[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[Rolfe]

A lot of the time I think Cain is deadpan performance art.

 

[Collin237]

A lot of the time I think Cain is deadpan performance art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_(disambiguation)

 

[Sherkeu]

Apologies, but I am not getting what your point is.

Which side of the discussion do you equate to flat earthers?

Flat earthers are people who I personally can't imagine how it is they came to their view when there is so much evidence contrary to it.

So let's ask and not beat with sticks.
A bit like that dress that people saw different colors (I saw white and gold), or the yanni and whatever recording at different hertz people could hear.

And even if every trans person out there had anosognosia, (which I do not think is true- but may be for some) we'd still learn something.

 

[d4m10n]

The entire question has been declared offensive to even ask.

At least Rolfe and Boudicca can agree on something.

ETA: But seriously, both of them feel like their civil rights are under threat by people who severely undervalue their respective identities.

ETA2: It's easy for me to joke about this given that I never feel particularly threatened in public spaces, to include changing rooms and such. ��

 

[cullennz]

Flat earthers are people who I personally can't imagine how it is they came to their view when there is so much evidence contrary to it.

So let's ask and not beat with sticks.
A bit like that dress that people saw different colors (I saw white and gold), or the yanni and whatever recording at different hertz people could hear.

And even if every trans person out there had anosognosia, (which I do not think is true- but may be for some) we'd still learn something.

I realise this, but which side of the trans discussion do you consider flat earthers?

 

[Sherkeu]

I realise this, but which side of the trans discussion do you consider flat earthers?

I would put their argument on that type of irrational side.
But then they'd do the same to me.

How about you?

 

[theprestige]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain_(disambiguation)

Your link was broken. I've fixed it.

 

[smartcooky]

Trans women were/are always women, that's what you don't understand. I was a woman who was assigned a male gender/sex based on my genitals and the attempt was made to socialize me as a male, but it was a failure because I never accepted it.

By transitioning I'm simply correcting an error that was made early on in my life.

This is complete BS

If you were born with a dick, you are physiologically male; if you were born with a ****, you are physiologically female.

You may psychologically wish you were female; you may genuinely believe yourself to be female, and your feelings about that are perfectly valid and you every right to believe them... but any rights you think this grants you end when your beliefs negatively impact on the rights of others.

Transwomen might be gender-women, but they are NOT physiologically females, they are physiologically males, and they should not be allowed to compete in female sports.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I figured the 4 thread long, 1,000+ hairsplit we argued about the difference between gender/sex that was SUPER IMPORTANT GUYS was a total red herring.

 

[theprestige]

I figured the 4 thread long, 1,000+ hairsplit we argued about the difference between gender/sex that was SUPER IMPORTANT GUYS was a total red herring.

Boudicca's attempt to erase that difference entirely kinda signals to me that it is in fact super important. And even though we never got an explicit formal consensus, it seems pretty clear that just about everyone recognizes the difference and agrees on the terms.

 

[d4m10n]

I figured the 4 thread long, 1,000+ hairsplit we argued about the difference between gender/sex that was SUPER IMPORTANT GUYS was a total red herring.

I do find myself wondering if there is some way to ask the key questions at issue here without tripping over the key terms, all of which appear to have been slipping around a bit.

For example, suppose we have two separate sets of rooms allowing marginal personal privacy while people change into their workout gear or swimsuits. What are the optimal physical or psychological criteria we should use in order to assign people to one of these two facilities?

 

[cullennz]

I would put their argument on that type of irrational side.
But then they'd do the same to me.

How about you?

When it comes to the current trans discussion, I see neither side as irrational.

There is a fair bit of uber-stubborn from both sides, but nothing I would equate with flat-earthers.

Which is why I didn't get your original post.

Frankly I am kind of ambivalent with the whole argument, as I am a dude and don't care who comes into the dudes open plan changing room.

But I can see why some females would be against dudes thinking they are females waving their schlong around in the same situation would think differently.

Personally think if area is compartmentalised for privacy then status quo seems to work.

Chicks with dicks in prisons with women is stupid.

And chicks with dicks in womens shelters is just traumatising.

And the dude with all the law suits because people wont shave his ball sack isn't worthy of me addressing him as a women as he is obviously an **********

 

[theprestige]

I do find myself wondering if there is some way to ask the key questions at issue here without tripping over the key terms, all of which appear to have been slipping around a bit.

For example, suppose we have two separate sets of rooms allowing marginal personal privacy while people change into their workout gear or swimsuits. What are the optimal physical or psychological criteria we should use in order to assign people to one of these two facilities?

Chesterton's Fence seems to be working about as well as anything can be expected to work.

As long as we have people running around saying that transwomen are biologically female, and asking why sex-based segregation is even a thing, it's probably for the best if we just keep things the way they are. Abolishing a rule just to appease people who don't understand why the rule exists in the first place will cause more problems than it solves.

 

[Sherkeu]

When it comes to the current trans discussion, I see neither side as irrational.

There is a fair bit of uber-stubborn from both sides, but nothing I would equate with flat-earthers.

Which is why I didn't get your original post.

The Flat-earther example was brought up by MisAndreG- so I used it to respond.


But in terms of sharing space....in the last iteration I asked the other females here to rank identities by who theyd be comfortable rooming with.

Any female (lesbians & trans men included), and any gay male all came before the transwomen.

 

[cullennz]

The Flat-earther example was brought up by MisAndreG- so I used it to respond.


But in terms of sharing space....in the last iteration I asked the other females here to rank identities by who theyd be comfortable rooming with.

Any female (lesbians & trans men included), and any gay male all came before the transwomen.

I would think that the reason is a lot of people can't empathise with something they have never had to deal with.


I think most people can get their head around being the gay, but being a completely different gender in your head is hard to conceptualise.

Escpecially when it is all inner and can obviously be taken advantage of by weirdo's.

Which while is probably in the main, unlikely, is still a risk.

Mind you, you could say the same thing about a dude pretending to be gay.

But that is why there are environments separated by sex and not gender.

 

[Collin237]

Chesterton's Fence seems to be working about as well as anything can be expected to work.

As long as we have people running around saying that transwomen are biologically female, and asking why sex-based segregation is even a thing, it's probably for the best if we just keep things the way they are. Abolishing a rule just to appease people who don't understand why the rule exists in the first place will cause more problems than it solves.

But what does everyone mean by "biology"? Scientifically, every organ, even the brain, has a biological function. But colloquially, "biology" is usually a euphemism for "reproduction". And that allows for a bait-and-switch game between the two sides.

The argument seems to be that gender is "social", but restrooms and locker rooms have "biological" significance. That's backwards.

Gender is the same biological phenomenon that, for example, gives some species of bird a typically masculine or typically feminine song.

The social construct is the need, in Chesterton's sense, to separate people by genitalia to avoid socially disruptive behavior.

 

[Thermal]

But what does everyone mean by "biology"? Scientifically, every organ, even the brain, has a biological function. But colloquially, "biology" is usually a euphemism for "reproduction". And that allows for a bait-and-switch game between the two sides.

The argument seems to be that gender is "social", but restrooms and locker rooms have "biological" significance. That's backwards.

Gender is the same biological phenomenon that, for example, gives some species of bird a typically masculine or typically feminine song.

The social construct is the need, in Chesterton's sense, to separate people by genitalia to avoid socially disruptive behavior.

Naw man. Sex is real. Gender is just appearance.

 

[Meadmaker]

Is it really about the opposite sex, or is rather a broader concern of modesty in front of any person that might find their nudity titillating?

(A couple of days old, I know, but....)
I think it's the opposite sex, and this is more true for women.


I don't think the average woman is all that concerned about modesty in the presence of lesbians, assuming the lesbian's behavior isn't problematic.

I think guys might be a little bit more squeamish about being naked in front of a gay guy. I'm not, anymore, but I will admit the first time I took a shower in a locker room after one of my friends came out of the closet, it was a bit awkward for me. That lasted about 10 minutes. (He was someone that I frequently joined in athletic competitions with, so taking a shower in his presence wasn't unusual.)

Maybe everyone is modest in the presence of a male if we think the male might be enjoying the view. For females, there's at least some doubt about that even among people who are gay or who we think might be gay.

It's very hard to sort out what is social conditioning and what is instinct among humans. I have a feeling that modesty is at least partially instinctive, and is definitely sex-linked, but proving that would be difficult or impossible.

 

[cullennz]

But what does everyone mean by "biology"? Scientifically, every organ, even the brain, has a biological function. But colloquially, "biology" is usually a euphemism for "reproduction". And that allows for a bait-and-switch game between the two sides.

The argument seems to be that gender is "social", but restrooms and locker rooms have "biological" significance. That's backwards.

Gender is the same biological phenomenon that, for example, gives some species of bird a typically masculine or typically feminine song.

The social construct is the need, in Chesterton's sense, to separate people by genitalia to avoid socially disruptive behavior.

You are over complicating something pretty simple.

In probably 99% of people they either have a vagina or a dick,

These get separated in certain circumstances to meet peoples sensibilities.

The other 1% (probably lower) just have to kind of live with it or try to go unisex.

I haven't seen many cases of trans women being attacked by blokes in dudes lav's so not sure what the massive issue is.

 

[Collin237]

Naw man. Sex is real. Gender is just appearance.

Yes, but "real" and "appearance" don't necessarily map onto "biological" and "social".