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

[Emily's Cat]

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

Or, you know, being an intelligent and educated human being who acknowledges that female humans are smaller and weaker and less aggressive than male humans.

It's crazy to use science, I know.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It is reasonable for either gender to expect to not be seen nude by members of the opposite gender. Not only Females.
Or are you suggesting that I just get comfortable pulling my cock out in the presence of teenaged girls?

Sex, not gender. It's reasonable for either sex to expect to not be seen nude by members of the opposite sex.

Unfortunately for male humans... it is statistically almost all males who do the flashing and the peeping.

ETA: rephrasing. It's not "almost all males" doing the flashing and peeping. It's "almost all of the people" who do the flashing and peeping "are male people".

 

[Emily's Cat]

You do you, man, but you're likely to get arrested.

Well, not if they claim that they are trans. Then it would be the female teenagers that are in the wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why fight so hard for the rights of women to leer at other naked women? Are women losing something important if they no longer can see each other strip naked in the locker rooms? I really don't see much downside to actually providing people with personal privacy in these places, even if that just means a cheap curtain. Again, bodily autonomy and consent are often considered important lessons to teach people in order to fight sexual abuse. Providing people in changing rooms meaningful personal privacy seems like a great way to practice these principles.

As I've said many, many times before, locker rooms are rather low on my list of concerns.

Prisons, Rape shelters, Domestic Violence Shelters, Right to specify the SEX of the person providing intimate care and medicine, Representation in politics, Proportionality in Economics and Leadership roles, Honors and Awards intended to increase the equity of females in society, and athletic opportunities for females are all more important to me.

Somehow, however, people don't want to talk about those things. They only want to talk about bathrooms and showers.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Basically the argument is whether or not looking at a penis attached to a woman should be held to a different standard to looking at a penis attached to a man.

And Jesus Christ does anyone get how absurd that sounds when you say it out loud?

Some of us hit that point when we heard the terms "ladydick" and "fronthole".

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. You've thoroughly thrashed that strawman, well done.

If gender identity were considered a protected class by the SCOTUS, policies that were specifically discriminatory to people of that protected class would not be lawful. It's a fairly simple point, and one I suspect you understand quite well.

And if both gender identity and sex are considered protected classes... what happens when there is a conflict between rights based on sex and rights based on gender identity?

 

[theprestige]

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.

I agree, but I'd frame it a little differently.

I don't think it's so much a question - for us, in this thread - of whether it's valid, but what it actually is, and what it actually means.

There's the outward performance of gender. I'd say that's totally valid, in the sense that you have the right to perform whatever gender or non-gender or multi-gender identity you want. But it also doesn't really mean you're entitled to any privileges or accommodations or rights granted because of your performance. It's essentially a form of cosplay, somewhere in the vicinity of furry and blackface. So, very much a question of how well you can pass, and how good your manners are.

Then there's gender dysphoria, which a mental state of distress about your biological sex. That's also valid, in the same way that the voices a schizophrenic hears are valid, or the way someone with BIID views their healthy limbs is valid. Which is to say, it's a real condition, that deserves compassion, treatment, and accommodation.

Then there's autogynaephilia, which is also valid, but isn't the same thing as gender dysphoria, and probably shouldn't get the same accommodations or treatment.

To me, BIID and GID are almost perfectly analogous, especially when it comes to the question of surgery-as-treatment. We acknowledge that the discomfort someone with BIID feels towards their healthy limbs is a real feeling that deserves respect. But we do not therefore conclude that someone with BIID is entitled to surgical removal of their healthy limbs as a proper course of treatment. Nor do we agree that they are entitled to the accommodations made for people who actually are disabled.

We might provide these accommodations, if there was good medical evidence that doing so was better than not. Or we might provide other accommodations, tailored to the reality of their mental state, rather than the unreality of their unhealthy or missing limbs.

If we take this approach to people who are uncomfortable with their arms or legs, why take a different approach with people who are uncomfortable with their penises?

---

In any case we're stuck here without a productive conversation because you, LJ, et al. have consistently avoided answering the questions about what specific rights transgendered individuals should have because of their gender self-identity.

Or if you have, it's turned out to be in agreement with everyone else's ideas, but then you still act as if there's still something to disagree about. Some days, I think we're all in agreement, and sharing the moral high ground, but for some reason you're still throwing insults and hate around.

---

Where I draw the line is between the performance of gender, and the fact of biological sex. Wherever sex segregation is the norm in society, my position is that transgender folks do not have the right to cross that line. Regardless of how valid their gender identity may or may not be.

In fact, pretty much all of my thinking on this question of rights completely ignores the question of "validity". I assume all performances of gender are totally valid. That doesn't change the rights I think transgender folks should have at all. I assume GID is a real condition, and that the diagnoses people receive are totally valid. That doesn't change the rights I think they should have.

On the medical question, I would be open to good medical evidence that certain rights should be granted to gender dysphorics because of their dysphoria, as an integral part of the best known course of treatment for that dysphoria.

However, I would still be dubious about whether women giving up their safe spaces should be a part of that treatment, that dysphorics could claim as a right.

---

So that's my position, as clearly and dispassionately as I can think to express it. I wouldn't mind at all having a productive conversation with you about the points I've raised and the questions I've asked.

Even if you disagree with me completely, and see no reason to argue with me. I think we can still amicably give our answers to my questions, and compare them. I think that would be a very productive conversation. It might be a short conversation once we get it in the open and see where we're each at. But that might be nice, too. It'd end this thread on a fairly conclusive and informative note.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

There'd be a much more productive discussion if trans identity were something that could be defined in a clear and meaningful way.

I've said this dozens of times, but I'll say it again: I don't have any problem with transsexual people, and I don't have any strong opposition to transgender people who are actually suffering from gender dysphoria severe enough to require a transition. What I have a problem with is this push for self-declared transgender status with no questions asked.

 

[Belz...]

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?

No, no, no. Everybody else is always wrong when they disagree and I'm right, so although I'm entirely justified in calling others bigoted they can't do the same thing to me, because they're wrong by definition. And don't get me started on hypocrites!

 

[Belz...]

No. You've thoroughly thrashed that strawman, well done.

If gender identity were considered a protected class by the SCOTUS, policies that were specifically discriminatory to people of that protected class would not be lawful. It's a fairly simple point, and one I suspect you understand quite well.

And if SCOTUS ruled that being left-handed is a protected class, 10% of all doors would open in the opposite direction. So what?

 

[Belz...]

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

Ah, so on top of being a bigot and a transphobe I'm now a reactionary, in addition to being a left-wing extremist. Gee, I can't keep up with all these labels!

Intersectionality is a real thing, bucko. Might want to look it up.

 

[Belz...]

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

I have it on good authority that being scared of other people in restrooms is hysteria.

24% claim they have been challenged in a restroom within a 1 year period.

It's very relevant to the discussion at large, but that's not what I was asking, of course. Nicely done.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seriously then why let men exist in society at all? Confine us to a gulag in the Arctic and harvest our sperm when necessary to continue the species.

Well... someone needs to be able to reach the top shelves at the grocery store!

 

[TomB]

That's nice. But is showing a penis (by a transwoman) in a women's changing facility a trans right?

The problem here is that we are getting into the area of etiquette. The majority of trans-people I have read have no desire to flash their penis. They prefer to be discrete both because they recognize the discomfort of the people around them and because of their own discomfort.

But how do you legislate etiquette?

You can legislate against a behavior, but the prohibition on that behavior would have to apply to everyone, not only to members of a certain group.

Now, it's legal for me to expose my penis in the men's locker room. However, certain behavior while doing so (if I were to start doing pelvic thrusts or something to draw attention to it) could very well get me kicked out of the gym. So I don't know that it's a "right" to expose my penis, because I can lose that "right" if my conduct is inappropriate.

So no, it would not be a "right" for a trans-person to show their penis in the women's locker room. But, if it is decided that it is their right to use those rooms, exposure incidental to the intended use of the facility would not be prohibited, but inappropriate or exhibitionist behavior would not be acceptable. (Now, enforcement of that might be complicated.)

Context is important and it's not really as simple a question as it appears.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I too must object. My penis is quite docile and has harmed zero vulvas.

I don’t entirely buy the narrative that men are inherently dangerous; but I do buy the narrative that women have to be careful around males given their experiences collectively.

Honestly, I just get tired of always having to type out "not all men and not all penises". Just a day or two ago I put a nice long analogy out there, that was pretty clear that the vast majority of men are not a risk. Only a small proportion of penises are actually dangerous.

Most pitbulls are perfect sweethearts, and some of the most incredibly affectionate and loving dogs I've ever seen. Some pugs are downright ******** and very bitey. If there's an unknown pug and an unknown pitbull running at you barking, which one are you going to think is a bigger risk?

 

[Belz...]

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.

I'm not sure you're clear on what "dysphoria" means.

There are people with specific types of body dysphoria who will never have peace of mind until they amputate a specific limb. I would think that, had they this option, they'd all take it. Similarily, if you feel distress at having a male body I would think that, yes, almost all would transition. That's the remedy to the dysphoria.

 

[Meadmaker]

There'd be a much more productive discussion if trans identity were something that could be defined in a clear and meaningful way.

I'm not so sure.

I think I understand what trans identity means. I just don't see why it makes Nova Maday right and Julia Burca wrong.

As long as a significant number of women object to being seen naked by males, I will support the right of females to have male-free spaces.


(Nova Maday and Julia Burca were two students at Palatine High School. Nova Maday was a male girl who wished to use the girls' locker room. Julia Burca was a female girl who objected. The school board sided with Nova. It occurs to me that I have seen video taken at the school board meeting, but none of the actual vote. it would be interesting to sex the sex and/or gender of the school board members and how they voted.)

 

[Distracted1]

Well... someone needs to be able to reach the top shelves at the grocery store!

Not to mention, who is going to force all those dangerous humans into the Gulag?

 

[Belz...]

No matter how we cut it up... penises are dangerous, and they're especially dangerous to vulvas.

Penises don't rape people. People rape people!

 

[Belz...]

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.

Exactly. Your way or the highway.

I do all my posting from a ladder, that way I'm always above all you other peons. Maybe one day I'll have the moral clarity of pearl-clutching centrists deciding how much civil rights they, in their infinite wisdom, deign to pass out.

I wager you couldn't define "centrist" if your life depended on it.