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

[LondonJohn]

Everything I listed has either been directly said in this thread or has been fully supported and lauded by TRAs.

And yes, you have dismissed every one of my concerns, repeatedly. You simply dismiss them all as being bigoted, and make a ridiculous analogy to black or gay rights.

I'm sorry. Can you please direct me to where I've ever dismissed any of those listed concerns of yours - let alone all, let alone repeatedly - as being bigoted?

(And it stands to reason that you'd choose to handwave the analogies. A bit too close to home, maybe?)


Oh and I'll point out once again: the post to which you "responded" with that list of yours was clearly and exclusively about posts which had denigrated transgender identity in a hostile and juvenile manner. But you chose to ignore the entire point of the post, and instead you diverted it with your own list. I suppose you think this sort of leger-de-main is a reasonable way to respond to a statement or a question. I don't. And nor does it mean I don't recognise some or most of your own concerns. But hijacking another post in order to list them off was, IMO, not on.

 

[theprestige]

Your view (and the others here as well) was already set in stone from the moment this discussion started, the only difference is you stopped dispensing with pleasantries and are getting right down to what you really think.

This is absolutely untrue. My view was exactly as I described. I'd ask you to keep a more civil tongue in your head, but it seems that sauce for the gander is not also sauce for the goose transgoose.

 

[theprestige]

You know I was referring to the breadth of their expertise and experience, not the length of time?

A retcon worthy of Georgina Lucas.

Who even measures experience in space rather than time? Nobody, that's who.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow you just called me argument offensive yet didn't actually explain way or tell me what's different about it.

Bold new strategy.

Explain to me like I'm 5 what's the difference between "I want to be a woman even though I'm a man" and.... *Pause for dramatic effect* "MY PERSONAL GENDER IDENTITY IS THAT OF A WOMAN SO I HAVE SAYETH SO IT IS TRUE."

And again I'm not being a dick for the sake of being a dick here. "I want to be a woman" makes perfect sense and is fully understandable without reinventing every wheel and letting it self identity as a square.

If you don't know, I really don't think anything I can say will make a difference.

Fortunately the people charged with figuring this out in the real world - expert scientists and lawmakers - know very well that gender dysphoria actually has practically nothing in common with your two recent attempts to describe it. And, by and large, they're changing society in the right direction.

But if you want to carry on thinking that gender dysphoria and transgender identity do indeed match your characterisation, then it's neither here nor there. Unless you ever become a member of a legislature.

 

[Boudicca90]

This is absolutely untrue. My view was exactly as I described. I'd ask you to keep a more civil tongue in your head, but it seems that sauce for the gander is not also sauce for the goose transgoose.

Civil like comparing being transgender with mental illnesses time and time again? Please spare me your fake outrage.

 

[d4m10n]

Civil like comparing being transgender with mental illnesses time and time again?

Are you implying we should consider mental illness diagnoses something to be ashamed about?

I'd've thought we should actively destigmatize mental illnesses such as BIID^WP and anorexia.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Somebody was addressing the number of recent posts within this thread which were hostile and juvenile in their attacks on transgender identity.

You then (somehow) chose to offer a "reply" to this post with your list of female grievances. Which was/is totally irrelevant as a response to a post which specifically discussed posts aimed at transgender identity.

I then replied to that post of yours, explaining in more detail what the first person was referring to.

You then (above) have gone all-in on the entirely illogical non sequitur that because a) I did not address any of the items in your list (because they were irrelevant to the actual post you were responding to), but instead sought to bring things back to the actual topic of that first post to which you'd offered your *response*, therefore b) I must necessarily hold the belief that all the things you set out in your list are "just fine".


I suppose that a good deal of this can at least now be viewed in the context of your own clarification of the true overall way in which you view transgender identity, so thanks for that.

Nah buddy, you're special pleading again.

You're decrying the "juvenile" and "hostile" behavior toward compelled speech, and managing to wedge in that it's somehow against all transpeople ever... but you literally dismissed all of the juvenile and hostile things said against females.

It seems rather clear that it's only a problem if you perceive it to be against trans people. If it's against females, it's not a problem at all, certainly not something worth calling out as bad behavior.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And unless one does have personal (or maybe even one-step-removed) experience of these conditions, it's practically impossible - absent years of specialised education, expertise and experience - to come anywhere close to understanding them and judging their validity. In my opinion, it is entirely logical and correct to defer to the settled judgement of those who DO have the most education, expertise and experience.

I find it interesting that this same view doesn't apply when it comes to womanhood and what being a woman means. Because clearly, the experiences of actual females don't count... and females are expected to defer to whatever be-penised people say womanhood is.

 

[Elaedith]

This is an interesting podcast by two clinicians discussing the difference between the gender identity and gender dysphoria perspectives.

Trans: Identity vs. Dysphoria

 

[Emily's Cat]

Uhm, firstly, I don't recall ever having been asked that question.

You literally quoted it.

Are you dismissing all of the issues EC raised? Do you think there should be any sex-based rights at all?

 

[Boudicca90]

Are you implying we should consider mental illness diagnoses as something to be ashamed about?

I'd've thought we should actively destigmatize mental illnesses such as BIID^WP and anorexia.

Back when being transgender and having dysphoria was considered a "mental illness" it was considered a disorder, and was treated as such. Gender Identity Disorder in particular. Thankfully we are moving away from that kind of thinking, just like we stopped considering homosexuality a mental illness.

And it's nothing to be ashamed of, I deal with actual mental heath issues myself. But being transgender is not one of them.

 

[theprestige]

Civil like comparing being transgender with mental illnesses time and time again? Please spare me your fake outrage.

Haha touché. Fair enough. I'll keep talking in terms of mental illness wherever I think it's relevant, and you keep doing whatever it is you're doing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Tell me what would be a better way to approach this sort of thing then.

Using your own brain and some common sense?

 

[LondonJohn]

Nah buddy, you're special pleading again.

You're decrying the "juvenile" and "hostile" behavior toward compelled speech, and managing to wedge in that it's somehow against all transpeople ever... but you literally dismissed all of the juvenile and hostile things said against females.

It seems rather clear that it's only a problem if you perceive it to be against trans people. If it's against females, it's not a problem at all, certainly not something worth calling out as bad behavior.

No. I was not dismissing "all of the juvenile and hostile things said against females".

Only in your own construct, I'm afraid.

My pointing you back towards the actual post (the post to which you'd "responded" with your own list of grievances, and which did not in any way seek to address the grievances aired within that post) in no way implies that I dismiss or disregard your own grievances.

After all, one could use the same false sophistry to say that, when you replied to that post with your post, you yourself "dismissed" the issues raised in that first post. After all (so the sophistry goes), if you felt there was any validity to that first post's complaints, you'd have addressed them - rather than ignoring/dismissing them in favour of your own list of grievances.

Or do different rules apply when it's being done by you, compared to when it's being done to you......?


ETA: oh and within literal minutes of you pledging not to use a certain two-word term, you've used it here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, no. The problem is solved substantively addressed when it is understood and recognised that a small proportion of people genuinely can have an internalisation of gender identity which differs from that which has traditionally been (and for the vast majority of people, is) coupled to their biological sex.

And then the problem is solved substantively addressed when society can learn to afford this small proportion of people something at least approaching the basic level of affirmation and protection against discrimination that they might deserve, through legislation where necessary.

And an entire different problem is created and exacerbated by doing so.

I will again note that the affirmation of the feelings of male people seem to be more important to you than the actual rights, safety, and dignity of female people.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The irony just struck me that at best I'm only about 90% sure of the gender of most of the people in this thread. I can could make a fair guess on most of them, but outside of the people who have explicitly said so and few others I know from context in other threads I can only be "pretty sure" about the sex/gender of most users on this board.

The internet, where anonymity is pretty much the standard and there are few to no social cues for things, is a weird place to have this discussion.

 

[theprestige]

Back when being transgender and having dysphoria was considered a "mental illness" it was considered a disorder, and was treated as such. Gender Identity Disorder in particular. Thankfully we are moving away from that kind of thinking, just like we stopped considering homosexuality a mental illness.

And it's nothing to be ashamed of, I deal with actual mental heath issues myself. But being transgender is not one of them.

We stopped trying to treat homosexuality, which is good.

Homosexual rights amount to the right not to be discriminated against for their sexuality, which is also good.

Homosexual entitlements amount to, "let me sex up any consenting partner I want", which is also good.

---

Transgender entitlements amount to, "everybody has to think and talk and act and treat me exactly how I want, whether they like it or not", which is terrible.

Even ethnic minority entitlements amount to "I'm a human being same as everyone else, and I'm entitled to the same treatment as every other human being." Which is, obviously, very good.

The corresponding transgender entitlement would be, "I'm the-sex-that-I'm-not, and I'm entitled to the same treatment as everyone else who's the-sex-that-I'm-not." Which is also terrible.

---

ETA: I've been running a lowkey moratorium on this, but it's probably a good time to bring it up again:

Arguments from analogy always fail. They just do. In this case, nobody who was unconvinced by arguments about transgenderism in its own terms is going to be swayed by arguments about transgenderism in terms of homosexuality.

If you can't talk about transgenderism in its own terms, you've already lost. And if you can talk about it in its own terms, but still fail to convince, switching to an analogy won't reverse that decision.

Just give it up already.

 

[MisAndreG]

Yes, I have been making changes to become more female. I don't deny that I had a male body before, despite that I had/have a female gender identity.

My point is that by transitioning I am no longer physically male.

Here is a great article by Julia Serano that I found that explains pretty well how I feel about this whole argument: https://juliaserano.medium.com/transgender-people-and-biological-sex-myths-c2a9bcdb4f4a

You will always be physically male because you are fundamentally, at a cellular level, male. Let’s be clear here: mutilating your genitals or altering your secondary sex characteristics to resemble those of the opposite sex do not make you “more female.”

And I’m getting real tired of the terms being used here, like “female gender identity”, which is just a plain contradiction in terms. Female is sex, gender is not sex, therefore you can not have a sexed gender identity. Unless you lot now think sex is gender.

I’m tired of all of this. It is like these people are making fun of women with this crap.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Your view (and the others here as well) was already set in stone from the moment this discussion started, the only difference is you stopped dispensing with pleasantries and are getting right down to what you really think.

Much like what has happened over the past 4-5 years. It's not that the number of racists among the population have increased, it's that they have become emboldened and have stopped trying to play nice with the other side.

Same thing is happening here.

No, this is incorrect.

What happened is a bait and switch.

A decade ago I was all for trans rights - because they were understood to be allowing people to express themselves however they pleased, and disallowing violence against people on the basis of how they present. And I believed that most transgender people had either completed or were in the process of a surgical transition.

Five years ago I was a strong supporter - because the the rights being sought were protections against discrimination in the workplace and in housing and medicine, and I still believed most transgender people were going to surgically transition.

Now, however, this is not the case. Now I'm being asked to surrender female spaces - including prison wards and rape shelters - to anatomically intact male-bodied people, to allow male-bodied people with no diagnosis and no transition of any meaningful sort to be counted as female leaders and politicians and to gain honors as women. Now I'm being asked to allow fully masculine pubescent children to compete against females in athletics and to pretend that there's no biological difference. Now I'm being told that I can't refer to women collectively without including people who have neither the physical or the lived experience of being female. I'm being told that I must refer to myself as a period haver, a bleeder, a cervix-haver, a person with a uterus, a birthing parent, a breeder, a chestfeeder. And I'm being told that I have no choice in this matter and I must submit to the whims of male people in order to affirm their feelings - even if it comes at the cost of the reduction of the rights of females and the increased danger to us.

Your side moved the goal posts. They didn't just move them a couple of feet, they moved them to a different planet.

THAT is why my level of support has changed.

 

[LondonJohn]

And an entire different problem is created and exacerbated by doing so.

I will again note that the affirmation of the feelings of male people seem to be more important to you than the actual rights, safety, and dignity of female people.

You note wrong.

Firstly, where it comes to being supporting of transgender people, I'm exactly equally supportive of the recognition/rights of female people with gender dysphoria (whether they are transmen or gender fluid females)

And secondly, your weaponisation of transgender rights as a de facto trampling of female rights is simply wrong.

Yes, yes: I know this is the point where you *offer a robust difference of opinion*

But maybe I can try this by framing the question the other way round:

Is it correct to deny transgender people a reasonable level of recognition and rights, on the basis that to do so would very probably result in less violence (and discomfort) towards female women?