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

[Meadmaker]

I didn't realize it originated with you. I didn't follow the chain all the way back.


As for what you said above, I'm not so sure. Obviously, there is no innate drive to wear pants instead of skirts, or wear makeup or earrings or particular hairstyles.


But could there be an innate drive to "look like a girl"? And then the specific aspects of your society dictate what that means? I don't think the science is at the state where it can answer that question definitively.

It occurs to me, though, that if there truly is anything at all innate about gender, independent from sex, the idea of "gender fluid" seems rather extraordinary. I suppose "gender neutral" could make sense, but the idea that you have an innate characteristic to cause you to change gender sometimes seems a bit unbelievable.

 

[Belz...]

I already have addressed your point. In probably dozens of posts within these threads. Including one extremely recent one.

But if you require spoon-feeding, here you go (you can print this out and laminate it for future reference as my opinion, if you like):

There you go again, belittling anyone who is trying to engage you in a discussion where you and they disagree.

Females should expect to have to share communal changing rooms with transgender males*. But they should also expect 1) all reasonable safeguards** to have been put in place beforehand, and 2) the authorities to monitor the situation very closely, and to be ready to act quickly and decisively if the safety of females was indeed being compromised.

Okay. We might be getting somewhere. Now, A) Why should they expect this? and B) How would you ensure 1) and 2) are implemented?

 

[Belz...]

Fine. If I say I believe sexual orientation is innate, what do you believe I mean? Because to me it means it's something that precedes knowledge of the world, and therefore can't refer to the world. But apparently that doesn't make sense to anyone.

Well it doesn't make sense because everything is in relation to the world. Otherwise I'd understand what you mean by "innate" quite well.

If sexual orientation is innate then (assuming you're either heterosexual or homosexual) before you were born, when the only person you know exists is yourself, you had a preference for whether, if another person exists and you wanted to be with it, you'd rather it be male or female. But the only way you'd know that a person is male or female is if you knew it about yourself.

I don't think you can confidently state that foetuses know anything, themselves included. Whatever experience they have is too fuzzy to lead to any learning.

 

[Strawberry]

And why should women (cis or trans) in those spaces feel any more comfortable when Seani walks in than they would when you or I walk in, given the only source of information available is appearance?

And yes, I know, the government will have magical "safeguards" in place. Which of course is utterly unmanageable in the real world.

What you are arguing for is effectively unisex facilities.

What he is arguing for is the destruction of any right to privacy and safety for the female sex in places where we have to change our clothes or pull our underwear down.

Let's not be coy here, we all know that if such places are segregated by gender rather than sex, transmen will be vulnerable in male spaces and women will be vulnerable in female spaces due to the presence of males. Both sets of changing rooms will become male dominated and the female sex will find their freedom to move around in society becoming more restrictive.

Which I rather suspect is the whole point for many of the men who are so vocal about pushing for this.

 

[Paul2]

I didn't realize it originated with you. I didn't follow the chain all the way back.


As for what you said above, I'm not so sure. Obviously, there is no innate drive to wear pants instead of skirts, or wear makeup or earrings or particular hairstyles.


But could there be an innate drive to "look like a girl"? And then the specific aspects of your society dictate what that means? I don't think the science is at the state where it can answer that question definitively.

Or, is there an innate drive to be focused on decorating oneself to attract a mate beyond just dressing up cleanly and nicely (that is, doing things like make-up and having a large wardrobe), in which the specifics of what dressing up looks like is culturally determined but the focus on doing so is hardwired?

Or the innate drive might be present in one sex, for whom a sexual trigger is visual stimulation, so the other sex is focused on presenting a sexually attractive appearance. What is a sexually attractive appearance could be culturally modified, but the drive to have a sexually attractive appearance would be hard wired more or less.

I have no idea if any of the above is correct, but I'd bet that the interplay of nature and nurture could be complex enough to prevent a simplistic "this is hardwired/not-hardwired so nothing else matters."

 

[TomB]

** I will expect governments, legislatures, regulators and civil servants all to engage to a very significant degree in the conception, scoping, testing, focus-grouping, rolling-out and monitoring of safeguards. And I will expect governments and legislatures to be prepared to allocate significant and appropriate resources (personnel and cost) to it.

Will there be government resources to monitor the facilities at every private shop, restaurant, night club, dive bar, church, school, health club etc where there are multi-stall bath or changing rooms?

Not all facilities in question are public property. In fact, I would wager that most are not.

 

[Belz...]

Will there be government resources to monitor the facilities at every private shop, restaurant, night club, dive bar, church, school, health club etc where there are multi-stall bath or changing rooms?

Of course! Naturally, these will eventually be replaced by automation.

 

[sarge]

It'd be helpful then if you at least made an attempt to use the definitions of terms that have become generally accepted when talking in academic/policy terms of transgender identity.

i.e. "male" & "female" = biological sex;

and "man" & "woman" (and "boy" & "girl") = gender.

Otherwise things get confusing and imprecise very quickly.

It not only is not generally accepted that man/women refers to gender, it is generally refuted that sex and gender are separable by policy makers in the US.

It is generally accepted that biological sex is the absolute discriminator between man and woman and that resources assigned on the basis of ‘sex’ are assigned based on genitalia, and that this is right, proper, and absolutely does not infringe on any persons rights.

You may wish it otherwise, but that certainly is the state of affairs today.

 

[Collin237]

Of course! Naturally, these will eventually be replaced by automation.

Or, even cheaper, stories about automation. On some forsaken website, maybe there already are.

*** Extra! Extra! Edward Snowden develops fusion-powered spy grid! ***

 

[Collin237]

It is generally accepted that biological sex is the absolute discriminator between man and woman and that resources assigned on the basis of ‘sex’ are assigned based on genitalia, and that this is right, proper, and absolutely does not infringe on any persons rights.

Not absolutely. Only on the condition of not being detailed in law.

 

[LondonJohn]

Will there be government resources to monitor the facilities at every private shop, restaurant, night club, dive bar, church, school, health club etc where there are multi-stall bath or changing rooms?

There will have to be sufficient resources to do what is deemed reasonably necessary. Far brighter brains than mine will be paid to work up ideas, test them out and cost them, trial them, open consultations on them, do limited initial roll-outs of them, get more feedback, then decide whether or not they become policy objectives.

I threw a couple of ideas into the ring, as examples of the type of thing that might be considered. Since then, I have (predictably, unfortunately) got back a) nothing but shoot-downs of the AV recordings idea (when I'd also mentioned several further examples....), and b) nothing whatsoever constructive about alternatives. It's almost as if people were willing there to be no workable solution at all to this problem. But why would that be...??

Not all facilities in question are public property. In fact, I would wager that most are not.

I would wager exactly the same. But you realise that governments and legislatures can, by way of passing laws and introducing other statutory requirements, enforce measures on private operators? Don't you?

 

[LondonJohn]

It not only is not generally accepted that man/women refers to gender, it is generally refuted that sex and gender are separable by policy makers in the US.

Well, in the UK it is:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21


But then we have proven to be more enlightened than the US in these sorts of areas over the past century or so. The US will catch up again eventually, though.

It is generally accepted that biological sex is the absolute discriminator between man and woman and that resources assigned on the basis of ‘sex’ are assigned based on genitalia, and that this is right, proper, and absolutely does not infringe on any persons rights.

Again, not in the UK.

You may wish it otherwise, but that certainly is the state of affairs today.

Here in the UK, I don't need to wish it otherwise. Because it is the state of affairs here today.

(Don't worry though - hopefully it won't take the US long to catch up)

 

[LondonJohn]

What he is arguing for is the destruction of any right to privacy and safety for the female sex in places where we have to change our clothes or pull our underwear down.

Let's not be coy here, we all know that if such places are segregated by gender rather than sex, transmen will be vulnerable in male spaces and women will be vulnerable in female spaces due to the presence of males. Both sets of changing rooms will become male dominated and the female sex will find their freedom to move around in society becoming more restrictive.

I see. More "Reefer Madness"

Which I rather suspect is the whole point for many of the men who are so vocal about pushing for this.

I rather think it's not. I think that for the vast majority of men who support it, the "whole point" is to give transgender people rights which at least come somewhere close to those enjoyed by cisgender people*. But well done on imputing your own value judgement in such a sweeping manner.


* Without placing any cisgender people in increased risk to their personal safety or to legitimate claims related to privacy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, really. Because Earthborn's post was written in the context of a discussion about the development of sexually dimorphic characteristics, and particularly in the context of a claim that these things are dependent on socialization.

No it wasn't.

It was written in the context of a discussion about that academic paper, which was all about abolishing the practice of registering any baby as either male or female.

The paper's claim was that by registering a (not intersex) baby as (eg) "female", this influences the way in which that person develops - including the ways in which their bodies develop. And an example of that might be that females are expected or encouraged to develop slender bodies with little expansion of muscle mass..... in direct contrast to males, where the growth of muscle mass is actively condoned.

If you follow this string of posts back, you'll find a link to the paper's abstract, I think.

 

[Collin237]

Well, in the UK it is:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

You're still obsessed with the ONS?

Here in the UK, I don't need to wish it otherwise. Because it is the state of affairs here today.

So when you talk about your magical surveillance system, that's what's actually happening in the UK?

 

[Collin237]

I see. More "Reefer Madness"

I'll give you that one, as a Stopped Clock.

 

[sarge]

Well, in the UK it is:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21


But then we have proven to be more enlightened than the US in these sorts of areas over the past century or so. The US will catch up again eventually, though.



Again, not in the UK.







Here in the UK, I don't need to wish it otherwise. Because it is the state of affairs here today.

(Don't worry though - hopefully it won't take the US long to catch up)

In the UK as in the US, sex is still the discriminator in the assignment of privacy facilities. In this, you are virtually identical to the US and indeed the rest of the world.

You call it enlightened, the rest of the rational world calls it misogyny.

 

[Belz...]

In the UK as in the US, sex is still the discriminator in the assignment of privacy facilities. In this, you are virtually identical to the US and indeed the rest of the world.

You call it enlightened, the rest of the rational world calls it misogyny.

I don't call it misogyny, though I'm open to the possibility. I just call it pointlessly and radically ideological.

 

[Strawberry]

I see. More "Reefer Madness"






I rather think it's not. I think that for the vast majority of men who support it, the "whole point" is to give transgender people rights which at least come somewhere close to those enjoyed by cisgender people*. But well done on imputing your own value judgement in such a sweeping manner.


* Without placing any cisgender people in increased risk to their personal safety or to legitimate claims related to privacy.

"Reefer madness"is such a new and exciting way to dismiss women's fear of being raped. It's so much more fun than accusing us of hysteria.


When I say new and exciting, I actually meant boring old male chauvinist who has no business telling me who I should be sharing female spaces with in the first place.

London John, who is so strident about this drive to make every space gender neutral. And yet. John himself will never have to suffer the consequences his pet politics.

London John would recoil in horror at the sight of a white man in blackface occupying spaces reserved for an oppressed group. But he insists that men who don womanface are entitled to occupy the same rape crisis support group as actual female rape victims?

Check your male privilege there, London John.

 

[Collin237]

But he insists that men who don womanface are entitled to occupy the same rape crisis support group as actual female rape victims?

So you believe trans people have put on an invisible costume, and keep wearing that exact same costume every moment of their lives? And what would be underneath this costume, lizard skin?