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

[Matthew Best]

 

[Belz...]

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?

I'm really struggling to understand your point here.

 

[d4m10n]

London John, who is so strident about this drive to make every space gender neutral.

LJ isn't arguing for gender-free (unisex) spaces, he's arguing for communal spaces segregated by gender, that is, whether users personally identify with masculinity or femininity.

 

[Collin237]

I'm really struggling to understand your point here.

Strawberry is pretending that transgender is something someone puts on for a performance, and compared a transgender person's entire life to a minstrel show. I was trying to show how ridiculous that is.

Not to mention, it's also a talking point invented by professional misogynists.

 

[Belz...]

Strawberry is pretending that transgender is something someone puts on for a performance, and compared a transgender person's entire life to a minstrel show. I was trying to show how ridiculous that is.

I don't think that's what Strawberry was doing, though I can see now how you might have interpreted it that way. She can correct me if I'm wrong, but she was talking about a specific subset of people (males) who are now suggested to be able to go to traditionally female-only spaces, but who are (this subgroup) not really trans. If "I'm trans!" is all that's required for someone to be allowed access to these spaces, I can understand why women might be uncomfortable at the notion.

 

[Strawberry]

LJ isn't arguing for gender-free (unisex) spaces, he's arguing for communal spaces segregated by gender, that is, whether users personally identify with masculinity or femininity.

I know that. I'm pointing out that spaces segregated by gender are mixed sex, and therefore deny the female sex the rights to privacy and safety that single sex spaces were invented for in the first place.

 

[Strawberry]

I don't think that's what Strawberry was doing, though I can see now how you might have interpreted it that way. She can correct me if I'm wrong, but she was talking about a specific subset of people (males) who are now suggested to be able to go to traditionally female-only spaces, but who are (this subgroup) not really trans. If "I'm trans!" is all that's required for someone to be allowed access to these spaces, I can understand why women might be uncomfortable at the notion.

Correct.

Although your post has made me curious about something - how do we define "really trans" ? How am I, as a woman, supposed to know the difference between a man in a dress coming into the women's toilets to perv on people and a transwoman who just wants to pee? Do I have to wait until he actually commits a sexual assault before I call bs?

 

[Strawberry]

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?

No, I just believe that women who have been raped are entitled to a female only support group. Males, no matter how they identify, have no right to be in the room.

 

[Belz...]

Correct.

Although your post has made me curious about something - how do we define "really trans" ?

Normally I'd argue that "really trans" is someone with gender dysphoria, but even if I'm to agree that one's feelings of the moment suffice, "really trans" is someone who is really feeling at the moment that they are of a different gender...

...of course the issue with both of these is that, in the latter case, you have no access to their feelings or motives, and in the former, that the only way to know is to carry some sort of ID at all times, which has unfortunate implications.

Rather, as far as restrooms go, I'd say "wherever you can pass" seems like a good rule of thumb. As for sports, I'd go with sex, full stop, and with changing rooms and showers, I still don't know. As far as rape centers go, definitely females should not be forced to accept males. Maybe a center specifically for trans people would do, but due to the low number of trans people it might not be practical. Again, I don't know.

Maybe it will turn out that women's objections to such inclusivity are not reasonable, and that after a while no one will care anymore, and that the fears of abuse by pretenders were unfounded. But we don't know for sure at this point. Maybe some sort of tryouts of various solutions could be useful?

 

[Strawberry]

Normally I'd argue that "really trans" is someone with gender dysphoria, but even if I'm to agree that one's feelings of the moment suffice, "really trans" is someone who is really feeling at the moment that they are of a different gender...

...of course the issue with both of these is that, in the latter case, you have no access to their feelings or motives, and in the former, that the only way to know is to carry some sort of ID at all times, which has unfortunate implications.

Rather, as far as restrooms go, I'd say "wherever you can pass" seems like a good rule of thumb. As for sports, I'd go with sex, full stop, and with changing rooms and showers, I still don't know. As far as rape centers go, definitely females should not be forced to accept males. Maybe a center specifically for trans people would do, but due to the low number of trans people it might not be practical. Again, I don't know.

Maybe it will turn out that women's objections to such inclusivity are not reasonable, and that after a while no one will care anymore, and that the fears of abuse by pretenders were unfounded. But we don't know for sure at this point. Maybe some sort of tryouts of various solutions could be useful?

Given that women and girls have already been raped and sexually assaulted by self declared transwomen in female spaces, we do already know that women's fears are well founded.

Whether the rapists in question were genuinely trans or merely opportunists taking advantage of the safeguarding loophole ripped open by the trans lobby, who knows. Frankly, I don't care. The top priority for any civilized society should be the right of women and girls to live free of being sexually assaulted, validation of people's gender feelings should be way lower down the list.

 

[Collin237]

I don't think that's what Strawberry was doing, though I can see now how you might have interpreted it that way.

Thank you for understanding me. My autism makes it difficult.

If "I'm trans!" is all that's required for someone to be allowed access to these spaces, I can understand why women might be uncomfortable at the notion.

I 100% agree with you on that. But is anyone here making that claim? CMIIW but a few pages ago, didn't LondonJohn say he doesn't consider such a thing valid, and was even (ironically, I assume) called a transphobe for it?

 

[Collin237]

No, I just believe that women who have been raped are entitled to a female only support group. Males, no matter how they identify, have no right to be in the room.

We were talking about public spaces. A rape shelter is a gated community. If you have a complaint about a rape shelter, why do you think any of us even have a right to know about it, much less want to?

 

[Belz...]

Given that women and girls have already been raped and sexually assaulted by self declared transwomen in female spaces, we do already know that women's fears are well founded.

My apologies, but could you post a link or stats for that? That would help a lot in future discussions.

 

[theprestige]

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? : rolleyes :

First, it's a visible costume. An outward performance of "womanhood". That's the whole point.

Underneath that, we assume there is an "invisible costume" - their own self-identity of womanhood, which the visible costume is supposed to express.

Underneath that costume... Is a man.

---

If you like race as an analogy, consider the parallel case of Rachel Dolezal.

She put on a visible costume - blackface, essentially - to express her self-identity of being a black person. And underneath that... She was white.

---

Or take a hypothetical sufferer of BIID.

They put on "leg disabled" as a visible costume, over their invisible costume self-identifying as leg disabled. Underneath the costume... Their legs are fine.

Or were fine, before they had them amputated. As is the inalienable human right of anyone whose invisible costume is at odds with their physical reality. /s

 

[Strawberry]

We were talking about public spaces. A rape shelter is a gated community. If you have a complaint about a rape shelter, why do you think any of us even have a right to know about it, much less want to?

And yet trans activists have a track record of using political power to strip funding from Vancouver Rape Refuge because it offers female only shelter space, and when that didn't succeed in closing them down, death threats were scrawled on the walls and a dead rat nailed to the door.

A misogynist wearing womanface isn't going to limit their determination to abolish female spaces to toilets, as we can see from the actions of people like Morgan, (nee Ronan), Oger and Jessica, (nee Jonathan), Yaniv.

 

[Strawberry]

My apologies, but could you post a link or stats for that? That would help a lot in future discussions.

I can post as many examples as you like, but stats are hard to come by, partly because many places have begun recording crime stats by self declared gender rather than sex.

Here's one, just let me know if you need more....


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8647171/transgender-woman-sexually-assaulted-girl-morrisons/

 

[Belz...]

And yet trans activists have a track record of using political power to strip funding from Vancouver Rape Refuge because it offers female only shelter space, and when that didn't succeed in closing them down, death threats were scrawled on the walls and a dead rat nailed to the door.

I hope they throw the book at them for killing wildlife.

 

[Meadmaker]

I can post as many examples as you like, but stats are hard to come by, partly because many places have begun recording crime stats by self declared gender rather than sex.

Here's one, just let me know if you need more....


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8647171/transgender-woman-sexually-assaulted-girl-morrisons/

To be fair, part of the reason stats are hard to come by is that the number of incidents is extremely small. (At least in the US)

I've seen the story you posted before. I've seen two unmistakable voyeurism cases in Target. There was a third about a week ago that seems like it might be a similar case, also in Target, but the perpetrator had not been caught last time I looked. I've seen one example of a sexual assault in a women's shelter, and another example of lewd behavior in a women's shelter.

In other words, there's an occasional hit, but not many.

That doesn't change my mind that such spaces ought to be reserved for females, but it isn't irrelevant either. To be honest, I expected a lot more cases than there have been.


(Aside: Welcome back. You might see some weirdness in my own posting if I get deeply involved in conversation again. Last week I announced that I would be adopting the newspeak vocabulary in this thread, in which "women" were people who had a feminine gender, and all that. My opinions haven't changed on the subject. It's just an exercise in illustrating some issues. My first post was about why, if we were to all start using the new vocabularies, the first thing we should do would be to rename girls' sports divisions to female sports divisions, just to make it obvious that we segregate by sex instead of gender. At some point, I'll do the same thing for changing rooms.)

 

[Strawberry]

I hope they throw the book at them for killing wildlife.

Yes, of course. It's the rat that's important here not the traumatized rape victims inside.

 

[TomB]

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 haven't seen such studies and safeguards referenced in legislative proposals. Honestly, the only reference to doing studies or putting safeguards in place I've noted in any media has been in your posts. Perhaps you have evidence of their existence you can link to? Or are you just assuming that the government(s) will do such things?

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...??

You threw out safeguard ideas that had obvious flaws. This is no different then when it was (in previous versions of the thread) suggested that gender ID certificates (or other forms of ID) could be used to resolve the issue if someone believed that a person should not be in a particular facility. This was also shot down as "showing papers."

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?

Sure. But laws aren't magic. If I make a law that "video can only be reviewed by authorized persons under specific conditions," that doesn't actually mean that video will only be reviewed by authorized persons under specific conditions. You still have to trust the owners and of the bar/restaurant/gas station/health club/shop to follow the law. And their employees. That's because the actual implementation of these safeguards (like cameras) is done by the owners and their agents, not by some government agency.

And even the government...
There have been problems with security body scan images being leaked: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/tsa-backlash-grows-over-leaked-body-scans-many-other-scandals/343384/

So you are asking people to trust government at something that government has not been trustworthy with in the past.