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

[LondonJohn]

Oh my...I am right with you on this. You have explained it very well, a zillion times over, with no observable change. But then someone else makes the same argument with perhaps different anatomy.
We could tell our personal stories and decades of experiences till every cow comes home. All discounted.

It's the difference between (for example)

1) aggressively, vehemently and hyperbolically stating that a) the granting of certain transgender rights will inevitably cause epidemic levels of harm to, and offending against, females; b) this is all a case of males either not caring about females' rights, or even actively seeking to remove females' rights; and c) one is necessarily a misogynist if, for example, one believes that transmen should be allowed to use the men's facilities, and vice versa;

and

2) suggesting, with no labels or aggressiveness, that there might be some boundaries to what society might deem acceptable as trans rights, and inviting debate on the matter.


Hope that's made things a bit clearer?

 

[LondonJohn]

Complete nonsense. You are attempting to define as rights things that you say trans people want the privilege of doing.

There is no right for a male to be nude in front of non-consenting females. There is no right for males to compete in female only sports. There is no right for males to represent the views of females in sex-specific representative situations.

Is there the right of a female transman to be nude in front of non-consenting males men? Is there a right for females transmen to compete in male-only men-only sports? Is there a right for females transmen to represent the views of males men in sex-specific gender-specific representative situations?


Do you think black men should have had the right to sit tight alongside (non-consenting) white women on bench seats in buses?

 

[LondonJohn]

Middle aged male lawyers don't like losing an argument, even when they've not bothered to do any serious research and formed an opinion that is internally inconsistent. May just try to bluster through as they do in real life.

Ooh please do expand upon this blatant personalisation! I'm all ears!*


* No I'm not all ears. Don't do it again please.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sex is a species-level categorization. All members of the human species are either male or female, depending on the type of gamete that they develop to produce. A person who developed to produce ova, but does not because of a DSD or a hysterectomy or menopause is still female. A person who developed to produce sperm, however, is not and cannot be male. A person whose gamete production has been interrupted, has ceased, or has been removed doesn't become a third sex... and there is no "in between" gamete. There are two, and only two gamete types. This is true for every single mammal on the planet. Indeed, it's true for nearly all vertebrates.

And a person who never developed any gametes is of course still human and so both male and female as that is a species level distinction and not an individual person level distinction. All humans are male and female because that is the definition of the human species.

Just like all people are heterosexual because that is simply how reproduction works people, simple biology!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is it hyperbolic? Yes. It is. I don't think the number of transgender males in the world is enough that, even if we granted them full rights as women, it would send females back to the kitchen.

Nice to see you keeping up with the transphobic language. Got to stick it to those freaks at every opportunity while claiming to support them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well that's just silly.

Exactly there was nothing racist about separate but equal it was just a difference in degree of support for equal rights. Some are just always more equal than others.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I absolutely love how you always think you have the win, no matter what you say. You're never actually interested in what other people have to say.

The answer to your question is "yes, absolutely." All you have to do is agree that some rights should be had and others not, or that some things are rigths and others not.

You're welcome, although I know you will never even consider learning from someone else than yourself.

Got it there was nothing fundamentally racist about jim crow or block busting. It is outrageous that people consider such thing as blatantly racist.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And a person who never developed any gametes is of course still human and so both male and female as that is a species level distinction and not an individual person level distinction. All humans are male and female because that is the definition of the human species.

Just like all people are heterosexual because that is simply how reproduction works people, simple biology!

Biological essentialism, not just for right wing freaks anymore!

I'm always baffled by the liberal transphobes that believe they can a-la-carte discriminate against trans people and not have it come back and bite them in the ass if they are successful. The arguments against transgender people are rooted in the exact same heteronormative, patriarchal social norms that, if allowed to become the drivers of public policy, will see the rights of all women and non-trans queer people eroded.

TERFs beware, you're making a deal with the devil. There's no way to surgically wield this kind of biological essentialism against trans people and not have it turned against everyone else.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not really.

It'd be a lot more like saying, "I fully support black civil rights, but I'll be damned if black people will be promoted because of the color of their skin rather of the contents of their resume."

Or if they use my bathroom! Or move into my neighborhood!

Thank god being in the old boys network as a reason to be promoted will always help the whites, that is something everyone can be for and not be perceived as racist. My god imagine thinking it was racist to simply throw out resumes with black sounding names!

 

[Earthborn]

Prescribing puberty blockers (or any other such treatment) to a gender-dysphoric child requires an evidence-based reason that this particular child is much more likely to be a trans kid than a confused gay kid.

Obviously it is difficult to present evidence of what is going to happen to each individual child in the future. If you demand clairvoyance, you are going to be disappointed.

You can't just randomly prescribe puberty blockers to a cohort that consists mostly of just confused gay kids.

In the Dutch Approach, puberty blockers aren't randomly prescribed. They are only prescribed if forcing a child with an apparently stabile gender identity to go through puberty just to prove that they might turn gay is cruel experimentation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm in favor of free speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

I'm in favor of voting rights, but the polls close at 8 pm.
]

And there is of course nothing racist about making sure the lines at performantly black poling places are many times the length of predominately white ones. That is just differences of opinions in equality.

Separate drinking fountains was perfectly reasonable because of the number of white people uncomfortable sharing a drinking fountain with blacks for example.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Absolutely ridiculous.

I am all for transgender rights. They, like racial minorities, should have the same rights as anyone else, just not extra rights that others don't have.

And like minorities they need to wear badges constantly to identify them so that merely having a beard does not let a trans man use the men's room! He needs to use the women's room and needs to be clearly identifiable as trans. Legally mandated arm badges seem a traditional way of achieving this.

 

[Belz...]

...and c) one is necessarily a misogynist if, for example, one believes that transmen should be allowed to use the men's facilities, and vice versa;

Is that so unlike insisting that one is necessarily a transphobe if, for example, one believes that transmen should not be allowed to use the men's facilities, and vice versa?

 

[Belz...]

I'm always baffled by the liberal transphobes that believe they can a-la-carte discriminate against trans people and not have it come back and bite them in the ass if they are successful.

You would probably be far less confused if you didn't consider that anyone disagreeing with you was a transphobe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, no, no. One cannot have "degrees of support" for transgender rights. I got this form a source you consider to be infaillible.

Like there is no homophobic side in the whole gay adoption issue, it is all just degrees of support.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Complete nonsense. You are attempting to define as rights things that you say trans people want the privilege of doing.

There is no right for a male to be nude in front of non-consenting females. There is no right for males to compete in female only sports. There is no right for males to represent the views of females in sex-specific representative situations.

Just like there is no right for males to be nude in front of a homosexual. That is why gays should be banned from locker rooms, especially any one that might have children in it. And of course such a position is by definition one of degree not at all homophobic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is that so unlike insisting that one is necessarily a transphobe if, for example, one believes that transmen should not be allowed to use the men's facilities, and vice versa?

You have convinced me, there are totally non homophobic reasons to be against gay marriage and gay adoption. It is simple biology people, read a book.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why is no one ever for banning of those with excess sports ability in the name of competition for other traits? Clearly abnormal hormone levels is enough to get one banned alone, but why should it be limited to that to keep things fair and competitive?

 

[Belz...]

You have convinced me, there are totally non homophobic reasons to be against gay marriage and gay adoption.

No one is against denying trans people the same rights as other people.

In fact, whenever prompted, activists become VERY silent when they have to name rights that trans people don't have.

 

[Belz...]

Just like there is no right for males to be nude in front of a homosexual. That is why gays should be banned from locker rooms, especially any one that might have children in it. And of course such a position is by definition one of degree not at all homophobic.

It's very interesting to read posts from some people here and realise how little they understand the basic principles of logic.

You're just throwing random arguments that 'feel' right without even considering if they apply to the situation or if they really help your case.