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

[Emily's Cat]

You can't treat "mental health experts say this" as a sacroscent God when the exact same mental health community would have called what you are arguing a mental disease 10, 15, 20 years ago.

"Mental Health Experts" can't only be experts when they agree with you.

Especially since we all damn well know that if the mental health communities swings back toward treating some versions of this as something to be treated the trans side isn't going to go "Oh okay I guess we have to accept that since it comes from the mental health experts."

Especially when the mental health community was also happy to jump on board with repressed memories and ritual satanic abuse.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I would generally agree with you that trans rights is not, at the foundational level, a medical issue. It's a human rights issue.

What right are trans people lacking?

 

[Meadmaker]

Body modesty is a real thing, and a person who does not want to take off their clothes in the presence of another person might be acting out of some motivation other than hatred or bigotry and should not be expected to take off their clothes in the presence of another person.

See how easy these problems resolve themselves, if you just stop thinking about them in gendered terms?

It isn't.

That is an awfully specific definition of "male sex organ" which excludes many males' sex organs and also rules out many transwomens' sex organs.

All of which is accurate.

My point is that I am referring to specific cases because even in those specific situations, the "party line" view is that even the extreme case I cited, a person complaining is subjected to being called hateful and bigoted.

So, most people would prefer more privacy in locker rooms. It's true. I wouldn't prefer that, but most people would. However, we don't always have that option, so it may be that a woman (including teenagers) might find herself in a rather awkward position of having to undress in front of a person who is, functionally, 100% male, fully reproductively capable, and if she complains about it, she will be called a bigot.

That's unfortunate, but it's reality.

And she might be doing so in order to change into a swimsuit for a competition where she has to compete directly against that same male-bodied individual.

Pointing out that this is a truly unfortunate and indeed wrong situation is not bigotry.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, sorry, but this sounds rather ingenious - yes, there are parts of the counter-argument that obviously are based on empirically observable facts about biological sex. But even those can be referred to in polite and respectful manner. And then there are facts about gender dysphoria and the disgusting, primitive and ignorant hounding and persecuction of people inflicted by it - and the equally undeniable fact that transitioning seems to be a rather effective treatment. In addition there is the also the undeniable fact that gender is a legitimate concept clearly distinct of the biological nature of sex. Anyhow, I just simply don't like the levity and light heartedness here about transpeople in the context of a great social and historical tragedy - this age old brutal persecution of a powerless minority.

You're welcome to empathize with the mistreatment of transpeople. To a degree, we all do.

Some of us, on the other hand, also recognize that many of the policy goals of trans activists are things that reduce the rights of females, displace us from society, and put us at increased danger of harm.

On the gripping hand, females have been (and continue to be) systematically oppressed, abused, brutalized, and mistreated throughout history. I am of the opinion that females deserve human treatment and equality as well.

 

[LondonJohn]

Are there any other "valid lived experiences" which may require major surgery to properly address?

(What even is an invalid lived experience, anyhow?)

There are plenty of places you could look if you want to find out what might be considered a valid lived experience, and what might be considered an invalid lived experience. Google is a good place to start, I'd suggest.

But if that doesn't work for you, I've already delineated and defined these two things within these threads. A search of the thread will see you right.

 

[LondonJohn]

I haven't gone public yet, but depending on how things in FMF develop I may formally declare my preferred pronouns to be 'Your / His Majesty'. And I'm not joking about that.

And that might be considered to be a) the demonstration of a fundamental failure to understand gender dysphoria and transgender identity, and b) a sizeable degree of mockery towards transidentity and the associated rationale behind people providing their preferred pronouns.

And I'm not joking about that.

 

[Meadmaker]

There are plenty of places you could look if you want to find out what might be considered a valid lived experience, and what might be considered an invalid lived experience. Google is a good place to start, I'd suggest.

But if that doesn't work for you, I've already delineated and defined these two things within these threads. A search of the thread will see you right.

I just searched "invalid lived experience" on google.

There were two hits, but the first one had a period in it. i.e. There was a sentence that ended in "invalid", and the next sentnece began with "Lived experience".

The second hit was....right here.


But it's true, you have defined your terms previously. I was just curious what would actually happen if I put that phrase into google. Is that a phrase that people actually use, and I just wan't familiar with it?

 

[Boudicca90]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove quote of material sent to AAH

And I've said before that I won't put up with misgendering anymore. Or anyone repeating that misgendering.

My pronouns are she/her.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think you can have a discussion without being hostile and making juvenile jokes about things that have a really grim historical context.

Like... perhaps saying that if female athletes lost to male athletes, they should just quit bitching and train harder?

Like saying that female prisoners being raped by male-bodied prisoners forcibly placed with them in confinement aren't really being harmed?

Like saying that females have no right to expect visual privacy, thus decriminalizing voyeurism and peeping toms acting without the consent of their female target?

Like saying that females who feel that their biological sex is relevant and important to social issues and policy decisions (given that we have been oppressed and mistreated as a result of that biology) are being "hysterical" and should just get over it?

Like calling women delusional when they cite statistics referring to the degree of sexual assault and rape that females face?

Like calling women bigots and transphobes if they teach their children that if a person exposes their penis to them in a locker room or other private area, that female child should leave immediately and let an adult know?

Like insisting that women are being paranoid when they express concern about the effect that self-id with no requirement of a diagnosis or treatment would have on women's safety?

Like harassing, threatening, and vandalizing rape shelters that have a female-only policy, and referring to the female resident who don't want to share a room with a male-bodied person evil hate-filled bigots?

Like campaigning that rape victims should NOT be allowed to specify the biological sex of their medical examiner because it makes transpeople feel unsafe?

You mean, hostile and juvenile things like that?

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Thread moved faster than I was expecting, added quote to clarify my response//

And I've said before that I won't put up with misgendering anymore. Or anyone repeating that misgendering.

My pronouns are she/her.

That's functionally "I won't put up with anyone disagreeing with me."

And for the record I have, and will continue to use your preferred pronouns and refrain from just making cheap jokes about pronouns because I'm not trying to be a dick for no reason, but in the end of the day your argument is "I have to be right because if you say I'm not you are being mean (or at this point it's practically "If you disagree with me you're committing a hate crime")

 

[LondonJohn]

I just searched "invalid lived experience" on google.

There were two hits, but the first one had a period in it. i.e. There was a sentence that ended in "invalid", and the next sentnece began with "Lived experience".

The second hit was....right here.


But it's true, you have defined your terms previously. I was just curious what would actually happen if I put that phrase into google. Is that a phrase that people actually use, and I just wan't familiar with it?

No, it's not. Because the quicker - and more accurate - way to describe an invalid lived experience is "delusion" or, a little more broadly, "mental health disorder".

It's only when people look at the phrase "valid lived experience" and feel like asking what would be considered an "invalid lived experience"... that this descriptor would ever arise.

The phrase "valid lived experience" is used as the most appropriate opposite/counterpoint to "delusion". Because "not a delusion" is not really a declarative description.


ETA: and - as with definitions of gender and sex - those are not my definitions. I don't really know why some are apparently so keen to pretend that these are just my own idiosyncratic (and therefore capable of being attacked, I presume) definitions. But I think I may have an idea.....

 

[Boudicca90]

//Thread moved faster than I was expecting, added quote to clarify my response//



That's functionally "I won't put up with anyone disagreeing with me."

And for the record I have, and will continue to use your preferred pronouns and refrain from just making cheap jokes about pronouns because I'm not trying to be a dick for no reason, but in the end of the day your argument is "I have to be right because if you say I'm not you are being mean (or at this point it's practically "If you disagree with me you're committing a hate crime")

Calling me "he" when you all know I go by she is absolutely intended to be mean and insulting.

People here can just avoid pronouns (not 'preferred' pronouns) altogether if they can't be civil.

Thank you for not being part of the problem though.

 

[d4m10n]

But it's true, you have defined your terms previously.

All I could find was this post:

Someone, for example, might experience a lived condition of being able to converse with dead people. That would be classed as an invalid lived condition.

Not so much a definition as an example, but I think it's clear enough. A condition is invalid if it doesn't reflect observable reality. For example, if you have all the usual characteristics of being Scandinavian but you identify as Japanese.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Transitioning is very effective, for people who need it. Not everybody does, or not everybody feels very aspect of medically/surgically transitioning is right for them.

We shouldn't be pushing trans people into any specific direction or model of being transgender if it isn't the right thing to do for that particular person.

A good example is non-binary trans people who may not want to go all the way. My best friend recently came out as non-binary and they have plans to have top surgery to remove their breasts and to microdose testosterone for a more masculine look, but they don't consider themselves male. And that is perfectly okay and valid.

Sure, nobody should be forced to transition. On the other hand, I also don't think it's reasonable at all to obligate females to surrender their safe spaces to anyone who claims to be transgender, with no transition, no diagnosis, and nothing at all expect their claim. I think it's completely unreasonable to force females into a situation where they are more vulnerable to harm in order to avoid potentially hurting the feelings of a male-bodied person.

I also think it's completely unreasonable and irrational to pair the view that a transgender person doesn't end to transition in any way at all, and indeed, need not have any gender dysphoria at all... in order to take female places in leadership and politics, be counted as female in those roles, and be honored as exceptional females - see Eddie Izzard being named the "funniest female comedian".

You can have one or the other.

You can have the social acceptance of gender expression, allow anyone to wear whatever clothing and accessories they like, modify their bodies however they like (or not as they like), with no strings attached...

OR

You can force women to accept fully transitioned people with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria into all female spaces and be treated as female in all aspects of society including politics and honors and prisons and sports.

But you can't have both - because the combination of the two does actual real harm to females, and removes the rights of females.

 

[LondonJohn]

Like... perhaps saying that if female athletes lost to male athletes, they should just quit bitching and train harder?

Like saying that female prisoners being raped by male-bodied prisoners forcibly placed with them in confinement aren't really being harmed?

Like saying that females have no right to expect visual privacy, thus decriminalizing voyeurism and peeping toms acting with the consent of their female target?

Like saying that females who feel that their biological sex is relevant and important to social issues and policy decisions (given that we have been oppressed and mistreated as a result of that biology) are being "hysterical" and should just get over it?

Like calling women delusional when they cite statistics referring to the degree of sexual assault and rape that females face?

Like calling women bigots and transphobes if they teach their children that if a person exposes their penis to them in a locker room or other private area, that female child should leave immediately and let an adult know?

Like insisting that women are being paranoid when they express concern about the effect that self-id with no requirement of a diagnosis or treatment would have on women's safety?

Like harassing, threatening, and vandalizing rape shelters that have a female-only policy, and referring to the female resident who don't want to share a room with a male-bodied person evil hate-filled bigots?

Like campaigning that rape victims should NOT be allowed to specify the biological sex of their medical examiner because it makes transpeople feel unsafe?

You mean, hostile and juvenile things like that?

No. Things like mocking transgender identity, denying transgender identity, calling transwomen "chicks with dicks", referring to transwomen as males who are doing nothing more than playing at being women with lipstick and dresses. Things like that. Any of that sound familiar....?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Body modesty is a real thing, and a person who does not want to take off their clothes in the presence of another person might be acting out of some motivation other than hatred or bigotry and should not be expected to take off their clothes in the presence of another person.

See how easy these problems resolve themselves, if you just stop thinking about them in gendered terms?

Easy on the surface level. But there is not a consensus agreement on that.

In fact, there was a legal decision made that female teenagers in school had no right to expect visual bodily privacy from the opposite sex in their locker rooms.

The decision was that females had no right to object to males looking at them while they were naked.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And that might be considered to be a) the demonstration of a fundamental failure to understand gender dysphoria and transgender identity, and b) a sizeable degree of mockery towards transidentity and the associated rationale behind people providing their preferred pronouns.

And I'm not joking about that.

No, it's a protest against compelled speech.

 

[Ron Obvious]

No, it's not. Because the quicker - and more accurate - way to describe an invalid lived experience is "delusion" or, a little more broadly, "mental health disorder".

Sounds circular to me.:

"It's a delusion, so it's an invalid lived condition." and
"It's a valid lived condition, so it's not a delusion."

 

[JoeMorgue]

Calling me "he" when you all know I go by she is absolutely intended to be mean and insulting.

And people have been asking and begging you to clarify or even just talk about how you are defining and using the words and you have refused to do so and lashed out with insults when pressed.

I know that you define as woman. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY THAT.

You do not have some perfect moral and argumentative high ground here where everyone else is just out to be "mean" to you because they disagree.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And I've said before that I won't put up with misgendering anymore. Or anyone repeating that misgendering.

My pronouns are she/her.

If you don't want to put up with it, perhaps consider posting elsewhere. You might want to step back and review though. I think you've been "misgendered" (by which I mean that the grammatically correct pronouns were applied) maybe three or four times throughout these threads. For example, I don't believe I have EVER used a male pronoun in reference to you, despite the fact that it is grammatically errant.

On the other hand... how many people have you referred to as bigots, transphobes, TERFs, delusional, paranoid, or hysterical? How many times have you referred to me alone with such terms?

Perhaps you might consider showing others the respect and courtesy that you demand we grant you.