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

[TurkeysGhost]

By your logic, that would mean that your pro-trans stance means that you're misogynistic.

Does that seem like a reasonable way to frame this discussion? Or do you admit to being misogynistic?

The zero sum view of the situation that pits trans rights vs women's rights is not one shared by me, nor by all women or feminists.

 

[Belz...]

Because you can't make everyone happy.

That logic tends to favour the larger group, however.

But then you don't tend to think much about what you post.

 

[Belz...]

I do love how quickly people get to "You can't make everyone happy" but have such trouble getting to "But sometimes that person is you."

So I'm trading the civil rights and happiness of 50% of the population for the civil rights and happiness of statistically none?

Again the women are arguing it's a civil rights issue (and therefore they are right by fiat) too. You have zero moral, argumentative, or logical high ground that is higher than theirs.

You're forgetting the intersectionality oppression ladder, again!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You're forgetting the intersectionality oppression ladder, again!

Is there some reactionary buzzword hotsheet you pull these from, or do you have it committed to memory?

 

[JoeMorgue]

(Tell me what a transphobe I am.)

[snip]

(Tell me what a misogynist I am.)

Welcome to the club.

The zero sum view of the situation that pits trans rights vs women's rights is not one shared by me, nor by all women or feminists.

Well again I need to point out that what all the Trans-supporters are saying doesn't exactly seem to match up with what the actual Transpeople are saying either.

 

[Belz...]

Got it it is simple majority rules and any minority is always wrong.

Bwa ha ha! You change your argument to its inverse as soon as it's inconvenient, and you don't even notice.

You are adorable.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Welcome to the club.



Well again I need to point out that what all the Trans-supporters are saying doesn't exactly seem to match up with what the actual Transpeople are saying either.

Sure. I don't presume to speak for trans people broadly. EC repeatedly gives the impression that all women are standing back aghast as the trans menace approaches over the horizon, which is absolutely not the case.

Feminists, generally speaking, are firm allies of trans people. Such is the case that the TERFs have to be splinter groups from mainstream feminism. Those claiming that trans rights comes at the expense of hard won victories by feminists are not speaking for the majority.

 

[Belz...]

Surely you have some data rather than just spamming trans-panic anecdotes.

When these discussions started I was told that the restroom issue was pressing because trans people were being assaulted in restrooms. When I asked for data rather than anecdotes I was told that there was none available.

But when it's other people telling you their issues, data is required.

For example, the consequences of banning social transition for trans people is very well documented by extremely high rates of mental health problems and suicide risk.

Which has **** all to do with restrooms and sports.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We had this wonderful system with blue people on one side and pink people on the other, and everyone was fine with it. But then some blue people decided they were actually pink, and some pink people decided they were blue, and that just threw a spanner into everything.

Especially since the blue people that feel pink and the pink people that feel blue are offended at the suggestion that they maybe ought to use a purple bathroom.

Now we have to confront uncomfortable questions, like why don't we imprison pink and blue people together. Because blue people will rape pink people. Well, bugger.

If it were buggering, there'd be less risk of unwanted pregnancy...

 

[Belz...]

Lol, doing a feminism by generalizing all women as helpless victims that must be protected by big daddy government.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

When these discussions started I was told that the restroom issue was pressing because trans people were being assaulted in restrooms. When I asked for data rather than anecdotes I was told that there was none available.

But when it's other people telling you their issues, data is required.



Which has **** all to do with restrooms and sports.

Sure, I've posted it before. Surveys of trans people show that being challenged or otherwise harassed in restrooms is a very real issue.

60% claim they have avoided public restrooms out of fear, 32% claim they restrict their eating and drinking to avoid the need to use public restrooms, and 24% claim they have been challenged in a restroom within a 1 year period.

https://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-transgender-people-harassed-in-public-restrooms-landmark-survey-2016-12

There is no evidence linking trans-inclusive policy to violence in bathrooms, but very clear evidence that trans people are victimized when denied social recognition of their gender identity.

 

[Olmstead]

That's why there has to be a better definition of 'trans' than 'it's why I feel right now'. That's why gender dysphoria makes sense as a prerequisite because with it comes a diagnosis and a transition that makes objective determination (and passing) much easier.

Do all people with gender dysphoria want to transition and/or pass? This seems like a non-starter. Presumably there would be transwomen who want to fight against gender expectations.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sure. I don't presume to speak for trans people broadly.

What can you possibly disagree on if everything is an all or nothing, no grey area question?

Why can you disagree with trans people but we can't? What gets you in the special club?

 

[Distracted1]

What can you possibly disagree on if everything is an all or nothing, no grey area question?

Why can you disagree with trans people but we can't? What gets you in the special club?

By calling "bigot" first, one gains the moral high ground- and possession of such cannot be questioned.

Like calling "shotgun" first automatically gets one the front seat.

 

[xjx388]

I mentioned this up-thread: it's at least plausible because we know sexual development is a very complex interplay of nature and nurture, of hormones and the brain during fetal development and development outside the womb, and sometimes things can go in different directions. A person with the conviction that they are of a sex that doesn't match their anatomy is plausible in a way that a person thinking they are baby isn't because there is no known developmental, hormonal, nor brain-al phenomenon that could plausibly produce that.

Psychological development itself is a complex interplay of all that, too. Yet we label most beliefs that don’t comport with reality as “delusion.” I don’t think you’ve elucidated exactly what makes a belief that one is not the sex one was born as is not delusional.

Consider someone who believes that the arm they were born should not be there. Very clearly, the arm is normal and should be there. But their brain, for whatever developmental or brain-ial reason, tells them they need to cut that arm off.

Can you explain what exactly is the difference?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What can you possibly disagree on if everything is an all or nothing, no grey area question?

Why can you disagree with trans people but we can't? What gets you in the special club?

There's probably plenty to legitimately discuss, but I can't see there being a productive conversation so long a we're stuck spinning our wheels on whether trans identity is legitimate or just something to be begrudgingly tolerated out of a sense of good manners.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's probably plenty to legitimately discuss, but I can't see there being a productive conversation so long a we're stuck spinning our wheels on whether trans identity is legitimate or just something to be begrudgingly tolerated out of a sense of good manners.

Or you could response to what I asked instead of some random comment.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is the closest anyone's actually come to the whole "Explain it without using the words" thing I keep asking for.

I'd love (no snark, no ulterior motive) the... aggressively pro-trans and aggressively pro-female safe space sides to explain me their solutions to the problem using that language.

I don't think I'm "aggressively" anything other than "aggressively opposed to" being called names and denigrated repeatedly.

That said...

In public restrooms and clothing store dressing rooms, people who are pink, or a very pale shade of orchid, should use the pink room. People who are blue, or a very deep shade of violet, should use the blue room.

In locker rooms and showers, and spaces where people are likely to be naked, people who are pink, and people who have had their blue bits removed, should use the pink room. People who are blue, or have had their pink bits removed, should use the blue room. If a blue person still has blue bits, but every other part of them is pink and nobody suspects them of having blue bits, they can probably get away with using the pink room because nobody is going to notice... just keep those blue bits covered. And vice versa of course. Ideally, there'd also be a pink/blue/purple/orange room available for those who don't feel comfortable in either the pink or the blue rooms.

In prisons, domestic violence refuges, and rape shelters, the general rule should be that pink people and blue people should be kept separated, regardless of what color they feel like. But I think it would be reasonable to allow some case-by-case exceptions once in a while, because some blue people who have had a full-body spray-pinkening, and who have had their bluest bits removed, probably would be safer in with the pink people, while also not raping the pink people. I think it would be reasonable to allow pink people who feel blue, even if they've had a spray-bluing and have removed their pinkest parts, to be put in with the pink people - they're still pink on the inside, and due to the ways that blue people and pink people are conditioned, they're very unlikely to try to rape fellow pink people.

Because of how society has treated pink people for a long time, and continues to treat pink people today, I don't think that blue people should be counted as pink people when it comes to awards, recognitions, executive positions, or political office. Society craps on pink people on a regular basis as it is, and I don't think that blue people can really appreciate how crappy it is, and I don't think they can really understand or represent the concerns and issues that are important to pink people.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't think I'm "aggressively" anything other than "aggressively opposed to" being called names and denigrated repeatedly.

*Shrugs* Fine "Passionately" then.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Or you could response to what I asked instead of some random comment.

I've quite lost which comment this is meant to refer to. Feel free to repeat, or at least point me in the right direction.