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

[JoeMorgue]

Oh goodie we get to define the relative threat vector of penis versions. My favorite part of this discussion.

"Well you see a trans-penis has a threat vector .002 milirapes, while in the gay penis that level raises .1 millirapes, until you reach the cis-penis which, of course, maxes out at 100% millirape."

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh goodie we get to define the relative threat vector of penis versions. My favorite part of this discussion.

"Well you see a trans-penis has a threat vector .002 milirapes, while in the gay penis that level raises .1 millirapes, until you reach the cis-penis which, of course, maxes out at 100% millirape."

That is the glory of this thread, you can take a few months off and know that the discussion has not moved on.

 

[Distracted1]

To be fair, that the gay marriage example does require a little more examination. The argument is that if everyone had the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, regardless of their sexual orientation, then it appeared that everyone was being treated equally but in practice they were not. For gay people, this right was of little or no use to them, because if they could only marry someone of the sex they were not sexually/romantically attracted to, they could not participate on an equal basis in the institution of marriage in a way that meets the purpose for which it is generally intended and used in a modern Western society.

In using this as an analogy to the situation of people who identify as transgender being able to access facilities intended for the other biological sex, there are a few shortcomings. The key one is that where we consider it appropriate to segregate by sex, in no case is the purpose of that segregation to validate the gender identity of those using the facility (or engaging in the activity). Even more so when gender identity is meant to be on a spectrum between masculine and feminine, so any facility could contain people with varying gender identities. Therefore, having a particular gender identity does not inherently prevent anyone using a facility for its intended purpose.

Furthermore, allowing gay marriage does not in any way interfere with straight people being able to have an opposite sex marriage. In contrast, changing facilities from segregation by sex to segregation by self-declared gender changes those facilities for everyone. If the purpose of the segregation is to ensure safety and privacy from the opposite sex (especially important for women) then removing the right for women to object to the presence of males (who must be assumed to be women regardless of appearance) in changing rooms does interfere with women using these facilities for the purpose for which they are intended. Nobody has produced a rational argument as to why it is more important to restructure facilities to allow one group to use them for a purpose for which they were not intended, at the expense of another group being hindered in using them for their intended purpose. None of the so called analogies are actually analogous to this.

If a transgender person has medically transitioned or does not present as their biological sex, that is a stronger argument for saying they can’t be expected to use the facility for their biological sex (because they could be perceived as using the wrong facility, subjected to harassment etc). But that isn’t what the argument is about. It is not about making an accommodation for people with a rare characteristic. It’s about restructuring aspects of society to conform to an ideology (that subjective gender identity trumps biological sex). But nobody ever advances any rational evidence-based argument to support this, because there isn’t one.

Important point.

 

[theprestige]

That is the glory of this thread, you can take a few months off and know that the discussion has not moved on.

The discussion has moved on, though. You're the one trying to drag it back with fringe reset spam. Why haven't you moved on with the discussion, and with the rest of us?

 

[Distracted1]

Why isn't a penis, especially a gay penis the same kind of existential threat to teenage male humans? It is clearly very threatening but why is its threat so focused?

Young men typically have a better chance of fighting off forced intrusions. Except in prisons, of course.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Oh goodie we get to define the relative threat vector of penis versions. My favorite part of this discussion.

"Well you see a trans-penis has a threat vector .002 milirapes, while in the gay penis that level raises .1 millirapes, until you reach the cis-penis which, of course, maxes out at 100% millirape."

what this discussion really belies is how many people are comfortable with sexual harassment and assault, so long as it is strictly quarantined to male populations. The underlying assertion of much of these conversations is that men are inevitably prolific sexual violators, but it's not really a problem so long as it only effects men.

Sure, young boys, men, and trans women may get thrown into the lion's den, but as long as we keep "them" out of the women's room, it's not a problem.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so cards on the table.

Is treating someone as their declared gender 100% of the time with no exceptions a requirement to "validate their gender?"

I mean I'm over or under thinking but "Yeah you're a woman, but you're a unique kind of woman and sometimes that will be a factor" doesn't strike me as super-insulting.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Okay so cards on the table.

Is treating someone as their declared gender 100% of the time with no exceptions a requirement to "validate their gender?"

I mean I'm over or under thinking but "Yeah you're a woman, but you're a unique kind of woman and sometimes that will be a factor" doesn't strike me as super-insulting.

Seems to me you'd need a really strong reason to know someone was being insincere to challenge their expressed gender identity. I would no sooner challenge someone saying they're trans than I'd challenge someone claiming they're gay. I'm in no position to know their own mind better than they themselves, unless I had really good evidence they were being duplicitous for some gain.

Despite all the doom-saying about self-ID, the places that have implemented these policies seem to be doing fine. Canada still stands, last I checked.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Where does actually showing the actual real harm that has actually really befallen females as a result of these transgender privileges fall in your "clarification"?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Seems to me you'd need a really strong reason to know someone was being insincere to challenge their expressed gender identity.

Well the women-folk are pretty clear that "Men sneaking into our safe spaces" is a really strong reason.

Again I don't care. I'm on the third "Just no segregation at all" side that got shouted out of the discussion years ago but this discussion ain't getting past this impasse until it gets addressed.

They don't want schlongs in their lady rooms. We have to talk about that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

No, No, and No. Nor *should* there be, in my opinion. Perfectly happy to have exceptions to any of those, but not as a right.

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

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay so cards on the table.

Is treating someone as their declared gender 100% of the time with no exceptions a requirement to "validate their gender?"

I mean I'm over or under thinking but "Yeah you're a woman, but you're a unique kind of woman and sometimes that will be a factor" doesn't strike me as super-insulting.

As a male(as many of the posters here refer to her in a clearly totally not at all transphobic/trans averse fashion) she should expect that of course(and again with the total ignoring of trans men reminds me of the trouble trans men have getting competent gynological care see Robert Eads). He might have died of treatable cancer but at least he didn't make doctors uncomfortable.

The reality of course you are glossing over the cases of when that should be a factor. When your presence makes someone else uncomfortable, well that seems no unreasonable to compare to other traits that make people uncomfortable and how we treat those with the trait as opposed to those discomforted by it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Well the women-folk are pretty clear that "Men sneaking into our safe spaces" is a really strong reason.

Again I don't care. I'm on the third "Just no segregation at all" side that got shouted out of the discussion years ago but this discussion ain't getting past this impasse until it gets addressed.

They don't want schlongs in their lady rooms. We have to talk about that.

I think privacy in locker rooms is a legitimate concern, and I think our growing knowledge of sexual assault and harassment, including and especially beyond the scope of strictly trans issues, has shown that sex-segregation is not as nearly a strong defense against this as we previously thought.

When it comes to respecting bodily autonomy, there's simply no substitute for personal privacy. Sex segregated changing rooms do not provide personal privacy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think privacy in locker rooms is a legitimate concern, and I think our growing knowledge of sexual assault and harassment, including beyond the scope of strictly trans issues, has shown that sex-segregation is not as nearly a strong defense against this as we previously thought.

When it comes to respecting bodily autonomy, there's simply no substitute for personal privacy. Sex segregated changing rooms do not provide personal privacy.

I agree with all that, and personally speaking as far like bathrooms are concerned that's where we should be focusing our efforts, not the least of which for the purely selfish reason of I'd just personally like more privacy in my public bathrooms.

But then you start having to think about things like lockers rooms and prison and military quarters and... I don't see us getting past the male/female separation hump any time real soon.

There's "there's a penis in the bathroom stall next to me" and there's "there's 40 penises and 1 vagina in a living space the size of a large closest on an aircraft carrier (or vice versa)" Literally no amount of "Gender identity" progressiveness should make it impossible to see how the later could become a problem.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As a male(as many of the posters here refer to her in a clearly totally not at all transphobic/trans averse fashion) she should expect that of course(and again with the total ignoring of trans men reminds me of the trouble trans men have getting competent gynological care see Robert Eads). He might have died of treatable cancer but at least he didn't make doctors uncomfortable.

The reality of course you are glossing over the cases of when that should be a factor. When your presence makes someone else uncomfortable, well that seems no unreasonable to compare to other traits that make people uncomfortable and how we treat those with the trait as opposed to those discomforted by it.

What's old is new. Arkansas is also passing into law the right for doctor's to refuse care, even medically necessary care, for "moral or religious" reasons.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson on Friday signed into law legislation allowing doctors to refuse to treat someone because of religious or moral objections, a move opponents have said will give providers broad powers to turn away LGBTQ patients and others.

The measure says health care workers and institutions have the right to not participate in non-emergency treatments that violate their conscience. The new law won’t take effect until late this summer.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/arkansas-governor-signs-bill-allowing-medical-workers-to-refuse-treatment-to-lgbtq-people

Still trying to figure out what rights trans people don't have that straight people do. I just can't find them anywhere!

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

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.

But forcing a child who might be gay and perfectly healthy to go on puberty blockers which can cause long-term harm... because we might be able to turn them straight? That's just fine?

Yes, I know that's snarky. I would like you to consider whether or not the Dutch Approach is even under discussion here, seeing that at present, the UK, the US, CA, and AU are not being particularly clinically stringent in who they give puberty blockers to.

If you'd like to argue that those nations should adopt the Dutch Approach, and give us some cliff notes about it, I'm happy to hear a reasonable approach as an alternative to what's going on in our countries right now. But please, stop with the irrelevant argument on some assumption that somehow whatever is going on in these English-speaking countries is perfectly fine because "Dutch".

 

[ponderingturtle]

What's old is new. Arkansas is also passing into law the right for doctor's to refuse care, even medically necessary care, for "moral or religious" reasons.



https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/arkansas-governor-signs-bill-allowing-medical-workers-to-refuse-treatment-to-lgbtq-people

Still trying to figure out what rights trans people don't have that straight people do. I just can't find them anywhere!

The right to have their doctor refuse to tell them their breast cancer diagnosis of course.

"But when a suspicious lump was found in his breast and tested positive for cancer, the surgeon was so shocked that Kallio's body didn't match his gender identification -- not knowing whether to address him as "he" or "she" -- that he couldn't bring himself to tell his patient the grim biopsy results."

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/transgender-bias-now-banned-federal-law/story?id=16949817

 

[JoeMorgue]

We can go around the internet and nutpick examples all we want. To what end and what purpose?

What actually gets us closer to a solution that might be expectable to both sides?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But forcing a child who might be gay and perfectly healthy to go on puberty blockers which can cause long-term harm.

And the long term harm denying them from trans people is of course totally irrelevant.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

We can go around the internet and nutpick examples all we want. To what end and what purpose?

What actually gets us closer to a solution that might be expectable to both sides?

I don't see how the example of a state government is nutpicking. The opinions of these bigots is extremely relevant, as they wield considerable power and are using that power to enable making the lives of trans people worse.