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

[Emily's Cat]

Nope. It's nothing whatsoever to do with budgetary constraints.

Here's another one for you: around 20 years ago, the gay age of consent in the UK was lowered from 18 to 16 (a move which was entirely correct in principle, as it brought the gay age of consent down to equality with the heterosexual age of consent).

However, many public bodies - including most police forces - were concerned that this legislation might have the unintended effect of facilitating older predatory gay men and endangering 16- and 17-year old male youths. Indeed, this had been the very rationale behind the previous legislative reform which had only moved the gay age of consent down to 18.

So when the age of consent went down to 16, it was done so with the proviso that matters would be monitored in the wake of the legislation. Had the lowering to 16 had the unintended effect of placing certain numbers of 16- and 17-year old male youths into unsafe or toxic situations, then the law would have been revisited and potentially modified, or even reversed.

As it turned out, there really was no discernable rise in the endangerment of 16- and 17-year old male youths, so the law stayed as it was.


(I'm near-certain that you'll claim some way to announce that this too is an invalid analogy - I'm almost excited to know what you'll come up with next! (Not))

What was the existing level of abuse of 16 and 17 year old gay teens by older predatory males at the time this decision was made?

 

[theprestige]

.... then it's a given that legislators and regulators will need to re-appraise the situation quickly. That might, just for example, take the form of tougher sentencing for these sorts of offences (and subsequent monitoring to see how effective this might be as a deterrent); more central- and local-level resources being allocated to effective monitoring and alarm systems (and subsequent monitoring to see how effective this might be, both as a deterrent in and of itself, and as a means to guaranteeing more convictions for the offenders, with its own deterrent effect); increased public education on the issue; or, if methods such as these fail to safeguard female women adequately, a modification or reversal of parts of legislation.

Your idea of "re-appraise the situation quickly" is for legislators to conduct hearings, debate sentencing guidelines, pass new sentencing laws, pass new funding laws, pass new education laws, and wait and see whether the new laws have an effect on the number of new rapes that are occurring.

This is my main objection to progressivism in general.

When have you ever seen politicians put a quick stop to a bad policy that was implemented in the name of progress?

Hell, even your option of actually reversing the policy doesn't come up until after you've gone through years of trying out public education and other things.

Or what about "more central- and local-level resources being allocated to effective monitoring and alarm systems"? That's a funding issue, which is a politcal issue, which means:
- it won't be quick
- it won't be free from political considerations
- it might not be enough
- it might not happen at all

And speaking of political considerations: Do you really think the trans-rights lobby in the UK would tolerate for a moment any suggestion of reversing the policy, no matter how big an increase in new rapes as a result of that policy?

---

ETA: You also seem to be depending pretty heavily on the idea that criminal sentences have a substantial deterrent effect on new and repeat offenses. Is the deterrence mechanism actually that reliable in the UK?

 

[Collin237]

I don't think Boudicca is in charge of anything. The things being asked for by the lobbyist groups, as well as their social message on it, has changed over time.

It may also be different from one group to another. A few days ago I discovered glassdoor.com, which has a bad review of IGLYO. You might want to compare the positions of trans lobbyist groups that have good reviews.

 

[theprestige]

It's suprisingly easy to mess up killing yourself. If you look at statistics, firearms are pretty much the only consistently successful method.

I wonder if the Office for National Statistics concludes from this that transsexuals are statistically more likely to have a gun than homosexuals are.

 

[LondonJohn]

And I hope that the females being used as guinea pigs are aware that they're considered "necessary collateral damage" in the quest for affirming the feelings of some be-penised people.

Your misrepresentation is duly noted. Colour me unsurprised (as I believe Americans might say at this point).

 

[Distracted1]

Yes, I agree that transmen should be allowed to use the men's facilities (the same one that is shared by cismen such as I am). Just as transwomen should be allowed to use the women's facilities.

Still curious as to your opinion about barring trans-women from spaces designated for use by men and boys.
If the law determines that they are free to use spaces designated for women to change, shower, and relieve themselves does it not follow that they are the barred from using those same spaces that are reserved for men and boys?

Do you support barring trans-women from those spaces?

If not it seems you are arguing against the very concept of separate spaces for those functions at all, or, you are arguing that they may exist- yet designating oneself "trans" makes one immune to the prohibitions. A "special" right.

 

[LondonJohn]

Still curious as to your opinion about barring trans-women from spaces designated for use by men and boys.
If the law determines that they are free to use spaces designated for women to change, shower, and relieve themselves does it not follow that they are the barred from using those same spaces that are reserved for men and boys?

Do you support barring trans-women from those spaces?

If not it seems you are arguing against the very concept of separate spaces for those functions at all, or, you are arguing that they may exist- yet designating oneself "trans" makes one immune to the prohibitions. A "special" right.

Yes, I do.

Will that suffice?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, given that all of those references point to intolerance, bigotry, discrimination and abuse as very significant drivers of suicide or attempted suicide, I'd argue that the enacting of legislation which recognises transgender rights and offers protection against discrimination and abuse..... would pretty much by definition result in some sort of reduction in suicide/attempted suicide among transgender people.

Most of them mention events that have occurred that the victim believed were a result of them being transgender.

But they don't call out bigotry and abuse as a driver of suicide.

I'm sure it is part of the set of drivers... but all of the underlying research (three of your links were articles referencing other research, I went to the actual research itself) mentions other contibuting factors:

pre-existing mental health conditions
sex-work
drug abuse
high levels of HIV
lack of income (highly associated with unsupportive families)

I expect there's a lot of correlation between those things. What I don't see, however, are control references. For example, there doesn't seem to be mention of the rate of assault and abuse among non-trans sex-workers, or the rate of suicide among non-trans homeless people.

So the rates are high - much higher than I would like them to be. But it's not clear what the marginal effect of being transgender is relative to the other confounding factor, or how much correlation exists.

I'm not implying that the rate of suicide and abuse doesn't merit compassion and efforts to bring it down. I do, however, want to make sure that we're addressing the correct problem.

The rate of sexual assault and murder faced by transgender people is often brought up as a statistic in these discussion. I am completely against transgender people being sexually assaulted or killed. But the statistics quoted include a high cluster of transgender sex-workers in Brazil, which materially skew the results. When you look at the rate of sexual assault and murder in the UK alone, the rates for transgender people are lower than for the population as a whole, and significantly lower than for females.

It's important that we address the true problems, especially when the proposed methods of address increase risk to other vulnerable populations as a trade-off.

 

[Agatha]

Despite requests, infractions, and post moves, the level of incivility in this thread is still too high. I am therefore putting the thread on moderated status. Will you all please have much greater regard to your Membership Agreements when composing and submitting your posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nope, unlike GID, Gender Dysphoria isn't considered a mental disorder by the DSM: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

More work needs to be done to destigmatize it in the general public, but it is definitively not a mental disorder like it was once considered (much like homosexuality). More and more we are finding that transgenderism is biological in origin, and GD is merely the result of the incongruence between the sex we were assigned at birth and the one that we actually are.

Here is an example of some recent research: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

Interesting that the researchers are not neurologists or geneticists, but are ob/gyns and reproductive specialists.

I also find it interesting that they refer to parts of the brain that control sexual orientation as being support for male or female brains. This really seems like it's suggesting that homosexuality isn't real, and that people who think they're homosexual are wrong, and they're actually transgender.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It may also be different from one group to another. A few days ago I discovered glassdoor.com, which has a bad review of IGLYO. You might want to compare the positions of trans lobbyist groups that have good reviews.

Glassdoor is a job site, it gives reviews of working at a place. I'm not sure how that relates to their political and social objectives.

 

[TomB]

Yes, I do.

Will that suffice?

Out of curiosity, what is your position on how gender fluid people should access spaces?

I find the idea of someone who has legally changed their gender gaining access to spaces (with behavioral expectations, of course) reasonable. (The process for doing so is a discussion in and of itself, of course.) I agree it also follows that if one changes to a new gender, they would no longer have access to facilities and resources reserved for their former gender.

But should gender fluid people get to use whatever facilities they identify as that day? Scholarships? Affirmative action? Or should they be required to pick a legal gender for those purposes, regardless of how they choose to present on a given day?

The traditional trans person is more clear cut as they are transitioning. Presumably, in gaining access to resources of the gender they are transitioning to, they would forfeit access to resources set aside for the gender they are transitioning from. Gender fluidity, however, implies access to both.

 

[TomB]

Your idea of "re-appraise the situation quickly" is for legislators to conduct hearings, debate sentencing guidelines, pass new sentencing laws, pass new funding laws, pass new education laws, and wait and see whether the new laws have an effect on the number of new rapes that are occurring.

This is my main objection to progressivism in general.

When have you ever seen politicians put a quick stop to a bad policy that was implemented in the name of progress?

Hell, even your option of actually reversing the policy doesn't come up until after you've gone through years of trying out public education and other things.

Or what about "more central- and local-level resources being allocated to effective monitoring and alarm systems"? That's a funding issue, which is a politcal issue, which means:
- it won't be quick
- it won't be free from political considerations
- it might not be enough
- it might not happen at all

And speaking of political considerations: Do you really think the trans-rights lobby in the UK would tolerate for a moment any suggestion of reversing the policy, no matter how big an increase in new rapes as a result of that policy?
---

ETA: You also seem to be depending pretty heavily on the idea that criminal sentences have a substantial deterrent effect on new and repeat offenses. Is the deterrence mechanism actually that reliable in the UK?

This right here is why concerns and known loopholes should be addressed at the beginning, not after the fact.

A better analogy than traffic lights would be welfare or other entitlement reform. When such programs are abused, it is necessary to go back and rewrite rules to close the loopholes that have been exploited. There is invariably opposition to making these reforms for fear that it will make it more difficult for those who should and currently receive the benefits to get them. And that is also a legitimate concern.

Another example is ID for elections, but I really don't want to go that direction in this thread.

 

[d4m10n]

Which rights are we talking about?

In support of EC, I really don't think we should be talking in generalities here. Everyone agrees that certain rights (e.g. the right not to get sacked for transitioning) should be beyond question. We need to talk about specific rights which are debatable, such as the right to use changing rooms based on gender rather than sex, or the right to be included in the "women seeking women" dating ads, or the right to "compete in the women's categories at an elite level of sport," or the right to what-have-you.

 

[TomB]

Most of them mention events that have occurred that the victim believed were a result of them being transgender.

But they don't call out bigotry and abuse as a driver of suicide.

I'm sure it is part of the set of drivers... but all of the underlying research (three of your links were articles referencing other research, I went to the actual research itself) mentions other contibuting factors:

pre-existing mental health conditions
sex-work
drug abuse
high levels of HIV
lack of income (highly associated with unsupportive families)

I expect there's a lot of correlation between those things. What I don't see, however, are control references. For example, there doesn't seem to be mention of the rate of assault and abuse among non-trans sex-workers, or the rate of suicide among non-trans homeless people.

So the rates are high - much higher than I would like them to be. But it's not clear what the marginal effect of being transgender is relative to the other confounding factor, or how much correlation exists.

I'm not implying that the rate of suicide and abuse doesn't merit compassion and efforts to bring it down. I do, however, want to make sure that we're addressing the correct problem.

The rate of sexual assault and murder faced by transgender people is often brought up as a statistic in these discussion. I am completely against transgender people being sexually assaulted or killed. But the statistics quoted include a high cluster of transgender sex-workers in Brazil, which materially skew the results. When you look at the rate of sexual assault and murder in the UK alone, the rates for transgender people are lower than for the population as a whole, and significantly lower than for females.

It's important that we address the true problems, especially when the proposed methods of address increase risk to other vulnerable populations as a trade-off.

It's fairly intuitive that the depression and/or anxiety associated dysphoria would lead to an elevated suicide risk.

It follows that being able to transition without fear of hostility and ridicule would relieve that anxiety and depression to a significant degree and result in fewer suicides. I'm not sure I need to see statistical evidence to accept this as likely true. I also don't think that it's possible to obtain such statistics currently, because, while more accepted than in the past, there is still not universal acceptance. Hell, it's still difficult for people to come out as gay to their families and friends. There is still a fear/anxiety barrier to transitioning and in most communities a trans person is a rare sight or spectacle that draws attention, much of which is not positive. Consequently, stress and anxiety related to dysphoria may be replaced with stress and anxiety associated with receiving negative attention. Even if that attention is not intended to be negative.

The real question is: what particular items will lessen the stress anxiety to the extent necessary to reduce suicide risk? Is acceptance in public spaces and protections from employment/housing discrimination? Or is access to restrooms without outing oneself also important in terms of suicide? How about the more infrequent instances of locker room access? Sports?

My point is simply that while suicide is an argument for acceptance and support of trans-persons, it is not necessarily an argument for the whole spectrum of topics under discussion here.

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay, now that's just silly. They only put speed cameras there if there's a history of VIOLATIONS OF THE EXISTING SPEED LIMIT. But the speed limits still exist, and lower speeds are in place for more crowded areas where the chance of an accident are higher.

Get back to me with this analogy when the UK removes all speed limits and goes to a monitoring camera situation if there are a lot of crashes, so that they can apprehend the person at fault after the damage has been done.

I'm afraid you're just wrong about this. To wit:

Guidelines applying to speed camera use
DfT guidelines (note: DfT = Department for Transport, a central Government body)

Location and operation of cameras:

• The majority (85%) of cameras must be in areas with a
specified minimum level of death and injury within 1
km in the previous three years (4 collisions resulting in
death/serious injury for fixed cameras, 2 for mobile).

• Crashes need not have been speed-related but it must
be shown that speeding is a problem at the location.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ostpn218.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2nZm6Lpx5Gy-9aaV6bwn-h


As i was (correctly) saying, wrt the vast majority of speeding cameras in the UK, any given location will not be considered for a speed camera unless/until a specified number of deaths and/or serious injuries have occurred in or around that location in the recent past*.


So what does this have to do with something like a policy permitting (self-identifying) transwomen to use the women's changing rooms in places such as sports centres?

Well, as I was also previously saying, IMO a similar type of approach/logic ought perhaps to apply to both situations.

In the case of speed camera placement, the government is not prepared to commit to ex ante regulation (i.e. the pre-emptive placement of cameras at locations where it is suspected that road accidents might occur).

And likewise, in the case of allowing transwomen to use women's changing facilities, it's not (IMO) unreasonable to suggest a similar approach. In other words, waiting to see if transwomen (or, for that matter, cismen masquerading as transwomen**) actually do start to commit offences (of any level) against female women - and then modifying or even reversing policy if required.



* And you'll also notice that, contrary to your assertion that speed is the decisive factor, it's actually death and serious injury which is the primary determinant. If one were to apply your rationale to the policy dictating the placement of speed cameras, one might similarly be able to concoct an
outraged opposition to that policy along the lines of "so the government is happy to sit back and let people die or get seriously injured at any given location, before they consider making that location safer with cameras"...


** Personally, I doubt that there actually will be any significant incidence of cismen masquerading as transwomen, in order to enter those women-only spaces to offend against female women. My doubts are based upon matters related to emasculation. But in any event, my suggestion is to wait and see whether this sort of thing does or does not start to become an actionable problem.

 

[Meadmaker]

Though for the day regarding the thread title.

So much of this very long thread is all about linguistics. Take, for instance, the thread title.

If I say, "Transwomen are not women." What does that mean? Is it a comment about transwomen? Not really. We understand the term "transwoman". What that statement is really about is my definition of "women". It says that I have a defintion of the word "women", and transwomen do not fit that definition. It doesn't actually say anything about transwomen.

So much of the thread, for a couple of years running, is all about trying to get, and sometimes to force, "the other side", to use "our" terminology.

 

[Earthborn]

At the high school level, the sports organizations are not making the decisions.

I am not very familiar with the way high school sports are organised in the US. I am all for some Physical Education, but I don't see why it needs to be all that competitive.

Even with competition at high school level there is going to be much less of an issue since it would only require a rule to accommodate teenage transitioners. Unless they are banned from receiving the healthcare they need and forced to go through normal puberty, transgirls competitive advantage over other girls is going to be absolutely minimal.

Are all males allowed to use the women's changing rooms? Why or why not?

Yes, because in the LondonJohn presumably lives in the UK, where there is no law banning men from using women's changing rooms. I don't think there is such a law anywhere in Europe, and despite attempts at creating them, there are no such laws in the US. I think there are in Saudi Arabia though.

What is banned is demanding to see proof of someone's sex before allowing them in women's changing rooms; a law instituted to protect women who look a bit butch from being harassed.

You're opening a giant loophole, that anyone with a brain can see is very likely to increase harm to females.

No, the loophole already exists. I don't think there has ever been a time when it didn't. If you want to close the loophole (requiring scrapping existing anti-discrimination laws) I think it is up to you to show that doing so will decrease harm to females.

It obviously gives access to areas where females are vulnerable to any male who merely claims to be a transwoman.

Doesn't even need to claim being a transwoman. Just needs to act non-disruptively.

 

[Meadmaker]

I am not very familiar with the way high school sports are organised in the US. I am all for some Physical Education, but I don't see why it needs to be all that competitive.

You are following a common pattern expressed again and again in these threads. People who have no issues with biological males in women's sports divisions tend not to care very much about sports. Your views would be echoed by an awful lot of people who chose to go to university and major in education.

Even with competition at high school level there is going to be much less of an issue since it would only require a rule to accommodate teenage transitioners. Unless they are banned from receiving the healthcare they need and forced to go through normal puberty, transgirls competitive advantage over other girls is going to be absolutely minimal.

This is simply false, at least in the US. Terry Miller was on the boys' track team during the indoor winter schedule. He was a run of the mill, middle of the pack, athlete. That spring, in the outdoor season, Terry Miller was now a "she", and was the New England regional champion and holder of the all time record in her sport. At that time, she was taking no hormones, no surgeries, no puberty blockers, no medical treatment of any kind. Anatomically, she was every bit as male as she had been in the winter, but now instead of providing polite applause from the crowd during the medal ceremony, she was standing on the podium and had her name inscribed in the record book.

Unfortunately, there are a limited number of spots on the podium.

At some point, I believe that she and the other Connecticut transgirl superathlete eventually started hormone replacement therapy.

However, that's the reality of the situation. In the United States, anatomically male people who have not been altered by surgery or medicine are competing against girls. There's no need to deny this reality. It really happens. The people who think this is a good idea almost universally aren't really into sports anyway, so they don't think it's very important.

Yes, because in the LondonJohn presumably lives in the UK, where there is no law banning men from using women's changing rooms. I don't think there is such a law anywhere in Europe, and despite attempts at creating them, there are no such laws in the US. I think there are in Saudi Arabia though.

I mentioned this earlier, but this is a very misleading statement. When I was growing up, I heard plenty of stories about men being arrested for being in women's restrooms or changing rooms. No, there was no law against it, specifically, because it never occurred to anyone that such a law was necessary. The men, and it was always men, were charged for trespassing, disorderly conduct, or voyeurism.


To imply that these are brand new laws attempting to impose brand new standards is just misrepresenting the legal situation that has existed since segregated public facilities became common.

 

[cullennz]

Though for the day regarding the thread title.

So much of this very long thread is all about linguistics. Take, for instance, the thread title. If I say, "Transwomen are not women." What does that mean? Is it a comment about transwomen? Not really. We understand the term "transwoman". What that statement is really about is my definition of "women". It says that I have a defintion of the word "women", and transwomen do not fit that definition. It doesn't actually say anything about transwomen.

So much of the thread, for a couple of years running, is all about trying to get, and sometimes to force, "the other side", to use "our" terminology.

I think it is kind of obvious from a few generations of the thread ago, it should probably be re-named "Transwomen are not females".

Because that is kind of what most of the agreers think and don't really care if someone wants to call themselves a woman.