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

[Meadmaker]

I couldn't disagree more with this opinion of yours.

You didn't say anything more about this. Anything else to say, or is disagreement the end of it?


As for your description of how dictionaries are made, you are of course correct. And the folks at Merriam-Webster are also correct that people are indeed using the word "woman" and "man" exactly as was described.


But you left out what I think was the most important part, which was that now that "woman" and "man" have been redefined, we'll need some replacement words. If we go with your preferred scheme, we would just use "male" and "female" in their places, and that would, indeed solve all the problems. Take down all those signs on or near doors that currently say "women" and replace them with "females", and the problem is solved.

Right?

Something tells me not everyone agrees.

As for that thing you disagree with, I've always liked Mark Twain's commentary on it.

...the human being, like the immortals, natually places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys--yet he has left it out of his heaven! The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything--even his queer heaven itself--to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax. From youth to middle age all men and all women prize copulation above all other pleasures combined, yet it actually as I have said: it is not in their heaven; prayer takes its place.

He's not wrong. It really is what drives most of human behavior. If I can generalize somewhat from his quote, sex is the strongest motivator of all, and yet in instittuions and settings created by humans we frequently pretend it doesn't exist.

It is my contention that sex, and by that I mean the act, not the biological descriptor, is very much involved in issues about when we take off our clothes, and whom we allow to see us when we have done so.

 

[Meadmaker]

And if it actually turns out that there is a noticeable incremental incidence of criminal or otherwise unpleasant/undesirable behaviour towards human females, which has been caused by human males, then lawmakers will obviously have to revise legislation accordingly.

I think when considering your criterion, the experience at the British Home Office that has been referenced in this thread is worth remembering.

The gentlemen who work there have not been accused of any criminal behavior, nor of any unusual behavior at all, and yet, as a result of the changes, women are now queueing up to use the loo.

The most important thing to remember in analyzing that situation is that the people who ordered the changes were surprised by the reaction. According to everyone they talked to, there would be no problems.

 

[LondonJohn]

How do you distinguish between them? Which should be allowed to join a lesbian dating app, and which should be disallowed?

On the off chance that people are going by the reporting about Linehan's profile on Her, it might be worth just a moment of your time to take a look at the "lesbian" profiles that he objected to in the first place.

I don't see any of them misrepresenting who they are. I imagine that the majority of female lesbians are not altogether interested in matching with transwoman lesbians. So I'd have thought it wouldn't be all that arduous - or offensive - for such female lesbians to scroll right past the transwoman lesbians. On the other hand, there may be some transwoman lesbians who are interested in matching with transwoman lesbians. And I imagine there are some transwoman lesbians who are interested in matching with other transwoman lesbians.

If those transwoman lesbians were misrepresenting themselves in their profiles, I'd absolutely condemn that and consider it to be a problem worthy of corrective action. But....


(And I had no idea that Linehan nowadays appears to be ploughing a single-issue field, in a manner verging on neurotic. Never imagined someone who was co-responsible for the diverse character set in Father Ted, and who was solely responsible for the creation of several non-conforming characters in The IT Crowd, would end up like this.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

In other news...

There's a bill in Wyoming that would make female genital mutilation a crime. It includes explicit exceptions that specify that voluntary cosmetic procedures and things like piercings don't constitute FGM. It also has an explicit exception that says that sex reassignment surgery for transgender people age 18 or over doesn't constitute FGM.

And there's concerns that this bill to protect young girls from being brutally mutilated against their will will cause problems because it could get in the way of transgender youth getting surgery under the age of 18.

This seems like a rather misplaced concern to me.

 

[LondonJohn]

As a member of the class of people who would experience that harm, I rather strongly object to be used as a guinea pig.

Why do you apparently support putting females at risk and reducing their rights in order to support the emotions of males?

Firstly: what do you mean by "...in order to support the emotions of males"?

Because as far as I'm concerned, it ought to be "...in order to support a reasonable level of human rights for transgender people".

Your mileage obviously varies though.

And I know you're fond of using the term "guinea pigs", but that's not the proper term to be using here. To illustrate:

My sister's husband is a school teacher. Our schools are due to reopen on 8th March. My sister's husband might feel moved to exclaim:

As a member of the class of people (ie school teachers) who would experience the increased risk of contracting Covid 19 (as a result of reopening schools before the threat of Covid 19 is low or zero), I rather strongly object to be used as a guinea pig.

Why does the Government apparently support putting school teachers at risk and reducing their rights in order to support the rights of schoolchildren to get classroom-based education?

 

[LondonJohn]

That's pretty non-fringe.

The mind boggles.

The mind would boggle if that "research" were not so riddled with failings as to be near-worthless.

 

[LondonJohn]

You didn't say anything more about this. Anything else to say, or is disagreement the end of it?

Really? You want me to further articulate why this statement:

"When it comes right down to it, it's all about who we can ****, and how"

has effectively nothing whatsoever to do with recognising trangender rights and protections??

As for your description of how dictionaries are made, you are of course correct. And the folks at Merriam-Webster are also correct that people are indeed using the word "woman" and "man" exactly as was described.

But you left out what I think was the most important part, which was that now that "woman" and "man" have been redefined, we'll need some replacement words. If we go with your preferred scheme, we would just use "male" and "female" in their places, and that would, indeed solve all the problems. Take down all those signs on or near doors that currently say "women" and replace them with "females", and the problem is solved.

Right?

Something tells me not everyone agrees.

You didn't say anything more about this. Anything else to say, or is disagreement the end of it?

As for that thing you disagree with, I've always liked Mark Twain's commentary on it.

He's not wrong. It really is what drives most of human behavior. If I can generalize somewhat from his quote, sex is the strongest motivator of all, and yet in instittuions and settings created by humans we frequently pretend it doesn't exist.

It is my contention that sex, and by that I mean the act, not the biological descriptor, is very much involved in issues about when we take off our clothes, and whom we allow to see us when we have done so.

I entirely subscribe to the contention that sex (the act) is an elemental driver of human behaviour. But - and I'll say this again (though I'm boggled as to why I'd need to) - it's a totally different matter from a discussion about transgender rights.

If I were to follow your thinking, I'd say we ought to be banning (for example) out gay men from men's changing rooms. After all, should I (a cis het man) be forced to undress in front of a male who is sexually attracted to other males (such as me)......? So would you be in favour of banning out gay men from the men's changing rooms? I assume you must be, judging by what you've just written here.

Right?

 

[Collin237]

I think when considering your criterion, the experience at the British Home Office that has been referenced in this thread is worth remembering.

The gentlemen who work there have not been accused of any criminal behavior, nor of any unusual behavior at all, and yet, as a result of the changes, women are now queueing up to use the loo.

The most important thing to remember in analyzing that situation is that the people who ordered the changes were surprised by the reaction. According to everyone they talked to, there would be no problems.

They probably didn't expect that anyone would be stupid enough to build unisex restrooms with multiple toilets.

They ought to have their architect investigated.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In other news...

There's a bill in Wyoming that would make female genital mutilation a crime. It includes explicit exceptions that specify that voluntary cosmetic procedures and things like piercings don't constitute FGM. It also has an explicit exception that says that sex reassignment surgery for transgender people age 18 or over doesn't constitute FGM.

And there's concerns that this bill to protect young girls from being brutally mutilated against their will will cause problems because it could get in the way of transgender youth getting surgery under the age of 18.

This seems like a rather misplaced concern to me.

Bills that outlaw female genital mutilation in other states do not include such language, Tara Muir, the policy director for the Wyoming Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, told WyoFile. “Wyoming can not be the first state with such draconian limits on transgender people,” Muir said.

In testimony before the Senate committee, Burlingame asked the committee to remove the clause about sex reassignment surgeries. “I would really urge folks to not bog this bill down with something that’s going to stop it in its tracks,” Burlingame said. “We don’t need it, we can take out [the controversial clause], we can have a clean bill and we can do something that protects the integrity of Wyoming youth.”

Seems that removing the unnecessary clause would be the easiest way to ensure this bill would easily pass in the state.

“Most states are silent” on sex reassignment surgery in bills banning female genital mutilation, Chambers said: “They realize that conflating the two issues is problematic.”

Seems that including language on transgender medical care is needlessly conflating largely unrelated issues and creating unnecessary conflict in what would otherwise be a bipartisan consensus.

 

[Elaedith]

Please find better sources than Zucker and Cantor.

They are both notoriously anti-transgender and their research is heavily biased due to their opposition to us and our rights.

Well, thanks for confirming that the current trans activist agenda is not based on research by the leading experts in the field, including the world's foremost expert on gender dysphoria and Chair of the DSM5 working group on gender identity. Activists are in fact at loggerheads with these experts and governments are bowing to activist lobby groups and ignoring experts.

Edited by Darat: 

Moderated thread.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't see any of them misrepresenting who they are. I imagine that the majority of female lesbians are not altogether interested in matching with transwoman lesbians. So I'd have thought it wouldn't be all that arduous - or offensive - for such female lesbians to scroll right past the transwoman lesbians. On the other hand, there may be some transwoman lesbians who are interested in matching with transwoman lesbians. And I imagine there are some transwoman lesbians who are interested in matching with other transwoman lesbians.

If those transwoman lesbians were misrepresenting themselves in their profiles, I'd absolutely condemn that and consider it to be a problem worthy of corrective action. But....

Leaving aside the complete irrationality of a transwoman lesbian, which in essence is a straight male... This brings us back to the very most fundamental question:

How can you tell which of those are being genuine and which are misrepresenting themselves in some way?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Firstly: what do you mean by "...in order to support the emotions of males"?

Because as far as I'm concerned, it ought to be "...in order to support a reasonable level of human rights for transgender people".

Which rights are you referencing, specifically?

I've lost track of how many times I've asked this question of various people and received no answer.

 

[Elaedith]

Dr Michael Bailey just posted an essay on 'questioning sexual identities'.

"If we can agree with the Faber College motto that “Knowledge is good”, the question remains: how should we obtain it? A good start is by talking to members of the sexual minority groups we want to study because they are a good source of data and ideas. But we cannot assume that everything these members say is true.

Edited by Darat: 

Rule 4.

”

 

[Meadmaker]

Really? You want me to further articulate why this statement:

"When it comes right down to it, it's all about who we can ****, and how"

has effectively nothing whatsoever to do with recognising trangender rights and protections??

Well, yes, I would. At least, if you are so inclined to defend your position rather than merely assert it.

You didn't say anything more about this. Anything else to say, or is disagreement the end of it?

I think during the six continuations of the thread I've already said quite a lot about it, but to reiterate briefly, I am saying that biological sex...(.or should I say reproductive sex, because of the confusion sometimes expressed about the various terms?) is sufficiently significant that it needs a word to describe it. If "male" and "female" were used consistently to refer to biological sex then we could change the signage and the segregated spaces would be segregated based on biological sex, and everyone would understand that. I would find that solution acceptable, but I suspect others would not.

I entirely subscribe to the contention that sex (the act) is an elemental driver of human behaviour. But - and I'll say this again (though I'm boggled as to why I'd need to) - it's a totally different matter from a discussion about transgender rights.

The cotton ceiling people seem to think there's some sort of connection.

So do I, in more ways.

If I were to follow your thinking, I'd say we ought to be banning (for example) out gay men from men's changing rooms. After all, should I (a cis het man) be forced to undress in front of a male who is sexually attracted to other males (such as me)......? So would you be in favour of banning out gay men from the men's changing rooms? I assume you must be, judging by what you've just written here.

Right?

This, too, has been discussed at length. First of all, I think it's a bit risky to try to use other people's logic, and arguments by analogy always seem to have difficulties. I have never said, implied, or suggested that gay men should be excluded from men's locker rooms, so making any sort of connection about that seems likely to end up in some risky territory, as regards logic.

That being said, I can understand why some people might think the situations are analogous, and in some small ways, they are. I think there is a certain degree of anxiety undressing in the presence of a male who might be attracted to you, sexually, and I think a greater awareness of the prevalence of homosexuality has driven some changes in locker room behavior. I have referenced this paper before: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00332925.2016.1134213 (this is just the abstract. In the past I referenced a magazine article that discussed the contents.)

In my opinion, though, the similarities between the situations (i.e. gay men in a men's locker room. Transwomen in a women's locker room) are much smaller than the differences between the situations. I think the inherent physical differences between men and women create issues that are not present with male-male interaction, regardless of the sexual orientations of the males involved. Therefore, the common element in the analogy is insignificant.


(One thing that I will emphasize that might be applicable to any of the above is that my major objections started when people insisted that psychology alone be a determining factor for issues involving sex based segregation. In other words, if you have been through surgical alteration, I would treat you as the "new" sex, and give access to all female only spaces. With no transition at all, beyond "social transition", I would be more inclined to say that trans people should use the facilities of their biological sex. When on hormones, or transitions that are short of full surgery, I will say that I do not know exactly where to draw the line and open up the locker room door to people born of the opposite sex.

 

[xjx388]

Transgender people are less than 1% of the world, but that still amounts to millions. It's not possible to determine what millions of people think, not even with a survey.

What specific people have this misunderstanding? Where did they get it from?

Anyone who says that transwomen should be able to compete in women's sports or access female only spaces seems to have this misunderstanding. Some of them are right here in this thread.

 

[JoeMorgue]

House passes Equality Act aimed at ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

(CNN) - Washington - The House has passed the Equality Act, which would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect people from being discriminated based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and other services as well as access to public accommodations such as restaurants.

The final vote was 224-206. Three Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill. Reps. John Katko, Tom Reed, and Brian Fitzpatrick voted with Democrats on this vote, and did so when the legislation passed in the House in 2019 as well. When the bill passed the House floor in 2019, eight Republicans joined Democrats to vote for the legislation.

Advocates for the LGTBQ community argue the legislation will help protect people in states where it's legal to discriminate people and add the law is long overdue.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/politics/equality-act-passes-house/index.html

 

[LondonJohn]

Anyone who says that transwomen should be able to compete in women's sports or access female only spaces seems to have this misunderstanding. Some of them are right here in this thread.

I ask again: if there's a sports centre with a men's changing room, a women's changing room (aka "a female only space") and a disabled changing room...

... which of these three changing rooms (or none) should a transwoman be required to use?


I presume, from the tone of your post, that the one changing room transwomen should not be allowed to use - in your opinion - is the women's changing room.

So that leaves us with 1) the men's changing room, 2) the disabled changing room, and 3) no changing room at all*.

Which of these three options is your go-to option where it comes to transwomen?


* presumably meaning that either a) transwomen either have to change in the car or before setting off to the sports centre, or b) transwomen are not permitted to use the sports centre at all.

 

[TomB]

Firstly: what do you mean by "...in order to support the emotions of males"?

Because as far as I'm concerned, it ought to be "...in order to support a reasonable level of human rights for transgender people".

Your mileage obviously varies though.

And I know you're fond of using the term "guinea pigs", but that's not the proper term to be using here. To illustrate:

My sister's husband is a school teacher. Our schools are due to reopen on 8th March. My sister's husband might feel moved to exclaim:

The obvious flaw in your analogy is that in reopening schools, efforts are taken in most places, to mitigate the known risks. This includes developing mask and social distancing policies for both teachers and students, limiting class sizes and modifying activities.

On the other hand, your proposal for female spaces is to make no attempt to mitigate the known loophole that creates the potential for abuse until it is demonstrated that a significant number of people utilize the loophole.

You are comparing a scenario where mitigation of risk is attempted with a scenario where no mitigation of risk is attempted and saying they are the same.

The other flaw is that should the attempted risk mitigation prove inadequate, additional measures can be taken administratively without requiring legislation to be drafted and debated. At least in the US at most it would be a school board level decision.

The adjustments you say would be taken would require legislation be drafted and debated at a higher level of government with the likelihood of resistance to the idea by those who would see it as taking back some of the rights and priveledges that were just granted. It would be a relatively slow response.

Why do you support poor legislative practices?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, yes, I would. At least, if you are so inclined to defend your position rather than merely assert it.







I think during the six continuations of the thread I've already said quite a lot about it, but to reiterate briefly, I am saying that biological sex...(.or should I say reproductive sex, because of the confusion sometimes expressed about the various terms?) is sufficiently significant that it needs a word to describe it. If "male" and "female" were used consistently to refer to biological sex then we could change the signage and the segregated spaces would be segregated based on biological sex, and everyone would understand that. I would find that solution acceptable, but I suspect others would not.




The cotton ceiling people seem to think there's some sort of connection.

So do I, in more ways.



This, too, has been discussed at length. First of all, I think it's a bit risky to try to use other people's logic, and arguments by analogy always seem to have difficulties. I have never said, implied, or suggested that gay men should be excluded from men's locker rooms, so making any sort of connection about that seems likely to end up in some risky territory, as regards logic.

That being said, I can understand why some people might think the situations are analogous, and in some small ways, they are. I think there is a certain degree of anxiety undressing in the presence of a male who might be attracted to you, sexually, and I think a greater awareness of the prevalence of homosexuality has driven some changes in locker room behavior. I have referenced this paper before: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00332925.2016.1134213 (this is just the abstract. In the past I referenced a magazine article that discussed the contents.)

In my opinion, though, the similarities between the situations (i.e. gay men in a men's locker room. Transwomen in a women's locker room) are much smaller than the differences between the situations. I think the inherent physical differences between men and women create issues that are not present with male-male interaction, regardless of the sexual orientations of the males involved. Therefore, the common element in the analogy is insignificant.


(One thing that I will emphasize that might be applicable to any of the above is that my major objections started when people insisted that psychology alone be a determining factor for issues involving sex based segregation. In other words, if you have been through surgical alteration, I would treat you as the "new" sex, and give access to all female only spaces. With no transition at all, beyond "social transition", I would be more inclined to say that trans people should use the facilities of their biological sex. When on hormones, or transitions that are short of full surgery, I will say that I do not know exactly where to draw the line and open up the locker room door to people born of the opposite sex.

Is it the new orthodoxy in anti-trans sentiment to redefine women-only spaces as "female-only spaces"? I ask because legislators appear to be legislating along the lines of women-only spaces (and women's sports, etc).

 

[Collin237]

Anyone who says that transwomen should be able to compete in women's sports or access female only spaces seems to have this misunderstanding. Some of them are right here in this thread.

Believing that ideally they should, does not exclude admitting the problems of their doing so. There is always room for compromise.

https://womenssportspolicy.org/the-resolution/