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

[LondonJohn]

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

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.

It's tiresome, isn't it, to keep having to deal with people stating that they "know" what someone's "correct" pronouns should be if they "know" the person's biological sex.

And yet again, I think what we're witnessing here is latent transphobia and a denial of transgender identity. And so much of it is (in my observation) rooted in a frankly ludicrous "argument" along the lines of: "Well I'm a male and I damn sure know I'm a binary man, so everyone else (male or female) must be the same (man or woman, respectively), so anyone claiming otherwise is either mentally ill or a liar"

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Sex segregation should end. All of it.

So essentially, we should straight-up squeeze 50% of the population out of most sports -- in fact, pretty much tell every single child born with XX chromosomes that there's no point in even going into any sport, they'll be lucky to even qualify at the level of their school -- so we don't offend the feelings of, what, less than half a percent of the population?

REALLY?

Can you see my problem with THAT aberration?

 

[Manger Douse]

So essentially, we should straight-up squeeze 50% of the population out of most sports -- in fact, pretty much tell every single child born with XX chromosomes that there's no point in even going into any sport, they'll be lucky to even qualify at the level of their school -- so we don't offend the feelings of, what, less than half a percent of the population?



REALLY?



Can you see my problem with THAT aberration?

"I don't really care about sports" in 3... 2... 1....

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

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.

Yes, well, presumably they also don't police the census questions about what industry you work in, or what is your ancestry, or what is your highest qualification, or whether you do voluntary work.

If I wanted to, and were in Australia, I could put on the form that I'm of Scottish ancestry, born in India, AND an aboriginal from the Torres Strait Islands, my primary language at home is Mandarin, I don't speak English at all, and I'm my mom's brother. Oh, and I have a bachelor's degree in hairdressing, but I'm currently in preschool. My job title is WANKER, I work overtime all the time, and make a negative income out of it. And I'm a male, but gave birth to 99 babies. (That's all stuff taken from the actual 2016 Australian census form, btw.)

And presumably they don't have the policy or manpower to investigate any of that either. I mean, presumably stuff like whether the income matches what I wrote on my tax form is the jurisdiction of a different branch of the government anyway.

But so what? The fact that I can lie on a census form about just about anything, doesn't mean that whatever lie I wrote there becomes reality. It's a <bleep>ing form, not a magical wish-granting genie lamp. Even by the standards of magical thinking, taking that you can lie on a census form as proof that anything actually is real, is rather daft. I mean even actual proponents of magic or religious miracles or other magical thinking tend to come up with some anecdote that says "it actually happened", not just "well, I could write on a form that it did"

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

"I don't really care about sports" in 3... 2... 1....

Even not caring about sports is a slightly different issue from actually demanding to deny stuff to biological women, and for as flimsy a reason as that acknowledging the existence of biological women offends the feelings of less than half a percent of the population.

The whole thing strikes me as even more stupid than denying that stuff to (biological) women because it offends the incels, since those are a slightly higher number of people you'd make happy with it. So, you know, even as giving privileges to tiny group X over larger group Y goes, it's putting an even tinier group in that aristocratic position at the expense of others. It's like taking the utilitarianism school of ethics and going in the polar opposite direction, because screw the good of many, we've found an acceptable-sounding excuse to care only about the good of the fewest.

But generally, "I don't personally care about domain X" doesn't come across as an excuse to not care about the many people affected. Especially when the pretense is that one is oh so progressive and enlightened.

I mean, I'm personally not interested in medicine or ever becoming a doctor, but I can still see the problem if someone wanted to push some slice of the population out of that domain, based on just what random genetic group they fall into. I'm also not interested in riding at the front of a bus (I generally don't use public transportation at all, and in the rare occasions when I do, I prefer the back anyway), but I can see how it was wrong to say Rosa Parks can't sit in that section. I'm also not interested in dating at my age, but I'm not going, meh, give the incels what they want.

But basically some people just give me the impression that apparently misogyny is ok now and even progressive, if you disguise it as trans rights.

 

[Manger Douse]

Even not caring about sports is a slightly different issue from actually demanding to deny stuff to biological women, and for as flimsy a reason as that acknowledging the existence of biological women offends the feelings of less than half a percent of the population.

The whole thing strikes me as even more stupid than denying that stuff to (biological) women because it offends the incels, since those are a slightly higher number of people you'd make happy with it. So, you know, even as giving privileges to tiny group X over larger group Y goes, it's putting an even tinier group in that aristocratic position at the expense of others. It's like taking the utilitarianism school of ethics and going in the polar opposite direction, because screw the good of many, we've found an acceptable-sounding excuse to care only about the good of the fewest.

But generally, "I don't personally care about domain X" doesn't come across as an excuse to not care about the many people affected. Especially when the pretense is that one is oh so progressive and enlightened.

I mean, I'm personally not interested in medicine or ever becoming a doctor, but I can still see the problem if someone wanted to push some slice of the population out of that domain, based on just what random genetic group they fall into. I'm also not interested in riding at the front of a bus (I generally don't use public transportation at all, and in the rare occasions when I do, I prefer the back anyway), but I can see how it was wrong to say Rosa Parks can't sit in that section.

But basically some people just give me the impression that apparently misogyny is ok now and even progressive, if you disguise it as trans rights.

Other than violent misogyny I can't see the reason why a man would want to be in the ring with a woman

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Other than violent misogyny I can't see the reason why a man would want to be in the ring with a woman

Oh dear. Yeah, I had forgotten that boxing is also one of those segregated sports. Yeah, it kinda makes the case even better than my 4x100m relay swimming examples.

 

[LondonJohn]

So essentially, we should straight-up squeeze 50% of the population out of most sports -- in fact, pretty much tell every single child born with XX chromosomes that there's no point in even going into any sport, they'll be lucky to even qualify at the level of their school -- so we don't offend the feelings of, what, less than half a percent of the population?

REALLY?

Can you see my problem with THAT aberration?

Personally, while I agree strongly with provisions which establish and protect transgender rights, I believe that elite-level sports should be segregated by sex (and indeed I believe that this is exactly what will happen).

However.......

To point out the holes in your argument: in the current regulatory climate, all males under 5ft10 tall haven't got a hope in hell of competing for honours in the men's high jump. Should we (per your argument) have a separate category of men's high jump for males below the height of 5ft10, so that these men will have the chance to be champions in the event?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

To point out the holes in your argument: in the current regulatory climate, all males under 5ft10 tall haven't got a hope in hell of competing for honours in the men's high jump. Should we (per your argument) have a separate category of men's high jump for males below the height of 5ft10, so that these men will have the chance to be champions in the event?

Actually, you know, that's not a bad idea by half. And I mean, why not? After all, we have sports like football for the blind (basically with a bell in the ball), or for people in wheelchairs. Or more comparable, we have the weight categories in boxing.

 

[Manger Douse]

Personally, while I agree strongly with provisions which establish and protect transgender rights, I believe that elite-level sports should be segregated by sex (and indeed I believe that this is exactly what will happen).



However.......



To point out the holes in your argument: in the current regulatory climate, all males under 5ft10 tall haven't got a hope in hell of competing for honours in the men's high jump. Should we (per your argument) have a separate category of men's high jump for males below the height of 5ft10, so that these men will have the chance to be champions in the event?

I don't think the difference between men of various heights competing against each other is greater than the difference between men and women though

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Personally, while I agree strongly with provisions which establish and protect transgender rights, I believe that elite-level sports should be segregated by sex (and indeed I believe that this is exactly what will happen).

Just for the record, I'm all for letting people do whatever the heck they wish, including put on a dress and call themselves women if that's their thing. As I was saying, I've done it before myself, so it would be hypocritical to say it's wrong when others do it.

But basically I'm also of the principle that my right to swing a fist around stops at the point where your nose starts. When someone's rights become privileges at someone else's expense, yeah, sorry, I'm no longer on board.

 

[Darat]

Posts moved from a non moderated thread.

Posted By: Darat

 

[Manger Douse]

In todays Graham Linehan news it seems he was bang on the money about a paedophile admin on the teenage LGBT forums - Reddit have of course sacked the admi-who am I kidding, Reddit are banning people for even mentioning this public figures name

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

Yes, I suppose victims of hate crimes often do "bring it on themselves" by being outspoken. They really only have themselves to blame if they are murdered in the middle of the night during an arson attack. How dare they insult these fine upstanding patriots.

 

[Collin237]

In todays Graham Linehan news it seems he was bang on the money about a paedophile admin on the teenage LGBT forums - Reddit have of course sacked the admi-who am I kidding, Reddit are banning people for even mentioning this public figures name

My guess is that X isn't actually transgender, but was forcibly transitioned by their father as part of a transphobic psy-op.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just for the record, I'm all for letting people do whatever the heck they wish, including put on a dress and call themselves women if that's their thing. As I was saying, I've done it before myself, so it would be hypocritical to say it's wrong when others do it.

But basically I'm also of the principle that my right to swing a fist around stops at the point where your nose starts. When someone's rights become privileges at someone else's expense, yeah, sorry, I'm no longer on board.

Uhmmmm I'm against the notion of one person assaulting another person as well.

You and others don't seem to realise this: if there's a suspicion that granting Group A civil rights might put Group B at potential jeopardy....

...the answer is not to halt the granting of Group A's civil rights.

The answer is to take all reasonable steps to mitigate that potential jeopardy against Group B (via such mechanisms as electronic surveillance, identifiability of potential criminals, suitable grades of punishment, and other deterrent mechanisms), and monitor the situation carefully.

And if it does indeed turn out that the granting of Group A's civil rights results in increased violence etc against Group B that cannot be mitigated.... well then (and only then) it's time to take more decisive action.

 

[Distracted1]

Personally, while I agree strongly with provisions which establish and protect transgender rights, I believe that elite-level sports should be segregated by sex (and indeed I believe that this is exactly what will happen).

However.......

To point out the holes in your argument: in the current regulatory climate, all males under 5ft10 tall haven't got a hope in hell of competing for honours in the men's high jump. Should we (per your argument) have a separate category of men's high jump for males below the height of 5ft10, so that these men will have the chance to be champions in the event?

Not particularly outrageous. There are already weight classes for wrestling and boxing. Height classes for the high jump would make sense, and would probably already exist if there were more people interested in competing in that way.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

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

The challenge with moderated threads is that I have no way to correct my mistyped post, which should have read "the presence of a y-carrying sperm".

That said... They're still either male or female, regardless. And whether they're male or female is a result of the chromosomally directed development path that the fetus takes during gestation.

Are you attempting to argue from a position of "transwomen's brains are female brains"? If that's the case, I'd like to get some background information on your views toward mind-body duality and the existence of souls.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Interesting reading on how ONS decided to produce their initial "guidance" on the sex question in the first place. Nothing quite like giving lots of private time to Stonewall to hear out their position, and then giving a very small group of other people a total of 3 minutes each and not allowing any debate or discussion... and notably not allowing any women's groups to take part in the discussion at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Who are these lobbies?

Stonewall and Mermaids at the top of that list.