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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rather than closing the thread whilst it is cleaned up I’m popping it on Moderated status again. I’ll try to get it cleaned out and off moderated status as soon as possible.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Well that's something, though someone soliciting confirming opinions for their opinion piece isn't even close to a representative survey.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were significant opinions like this from any pool of people using the shelter, given the abundance of anti-trans animus in the UK generally.

It isn't surprising at all. About 90% of the victims of domestic violence are female. Over 95% of the perpetrators of domestic violence are male. Over 90% of the victims of rape are female. Over 98% of the perpetrators of rape are male.

The victims of sexual violence are massively and overwhelmingly female, and many of them have been victimized in horrendously damaging and traumatic ways, often over long periods of time.

It's not at all surprising that a large portion of females seeking shelter from violence and abuse perpetrated against them by males might be distressed and mistrustful of males.

What is surprising to me, however, is you complete and utter lack of empathy and compassion for those victims. What is surprising to me to is your position that the feelings of a subset of male people is of more importance and merits more consideration than the actual safety, dignity, and trauma of a great many females.
 
Sure. Consider that what is routinely being asked is that trans women be denied staffing and leadership roles in these clinics, and often further that trans women, who face relatively high rates of domestic and sexual violence, be denied access to crisis care.

That is NOT what is being asked for at all. What is being asked for is that shelters and clinics be ALLOWED to be sex-segregated instead of gender-identity-segregated IF THEY CHOOSE, and that VICTIMS have the right to request the SEX of their caregivers rather than the GENDER IDENTITY of their caregivers.

There are already shelters that are trans-inclusive. There are already shelters that are trans-ONLY.

What is actually being demanded is that females MUST allow males into their presence, and have no choice. That female VICTIMS must submit to being treated by MALES in order to protect the feelings of those MALES who identify as women. This is the demand being made, and it is a demand being made BY MALES.
 
Nobody's calling for a universal ban of trans women from women's shelters. We're calling for a universal permit for individual shelters to make their own decisions about whether and how to shelter transsexuals.

As long as you're not calling for a universal mandate that shelters accept transwomen, we're all on the same page. No TERFs or transphobes in sight.

You probably need to qualify "nobody" here, because lots of people are very much opposed, including in some cases violently opposed, to allowing trans women to access women's spaces such as restrooms, shelters, and the like.
 
Well that's something, though someone soliciting confirming opinions for their opinion piece isn't even close to a representative survey.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were significant opinions like this from any pool of people using the shelter, given the abundance of anti-trans animus in the UK generally.

As I see it, this particular issue has little to do with trans-people. The people in question aren't triggered by the person's gender, but by their sex.

Often when a trans-woman person is encountered, both their gender (woman) and sex (male) are perceived. Is it inconceivable to you that a person who has been raped by a male (of either gender) might, as a result, be uncomfortable with a male caregiver (of either gender)?

Further, if a person being treated for psychological trauma is uncomfortable with a caregiver for any reason, then that caregiver will not be effective and is therefore not the appropriate caregiver for that person. And that can have nothing to do with sex/gender/race.

And remember: one does not get to choose what is triggering and what makes one uncomfortable after a traumatic event. Calling victims of rape who are subsequently uncomfortable around males (including those who are also women) is the same as making fun of someone for being schizophrenic or having developmental disabilities.

The people who set up and run these shelters are often, I think, victims themselves and therefore set up their operations and policies based on their own experiences and what they themselves found to be triggering or traumatic. So if someone was uncomfortable around males after victimization (of either gender) they should be able to set up a shelter that caters to victims with similar experiences. Another person may be triggered by gender rather than sex and set different policies.
 
You're the nineteen-millionth male I've heard express this sentiment. Okay, maybe an exaggeration. But nearly every single adult male I've talked to about this has expressed that if they were to find themselves in prison, they'd want to identify as a woman and be moved to the female ward. I've even heard several females express that sentiment with respect to their male spouses and children. Given the option, that's the rational thing to do.

This is a pretty clear acknowledgement that in general, males are more dangerous and more prone to violence than are females.

And of course, everyone believes that they themselves, or their male relatives and loved ones, are the 'good ones' who would never present a danger to a female. Most of them are probably right. Most males aren't a danger. But enough are that as a group, males are dangerous. Males are dangerous to other males. And males are even *more* dangerous to females.

The problem is that allowing 'good males' to self-identify their way out of the dangerous male ward, and into the safe female ward... it also explicitly allows the 'bad males' to do the same thing. All it accomplishes is a shifting of the burden of violence onto female people who are smaller, weaker, and more vulnerable.

It is absolutely in the best interest of males to find a way to get the system to place them in the female ward. It's in the interest of both 'good males' and 'bad males' to do so.

But it is definitely not in the interest of females to allow this to happen. It incontrovertibly places females at increased risk and danger, reduces their dignity and humanity, and violates their boundaries and consent.

TL;DR...

Males: This is good for me personally.
Females: This is terrifying and dangerous to the mental and physical well-being of myself and every other female in this position.
I have little to dispute with that.
You do realize, however, that you are basically arguing that women are "the weaker sex"?
 
You're the nineteen-millionth male I've heard express this sentiment. Okay, maybe an exaggeration. But nearly every single adult male I've talked to about this has expressed that if they were to find themselves in prison, they'd want to identify as a woman and be moved to the female ward. I've even heard several females express that sentiment with respect to their male spouses and children. Given the option, that's the rational thing to do.

That's an interesting observation--it does lead me to wonder if most of the adult males that ACTUALLY find themselves in prison are asking to identify as women, and if not what is causing the disparity.
 
Nobody's calling for a universal ban of trans women from women's shelters. We're calling for a universal permit for individual shelters to make their own decisions about whether and how to shelter transsexuals.
This strikes me as a reasonable middle ground between all shelters must segregate by gender rather than sex on the one hand and all shelters must segregate by sex rather than gender on the other.
 
The militia leader who's facing life in prison for master*minding the bombing of a Minnesota mosque now identifies as a woman, according to court documents.

Emily Claire Hari — previously known as Michael Hari — is asking a judge to legally acknowledge her transgender identity. Hari, 50, says a combination of gender dysphoria and right-wing misinformation fueled her "inner conflict" during the time that she was convicted of bombing Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center in Bloomington.

https://www.startribune.com/mosque-...ed-inner-conflict-leading-up-to-at/600090371/
 
In theory, I don't find this objectionable. The track record of appeasing prejudice with "separate but equal" does not inspire confidence.

Men's and women's restrooms have been separate and equal just fine, for a long time now. Men's and women's sports leagues have been separate and equal just fine. There's lots of gender segregation that's been separate and equal just fine for almost everyone.

And even today you're not saying that the segregation should be abolished. Rather, the trans petition is that the segregation be upheld, but that they should be permitted to transcend it if they wish.

So I think your concerns about separate but equal are a red herring.

Too, not all prejudice is inherently bad. Not all prejudice needs to be prejudicially dismissed. We are rightly* prejudiced against the idea of men and women in the same sports leagues. Separate but equal sports leagues for the two sexes is in fact the right way to "appease" that prejudice. And it has the track record to prove it.

The problem with transwomen in women's sports leagues is that their claim to separation is contrafactual. A man claiming to be a woman does not change any of the underlying biological and physical facts of their existence. None of the reasons that justify the prejudice against this go away just because the transwoman says they'd rather compete as a woman.

"We segregate blacks because they're subhuman." Well, that turns out to be evil and wrong.

"We segregate women at the polling booth and in the board room because they're subhuman." Well, that also turns out to be evil and wrong.

"We segregate women in sports because of the significant biological disparity between the two genders. This has economic and safety implications that are impossible to ignore. Segregation along gender lines is in fact the optimal solution for all parties." Well, that turns out to be entirely correct.

---
*For reasons much belabored in this thread, and not disputed.
 
In terms of physical strength, women ARE the weaker sex. There's no way around that provided one accepts science rather than ideology as the basis for one's conclusions.

I think there's a little more to the denial of this reality than just ideology. I suspect that psychology plays an important role too. Nobody likes to think of themselves as inferior to other people, but for some women to acknowledge that men are physically stronger than them puts them in this position of accepting inferiority (even if only on this one metric). And some people (both men and women) struggle with that. Ideology amplifies this both directly (everyone is equal!) and indirectly (group identity subsumes individual identity), but it isn't only ideology which leads people to this denial of reality.

But this is a bit of a footnote. At the end of the day, the reasons for denying reality still can't change reality.
 
TL;DR...

Males: This is good for me personally.
Females: This is terrifying and dangerous to the mental and physical well-being of myself and every other female in this position.

This is an interesting paper by Dr Michael Biggs on the history of replacement of sex by gender in prisons systems in England and Wales, and the role of queer theory in the process.

The analysis goes into some reasons why "No thoughts were spared for the women who they were forcing to be confined with males who had usually proven to be violent or sexually predatory or both. Women were treated as the audience needed to validate the performance of transgender identity" (p13).
 
The are only two possible questions are:

1. To what degree do women... err I guess say deserve ("deserve" isn't exactly the right word and has connotations of entitlement I'm not trying to put across, but something like that) spaces kept separate from men for purpose of safety, security, and dignity.

2. How do we define "woman" for the purposes of applying point 1.

... snip ....


It's simple, ask women and let them decide. I feel the same way about abortion.
 
Men's and women's restrooms have been separate and equal just fine, for a long time now. Men's and women's sports leagues have been separate and equal just fine. There's lots of gender segregation that's been separate and equal just fine for almost everyone.

And even today you're not saying that the segregation should be abolished. Rather, the trans petition is that the segregation be upheld, but that they should be permitted to transcend it if they wish.

So I think your concerns about separate but equal are a red herring.

Too, not all prejudice is inherently bad. Not all prejudice needs to be prejudicially dismissed. We are rightly* prejudiced against the idea of men and women in the same sports leagues. Separate but equal sports leagues for the two sexes is in fact the right way to "appease" that prejudice. And it has the track record to prove it.

The problem with transwomen in women's sports leagues is that their claim to separation is contrafactual. A man claiming to be a woman does not change any of the underlying biological and physical facts of their existence. None of the reasons that justify the prejudice against this go away just because the transwoman says they'd rather compete as a woman.

"We segregate blacks because they're subhuman." Well, that turns out to be evil and wrong.

"We segregate women at the polling booth and in the board room because they're subhuman." Well, that also turns out to be evil and wrong.

"We segregate women in sports because of the significant biological disparity between the two genders. This has economic and safety implications that are impossible to ignore. Segregation along gender lines is in fact the optimal solution for all parties." Well, that turns out to be entirely correct.

---
*For reasons much belabored in this thread, and not disputed.

The reasoning for separating men and women in sports may not be motivated by animus, but it's hard to deny that animus is playing a huge role in the drive to exclude trans people.
 
It's simple, ask women and let them decide. I feel the same way about abortion.

That isn’t simple, that’s circular. Who are you asking, if you haven’t already decided what the definition of “woman” is? Does my answer to the question of what a woman is count, if I say that I’m a woman? Does my answer not count, if someone saying they are a woman says that I’m not?
 
Scottish woman Marion Miller charged with hate crimes due to her tweeting her support for women having their own space, which should not include men who want to be women, has appeared in court in Glasgow.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/poli...ion-millar-scots-feminist-charged-hate-crime/

A real who's who of disgraced losers showing up.

Ms Cherry, who shares some of Ms Millar’s views on gender recognition, is due to lead her defence tomorrow with advocate Paul Harvey as her junior counsel.

It is understood the defence will involve human rights issues.

Ms Millar’s supporters, including the TV comedy writer Graham Linehan, are expected to support her in person tomorrow.

The For Women Scotland group, which also supports Ms Millar, is also planning a demonstration outside Holyrood on Thursday against plans to reform gender recognition law to make it quicker and simpler for people to obtain a gender recognition certificate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom