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

[ponderingturtle]

So every time a woman goes "I don't feel comfortable sharing my safe space with a person with a penis just because they identify as a woman" the pro-trans side is either going to go "OH YEAH WELL WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HORRIBLE THINGS THAT HAPPEN TO TRANS PEOPLE?" (A point that literally nobody is denying happens or thinks is a good thing) or a picture of some ultra-feminine trans-woman as if that's an answer.

"Transpeople are often the subject of terrible harassments and even violence and that's horrible and needs to be stopped" and "They belong in women's restrooms" are not the same question nor is just pointing at one going "SEE! SEE!" an answer to the other.

Or the simple observation that trans men exist, and totally get ignored by all this so called pro trans positions.

Trans men are of course required to use the womens locker rooms, that is why seeing a man walking in there is normal and expected after all, and shouldn't make anyone uncomfortable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What solutions do those that oppose trans inclusion have?

Take the example of the Canadian self-ID law. Plenty of pearl clutching in this thread about allowing trans women access to women's spaces, citing safety and dignity and so on.

What alternative, besides just throwing trans people to the wolves, do the people knee-jerking their opposition to trans inclusion propose?

There is also the constant ignoring that trans men exist. And clearly by the logic expressed here they should be forced to use the womens locker room.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What solutions do those that oppose trans inclusion have?

I'm not necessarily saying there is one. Remember I'm not on the "Female Safe Space Side" here. My horse is running a very different tract in this race then either you or Emily Cat, but your mind can't comprehend this having more than two sides so....

I'm not just misrepresenting their argument and taking a "Agree with me 100% about absolutely everything or else" mentality.

I await humbly to see if you actually respond or just go off on some general random rant about all the things that trans people go through.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not necessarily saying there is one. Remember I'm not on the "Female Safe Space Side" here. My horse is running a very different tract in this race then either you or Emily Cat, but your mind can't comprehend this having more than two sides so....

I'm not just misrepresenting their argument and taking a "Agree with me 100% about absolutely everything or else" mentality.

I await humbly to see if you actually respond or just go off on some general random rant about all the things that trans people go through.

I think the chances of that probably ended 4 threads ago. Deeper and deeper we go. Hold onto your butts, it's only going to get dumber.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There is also the constant ignoring that trans men exist. And clearly by the logic expressed here they should be forced to use the womens locker room.

Well yeah, sorta.

The primary... *sighs* I don't anti-trans because that certainly is not what I think the argument actually is but whatever.... argument is that trans-women are a potential threat because men are dangerous and have to be segregated from society lest we rape everything we see.

In other words there's nobody in discussion worried that person with a vagina is going to go into a male locker with nefarious intent.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well yeah, sorta.

The primary... *sighs* I don't anti-trans because that certainly is not what I think the argument actually is but whatever.... argument is that trans-women are a potential threat because men are dangerous and have to be segregated from society lest we rape everything we see.

In other words there's nobody in discussion worried that person with a vagina is going to go into a male locker with nefarious intent.

Except that when actual law and policies get written they say exactly that instead of cis men and all trans people need to use the mens locker rooms, the womens is only for cis women.

Of course no one cares about a classic trans panic defense in assaulting the transwoman in the mens locker room.

 

[Meadmaker]

There is a complete lack of curiosity on how to find any solution to the problem of locker room privacy other than rigid enforcement of the status quo,

In these threads, a rather constant theme that comes up again and again is that one solution would be to ensure greater privacy for all users, regardless of sex or gender.

 

[Distracted1]

Well yeah, sorta.

The primary... *sighs* I don't anti-trans because that certainly is not what I think the argument actually is but whatever.... argument is that trans-women are a potential threat because men are dangerous and have to be segregated from society lest we rape everything we see.

In other words there's nobody in discussion worried that person with a vagina is going to go into a male locker with nefarious intent.

I must agree.
Although the language of "being forced to" as opposed to "being excluded from" is particularly loaded. The logic holds.

There are a myriad of reasons people prefer sexually segregated spaces for things like showering or relieving themselves. This is not new, or unusual. A transman logically uses the space segregated for their sex: The Womens' room.

 

[xjx388]

Transgender people identify as a different gender, not sex (the clue is in the name "transgender"). And it's now agreed by the experts that gender is different from sex.

So no, identifying as transgender doesn't "magically change fundamental aspects of biology", and nor does it need to in order to be valid.

I agree with this. So how do you explain the concept of a "female penis" or a "pregnant man?" Boudicca was pretty adamant that her male parts were actually female parts. That sounds something like secular transsubstantiation -a magical change in biology.

In the view of the world's accredited experts in the relevant fields, and to paraphrase this thread's title: transwomen are women (and transmen are men)

Not all the world's accredited experts. But yes, it has become the prevailing view.

The way you appear currently to categorise/accommodate transgender people is similar to, say, how you'd categorise/accommodate a middle-aged male who believed themselves to be a baby: you'd try to accommodate the condition, while still knowing that the person in question wasn't actually a baby.

In the case of a middle-aged male considering themselves to be a baby, the experts deem that to be a delusion - the product of a mental health disorder.

In the case of transgender people, the experts now deem that to be a valid lived condition - not the product of a mental health disorder.

That would be the crucial difference.

I understand that this is the prevailing view. The man who thinks he is a baby is delusional. The man who thinks he is a woman is not. The fundamental question is: Why aren't these outwardly similar beliefs about the self that don't correspond with biological reality both considered the same thing, either delusional or not delusional? What is the actual "crucial difference," developmentally, psychologically, biologically or whatever? Because absent any clear bright-line distinction, it seems to me like the "world's accredited experts" are engaging in some magical thinking -"it is so because we declare it so!"- to keep the activists off their backs.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In these threads, a rather constant theme that comes up again and again is that one solution would be to ensure greater privacy for all users, regardless of sex or gender.

I am aware, I'm often the one suggesting it. I think you'll find, if you look back, there's a lot of opposition to these measures that protect personal privacy while still respecting trans people by those that would prefer to simply uphold the current status quo that is so deleterious to trans people.

For example, Evergreen college installed privacy curtains in their locker rooms in the aftermath to the trans panic story passed around by transphobes. I suppose the ADF forgot to mention this good-faith gesture in their anti-trans campaign.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We usually get the "Okay but who will pay the extra cost?" as a counter-argument to that.

//Note before I get screamed at, I do not agree with as a counter-argument, but it is usually the argument we hear.//

 

[Ziggurat]

I'd ask yet again: is it possible to have "degrees of support" for black civil rights? Yes or no?

This framing is not useful. Everyone is in support of rights. The relevant question, and where the disagreement comes, is always in terms of what counts as a right. And there is absolutely a range of beliefs in terms of what counts as a right, whether that's for blacks, whites, transgender, heterosexuals, or even everyone.

For example, I don't think adults have the right to have sex with children. That's a pretty easy one, I don't think anyone here disagrees.

But let's take a more contentious example disconnected from trans rights. Do people have the right to free healthcare? There's strong disagreement about that. But if you're opposed to it, does that make you anti-people? No, that's a stupid reading of the problem. The basis for this disagreement doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not you want people to receive medical care. It can hinge entirely on how you think the world operates, and what policies are most likely to produce the most desirable outcomes. And that disagreement can happen EVEN IF everyone agrees on what the most desirable outcomes are. In other words, disagreement over what counts as a right need not have anything to do with being anti-anyone.

So to bring this back to the trans issue, I don't think that transwomen have the right to compete against biological women in most sports. Does this make me anti-trans? Well, here's the thing: I don't think cismen have the right to compete against biological women in most sports either. Does that make me anti-cismen?

It sort of depends on whether you think that the group in question does have that right. But if someone has a more restrictive definition of what counts as a right that you do, labeling them as "anti"-anyone on that basis alone is not really justifiable. It expands the meaning of being "anti" to the point of uselessness. I am anti-cismen on that basis, and so are most people here. And that's just not a productive avenue of argumentation.

 

[theprestige]

Since we're stuck on "I'm right because I can compare it to a previous civil rights movement therefore I'm right oh and did I mention I'm right" what is being argued is "Let's keep the separate white and black water fountains, but if a black person says they identify as a white person they get to used to white fountain and *wipes hands* problem solved."

I don't think anyone is actually stuck on that point. I think we're being tricked into accepting a fringe reset via spam attack.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have no idea. Theprestige is way to the right of myself and, I suspect, you. He should be far more reviled by John.

But then nothing about this discussion makes any sense.

Probably not as far right of me as they are to you. I'm pretty moderate. Fairly liberal on social issues, but also pretty averse to government "solutions" to social problems. I consider myself to be mostly "classical liberal", with a pragmatic streak. The exception is education, where I really do think we need a massive overhaul, get rid of private education altogether, and make early childcare and post-secondary education of all sorts publicly funded.

Oh, well, I guess I also have a bit of a socialist streak for health care, although it's a bit different from the "single payer" approach that most take. I think we should flat out nationalize the *delivery* of health care - doctors, nurses, and other professionals should be salaried employees of the government, hospitals, facilities, etc, should be government owned and operated, and medical devices and pharmaceuticals should be purchased by the government. But retain private insurance functions on top of that, because there are a lot of innovations for medical management, triage, and fraud & abuse control that the private market has come up with and that public entities really suck at.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The articles I agreed with had substance; I agreed with what they hypothesized. I didn't even notice who the authors were.

Cantor's articles are about what Cantor, specifically, said and did. They're centered around him as a person, not his theory.

Cantor seems like more of a celebrity than a researcher.

I don't think you actually read any articles by Cantor about their research. I suspect that you read articles about Cantor, recapping their accomplishments throughout their career.

Why don't you go find actual research articles by Cantor before making a decision?

 

[Meadmaker]

What alternative, besides just throwing trans people to the wolves, do the people knee-jerking their opposition to trans inclusion propose?

In the case of sports: Allowing transwomen who have undergone some degree of physical transformation, including transformation caused by hormone therapy, to compete in the female division, based on rules that might be different depending on the sport or the level of competition. (i.e. high school track might have different rules than professional boxing.)

In the case of locker rooms: Provide a separate, unisex, facility, which might also serve handicapped access or other purpose. Or, if possible, facilities which provide total privacy.

In the case of bathrooms: Allow use based on gender presentation. i.e. if you are out wearing a dress and making an effort to appear as a woman, don't blow your cover on trans status by using the gents' room.


Not all of those proposals are accepted by every single person who thinks that males should not be allowed in female locker rooms. The point of my comment is that, if the truth be told, there are lots of alternatives presented other than "throwing trans people to the wolves".

 

[Belz...]

So every time a woman goes "I don't feel comfortable sharing my safe space with a person with a penis just because they identify as a woman" the pro-trans side is either going to go "OH YEAH WELL WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HORRIBLE THINGS THAT HAPPEN TO TRANS PEOPLE?"

Worse. They'll ask you "WHAT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE?"

 

[JoeMorgue]

Worse. They'll ask you "WHAT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE?"

Gay marriage is functionally very different because we aren't maintaining a segregation but giving a special third category an exception to it.

That's why I think the water fountain is a better metaphor. We didn't solve racial segregation by going "Well we'll the keep the segregation, but we'll just let people pick which race they are, that will solve it."

And, not to open this can of worms, but pro-segregationist were really big on white women being protected from black men so... there's a parallel there.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Worse. They'll ask you "WHAT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE?"

When it comes to discussing whether or not certain people have rights, the stakes are high. That's just the way it is. Either your someone opposing the civil and human rights of trans people, or your someone endangering women and children by being hoodwinked by the great trans hoax. There's not much middle ground here. When it comes to recognizing civil rights, there's not many ways to split the baby that make much sense with our current legal structure.

Pearl clutching about the nature of the beast is a waste of effort. People who were wrong about gay rights were homophobic. A lot of them came around, but that doesn't change that they were homophobic, making decisions largely driven by uniformed bigotry towards gay people.

Much is the same now with trans people. I suspect it will follow a similar course, where many people now will conveniently forget how stridently transphobic they were should trans rights become law of the land in the next few decades.

 

[Belz...]

Probably not as far right of me as they are to you. I'm pretty moderate.

So am I... although my political opinions run the gamut of left-to-right and authoritarian-to-libertarian.