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

[Belz...]

You're entirely at liberty to hop on that "dishonest agent"* bandwagon if you so wish. I will wave you goodbye as your bandwagon trundles colourfully out of town.

It amazes me that you entirely lack the self-awareness to even come up with the thought that, just maybe, someone else than you could be right in any discussion that involves you.

 

[Meadmaker]

If I keep "dragging it back" to anything, it's the fact that transgender rights include the right of transgender people to use the changing rooms and bathrooms which correspond to their trans gender.

So, at least an assertion that can be discussed.

The proposition is that people (both cis and trans) have the right to use changing rooms and bathrooms that correspond to their gender.

But if the sign on the outside said "females", instead of "women", that would clear things up, eh? And there wouldn't be any doubt. No one would be misgendered, and everyone who could make use of a urinal would have one available to use, but they wouldn't take up space in a room they were not needed. That solves that problem.

In the case of sports leagues, that is a clear and obvious solution. In the case of bathrooms and changing rooms there are down sides to that solution, and so I do not think it is obvious that it ought to be done. I think it ought to be done, (i.e. clarify the use issue by changing the name of the room to "females") but especially with bathrooms it could create a lot of other issues. Even I am not so sure it's a good idea to change all the signs, everywhere, or, even if you change the signs, I can think of spaces where, in my opinion, some flexibility ought to be allowed.

So, I want to be as clear as possible about what I'm saying. I am saying that if we changed all the signs to say "female" or "male", instead of "women" and "men", no one would be misgendered by doing so, and there would be no doubt about any "right" for a male to use the female facilities. Such a right would clearly not exist.

However, even though it's clear that they do not have some sort of moral, natural, "right" to use the facilities of the opposite sex, I think there are circumstances where they should be granted the privilege of using the facilities of the opposite sex. Another way of saying that is they ought to have a legal right, in some circumstances, to use opposite sex facilities. I hope to have more time to elaborate in the future.

 

[Meadmaker]

The concept that by granting civil rights to Group A, Group B can claim that - as a direct consequence of that granting of civil rights to Group A - some or all of them in Group B are being disadvantaged (eg by being placed at increased risk to their personal safety).

But surely you aren't saying that granting civil rights to Group A can never imperil the safety, or otherwise disadvantage Group B?

I mean, I assume we have gone over this a lot of times. Let's think about some civil rights.

The right to vote.
The right of free speech.
The right to bear arms.
The right to drive a car.
The right to purchase alcohol.
The right to purchase medicine.
The right to sell medicine at your discretion.
The right to listen to music at a volume of your choice.
The right to fly a drone and take pictures with it.

All of these rights are specifically restricted, frequently. In some cases, quite explicitly because people are part of a Group. (which is to say, a group that is all the people who possess some attribute, such as age, education, criminal records) Moreover if we did not restrict the rights of Group A, Group B would be made less safe.

So, as a general principle, your concept is not something that is relevant.

Which leaves a question of whether, in this specific case (i.e. granting people the right to use the changing room of their choice, would imperil or otherwise disadvantage "Group B", which in this case is females.

I think it would in fact disadvantage them.

In the case of the black/white restroom think, I do not think it would disadvantage "Group B", i.e. white people.

 

[Earthborn]

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.

No, this does not solve the problem. It still means that if she pursues her dream of becoming a girl, she still won't be able to pursue her dream of competing in sports. The only difference is that instead of being disqualified from competing against other women, she can't compete with men.

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

That was a response to a statement about who gets access to the ladies room.

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.

Meadmaker's proposal so far does not include allowing transmen to the male division and transwomen to the female division.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

North Carolina getting in on the trans-bashing action:


The NC bill would criminalize any doctor that provides trans affirming medications or surgeries to any person under the age of 21. It also mandates that all state employees notify parents of any child's "gender nonconformity".

Medical professionals who facilitate a transgender person’s desire to present themselves or appear in a way that is inconsistent with their biological sex could have their license revoked and face civil fines of up to $1,000 per occurrence. The measure bars doctors from providing gender confirming hormone treatment, puberty blockers or surgery.

Senate Bill 514 would also compel state employees to immediately notify parents in writing if their child displays “gender nonconformity” or expresses a desire to be treated in a way that is incompatible with the gender they were assigned at birth. LGBTQ advocates fear the bill would out people under 21 who tell state workers that they may be transgender.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/n-c-bill-would-ban-treatment-trans-people-under-21-n1263146

https://ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v0.pdf

Seems that the right wing bigots in this country are dusting off the anti-abortion and anti-gay playbook of years gone by, attacking doctors and outing children to their potentially bigoted parents.

 

[sarge]

.

-

The arguments and attitudes of the trans rights activists in this thread have caused me to almost completely reverse that. LJ isn't doing anyone any favors. As I think they put it in woke-speak: He's not being a good ally.

Virtually everyone in this thread is a trans rights activist. LJ is attempting to re-make everyone that disagrees with him on any point as a transphobic bigot.

 

[d4m10n]

The NC bill would criminalize any doctor that provides trans affirming medications or surgeries to any person under the age of 21. It also mandates that all state employees notify parents of any child's "gender nonconformity".

I'd be rather surprised if anyone from these threads gets behind that bill, even those vilified as transphobes and TERFs.

 

[Earthborn]

Where do de-transitioners fit into your hypothesis?

It is not my hypothesis, it is the hypothesis of people who think the treatment of trans kids causes them to be trans.

 

[sarge]

North Carolina getting in on the trans-bashing action:


The NC bill would criminalize any doctor that provides trans affirming medications or surgeries to any person under the age of 21. It also mandates that all state employees notify parents of any child's "gender nonconformity".



https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/n-c-bill-would-ban-treatment-trans-people-under-21-n1263146

https://ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v0.pdf

Seems that the right wing bigots in this country are dusting off the anti-abortion and anti-gay playbook of years gone by, attacking doctors and outing children to their potentially bigoted parents.

There is not much chance of the bill becoming law......fortunately. I suspect that the bill would find favor with a significant majority of North Carolinians, however.

My GFs daughter is somewhere in this conversation. She is bi, married to a woman, taking hormone treatments, and has an ever deepening voice.*


* I’m not insensitive. We just don’t talk about such things. She is who she is and I admire her. She’s a good egg and I could imagine that anyone spending a few hours with her would lose the whole “trans people hate Jesus” edge to their bigotry.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is not my hypothesis, it is the hypothesis of people who think the treatment of trans kids causes them to be trans.

EC isn't talking about their hypothesis. She's asking YOU how YOU understand what's going on with detransitioners. How do they inform how YOU view these issues.

I will also note that "treatment of trans kids" is misleading. There isn't one form of treatment for trans kids (and adults). Medical intervention isn't the only option. Psychological counseling and social transitioning without medical intervention also exist, and even medical intervention isn't only one thing. By framing all treatment as one thing, you're implying that by not allowing, say, surgical sex change operations on minors, you're also forbidding counseling and social transitioning. And that's simply not the case.

 

[Belz...]

Is it transphobic to say that prepubescent kids shouldn't transition? What am I missing, here?

 

[Belz...]

EC isn't talking about their hypothesis. She's asking YOU how YOU understand what's going on with detransitioners. How do they inform how YOU view these issues.

I will also note that "treatment of trans kids" is misleading. There isn't one form of treatment for trans kids (and adults). Medical intervention isn't the only option. Psychological counseling and social transitioning without medical intervention also exist, and even medical intervention isn't only one thing. By framing all treatment as one thing, you're implying that by not allowing, say, surgical sex change operations on minors, you're also forbidding counseling and social transitioning. And that's simply not the case.

What's social transitioning, exactly?

 

[Ziggurat]

The NC bill would criminalize any doctor that provides trans affirming medications or surgeries to any person under the age of 21.

That's odd that they chose 21 rather than 18. I don't get that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay let try another angle here.

I meet a person. This person tells me they are trans.

Tell me what objectively changes about this person that isn't an exception to a societal rule/standard/etc THAT NEEDS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There is not much chance of the bill becoming law......fortunately. I suspect that the bill would find favor with a significant majority of North Carolinians, however.

My GFs daughter is somewhere in this conversation. She is bi, married to a woman, taking hormone treatments, and has an ever deepening voice.*


* I’m not insensitive. We just don’t talk about such things. She is who she is and I admire her. She’s a good egg and I could imagine that anyone spending a few hours with her would lose the whole “trans people hate Jesus” edge to their bigotry.

It's nice that your GF's daughter has such accepting family. That is not often the case.

Outing a trans kid to the wrong parents could easily be a one way ticket to some "troubled teen" camp where the queer is abused out of them. Some are still operated in the US, but increasingly these camps are operating outside the country as the practice comes under increasing scrutiny stateside.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, I just think it's important to speak plainly about the stakes at play here for some trans children living in hostile homes. This law, which intends to out queer children to their potentially bigoted parents, is a weapon meant to keep trans kids in the closet.

 

[Earthborn]

She's asking YOU how YOU understand what's going on with detransitioners.

Detransitioners are people who don't have a peristent gender identity as a child, and are unlikely to be included in the small number of kids who received puberty blockers in the studies from the Netherlands where much of the numbers come from that supposedly show how many desisters there are. Detransitioners only show that is good to be careful with using irreversible treatments early; they don't prove that early treatment is not sometimes necessary.

I will also note that "treatment of trans kids" is misleading. There isn't one form of treatment for trans kids (and adults).

There are however people who claim that all treatments causes them to be persistantly trans.

 

[Earthborn]

What's social transitioning, exactly?

For minors it basically means telling classmates "Jimmy is a girl now".

 

[Belz...]

For minors it basically means telling classmates "Jimmy is a girl now".

So it's a bit like nothing, then?

 

[Earthborn]

I meet a person. This person tells me they are trans.

Tell me what objectively changes about this person that isn't an exception to a societal rule/standard/etc THAT NEEDS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I don't understand what you are asking. A person telling you something does not objectively changes them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't understand what you are asking. A person telling you something does not objectively changes them.

Then it's pointless. You might as well be telling me your star sign.