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

[Collin237]

I understand where you're coming from, and I wish you didn't take it so personally.

Nobody is treating you specifically like a rapist. The problem is that there is no way to know whether any random male human is you or not.

Consider an analogy (take a moment to groan).

Most dogs are good dogs. Most pugs are friendly, loving, affectionate little blobs. Most pitbulls are friendly, loving, affectionate big blobs.

Unfortunately, pitbulls have a statistically higher likelihood of being aggressive and dangerous than pugs do. That's not to say that no pugs are aggressive or dangerous - some certainly could be. And it's also not to say that all pitbulls are aggressive and dangerous - in fact most are not. But it is true that pitbulls are more likely to be aggressive and dangerous than pugs. In addition to that, pitbulls are quite simply larger and stronger than pugs.

So if a pug comes running at someone barking... many people might be cautious, but most people wouldn't be frightened. On the other hand, if a pitbull comes running at someone barking, many people will be frightened. Because if that particular pitbull does happen to be aggressive and dangerous, then they could do real serious harm. In the case of the pug, even if that particular pug is aggressive and dangerous, the pug is less likely to do serious harm simply because of their smaller size.

Male humans are pitbulls; female humans are pugs. Both have the capacity to be dangerous and aggressive... but the likelihoods aren't the same, nor is the magnitude of harm that can be done in general.

It is reasonable and rational to be cautious and frightened about an unfamiliar pitbull running at you barking. If you know that particular pitbull, and you know they are not a threat, then it is not rational to be frightened of them.

If you and I ever end up in each other's RL presence, and we have to pee at the same time, I'm not going to be at all concerned if you follow me into the ladies' room. I've interacted with you personally, and I don't consider you a potential threat. But I would fully expect that all of the other female humans in that restroom would be on guard against you as a potential threat. Because even though it's not fair to you personally... you're still a pitbull.

This entire post is a seething mass of hate. At this point, I'm convinced that you're doing it purposely.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It may be a mental fiction on my part, but I remember noticing a stark difference in my own sense of self around the age of four and a half. No idea what that's about. I just noticed it back then.

IIRC three or four is generally about the age that long-term memories begin to form. So it might be a case of those being your earliest memories of 'self' simply because they're some of your earliest memories.

I don't really know though, this isn't my field. It's just something I find fascinating.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'll only add to the point of post-transition: it's my understanding that most trans people who transition omit the last bit (changing the genitals). Does that make them less trans? I wouldn't think so, but they do otherwise pass for women.

It gets fuzzy. I can understand, and even sympathize with, not wanting to undergo surgery that has such monumental and irreversible effects.

It comes down to being moderately able to pass, and being courteous. One of our self-outed trans forum members has mentioned that they are slight of build, and having taken estrogen now have developed breasts. They pass fairly well, but are still in possession of male genitals. That poster, however, has been clear that they don't want to garner attention, so they always make sure that their genitalia are covered when they are in the ladies' changing room.

If that were the approach generally adopted, I think there'd be only minimal objection from female humans. Indeed, for a very long time, that was how it worked. We human females were aware that some of the people in our midst were male-by-biology, but they made serious effort to fully live as women, and they were considerate and respectful of the issues and barriers that female humans face. They were courteous toward us, and weren't prone to "being in our faces". I sincerely believe that, assuming their description of themselves and their comportment is accurate, most of the female humans in this thread wouldn't object to Boudicca being in our changing rooms with us.

Unfortunately, not all transwomen are like that. And there have been increasing numbers of cases of transwomen behaving like men, demanding that human females center their desires and their wants above our own. Those certainly don't represent all transgender people... but they are the ones who are making noise and driving policy. They are the ones who are competing in female sports and displacing female humans from positions where they would not be at all competitive against males. They are the ones lobbying their trans status to be placed in female prisons where they then proceed to rape the female human inmates. They are the ones taking women's positions in business and politics, under the claim that they can somehow represent the experiences and interests of female humans. They're the ones threatening female humans with rape and death, threatening and engaging in violence against female humans, harassing lesbians who don't wish to have sex with their male bodies, etc.

If that latter group didn't exist with such vocal force, female humans would have a lot less objection all around.

 

[Emily's Cat]

An all-female investigative team? Like Charlie's Angels? I'd dismiss it out of hand also.

Because... sexism?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think we have anything like sex-based political reps here in the U.S.

What is a good example elsewhere in the world?

We do, in some cases. The Democratic party in New York, for example, is defined such that each district or borough (I'm not certain of the exact break-down) is to be represented by one woman and one man (prior to recently this was interpreted as one male human and one female human) within that party. So political activism within the party was designed to provide equal representation.

Sometime last year, I believe, that changed. A male-bodied person who has undergone no hormonal or medical transition, worked very quietly to get that rule changed, so now instead of reading" one man and one woman" it now reads "two people of different genders unless they both identify as non-binary".

So now, within the Democratic party in NY, one region is being represented by two male humans.

In UK there are a few cases.
Dozens of activists quit the Green Party as transgender campaigner is made head of its women's section
I think there's one in the Labour Party to, but I can't recall who.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This entire post is a seething mass of hate. At this point, I'm convinced that you're doing it purposely.

What did you find hateful in it?

 

[Collin237]

Would you care to try again, perhaps with a bit more seriousness and consideration for the effect that your approach would have on a vulnerable and already very sexually assaulted portion of the population?

Are you suggesting you would, as SuburbanTurkey suggested, call the cops if you saw someone in the restroom who you thought was trans? The only sexual assault will be the cop raping the person you reported.

 

[Belz...]

SMH. It seems like that should be clearly satire... but it's not.

I think everyone agrees that what they did was wrong. I was adding another pet peeve on top.

 

[Collin237]

Because... sexism?

Because implausibility. They make a tour of rape shelters, always arrive just when a vandalism is occurring, and are the only ones to report it? You actually believe this crap?

 

[Collin237]

What did you find hateful in it?

The whole thing. Don't play dumb.

 

[Belz...]

This entire post is a seething mass of hate. At this point, I'm convinced that you're doing it purposely.

If you could point to a single part of her post that is hateful, I'd like to see it.

 

[Belz...]

IIRC three or four is generally about the age that long-term memories begin to form. So it might be a case of those being your earliest memories of 'self' simply because they're some of your earliest memories.

I don't really know though, this isn't my field. It's just something I find fascinating.

As I said it's not something I realised later on. I realised it at the time. Not sure if it means anything.

 

[Belz...]

The whole thing. Don't play dumb.

Hateful towards what and whom? In what way. Don't assume that everyone agrees or thinks like you. Provide specifics.

 

[Paul2]

The whole thing. Don't play dumb.

I'm happy to add my voice to those wanting specifics about this. Another to look at it is this: what is the single most hateful part of it? A single sentence that is either the most hateful, or does a great job of exemplifying the hate, or just stands out to you in some way, would suffice.

 

[Collin237]

I'm happy to add my voice to those wanting specifics about this. Another to look at it is this: what is the single most hateful part of it? A single sentence that is either the most hateful, or does a great job of exemplifying the hate, or just stands out to you in some way, would suffice.

She compared men and women to breeds of dogs FFS! WTF is wrong with everyone?

 

[Belz...]

She compared men and women to breeds of dogs FFS! WTF is wrong with everyone?

What's wrong with us is that we don't take analogies literally.

For pete's sake, it's like if I compare women to cars for some analogy or another. I wouldn't be saying that women ARE cars. Cat is making a comparison; saying that men are more dangerous, physically, than women.

As for what analogies are, I think you should look it up in a dictionnary or on wikipedia, but I find it odd that you've never encountered them before. Or were you Bobbing the discussion?

 

[theprestige]

Even if it were true, and some kids get misidentified, it would mean a very small number of confused gay boys who would grow up happy to be gay, would turn into girls happy to be straight.

This is insane.

 

[theprestige]

We do, in some cases. The Democratic party in New York, for example, is defined such that each district or borough (I'm not certain of the exact break-down) is to be represented by one woman and one man (prior to recently this was interpreted as one male human and one female human) within that party. So political activism within the party was designed to provide equal representation.

Sometime last year, I believe, that changed. A male-bodied person who has undergone no hormonal or medical transition, worked very quietly to get that rule changed, so now instead of reading" one man and one woman" it now reads "two people of different genders unless they both identify as non-binary".

So now, within the Democratic party in NY, one region is being represented by two male humans.

Assuming that one of the reps is a man, and the other is a transwoman... One of the reps represents roughly 50% of their constituency. The other rep represents roughly 0.5% of their constituency.

This raises all sorts of questions. The answers are probably going to be interesting. For example:

Does this mean women aren't represented at all in this district?

Of course not. The transwoman can probably represent the women in his district just fine. By the same token, so can the man. And so can the woman represent the men. And so can any of them represent the trans. And the whites can represent the blacks. The jews, the asians. And so on. So are gender quotas in political representation even necessary? Probably not. If they were, every woman in that district who voted for a transwoman rep instead of a woman rep, was voting against their own self-interest. Every woman in America would be talking about how Joe Biden isn't her president.

 

[theprestige]

What's wrong with us is that we don't take analogies literally.

For pete's sake, it's like if I compare women to cars for some analogy or another. I wouldn't be saying that women ARE cars. Cat is making a comparison; saying that men are more dangerous, physically, than women.

As for what analogies are, I think you should look it up in a dictionnary or on wikipedia, but I find it odd that you've never encountered them before. Or were you Bobbing the discussion?

For what it's worth, I thought it was a perfectly cromulent analogy.

 

[Belz...]

For what it's worth, I thought it was a perfectly cromulent analogy.

Coming from you, that's a ringing endorsement!!!