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

[theprestige]

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

To be fair, I might be. If Earthborn or LJ were to enumerate the rights they believe trans folks have because of their gender identity (rather than regardless of that identity), I could review them and discuss my opinions of them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I suspect it's "if looking at someone makes you raise an eyebrow because they totally don't pass for what they're claiming to be..." kind of thing.

Like... Alex Drummond wouldn't pass the eyebrow test. If Drummond walked up to you on the street, even in make-up and a skirt, and said "I'm a woman", you'd raise an eyebrow at that. If you're very nice you'd say "Alrighty then" and go on about your day... but on the inside you'd very likely be thinking "hey buddy, you're a dude".

It's the "skeptical emoji" raising one eyebrow kind of thing:

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Current state of the world: Female humans are subjected to extremely high levels of violence, sexual assault, rape, and mutilation on the basis of their sex worldwide. In developed countries, even liberal democracies with hypothetical sex equality, female humans still experience sex-based violence at a level orders of magnitude higher than those faced by males.

Your proposal: Let's introduce policies that *increase* the already abhorrent levels of harm that females face... and then maybe consider addressing that harm after the fact if *too many extra* females get hurt.

Can you at least understand why some females find that proposal objectionable?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

theprestige said it was a good analogy, not that it was effective in changing anyone's mind. As a means of argumentation, analogies still pretty much suck. As a means of illustration, they have some value.

 

[Belz...]

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".

No but Pintos are naturally more dangerous.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

"Oh So..." is a pretty fallacious argument.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Strictly speaking, adding accommodations like walkway bumps and braille labels to public infrastructure has costs and increases the burden on taxpayers. And requiring private entities to provide such accommodations does reduce their agency.

This brings us to the criteria we use to justify infringing on some rights in order to provide for other rights.

Personally, I like the SCOTUS principle of "strict scrutiny":

1. The government has a compelling interest in solving this problem.

2. The proposed solution solves the problem, and nothing but the problem.

3. There is not a less-infringing way to solve the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Our TRA participants in this thread say repeatedly that trans rights need to be established and upheld. In my opinion, it would be real progress in this thread if one of them were to propose a specific such right, and we debated it according to Strict Scrutiny (and other criteria that members might prefer to apply).

 

[Belz...]

Where do de-transitioners fit into your hypothesis?

Gender traitors.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Camaros.

Camaros vs. Volvos.

Oooh, oh oh! Dodge Challenger Hellcat versus Toyota Prius!

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

That would have made it a more interesting, albeit less apt, analogy

Society would be very different if females were the larger more aggressive of the human species.

Society would also be very different if males bled out of their penises once a month with crippling abdominal cramps. Just sayin'.

 

[Meadmaker]

Oooh, oh oh! Dodge Challenger Hellcat versus Toyota Prius!

Why stop at cars? Let's include all vehicles.

Attack helicopters versus......maybe that's a bad example.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Taking them at face value, I'm willing to give Collin a bit more patience. They have volunteered that they are autistic, and I understand from family experience that sometimes things need to be communicated in a different way. It seems like a reasonable accommodation to make... but then I have several family members that are on the autism spectrum. I wouldn't be surprised if I were as well, but it's never been a barrier (and might even be a boon in my profession) so I've never bothered with any kind of evaluation. But comparison of behaviors between myself, my grandfather, and several neiphlings and cousins suggests that I'm probably an Asperger's case.

 

[theprestige]

Why stop at cars? Let's include all vehicles.

Attack helicopters versus......maybe that's a bad example.

"Countermeasures!"

 

[Emily's Cat]

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!

Another tangential anecdote: A few years ago, my team at work remodeled our workspaces. We got a lot of shared space tables and desks and such modernistic stuff. We also got these really comfy kind of loungy chairs that have a fold-out desk piece that you can pop in front of you.

Two out of nine of our leadership team are left-handed. Every single one of the desk-chairs are right-handed.

To be fair, though, we are *still* giving my boss crap about not being inclusive of lefties in his workspace accommodations. We get a lot of mileage out of it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why stop at cars? Let's include all vehicles.

Attack helicopters versus......maybe that's a bad example.

You automobilephobe you!

 

[d4m10n]

It's the "skeptical emoji" raising one eyebrow kind of thing:

The "eyebrow test" is when you find yourself in the wrong body (presumably the result of arcane magic or future tech) and you have to use the loo at the pub. Just look in a mirror and decide which bathroom will have the fewest raised eyebrows when you pop in, and use that one. You fail the test by generating lots of the emoji faces quoted above when you could've easily avoided doing so.

If I found myself in a female body with feminine garb, I'd use the ladies' room, even though I tend to identify as a fairly vanilla cishet dudebro.

 

[LondonJohn]

Current state of the world: Female humans are subjected to extremely high levels of violence, sexual assault, rape, and mutilation on the basis of their sex worldwide. In developed countries, even liberal democracies with hypothetical sex equality, female humans still experience sex-based violence at a level orders of magnitude higher than those faced by males.

Your proposal: Let's introduce policies that *increase* the already abhorrent levels of harm that females face... and then maybe consider addressing that harm after the fact if *too many extra* females get hurt.

Can you at least understand why some females find that proposal objectionable?

Can you understand that many white parents found it objectionable that black civil rights reforms would expose their teenage daughter - for the first time - to the risk of discomfort (at best) and sexual assault (at worst) if a black man was allowed to sit tight up next to her on a narrow bus bench seat?

In fact, I remember that it was precisely this perception of increased risk - based as it was on solid, reliable data - which caused the indefinite stalling of the introduction of black civil rights on public transportation. Or..... oh.... wait....

 

[LondonJohn]

The "eyebrow test" is when you find yourself in the wrong body (presumably the result of arcane magic or future tech) and you have to use the loo at the pub. Just look in a mirror and decide which bathroom will have the fewest raised eyebrows when you pop in, and use that one. You fail the test by generating lots of the emoji faces quoted above when you could've easily avoided doing so.

If I found myself in a female body with feminine garb, I'd use the ladies' room, even though I tend to identify as a fairly vanilla cishet dudebro.

Well I must say, this is a sensitive, respectful and knowledgeable understanding of transgender identity. It's only when we all - on both sides of the debate - share the same levels of understanding that we'll have any chance of making genuine progress. So, congratulations on your enlightened position.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I've done none of the above in that post. Just checking out theprestige's basis for his assessment of your analogy. I suspect you're seeing what you want to see.

Btw: which questions am I "irredeemably bad" at answering? I don't think I've ever been called "irredeemably bad" at anything before, so I'm quite excited by the news.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Can you understand that many white parents found it objectionable that black civil rights reforms would expose their teenage daughter - for the first time - to the risk of discomfort (at best) and sexual assault (at worst) if a black man was allowed to sit tight up next to her on a narrow bus bench seat?

In fact, I remember that it was precisely this perception of increased risk - based as it was on solid, reliable data - which caused the indefinite stalling of the introduction of black civil rights on public transportation. Or..... oh.... wait....

Once again, you don't engage honestly, you don't answer the question. All you do is respond with dripping insinuations and deflection.

LondonJohn, you do not discuss this topic in good faith.