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

[Belz...]

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

You know, that question raises a very important point about political representation vs representation in media and business. The point of voting for a representative in a democracy isn't to vote for someone of the same skin colour, gender, identity or orientation, but someone who will represent YOUR interests and those of other people in your discrict. In that respect I have no idea why the aforementioned list of innate and accidental characteristics is important for a candidate. So long as there's no barrier to entry in that respect, there's no issue, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Paul2]

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

I can compare a carrot to a SpaceX rocket ship because both have an elongated shape, but that doesn’t mean my salad is going to enter into orbit.

 

[d4m10n]

I know we haven't covered women's female sport for awhile here, but I found this Twitter thread somewhat enlightening:

https://twitter.com/jaythegoalie/status/1378890083969949699

Among other things, this activist would like the league to bring in males who identify as non-binary, without regard to their hormone levels.

 

[theprestige]

I know we haven't covered women's female sport for awhile here, but I found this Twitter thread somewhat enlightening:

https://twitter.com/jaythegoalie/status/1378890083969949699

Among other things, this activist would like the league to bring in males who identify as non-binary, without regard to their hormone levels.

As best I can tell, he's arguing that women who identify as men should still be allowed to compete as women, even if they're taking performance-enhancing supplements.

And he's also arguing that men who identify as women should be allowed to compete as women, too.

So basically if you're an actual woman in the National Woman's Hockey League, you're getting double penetrated, as it were. You have to compete against women who are taking testoterone, and you have to compete against men who have already taken all the testosterone. The only good news is that some of the women won't have literal penises.

 

[Meadmaker]

So the spaces would feel less safe, which is already a failure to serve women's needs.

As I have discussed this topic for the last decade or so, this realization has come to me and gained more and more importance the more I discuss it.

Why is bungee jumping popular?

Bear with me. It's relevant. Ok. It's an analogy, but give me some latitude.

Fear of heights, and especially fear of falling, is an instinct. Fear of falling is universal. It isn't socialized. It isn't something that happened because someone warned you to be afraid of it. Bungee jumping allows people to face their fears, and overcome them. The rational mind can look and see that the operators have taken precaution after precaution. Especially in America, they can be sued for accidents. Your rational mind tells you there is no reason for fear, while your instinct tells you that this is completely nuts and you are going to die. Going against that instinct creates an awesome feeling. "Surviving" the jump also is a thrill, because your irrational mind is telling you that you were in great danger, so the emotional impact is still as if you you had a near brush with death.

I have come to believe that the anxiety associated with being naked in the presence of the opposite sex is not a rational fear in every circumstance. It is not always a logical reaction to the actual possibility of harm. I believe it, too, is instinctive. Some people will say that's ridiculous, because how could we "evolve" as an animal species an instinct to wear clothes when we are not mating. Well, our ancestors started wearing clothes about 5,000 generations ago. That's plenty of opportunity for behavioral evolution.

And if not specifically wearing clothes, certainly humans have sexual signals and the idea of a sexual signal is innate. Perhaps nudity as a sexual signal is not instinctive, but the existence of a sexual signal is instinctive. Nudity is a socially created thing that triggers the sexual signal. So, being naked around the opposite sex, or having the opposite sex be naked around you, is something that can easily trigger a sexual signal. Moreover, I think that human females' fear of sexual assault is instinctive, so that the presence of a male who is making sexual signals, or making sexual signals in the presence of a male, in a situation where the female is not desiring sex, would naturally trigger a fear of sexual assault.

Perhaps there is some element, though, that makes the female's rational mind aware that there is no real danger. Then, it is possible to overcome her (or his) anxiety. (I don't want to misgender any females. This could apply to transmen as well as cisgender women.) Like when bungee jumping, a human female could, in situations where there is no real threat, go beyond the irrational fear of being in the presence of a naked male if a transwoman is using the same locker room.

So, I think that the fear is instinctive, but like other instinctive fears, humans have the capacity to put them aside. So, it is natural for females to fear being undressed in the presence of males, but it can be overcome through rational thought, just as someone can overcome the fear of falling while bungee jumping.

So, should we allow male transgenders (i.e. transwomen) to use the locker room that is primarily used by females? It would seem to make sense, except for one thing:

Women shouldn't have to feel like they're bungee jumping just to go to Spin Class!

 

[Meadmaker]

As best I can tell, he's arguing that women who identify as men should still be allowed to compete as women, even if they're taking performance-enhancing supplements.

And he's also arguing that men who identify as women should be allowed to compete as women, too.

So basically if you're an actual woman in the National Woman's Hockey League, you're getting double penetrated, as it were. You have to compete against women who are taking testoterone, and you have to compete against men who have already taken all the testosterone. The only good news is that some of the women won't have literal penises.

It's basically rubbish.

Instead of demanding that transwomen should be allowed to compete in the Women's league, he should be arguing that the NWHL name be changed to the NFHL, and allow only females.

That way no one has to choose between sports and identity.

 

[theprestige]

That way no one has to choose between sports and identity.

I used to believe that, two or three installments of this thread ago.

Now it's becoming increasingly clear to me that trans-activism will settle for anything less than being allowed to cross sex-segregation lines as a human right.

 

[Meadmaker]

I used to believe that, two or three installments of this thread ago.

Now it's becoming increasingly clear to me that trans-activism will settle for anything less than being allowed to cross sex-segregation lines as a human right.

Well, that might be true, but their rhetoric says otherwise. It's all about being their authentic selves. So, if the sports leagues are designated as being for females, a transwoman would be clearly out of place, and should not want to participate there. Women who are male ought to want to be in the male league, so they don't need to misidentify themselves.

 

[Collin237]

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.

There is nothing physical about being a person that is dangerous. A dangerous person is such because of how they individually tend to act, not because of what they are.

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.

I've encountered plenty of analogies. And when they refer to types of people, they are always hateful.

Or were you Bobbing the discussion?

Was I saying something based on an uncommon principle? It wouldn't make a rat's ass of a difference if I was, but I'm not. The only unusual thing is that I'm stating it above board.

 

[Matthew Best]

There is nothing physical about being a person that is dangerous. A dangerous person is such because of how they individually tend to act, not because of what they are.

You mean, like pit bulls?

A dangerous dog is such because of how they individually tend to act, not because of what they are, wouldn't you agree?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

There is nothing physical about being a person that is dangerous. A dangerous person is such because of how they individually tend to act, not because of what they are.

That's great, when we're talking about an individual.

If we're talking about biological men en masse, they do tend to be physically bigger, combined with being physically more aggressive.

We can debate how much of a threat this is, if you like, but you can't dismiss this by diverting to the fact that individuals are uniquely dangerous; that isn't under debate.

Another analogy: would you feel safer being around calm, gentle 800 lb tigers, or aggressive, violent toddlers?

ETA: Kind of a trick question, as I would probably like the tigers more, but, still, they're tigers.

 

[Collin237]

I can compare a carrot to a SpaceX rocket ship because both have an elongated shape, but that doesn’t mean my salad is going to enter into orbit.

This is a nice carrot. It's not like the carrots in orbit.

 

[Collin237]

You mean, like pit bulls?

A dangerous dog is such because of how they individually tend to act, not because of what they are, wouldn't you agree?

No. Pit bulls are dangerous because they've been bred, by dog breeders, to be tools of a dangerous agenda (dog fighting). Only a religious fanatic would think something similar about people.

 

[Matthew Best]

How about Staffies, then?

 

[Collin237]

That's great, when we're talking about an individual.

If we're talking about biological men en masse, they do tend to be physically bigger, combined with being physically more aggressive.

We can debate how much of a threat this is, if you like, but you can't dismiss this by diverting to the fact that individuals are uniquely dangerous; that isn't under debate.

Another analogy: would you feel safer being around calm, gentle 800 lb tigers, or aggressive, violent toddlers?

Let's see. A tiger sitting on a toilet and the toilet breaking under its weight? A toddler sitting on a toilet and falling in and drowning?

Oh wait. You weren't talking about toilets?

 

[caveman1917]

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?

In Belgium political parties are required to have equal representation on election lists.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Let's see. A tiger sitting on a toilet and the toilet breaking under its weight? A toddler sitting on a toilet and falling in and drowning?

Oh wait. You weren't talking about toilets?

No, I wasn't. I was talking about the perception of threat. Glad I could help.

 

[d4m10n]

Now it's becoming increasingly clear to me that trans-activism will settle for anything less than being allowed to cross sex-segregation lines as a human right.

May we assume you meant "not settle" here?

In Belgium political parties are required to have equal representation on election lists.

Fascinating! Wonder how they are handling the general cultural shift from sex to gender over there.

 

[Belz...]

There is nothing physical about being a person that is dangerous. A dangerous person is such because of how they individually tend to act, not because of what they are.

That is complete nonsense. The average man can overpower the average woman quite easily BECAUSE of physical realities.

I've encountered plenty of analogies. And when they refer to types of people, they are always hateful.

Well then the problem is with how you interpret analogies, not with analogies themselves. Presumably, this is because you don't understand how analogies work.

Let's go back to my hypothetical analogy. If I say "Women are like cars. If you take care of them, and are willing to help with their problems, your relationship with them can go far.", it might be simplistic and silly, but it is not hateful, nor is it actually saying that women are objects.

Was I saying something based on an uncommon principle? It wouldn't make a rat's ass of a difference if I was, but I'm not. The only unusual thing is that I'm stating it above board.

Forgive me but from my short experience seeing you post you seem to enjoy being adversarial and confrontational even when the situation doesn't merit it.

 

[Belz...]

Let's see. A tiger sitting on a toilet and the toilet breaking under its weight? A toddler sitting on a toilet and falling in and drowning?

Oh wait. You weren't talking about toilets?

What the **** are you talking about?