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

[LondonJohn]

I've seen ample evidence that lawyers, while certainly crafty and devious, aren't necessarily either critical thinkers nor particularly ethical. And certainly not above having their own strong biases when they are personally invested in a belief.

And that's exactly why (and when) courts and judges come in.

Incidentally, and related to this particular situation, I don't think the ACLU's patrons or board would be particularly pleased if its lawyers were making a habit of bringing speculative (at best) cases to court and losing - and in the process, 1) accruing significant legal costs (including, of course, the defendants'), and 2) tending to undermine (and certainly not enhancing) the ACLU's reputation and message.

 

[theprestige]

Uhm

Because apparently...

... holding the belief (in principle, at the very least) that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa)...

... is "misogynistic" and/or "anti-woman", and/or "sexist".


And since the person behind this claim states that "Being pro-trans doesn't necessarily mean being anti-woman" and since the person in question has also stated that they are (by their own estimation) pro-trans,

this therefore means by direct inference that the "correct/acceptable" concept of being pro-trans (in this person's eyes) cannot include the holding of a belief that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa).


So apparently it's all good to be pro-trans - and aren't we all pro-trans (or should that perhaps more accurately be: we must avoid giving any indication that we're not pro-trans...) - but only if it's a certain type of pro-trans belief. One which denies something which is pretty central to the very core of what transgender identity means at both a philosophical and practical level.


"Oh yes, of course I'm pro-trans! (Except I want to force transmen to use the women's changing rooms, and vice versa.)"

That seems like the same inference, but with more words. Let's start with your first premise:

"Because apparently... holding the belief (in principle, at the very least) that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa)... is "misogynistic" and/or "anti-woman", and/or "sexist"."

Where does this claim appear?

 

[sarge]

Uhm

Because apparently...

... holding the belief (in principle, at the very least) that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa)...

... is "misogynistic" and/or "anti-woman", and/or "sexist".


And since the person behind this claim states that "Being pro-trans doesn't necessarily mean being anti-woman" and since the person in question has also stated that they are (by their own estimation) pro-trans,

this therefore means by direct inference that the "correct/acceptable" concept of being pro-trans (in this person's eyes) cannot include the holding of a belief that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa).


So apparently it's all good to be pro-trans - and aren't we all pro-trans (or should that perhaps more accurately be: we must avoid giving any indication that we're not pro-trans...) - but only if it's a certain type of pro-trans belief. One which denies something which is pretty central to the very core of what transgender identity means at both a philosophical and practical level.


"Oh yes, of course I'm pro-trans! (Except I want to force transmen to use the women's changing rooms, and vice versa.)"

You keep saying this kind of stuff and it keeps being false.

It is not an anti-trans position to argue that trans people should use the privacy facilities that match their sex. There is not and there should be no such ‘right’. Advocates for this are suggesting that the 99%+ surrender a right in order to create one (that should not exist) for the <1%

 

[theprestige]

Ah, so you've gone on record here stating that, in your belief, transgender people already have all the civil rights they deserve.

I see.

It's a belief that's subject to change with new evidence or reasonable arguments that there are more rights than I've considered. Emily's Cat has already come up with one. Do you think there are any others?

 

[LondonJohn]

That's not very logical.

EC's statement says that being pro trans is anti-woman if it is at the expense of women. The pro-trans part is actually logically irrelevant to the conclusion. It's more for emphasis than anything else. She is saying that any position or ideology that is to the harm of woman is anti-woman. That makes sense.

If it happens to be a pro-trans position, it's a pro-trans, anti-woman position, but the two aren't necessarily connected.

So you take that statement, and say that a logical inference from it is that being pro-trans cannot include something.

Where's the logic in that? Emily's Cat didn't say anything about what pro-trans positions can or cannot include. She just said that if they are at the expense of women, they are anti-woman.

Now, moving on to the thing that can't be included, you cite "the belief that trans men trans men should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms."

That example is certainly not one that is at the expense of women. Does it put women in harm's way? Well, we have a vocabulary issue again, so I'm going to slip into my newly adopted language. I think it put's females in harm's way, by placing them into a room where they will be undressed in the presence of a large number of males. That's pretty risky behavior. However, in my opinion, if it is their choice, it should be allowed.

But what about the males? It means that they might be disrobed in a place where they anticipated and had a reasonable expectation that only other males would be present. It doesn't expose the males to harm, but it may very well expose them to discomfort or embarrassment. Therefore, to respect the males' right to privacy, I think that if they expressed the wish to not share a locker room with a female, that wish should be respected.

But that's a side issue, not logically derived from anything Emily's Cat said. It is not a logical inference.

Summary: Your inference from her statement fails, because EC's statement made no commentary at all about what can or cannot be included in pro-trans ideologies or positions.

No

1) It's not the inference from just that post in isolation. I explained that in my later post.

2) But even taking that one post in isolation (when one knows exactly what the author actually means by "anti-woman" and so on), the implication of it is that the author is saying that the "correct" way to be pro-trans is to include a denial of transmen's rights to use the women's changing rooms (and vice-versa).

So, the author states this:

Being pro-trans doesn't necessarily mean being anti-woman.

If we substitute in what the author actually means by "being anti-woman", we get to the true meaning of that statement:

Being pro-trans doesn't necessarily mean believing that transmen should be allowed to use the women's changing rooms (and vice-versa).

And since we already actually know that (in their opinion) the changing room issue is effectively non-negotiable - that transmen should be made to use the women's changing rooms (and vice-versa) - we get to the final inference:

Being pro-trans cannot include holding the belief (in principle, at the very least) that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa)

I mean, I guess I could have written "In your opinion" at the start of that sentence, and/or I could have written "should not" or "must not" instead of "cannot", but that would only really be window-dressing.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's a belief that's subject to change with new evidence or reasonable arguments that there are more rights than I've considered. Emily's Cat has already come up with one. Do you think there are any others?

Yes. You can look them up in many reliable places*.

I'm only surprised that you're not already aware of most or all of them - and even more surprised that up until about 15 minutes ago you believed that transgender people already had all the civil rights they deserve.


* But feel entirely free of course to wilfully misrepresent what I've written there as me being unable to provide examples. It's "unwilling", not "unable".

 

[LondonJohn]

You keep saying this kind of stuff and it keeps being false.

It is not an anti-trans position to argue that trans people should use the privacy facilities that match their sex. There is not and there should be no such ‘right’. Advocates for this are suggesting that the 99%+ surrender a right in order to create one (that should not exist) for the <1%

You keep saying this kind of stuff and it keeps being false.

 

[Distracted1]

You keep saying this kind of stuff and it keeps being false.

Only if one is asserting that it is "anti-cis" to insist that cis gendered people use the facilities designated for their sex. Which it is not.

 

[LondonJohn]

That seems like the same inference, but with more words. Let's start with your first premise:

"Because apparently... holding the belief (in principle, at the very least) that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa)... is "misogynistic" and/or "anti-woman", and/or "sexist"."

Where does this claim appear?

I suggest you read through the thread. It doesn't even require a careful reading.

 

[theprestige]

Yes. You can look them up in many reliable places*.

Name one reliable place where these rights are enumerated.

 

[Meadmaker]

Uhm

Because apparently...

... holding the belief (in principle, at the very least) that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa)...

... is "misogynistic" and/or "anti-woman", and/or "sexist".


And since the person behind this claim states that "Being pro-trans doesn't necessarily mean being anti-woman" and since the person in question has also stated that they are (by their own estimation) pro-trans,

this therefore means by direct inference that the "correct/acceptable" concept of being pro-trans (in this person's eyes) cannot include the holding of a belief that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa).


So apparently it's all good to be pro-trans - and aren't we all pro-trans (or should that perhaps more accurately be: we must avoid giving any indication that we're not pro-trans...) - but only if it's a certain type of pro-trans belief. One which denies something which is pretty central to the very core of what transgender identity means at both a philosophical and practical level.


"Oh yes, of course I'm pro-trans! (Except I want to force transmen to use the women's changing rooms, and vice versa.)"

There was some ninja-ing going on there. Now i see more clearly the error in your logic.

I'm going to make some assumptions about some positions here, as I express them in different words. Please correct me if I am in error about your positions.



Your position is that it is impossible to be pro-trans unless you support changing rooms that are usable by all men, including trans men, and vice versa. (I'm trying to stick to my newly adopted vocabulary here. "Men" is people with a masculine gender identity.)

Emily's cat's position is that it is mysogynistic to allow a male, including a transwoman, to use a changing room that was intended for female use. (Such a changing room under the archaic language would be called the "women's changing room")

More formally:

Your proposition is "If you do not support trans access to their choice of changing rooms, then you are not pro-trans,"

Her proposition is "If you allow males into a female changing room, you are misogynistic."

You then mix it up. You take your proposition about what it means to be pro-trans, and you combine it with her proposition about what it means to be misogynistic. So you are mixing propositions from two different arguments.

You have imposed a third, previously unstated, proposition on the argument, that if you are pro-trans, you are not misogynistic.

From a persopective of logic, your "logical inference" doesn't fly.

In addition to being an invalid logical inference, several of us disagree with your proposition, quite independent of it's use in the arguments. I believe it is possible to be pro-trans and still reject unrestricted access to private female spaces.

I also will say that I agree with EC's proposition, or at least with something very close to it. I say that if a majority of women want something, and you say it is not important, then you are misogynistic. In saying this, I am adding something to EC's statement. I am adding that keeping males out of female only spaces is something that the majority of women would want.

(Yes, I was careful about word choice there, regarding "female" versus "woman".)

 

[LondonJohn]

Only if one is asserting that it is "anti-cis" to insist that cis gendered people use the facilities designated for their sex. Which it is not.

I mean..... I don't even know where to start with this one.


As a clue though, consider the following:

1) It would (very obviously) be improper to make gay people marry people of the opposite sex if they wanted any sort of legal or religious union with anyone else.

2) Your claim above would be tantamount to a claim that it would be "anti-hetero" to "insist" that heterosexual people marry someone of the opposite sex if they wanted any sort of legal or religious union. Which it is not.

Point (2) is irrelevant and illogical in the consideration of (1), and in whether or not the protagonists in (1) are being denied civil rights.

 

[Sherkeu]

The "umbrella" is an attempt to erase transgender people, and deny them respectful medical care, by drowning them in a sea of imitators.

I don't think anyone is trying to erase a group but there are certainly many disagreements on what criteria is considered "authentically" transgender. The recent definitions are much more inclusive.

Many clinically dysphoric transgenders are now switching to identifying as transex or transsexual to make it clear that their goal is a medical transition to living 100% as the opposite of their assigned sex at birth. They don't want to switch back and forth, or have ambiguous non-conforming gender expressions, or do it for fun on the weekends.

The call for transgender rights, as originally intended all those years ago, was focused pretty clearly of this (now very tiny) portion of the current (trans)gender-identity groups.

The fact remains that most policies today are written to address rights for a broad range of gender-identities including those who have no diagnosis of dyphoria, no desire to transition, and are perfectly fine with the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.
The TRA's are against any medicalized gatekeeping- or any gatekeeping at all really. If you say you are trans, you are. That's it.

I think if policies used the term 'transexual' (those experiencing clinical dysphoria and undergoing a medical transition) it would bridge some gaps of disagreement on trans rights where they encroach on women's rights and spaces.

But I think that ship has sailed.

Going by some of their explanations of what trans can mean, I could easily consider myself transgender. I bet you can too!

 

[Distracted1]

I mean..... I don't even know where to start with this one.


As a clue though, consider the following:

1) It would (very obviously) be improper to make gay people marry people of the opposite sex if they wanted any sort of legal or religious union with anyone else.

2) Your claim above would be tantamount to a claim that it would be "anti-hetero" to "insist" that heterosexual people marry someone of the opposite sex if they wanted any sort of legal or religious union. Which it is not.

Point (2) is irrelevant and illogical in the consideration of (1), and in whether or not the protagonists in (1) are being denied civil rights.

Wrong.
One must either use the facilities designated for them, or not.
It is not "anti" anyone to expect them to conform to this.

Or, as you seem to prefer, if it is "anti" trans to expect a trans individual to conform to this guideline, it is also "anti" cis to expect a cis-gendered person to do so.

 

[Meadmaker]

No

1) It's not the inference from just that post in isolation. I explained that in my later post.

2) But even taking that one post in isolation (when one knows exactly what the author actually means by "anti-woman" and so on), the implication of it is that the author is saying that the "correct" way to be pro-trans is to include a denial of transmen's rights to use the women's changing rooms (and vice-versa).

So, the author states this:




If we substitute in what the author actually means by "being anti-woman", we get to the true meaning of that statement:




And since we already actually know that (in their opinion) the changing room issue is effectively non-negotiable - that transmen should be made to use the women's changing rooms (and vice-versa) - we get to the final inference:




I mean, I guess I could have written "In your opinion" at the start of that sentence, and/or I could have written "should not" or "must not" instead of "cannot", but that would only really be window-dressing.

Ninja'ed again, but it confirms what I wrote in my previous post, that I wrote before I read the post quoted above.

You are adding the requirement in your inference that someone who is pro-trans cannot be misogynistic. That wasn't part of EC's argument.*

EC's argument is perfectly logical, but your inference from her argument is a contradiction, but only because you have added your own position into it.

*ETA: Indeed, not only was it not part of her argument. She was quite explicitly saying that many pro-trans positions and people are, in fact, misogynistic.

 

[LondonJohn]

There was some ninja-ing going on there. Now i see more clearly the error in your logic.

I'm going to make some assumptions about some positions here, as I express them in different words. Please correct me if I am in error about your positions.



Your position is that it is impossible to be pro-trans unless you support changing rooms that are usable by all men, including trans men, and vice versa. (I'm trying to stick to my newly adopted vocabulary here. "Men" is people with a masculine gender identity.)

Emily's cat's position is that it is mysogynistic to allow a male, including a transwoman, to use a changing room that was intended for female use. (Such a changing room under the archaic language would be called the "women's changing room")

More formally:

Your proposition is "If you do not support trans access to their choice of changing rooms, then you are not pro-trans,"

Her proposition is "If you allow males into a female changing room, you are misogynistic."

You then mix it up. You take your proposition about what it means to be pro-trans, and you combine it with her proposition about what it means to be misogynistic. So you are mixing propositions from two different arguments.

You have imposed a third, previously unstated, proposition on the argument, that if you are pro-trans, you are not misogynistic.

From a persopective of logic, your "logical inference" doesn't fly.

In addition to being an invalid logical inference, several of us disagree with your proposition, quite independent of it's use in the arguments. I believe it is possible to be pro-trans and still reject unrestricted access to private female spaces.

I also will say that I agree with EC's proposition, or at least with something very close to it. I say that if a majority of women want something, and you say it is not important, then you are misogynistic. In saying this, I am adding something to EC's statement. I am adding that keeping males out of female only spaces is something that the majority of women would want.

(Yes, I was careful about word choice there, regarding "female" versus "woman".)

No.

The point of principle which wholly underpins everything is this:

It is actually fundamentally impossible for a person a) to consider themselves to be pro-trans-rights, while simultaneously b) taking an unequivocal & absolute position that transmen should not be allowed to use the men's changing rooms

(and vice-versa)

 

[Distracted1]

No.

The point of principle which wholly underpins everything is this:

It is actually fundamentally impossible for a person a) to consider themselves to be pro-trans-rights, while simultaneously b) taking an unequivocal & absolute position that transmen should not be allowed to use the men's changing rooms

(and vice-versa)

The crux of all human rights is what toilet one is allowed to use then?

If I am not allowed to use the toilet of my choice- my human rights do not exist?

Interesting take.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wrong.
One must either use the facilities designated for them, or not.
It is not "anti" anyone to expect them to conform to this.

Or, as you seem to prefer, if it is "anti" trans to expect a trans individual to conform to this guideline, it is also "anti" cis to expect a cis-gendered person to do so.

You've just grafted on the postulate that these sorts of binary-selected communal changing rooms must be segregated on a biological sex basis, rather than a gender basis.

You'd better convey this to an increasing number of national governments, who appear (for some reason - obviously bogus reasons in your belief) to be under the impression that gender segregation is the appropriate way to go.

 

[Distracted1]

You've just grafted on the postulate that these sorts of binary-selected communal changing rooms must be segregated on a biological sex basis, rather than a gender basis.

You'd better convey this to an increasing number of national governments, who appear (for some reason - obviously bogus reasons in your belief) to be under the impression that gender segregation is the appropriate way to go.

You might attempt to grok that neither form of segregation is "anti" anyone.
Or,
As you seem to prefer. They both are.

 

[Meadmaker]

No.

The point of principle which wholly underpins everything is this:

It is actually fundamentally impossible for a person a) to consider themselves to be pro-trans-rights, while simultaneously b) taking an unequivocal & absolute position that transmen should not be allowed to use the men's changing rooms

(and vice-versa)

Very well.

That's your principle. That isn't a logical inference from someone else's principles. It's not a logical inference at all. It's a statement of your belief.

And, by the way, I don't think I or Emily's Cat have ever expressed an "unequivocal and absolute" belief about changing room use. You've add those words.