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

[Emily's Cat]

Well I'm not the one who brought up dogs. I would've gone with cars. I always try to go for car analogies.

What would you have chosen as the vehicles in that analogy? I don't really know which cars might be viewed as "naturally more aggressive".

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Oh, so you thought it was "good".

And your grounds for deeming it to have been ineffective was *purely* owing to the hostility and resistance to it on the part of the intended recipient. Have I got that right?

In the case of Emily's Cat's analogy in this thread - given that it was a "good" analogy (by your reckoning and mine) - would it have succeeded if it had been given a fair crack by its intended recipient? Or would it have been doomed to failure regardless? So would it be correct to say that arguments by analogy - provided, of course, that they're "good" ones - sometimes succeed in practice?

 

[TomB]

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.

Well, actually, it does.

It's pretty simple:
1) Start from the baseline sex-based segregation.
2) Hormone therapy, even for medical treatment is usually a disqualifying factor. So that's the default. However...
3) People on hormone therapy can have their eligibility evaluated on a case by case basis.

Thus a trans-man could compete as a female up to a certain point when the effects of testosterone are deemed significant enough that they would no longer be eligible in the female division. But they would be eligible in the male division.

A trans-woman would remain eligible in the male division. But at a certain point, when the effects of hormone therapy are significant enough, they would become eligible in the female division.

When those inflection points occur is going to differ from sport to sport and league to league. Frankly, I think the government should stay out of it, beyond requiring leagues to have a policy. The actual decisions should be made by medical advisors and/or athletic trainers, not politicians.

And for London John's benefit, I think this should apply down to the high school level at least. Possibly middle school. As this is when puberty and differentiation starts to show up. This is where the roots of "elite" sport actually begin.

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.

I don't think you need medical treatment to fit into a social category. But I don't think sports divisions are based on social categories.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That is seriously the worse part of this discussion. It's the worst example of "I'm right if everyone is on the victim ranking chart in the order I've made up in my head."

FYI - the original concept of intersectionality had some value. This thing it has mutated into is idiotic beyond reason. The oppression olympics is dumb.

 

[TomB]

What would you have chosen as the vehicles in that analogy? I don't really know which cars might be viewed as "naturally more aggressive".

Camaros.

Camaros vs. Volvos.

 

[Olmstead]

I'd have gone with male spiders and female spiders.

 

[Belz...]

Making it work for 100% of humans.

Only if "making it work" is synonymous with "not working at all", since you're proposing we eliminate it.

I guess we could use Meadmaker's proposal and call it "Female Sports" and "Male Sports" and divide them according to biological sex, transwomen together with men, transmen together with women. Have people with suppressed testosterone compete with men, and have people with artificially increased testosterone compete with women. You know, for fairness.

How about we just abolish female sports and female spaces? That way women can **** right off and be treated as second-class citizens again. That's where your proposals seem to be leading.

Whether the differences are real or not makes no difference as to whether the policy is segregationist. What makes it segregationist is the fact that it allows (and is specifically designed to) the government to treat the segregated categories differently.

We treat individuals differently, sometimes. Is that segregationist? If you're going to mangle the English language, why not just make a language of your own?

The fact that if it was an observation, it would be an observation of a thing before it happened. The vast majority is not definitively diagnosed with gender dysphoria before puberty, because before puberty it is difficult to diagnose.

That sounds like a very good argument against pre-pubescent transition.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I thought I was pretty clear about what I was comparing - not criticizing. .

You were. It's the usual diversionary games people love to play.

 

[Belz...]

I could just as easily have made the illustration using nurse sharks and great whites.

(Actually sharks normally avoid humans, and never attack in clear visibility. Hell, some people swim with great white while holding their fins without issue.)

 

[Meadmaker]

One more comment....

If you want to claim to be in favour of transgender rights at all,....

Umm....which rights? I think I'm in favor of transgender people having the same rights as me.

ETA: That could easily misinterpreted. Let me clarify.

People should be able to wear what they want, and work where they are able, without having to compromise on gender presentation. Live your life however you wish as long as it doesn't infringe on others, but I believe that there are certain activities where sex matters, and if sex matters, then people who are not that sex should not be able to participate with the opposite sex. And even on that, the vast majority of us are willing to compromise, especially for people who are taking hormones pr receiveing medical treatments that make them more similar to the opposite sex.

So I can't say that "I support transgender rights", as a complete blanket statement, because some people say that unaltered males should be allowed into female sports leagues. I do not agree. I do not support that right. To say whether or not I support transgender rights, I have to know which rights you mean.

 

[Belz...]

Yes. And as an associated point: I have to say, this repeated pulling out of the 99.7% number as supposed justification is at once both baffling (from a logical and practical point of view) and mildly sickening.

That's odd. I find it very on point. We're less likely to overturn everything in order to, for instance, accomodate a single person, than a large minority. So the effect on a large population for a small or questionable benefit (in the mind of the arguer) for a much smaller population has to be taken into consideration.

Try this: left-handed people are 10% of the population. They used to be physically beaten until they desisted from using their dominant "devil's" hand to conform, or otherwise treated as garbage. Even today they live slightly shorter lives than the 90% of the population because almost everything is designed for right-handed people. Where is the outcry? Where is the movement for leftie equality? Nowhere. Nobody gives two ***** about them. And yet they are 30-35 times more numerous than trans people.

But sure, you guys care so much!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Making it work for 100% of humans.

Well, I rather think that's a bit of wishful thinking. I suspect it would, in reality, end up being more like working for 60.3% of humans.

Whether the differences are real or not makes no difference as to whether the policy is segregationist. What makes it segregationist is the fact that it allows (and is specifically designed to) the government to treat the segregated categories differently.

Oh goodness! Clearly it's a horrible idea to have any kind of segregation for good reason. So. Let's get rid of any protections and safeguards designed for children, because that's segregating by age, and it's unfair to adults. Let's also get rid of any special accommodations for physically disabled people, because that's segregating on the basis of disability and it's unfair to able-bodied people.

They're not? I would assume sex written on identity papers would at least play a role in the decision where to house a prisoner.

Let's set aside the postmodernist ideological approach for a moment here. For 99% of the humans on the planet, there is literally no need at all for a judge to consult a birth certificate in order to determine somene's sex. In 99% of cases, it is patently and blatantly obvious whether the person in question is male or female, and that is all that is needed for a judge to determine which ward the person should be placed in. In those rare situation where there is an exception to the obvious sexual dimorphism of a criminal, then the lawyer may ask for an exception and provide supporting paperwork if needed.

This game that people play, where they make arguments as if it's just totally impossible for anyone to ever tell male from female... it's tedious and it's dishonest.

So you agree that allowing trans individuals to change their birth certificate by Self-ID alone, or eliminating sex registration completely, will not make much difference? Good!

Lol, good try at a bad faith switcheroo. But, no.

The Intersex Society of America disagrees:

You're extrapolating incorrectly. But that's fine, you do you.

 

[theprestige]

Camaros.

Camaros vs. Volvos.

Mustangs are natually more aggressive than Saabs.

 

[Belz...]

The tortured logic of those who are opposed to transgender rights

Names please. Point out ONE PERSON here who is opposed to transgender rights.

You won't find one. Don't try to conflate your personal conception of what the answer to every question about trans issues lies as representing trans "rights".

But when they are, the potential for damage is much greater than when a woman female has the same temperament. I'm not a particularly imposing guy (5'9" 210 lbs, built less like a linebacker and more like an accountant) but were I to attack my wife, I could do a lot of damage. Were she to attack me, not so much.

My wife and I essentially don't exercise, aside from walking... we're both pretty much at the baseline of strength for our size and gender. And if anyone asks, yes, I can easily overpower her. In fact a woman would have to be heavier than me and more muscular by a good degree for our ability to damage one another to be equal.

Think about the violence against women thread, and many of the interactions in this thread. There are experiences that female humans face on a daily basis that are mostly invisible to male humans.

That's unfortunately very true, but not all such perspectives can be represented. Large minorities and pluralities, sure.

 

[Emily's Cat]

For instance, some 3% of the population of the UK are classified as suffering from sight loss or blindness. Which of course means that 97% of the UK population do not suffer from sight loss or blindness. Per the logic - and morality - of certain positions in this thread, we really oughtn't to make any attempt to accommodate those with sight loss/blindness, given that it's not an issue which directly impacts such a huge majority of the population.....

What accommodations for blind people increase harm to sighted people? What accommodations for blind people reduce the rights, agency, and dignity of sighted people? Please be explicit here.

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.

As you've been asked for before, can you please supply some examples of the rights that transgender people lack in this regard?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, what is claimed is that their treatment somehow stabilises their gender identity. The supposed evidence for this is that after treatment that is extremely unlikely to be given to kids unless they have a stabile gender identity, the vast majority still have a stabile gender identity.

Where do de-transitioners fit into your hypothesis?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

You are just irredeemably bad at answering questions.

But you're quite "good" at putting words into other people's mouths, at mind-reading what they really mean, and at making posts that absolutely drip with insinuations and insults draped in condescension.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is nothing hateful about being compared to a pit bull. They are are wonderful dogs, for the most part.

Every Pitbull I've met has been an absolute sweetie pie, just incredibly loving and affectionate. Same is true for Rottweilers and Doberman.

On the flip side of things, my spouse ended up hospitalized for four days by a fluffy little kitten.

None of that, however, changes the fact that - in general - pitbulls are more dangerous than kittens.

 

[theprestige]

One more comment....



Umm....which rights? I think I'm in favor of transgender people having the same rights as me.

ETA: That could easily misinterpreted. Let me clarify.

People should be able to wear what they want, and work where they are able, without having to compromise on gender presentation. Live your life however you wish as long as it doesn't infringe on others, but I believe that there are certain activities where sex matters, and if sex matters, then people who are not that sex should not be able to participate with the opposite sex. And even on that, the vast majority of us are willing to compromise, especially for people who are taking hormones pr receiveing medical treatments that make them more similar to the opposite sex.

So I can't say that "I support transgender rights", as a complete blanket statement, because some people say that unaltered males should be allowed into female sports leagues. I do not agree. I do not support that right. To say whether or not I support transgender rights, I have to know which rights you mean.

I make a distinction between rights. There are rights that we all have regardless of our sex, race, or gender. When it comes to equal rights in housing or employment, it should not matter if I'm a man or a woman, white or black, etc. We're all humans and we all have the same human rights to these things.

There are also rights that we have because of our sex, race, gender, or other characteristics.

I think we all here support rights for trans folks that apply to everyone regardless of their gender identity or biological sex.

The question is whether trans folks have specific rights because of their gender identity, that are not enjoyed by their cis counterparts. Is a transwoman entitled to certain rights that he would not be entitled to as a cisman?

If I, as a cismale, don't have the right to enter sex-segregated spaces for women, do I gain that right if I assert that I'm a woman?

 

[Aber]

You are just irredeemably bad at answering questions.

But you're quite "good" at putting words into other people's mouths, at mind-reading what they really mean, and at making posts that absolutely drip with insinuations and insults draped in condescension.

Pounding the table...