if a person doesn't accept their role as home-maker or care-giver or object of lust... well, they won't deserve to be called a woman.

Yep. It won't be regressive at all.

Ermahgerd, the sky is falling!

Once again, these paranoid and delusional fantasies of a dystopian future for cisgender women are completely unfounded.

I can imagine a TERF writer coming up with a sci-fi story with that premise, however. Unfortunately for her, she would get swiftly cancelled. Oh well.

 

[Meadmaker]

People wondered why I and some others spent time on definitions.

When I last asked Boudicca90 about why a ciswoman ought to react differently to a cisman and a transwoman, the answer was that the transwoman is a woman, but the cisman is a man.

There's your definition problem for you. A transwoman is a woman, by definition, so the ciswoman ought to react differently to her than she would to a cisman, even though the two are physically identical.


Apparently, the physical similarity should be overridden by the fact that the two have different internal senses of self. That was the definition of woman we were left with, courtesy of the UK government, more or less.

We will soon start our sixth continuation, and it still all comes down to what is a woman? And the recent answer is that there is an internal sense of self that cannot be measured, or conformance to societal expectations.

 

[theprestige]

You're almost there, see if you can figure out the difference. Show your work, learning is fun!

I'm pretty sure we already know the difference. I think there's been at least two threads which make the difference abundantly clear.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Ermahgerd, the sky is falling!

Once again, these paranoid and delusional fantasies of a dystopian future for cisgender women are completely unfounded.

I can imagine a TERF writer coming up with a sci-fi story with that premise, however. Unfortunately for her, she would get swiftly cancelled. Oh well.

Not taking female concerns seriously - and appearing overtly misogynistic - are reasons why there is an increasing backlash against the TRAs, and why a number of us do not want to change the definition of woman (in addition to the practical and healthcare concerns).

 

[d4m10n]

A transwoman is a woman, by definition, so the ciswoman ought to react differently to her than she would to a cisman, even though the two are physically identical.

If "woman" is taken to mean a social category of people for whom certain designated spaces and organizations (e.g. changing rooms, beauty pageants, Isobel Cup Finals, etc.) are set aside solely on account of gender identity then this makes perfect sense. Progressives seem to believe this will soon be the inevitable result of moral progress already underway, even if these spaces were originally set aside on the basis of sex rather than gender.

ETA: Meanwhile in Alabama certain lawmakers seem to be going hard in the other direction.

 

[Boudicca90]

Not taking female concerns seriously - and appearing overtly misogynistic - are reasons why there is an increasing backlash against the TRAs, and why a number of us do not want to change the definition of woman (in addition to the practical and healthcare concerns).

There are no actual concerns here, just "what if" scenarios and slippery slopes.

 

[Meadmaker]

There are no actual concerns here, just "what if" scenarios and slippery slopes.

I don't know about that. I keep bringing up those girls from Palatine, the ones who didn't want the transgirl to see them naked. That was the case where the judge ruled that they had no right to visual bodily privacy.

They seemed like real people, and they seemed to have a real concern, and they weren't talking about some hypothetical future, and there was no slippery slope involved. It all seemed very much real, here, and now.

 

[Rolfe]

...And in fact, this is an issue reading a lot of the MtF discussions/opinions online....you come across some pretty explicit stuff and you don't really know til it's already sitting there your brain. I now have unfortunately learned about these gross fetishes some do in women's restrooms with our USED feminine hygiene products that would never ever have occurred to me as something a human would want to do.

I see this thread has advanced many pages while I was doing other stuff (like getting vaccinated...) so I'll have to skip these, but this post resonates.

I mentioned this earlier on, with links to one guy's post about fishing used tampons out of the disposal bins and wearing them inside his pants and getting an enormous turn-on from it. There was some hideous detail about following a female colleague suspected of being on her period into the Ladies to get her used tampon, then putting the blood-soaked pad inside his underwear and masturbating into it while fantasising about the woman in question. It was sick-makingly gross.

I was subjected to a load of whatabootery from someone, maybe ST, maybe more than one person, saying well what about women who retrieve other women's sanitary products from the bins for fetishistic purposes, how are you going to keep them out? I thought at the time this was just provocative trolling but things said since then have made me understand that some men genuinely do not realise that women never do this. Our own used sanitary products are offensive to us and the idea of handling someone else's is too nauseating for words.

I was also told that since the "transwoman" was doing this in secret without the woman (or indeed any woman) knowing about it, it was ridiculous to object. The tampons had been thrown away, what does it matter who then finds a use for them? I was also told that women had no right to object to the possibility of a male in the next cubicle masturbating to the sounds of them performing intimate tasks like peeing or changing a tampon. He's a transwoman, he's just like you, women do that too (no they don't), don't be so bigoted.

Certainly I believe people who say that not all transwomen do this, but I don't care. I have no way of knowing which is which. Exclude all males, it's the only way.

 

[Elaedith]

There are some recent disturbing trends in that direction - especially in informal sources like that. But suppose you do a pubmed search on "gene expression differences between men and women". You can go through hundreds of papers and it's clear that the authors mean adult male females and males (i.e. not how the person identified).

Dr Emma Hilton gave a talk on sex denialism compared to creationism.