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

[TomB]

Yes which is why bathrooms should be segregated by weight class, not sex.

(Yes I'm joking, but there's a point there.)

No...upper body strength.
As a safeguard, the government will station a gym teacher and a pull-up bar outside every multi-stall restroom.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I feel a huge amount of sympathy for female human athletes.

I swear, it really does seem like we're trying to roll back the clock and make sure that all of the female humans 1) have no means to enjoy athletics and sports and 2) are too intimidated by the increased risks to enjoy social life and 3) are deprived of opportunities in business and politics because male humans are being considered 'women'... all of which has the net effect of relegating female humans back to the kitchen.

Pair that with the encroachment on our bodily autonomy and reproductive rights coming from the Republican side... and pretty much female humans are just plain screwed.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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!

I would also add: NOBODY should be FORCED to bungee jump against their will.

 

[TomB]

Yes. But I don't accept that that applies to a male who would pass the Eyebrow test. That could not be done by simply representing womanhood. It would have to be someone whose maleness is honestly not casually visible. I don't accept that a male with a normal testosterone level could accomplish this.

What is the eyebrow test?

I found these...
https://www.blogthings.com/theeyebrowtest/
https://samhorn.com/what-is-the-eyebrow-test/

...but I don't think they are what you are referring to.

 

[Meadmaker]

Indeed. The tortured logic of those who are opposed to transgender rights forces them to chase their tails like this on most of the issues they oppose. And, just as with the communal changing rooms issue, the only solution that would logically satisfy their conditions would be for transgender people simply not to be permitted to participate in sports altogether.

 

[Ziggurat]

No...upper body strength.

No, all strength, not just upper body.

 

[LondonJohn]

For the record incidentally, I think Emily's Cat's analogy was a very good one, in terms of the issue it addressed. I also agree entirely with the underlying assessment re males and females.

But.

This is, unfortunately, of little or no relevance - as a principle - when evaluating the normalisation of transgender rights. Put simply: a government cannot (and should not) ban transwomen from women's changing rooms (etc) on the basis of males being statistically more likely to be strong and aggressive than females.

What governments can - and should - do is 1) sort out transgender rights, then 2) examine and identify (before the fact) all potential unwanted negative consequences of awarding those rights; and then 3) introduce as many contingencies as are reasonable and practical to mitigate those perceived risks. And then monitor carefully and adjust. And only if it turns out that there's no practical way of reducing the real-life risks to acceptable levels (and it's up to governments to determine what "acceptable" is here), modify or reverse the original rights legislation as required.

When black civil rights reforms allowed - for the first time - a young, powerful black male to share a narrow bus seat with a slim white schoolgirl (pre-civil-rights, no black people were allowed to share a bench with any white person), it's not difficult to see that white parents were worried that the introduction of those black civil rights could have direct negative consequences in terms of the increased risk to the safety of white girls on busses. But guess what: that (sincerely-held, and statistically correct) concern very obviously did not provide a reason to prevent black people from having the same rights as white people on busses.

 

[Earthborn]

It would be up to the leagues to decide on whether exceptions should allowed for people who have medical transitions or treatments give them advantages or penalties that might make it more sensible to allow, or prohibit, such people in one league or the other.

So the same sort of exceptions should be made as is the case with transwomen competing in Women's leagues, and transmen competing in Men's leagues. Seems to me your supposed solution doesn't really solve anything.

If you want to reduce the hostility towards the transgender rights movement, tell people that they have to do more than put on a skirt before they'll be allowed into the ladies' room.

If you want to claim to be in favour of transgender rights at all, stop segregating some many aspects of life and then demanding people should undergo medical treatments just to fit into a social category.

 

[LondonJohn]

I feel a huge amount of sympathy for female human athletes.

I swear, it really does seem like we're trying to roll back the clock and make sure that all of the female humans 1) have no means to enjoy athletics and sports and 2) are too intimidated by the increased risks to enjoy social life and 3) are deprived of opportunities in business and politics because male humans are being considered 'women'... all of which has the net effect of relegating female humans back to the kitchen.

Pair that with the encroachment on our bodily autonomy and reproductive rights coming from the Republican side... and pretty much female humans are just plain screwed.

I agree. Female humans may as well pull a People's Temple and commit revolutionary suicide.


(And what makes your powerful argument seem even stranger is that governments, legislatures and expert bodies all across the world's liberal democracies have sizeable - and if not proportional, then not far off it - representations of female humans. Why are those female humans acting like turkeys voting for Christmas? Are they under the Svengali-like control of the male humans? It's a huge mystery.)

 

[theprestige]

Well I can feel free to ask you here, since you've given a general view on analogies already within this thread:

Do you, theprestige, believe that arguments by analogy always fail in practice?

And do you believe that arguments by analogy are never effective in practice as a tool of argumentation.


Obviously I'm loathe to put words into your mouth, but if you did happen to believe both of the above, how would that sit alongside your assessment of Emily's Cat's analogy here?

This is turning from an aside into a derail. If you want to continue this in the dedicated thread, I'll be happy to meet you there.

 

[LondonJohn]

In high school sports, which teams should the transboys be eligible for, in your opinion?

 

[Olmstead]

I agree. Female humans may as well pull a People's Temple and commit revolutionary suicide.


(And what makes your powerful argument seem even stranger is that governments, legislatures and expert bodies all across the world's liberal democracies have sizeable - and if not proportional, then not far off it - representations of female humans. Why are those female humans acting like turkeys voting for Christmas? Are they under the Svengali-like control of the male humans? It's a huge mystery.)

They don't want to get rape threats?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Anecdotal derail that is tangentially related...

When we were in college, my now-spouse, then-significant-other was one of the volunteers on our "brother floor" who would go meet female residents of the dorm after evening classes, and walk them back so they weren't alone.

One of my fellow female students was tall and muscular, and they insisted that they didn't need an escort, they were completely capable of looking after themself, and could take on any male. My then-significant-other put on a demonstration with several of the female students in our dorm... showing exactly how easy it was for them to be taken down and made helpless by a male human. My spouse isn't particularly tall, nor were they particularly muscular (a bit soft around the middle actually), nor particularly athletic. But they are *male* and have the benefit of testosterone. The aforementioned female student who was so certain they could look after themself actually burst into tears when they were pinned. They were shocked at how completely helpless they were against a male opponent who wasn't in nearly as good of shape as they were.

The lesson from this is that a mediocre specimen of male physique is fully capable of incapacitating and causing serious harm to a very fit, highly athletic, and muscular female human with only moderate effort.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is turning from an aside into a derail. If you want to continue this in the dedicated thread, I'll be happy to meet you there.

LOL. I'll just note that you were very keen on the efficacy of Emily's Cat's analogy in this thread... and leave it there

 

[LondonJohn]

They don't want to get rape threats?

Yeah, that must be it.

 

[theprestige]

LOL. I'll just note that you were very keen on the efficacy of Emily's Cat's analogy in this thread

Except that I was not. As good as it was, I think it was ineffective. I'm still happy to explain why, and hopefully clear up your confusion, in the dedicated thread. We don't have to leave things with you being confused. It's up to you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The average man, because of those same realities, cannot be mistaken for a woman, and therefore wouldn't be let in under an Eyebrow system. The post I called hateful was part of an argument that enforced sex segregation is better than Eyebrow -- even though it would require on-site security, which this same person keeps railing against -- and using an analogy to try to distract readers from the contradiction.

Collin, you've become mixed up. My post in response to JoeMorgue wasn't part of a general argument, it was very explicitly a response to JoeMorgue's dissatisfaction at being part of a group of people (male humans) that are treated by society (and especially by females) as if they are predatory and dangerous.

When it comes to public restrooms and locker rooms, I think that 99% of the time, the "eyebrow test" as you put it is sufficient.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's problematic because it's not at all obvious what's being presented that could be true or false. That seems to be the point of using an analogy about people you want to criticize but are afraid to -- to let the reader fill in his own interpretation, and give you plausible denial.

I thought I was pretty clear about what I was comparing - not criticizing. Males humans are, on average, more aggressive (due to testosterone) and more dangerous (due to size and strength) than female humans are. In a similar fashion, pitbulls are, on average, more aggressive (due to breeding) and more dangerous (due to size) than pugs are.

Thus, it is rational and reasonable for a female human to view an unknown male person as more of a potential danger than they would an unknown female human in some situations - just as it would be reasonable and rational for a person to view an unknown pitbull as more of a potential danger than they would view an unknown pug.

 

[Meadmaker]

So the same sort of exceptions should be made as is the case with transwomen competing in Women's leagues, and transmen competing in Men's leagues. Seems to me your supposed solution doesn't really solve anything.

Oh, but it does. Today, we are told that it would be awful to force girls to misgender themselves by competing in a boys' league, and that makes perfect sense. We need to have a females' league, that welcomes females of all genders, and males' league, that welcomes males of all genders. Gender neutral people and gender fluid people would no longer have to worry about switching back and for or not having a league where they fit in. There is a place for everyone.

The recently referenced tweet decried the current situation, where some people have to choose between sports and identity. This solution solves the problem. The identity of a transgirl is that she has a feminine gender, and a male anatomy. Having a males league that allows her to compete allows her to celebrate all aspects of her identity.

That's what everyone wants, isn't it?

If you want to claim to be in favour of transgender rights at all, stop segregating some many aspects of life and then demanding people should undergo medical treatments just to fit into a social category.

What the heck is a social category? And what does it have to do with sports?

Sports are segregated because males have an advantage over females, regardless of their gender. A lot of people think it makes sense to segregate those biological classes for the purpose of sports, although some people are against it.

Interestingly, the sporting activity I have been most active in during my life is one where males and females are not segregated. It's armored martial arts within the Society for Creative Anachronism. Whenever someone proposes a women's only tournament, a lot of women won't participate and don't like the idea. So, segregation by either sex or gender isn't universally accepted in the sporting world, but for the vast majority of people and the vast majority of situations, society, collectively, has decided that they ought to be segregated. Unfortunately, the naming of the leagues suggests that gender is significant in choosing who should compete against whom. That came about because, traditionally, people didn't understand the difference between sex and gender. Now that such knowledge is widespread, we should change the names to accurately reflect the real intention of the leagues, and the segregation by sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So...if some boys are mistakenly transitioned to the incorrect gender identity they will still grow up to be happy?

If being forced into the incorrect gender is such a trivial thing, why is transitioning so important?
Either it is important or it's not.

Well said, and very to the point.