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

[Emily's Cat]

I'm just going by his earlier self-description as an executive transvestite who fancies girls. That's out there enough that saying he thought of himself as female isn't much of a step. So why did he wait until the subject is very topical?

Maybe he's sincere. I doubt it, but I don't care much either way.

Out of curiosity, had he now adopted one of those faux female voices as well, or does he still use his own voice? I haven't heard any that don't sound like a man putting on a woman's voice.

Interestingly, he's now a woman playing a man's role in some show (I forget what). So I don't know where that leaves us. Is he a man or a woman? And if he's playing a man's role, does that make him a transman as well as a transwoman?

 

[Distracted1]

Are there any arguments in favor of rights for females ought to have which don't come off as arguments against transgender rights to those same privileges or spaces?

There are none. Hence the title of the thread.
The only way to square the circle is to declare that trans-women are women.
No other argument stands up to logical scrutiny.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not that simple. A trans woman who has not surgically transitioned inhabits a male body. But in a secular society, there is no definition of "inhabiting" a body; there is only a living human body scientifically identical to a human being. No one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender. But with gender out of the equation, any issue germane to the sexual dimorphism of the human body can be considered by a secular society only as an issue related to a human body that exists.

This isn't an abstract debate anymore. There is now an actual law being reviewed by the U.S. Senate. Taking it literally it says, for example, that Nova Maday has a right to use the boys' locker room; but almost no one reads it that way. What should it mean, legally, morally, and socially, for someone to file a claim in favor of their own discrimination?

This is a situation that leaves me depressed and pessimistic.

Nova Maday is very happy with this settlement... because they now feel better and their emotions are looked after. Their statement was that being asked to use a separate changing room instead of the girls locker room, made them feel isolated. And that when they were granted access to the girls room but told they needed to change behind a curtain, it made them feel bad.

I get very frustrated, because absolutely nowhere in these discussions are the feelings of the female students taken into consideration. The removal of female consent from this equation is disheartening.

It really does reinforce the age-old assumption that males are more important than females, and that the needs and wants of females are secondary to the whims of males.

This male wants to be in the presence of naked females. The fact that naked females do not consent to his presence is irrelevant. Their consent doesn't matter. It makes me sad and angry.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Robert Evans, veteran reporter, interviews members of the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch that has been under threat from armed fascists in rural Colorado.

I generally prefer text, but I'm not finding much else coverage at the moment.

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-worst-year-ever-49377032/

They describe in more detail the confrontation with armed trespassers at night on their property. The trespassers were held at gunpoint and ordered to leave the property, throwing their rifles over a fence and climbing out of the ranch.

Apparently the common threat is that their homes will be burned down in the middle of the night.

In addition to the trespassing, they describe being followed in town and their ranch is often under surveillance.

They also describe the outpouring of support from the armed left, including individuals who are volunteering for armed night patrol, sending armer plates and other materials, and money being used to beef up security of the large plot.

I'm not a fan of armed confrontations.

I do wonder how much of this they brought on themselves. They started out very heavily armed when they founded the ranch. And then they decided to publicly attack members of that community, and call them "nazis" on social media. Starting a social media campaign against people who are long-standing members of the community that you just moved into, while being very vocal about how well armed you are... well... that could potentially ruffle some feathers and make people a bit less welcoming.

 

[Collin237]

I get very frustrated, because absolutely nowhere in these discussions are the feelings of the female students taken into consideration.

Considering that this case seems to be under media blackout, we don't actually know that, do we?

I've read some strange things about schools in Illinois, so I suspect there have been some developments that go against media narratives. Like perhaps most female students at Palatine actually don't mind?

 

[Collin237]

There are none. Hence the title of the thread.
The only way to square the circle is to declare that trans-women are women.
No other argument stands up to logical scrutiny.

That might make sense if this were a global reconsideration of a timeless framework. But there's no reasonable explanation of how that could have happened. There is, however, evidence that being transgender, as a physical condition, is in fact becoming much more common. And as I've mentioned before, chemicals (which I've since seen discussed in many places under the name "endocrine disruptors") seem to be responsible. So one can firstly declare that trans women would be women if not for some occurrence, and secondly hypothesize that that occurrence is probably an anomaly of fetal development caused by endocrine disruptors. Debates about rights can in principle follow from that hypothesis.

Avoiding such a discussion only serves to cede control of the narratives to religion -- which is exactly what the ISF is supposed to strive to prevent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That might make sense if this were a global reconsideration of a timeless framework. But there's no reasonable explanation of how that could have happened. There is, however, evidence that being transgender, as a physical condition, is in fact becoming much more common. And as I've mentioned before, chemicals (which I've since seen discussed in many places under the name "endocrine disruptors") seem to be responsible. So one can firstly declare that trans women would be women if not for some occurrence, and secondly hypothesize that that occurrence is probably an anomaly of fetal development caused by endocrine disruptors. Debates about rights can in principle follow from that hypothesis.

Avoiding such a discussion only serves to cede control of the narratives to religion -- which is exactly what the ISF is supposed to strive to prevent.

That occurrence being the presence of an x-carrying sperm from their father...

 

[dann]

Several Republican governors across the country are signing new legislation to ban transgender athletes — which isn’t an accident. In this latest episode of The Point, CNN’s Chris Cillizza explains why the GOP is banking on this issue to shore up its culturally conservative base.

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING:

Mississippi governor signs bill banning transgender students from women's sports, approving first anti-trans law of 2021

Donald Trump Jr. slammed transgender athletes at rally before D.C. riots

The Coordinated Attack on Trans Student Athletes

Minnesota bill would impose criminal penalties on transgender athletes

The Next Cultural Battle: States Take Aim at Trans Athletes

AP Exclusive: ‘Bathroom bill’ to cost North Carolina $3.76B
Why Republicans think the transgender sports issue is a winning one (CNN on Youtube, March 16, 2021 - 6:01 min.)

 

[Ziggurat]

That might make sense if this were a global reconsideration of a timeless framework. But there's no reasonable explanation of how that could have happened. There is, however, evidence that being transgender, as a physical condition, is in fact becoming much more common. And as I've mentioned before, chemicals (which I've since seen discussed in many places under the name "endocrine disruptors") seem to be responsible. So one can firstly declare that trans women would be women if not for some occurrence, and secondly hypothesize that that occurrence is probably an anomaly of fetal development caused by endocrine disruptors.

You are making a very elementary mistake here, the origin of which I don't understand since it's simple biology. If the whole endocrine disruptor theory is right, then trans women would be cis men if not for that disruption.

 

[Collin237]

That occurrence being the presence of an x-carrying sperm from their father...

Trans women would be either women or men if not for an occurrence ...

 

[caveman1917]

Data on the sports question.

Paper 1.

Males enjoy physical performance advantages over females within competitive sport. The sex-based segregation into male and female sporting categories does not account for transgender persons who experience incongruence between their biological sex and their experienced gender identity. Accordingly, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) determined criteria by which a transgender woman may be eligible to compete in the female category, requiring total serum testosterone levels to be suppressed below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to and during competition. Whether this regulation removes the male performance advantage has not been scrutinized. Here, we review how differences in biological characteristics between biological males and females affect sporting performance and assess whether evidence exists to support the assumption that testosterone suppression in transgender women removes the male performance advantage and thus delivers fair and safe competition. We report that the performance gap between males and females becomes significant at puberty and often amounts to 10–50% depending on sport. The performance gap is more pronounced in sporting activities relying on muscle mass and explosive strength, particularly in the upper body. Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations should consider this evidence when reassessing current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.

Paper 2.

Conclusion In transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy.

 

[Elaedith]

Census 2021: Judge orders change to sex question guidance

Granting an application for judicial review today, Justice Swift made an interim order that the question on sex should only be answered with the sex on a birth certificate or GRC. Full judicial review to take place next week. If ONS appeals it will likely be on procedural grounds (that it is too late to change the guidance).

During the hearing the judge stated "if there's a problem with withdrawing Guidance now it's one of the ONS's own making". The ONS (as usual) completely ignored advice from over 80 academics with relevant expertise and caved to the gender lobby.

Lord Hunt mentioned the cowardice of the ONS in his speech on 22/02.

The ONS has backed out of the full judicial review that had been scheduled to take place last Thursday. ONS has conceded the guidance for the question on sex should refer to answering with sex on a birth certificate or GRC, and will pay costs.

Meanwhile, trans lobby groups have apparently been issuing advice to ignore the guidance rather than give a 'false' answer (implying that trans people have literally changed sex). It's not enough that there is another question on gender identity. Sex has to be self-identified too.

 

[Collin237]

You are making a very elementary mistake here, the origin of which I don't understand since it's simple biology. If the whole endocrine disruptor theory is right, then trans women would be cis men if not for that disruption.

It seems to say here
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-...week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302?pg=2
that the brain develops before the genitalia. Please explain.

 

[Collin237]

The ONS has backed out of the full judicial review that had been scheduled to take place last Thursday. ONS has conceded the guidance for the question on sex should refer to answering with sex on a birth certificate or GRC, and will pay costs.

Meanwhile, trans lobby groups have apparently been issuing advice to ignore the guidance rather than give a 'false' answer (implying that trans people have literally changed sex). It's not enough that there is another question on gender identity. Sex has to be self-identified too.

Recommending that people fill in a government document incorrectly? Isn't that sedition?

Who are these lobbies?

 

[theprestige]

Quite possibly a bit of all three . As TragicMonkey has been pointing out, these aren't questions with precise answers.

This isn't what my trans and nonbinary friends tell me. They say things like "I know I'm female because before my transition I lived all my life as male and it always just felt wrong. After my transition that feeling is gone and I feel more genuinely like myself."

Feeling better after their transition away from masculinity does not make them female. They still don't know what it's like to be female. They just know what it's like to be male and mitigate their discomfort with being male. Nothing about their experience of transitioning from male is congruent to the experience of actually being female.

I have never had that feeling. I know what it's like to be me, and the identity of me as male is very comfortable. I'm not going to be able to explain any more clearly, because it is not a very quantifiable thing.

And they have never had the feeling of actually being a woman.

And. Do your trans and nonbinary friends tell you they are demographically women? Do they tell you they count as women for the purposes of affirmative action and sex segregation?

 

[theprestige]

Perfect. That's all I'm saying.

Actually there's one more thing I'm saying: that my personal biological situation - by which we both mean what kind of genitals I possess - are nobody else's business so why do you keep on bring it up.

Seriously. Why do people care what genitals someone possesses? Once again, unless you are engaging in a sexual relationship with someone, it's none of your business. Use the pronouns. Use the name. Anything else is superfluous, irrelevant and potentially offensive.

It's not the genitals. It's the biology. It's all the primary and secondary (and tertiary) sexual characteristics, taken holistically. It's menstruation and menopause. It's the valid lived experience of being the biologically female. It's the sociology that derives from the observed biology. It's the valid lived experience of that sociology.

Genitals are but one effect. Biology is the cause. It's about all the direct and indirect effects of that biology, that women have and transwomen don't, taken together.

And really, aside from the trivial and superficial accommodation of preferred pronouns, the only time gender identity should matter anywhere outside a person's head is when genitals are involved. And then, it matters to the other person.

If a transwoman is being treated differently because of her gender self-identity, then society is doing it wrong. Outside of the bedroom, she should get the same treatment as anyone else, regardless of gender. Inside the bedroom, it's her partner's perception of her gender, and degree of attraction to that perceived gender, that prevails.

So on the one hand, the biology is irrelevant. On the other hand, it's the only thing that really is relevant.

And I'm still curious how you think transwomen should be counted, demographically. Do you think they should count as women, for things like the census, or for programs aimed at changing ratios of the sexes in employement, education, etc? Do you think they should count as women, for the purposes of sex segregation?

 

[d4m10n]

Why do people care what genitals someone possesses?

Good question. Going back through the thread, you seem to be the one talking about genitals the most. It's totally unclear to me why they should be relevant to the question of what makes someone non-binary or not.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's not the genitals. It's the biology. It's all the primary and secondary (and tertiary) sexual characteristics, taken holistically. It's menstruation and menopause. It's the valid lived experience of being the biologically female. It's the sociology that derives from the observed biology. It's the valid lived experience of that sociology.

All of which is also none of anyone else's business.

And I'm still curious how you think transwomen should be counted, demographically. Do you think they should count as women, for things like the census, or for programs aimed at changing ratios of the sexes in employement, education, etc? Do you think they should count as women, for the purposes of sex segregation?

Yes. I ran screaming from That Thread, but trans women are women.

Sex segregation should end. All of it.

And one more thing. A minor thing, really. The Census (at least, the Australian Census on which I worked) asks you your sex. It is not checked to confirm that it is "accurate". You can, genuinely, say whatever you like.

 

[Aber]

Sex segregation should end. All of it.

Australian Open tennis will be interesting; will a woman qualify?

 

[Collin237]

Ideologues (on both sides) like to say that chromosomal sex determines anatomical sex, but in real biology there is no absolute rule about anything. Does this rule actually apply in people who identify as transgender? I suspect no one's actually checked.