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

[Meadmaker]

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.

Not only will I deny that the drive to exclude trans people is motivated by animus, I will deny that the drive exists.


Ok everyone, raise your hand if you object to Quinn getting a gold medal? Anyone?

Huh. No hands.

 

[Earthborn]

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.

It is only "the rational thing to do" in a prison system that is so poorly organised that it cannot ensure the safety of inmates.

What is actually being demanded is that females MUST allow males into their presence, and have no choice.

Who demands this?

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.

Shelters for abuse victims are obviously not public places and are by necessity selective in who is allowed in. I think everybody here accepts that the people running those places are allowed to decide whether a person seeking refuge is an appropriate fit for their shelter or help them find another one if that person is not.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is only "the rational thing to do" in a prison system that is so poorly organised that it cannot ensure the safety of inmates.

That may be true, but the reality we're working with. And this thread isn't about prison reform, so there's no point in going down that line of argument any further.

Shelters for abuse victims are obviously not public places and are by necessity selective in who is allowed in. I think everybody here accepts that the people running those places are allowed to decide whether a person seeking refuge is an appropriate fit for their shelter or help them find another one if that person is not.

You are wrong, not everyone here accepts that. A number of people here do not accept that. Boudicca99, for example, definitely did not. I suspect SuburbanTurkey doesn't either, but I may be wrong on that one.

 

[TomB]

It is only "the rational thing to do" in a prison system that is so poorly organised that it cannot ensure the safety of inmates.

Well, obviously, if prisons were completely safe, we wouldn't need segregation by sex or gender. I look forward to a prison design model that accomplishes this. Seriously, I don't think prisons should be dangerous for anyone, so I'd like to see the plan.

But the current reality is that prisons are not safe and decisions need to be made with that reality in mind.

Who demands this?

Really?

Regardless of your position, it can't escape you that the lions share of this thread deals with whether trans-women (biologically male) should have access to spaces that were designated for women at a time when "woman" was presumed to be a synonym of female.

If there were no one demanding this, there would be no discussion and these things would not be bullet points in trans-rights advocacy.

Shelters for abuse victims are obviously not public places and are by necessity selective in who is allowed in. I think everybody here accepts that the people running those places are allowed to decide whether a person seeking refuge is an appropriate fit for their shelter or help them find another one if that person is not.

Well, if I understand Suburban Turkey's position correctly, he doesn't trust shelters to make those decisions in practice, though he doesn't object in theory. And I get that. It's not easy to distinguish between a "female only" based on legitimate sex/trauma issues and a "female only" policy based on a dislike of trans-women. It's my impression that the possibility of the latter is significant enough to him that he prefers not to allow that judgment.

 

[Paul2]

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.

Some, even most, people might have animus in their drive to separate men and women in sports, and yet there might be a good, solid, legitimate reason to do so at the same time. Agreed?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You are wrong, not everyone here accepts that. A number of people here do not accept that. Boudicca99, for example, definitely did not. I suspect SuburbanTurkey doesn't either, but I may be wrong on that one.

Depends on what you mean. Shelters evaluating people on an individual basis and assessing whether or not and how they can provide service is generally fine. Categorical refusals to help people based on protected classes, such as trans identity, is something that should be disqualifying for receiving public funds.

At least, such was the position of the Canadian government when they stopped funding the TERF women's shelter.

Discrimination in public accommodations is an old problem with solutions. If trans identity is a protected class, as it increasingly is becoming in many places, then there is no more right to discriminate against trans people than there is to run a "white's only" shelter. People who want to run a bigoted shelter are welcome to do so without public funding.

 

[Ziggurat]

If trans identity is a protected class, as it increasingly is becoming in many places, then there is no more right to discriminate against trans people than there is to run a "white's only" shelter.

Your comparison might make sense if you were opposed to sex segregation in all cases. But since you're not, it doesn't.

 

[theprestige]

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.

This seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

On the one hand, you seem to agree that there are good biological reasons to segregate men and women in sports.

On the other hand, you seem to want to find a way to make the segregation into an evil TERF thing.

If you think there's good biological reasons to segregate sports by sex, does that mean you think there's good biological reasons to insist that transwomen continue to compete with men, rather than transcending the segregation and competing with women?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

On the one hand, you seem to agree that there are good biological reasons to segregate men and women in sports.

On the other hand, you seem to want to find a way to make the segregation into an evil TERF thing.

If you think there's good biological reasons to segregate sports by sex, does that mean you think there's good biological reasons to insist that transwomen continue to compete with men, rather than transcending the segregation and competing with women?

Because we aren't just talking about sport, are we?

There's probably a strong argument to be made that trans people enjoy an unfair advantage in some sports. Whether or not this should be justification for discrimination based on trans identity is an open question that is sometimes based in good faith.

More often than not it's just a wedge issue for those advocating universal trans exclusion, as is the case of the anti-trans hate groups like LGB alliance or whatever that insist on total exclusion. Recall that this back and forth did not start talking about sports leagues, but domestic violence shelters.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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).

Good paper, thanks Elaedith.

It does echo my own observation, which is not limited to gender-related topics. In a great many interactions, females are treated as either an audience or an object for male wish-fulfillment. Given that propensity, it's not particularly surprising that the safety and dignity of females are not heard and not considered when they are opposed to the desires of males - especially to males who declare themselves to be 'women'. At that point, the primary role of females is expected to be one of unending affirmation for that declaration, with no regard to the needs and safety of the females affected.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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/

I've been following this case. It's astonishing - and frightening - that Millar is facing possible incarceration for wanting females to have the right to safe single-sex spaces and for *gasp* posting an image of a *ribbon*.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I disagree. I don't think it's animus at all. I think it's recognition of objective reality - that a person's declaration about themselves and how they feel in terms of their gender role and presentation does not actually alter their physical attributes.

I think that your assumption is fairly easily shown to be false. Absolutely nobody has any objection whatsoever to a female who identifies as a transman competing in male sports. Indeed, nobody had any objection whatsoever to Quinn competing as non-binary on the female soccer team.

Why? Because it's not about identity. It's about biology.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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/

I suppose there's not much chance of finding out what she posted that triggered this prosecution. I'm not too familiar with British speech laws, but the press seems awfully tight lipped about the exact offending statement(s).

The UK seems to have quite the nanny state. It's hard to say if the statements are just that nanny state doing its thing, or if it's something quite severe that might result in criminal charges in less restrictive nations unless we can see what was said and to who.

It is illegal even in the US to send certain threatening communications, and a hate crime to do so in certain cases. Or it's just the UK being the UK.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I disagree. I don't think it's animus at all. I think it's recognition of objective reality - that a person's declaration about themselves and how they feel in terms of their gender role and presentation does not actually alter their physical attributes.

I think that your assumption is fairly easily shown to be false. Absolutely nobody has any objection whatsoever to a female who identifies as a transman competing in male sports. Indeed, nobody had any objection whatsoever to Quinn competing as non-binary on the female soccer team.

Why? Because it's not about identity. It's about biology.

I don't see how the hypocrisy of TERFS not caring about the inclusion of trans-men is proof of much of anything other than their own incoherence.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It is only "the rational thing to do" in a prison system that is so poorly organised that it cannot ensure the safety of inmates.

Or you know, a prison system that acknowledges that males commit a massively higher proportion of violent crimes and sexual crimes than females do.

Tell you what - you figure out a way to reduce the level of aggression, violence, and sexual crimes among males the the same level as demonstrated by females across the globe, and we can have mixed-sex prisons. Easy-peasy, right?

Who demands this?

Advocates and activists for transgender privileges and entitlements.

Shelters for abuse victims are obviously not public places and are by necessity selective in who is allowed in. I think everybody here accepts that the people running those places are allowed to decide whether a person seeking refuge is an appropriate fit for their shelter or help them find another one if that person is not.

No, I don't think 'everybody here' accepts that, because that's observably NOT what is occurring in the real world. Furthermore, I don't even think it's reasonable to assume that 'everybody here' thinks that's how it *should* work, as there are a few posters whose positions have shown that they believe that shelters should NOT be allowed to be single-sex spaces.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because we aren't just talking about sport, are we?

There's probably a strong argument to be made that trans people enjoy an unfair advantage in some sports. Whether or not this should be justification for discrimination based on trans identity is an open question that is sometimes based in good faith.

More often than not it's just a wedge issue for those advocating universal trans exclusion, as is the case of the anti-trans hate groups like LGB alliance or whatever that insist on total exclusion. Recall that this back and forth did not start talking about sports leagues, but domestic violence shelters.

LGB Alliance isn't an anti-trans group. They're simply a group that is focused exclusively on sexual orientation, not on gender identity.

On that note though...

What are your thoughts on the gay man being hounded out of the pride parade last weekend for wearing a shirt and hat supporting a charity for gay and lesbian people?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I suppose there's not much chance of finding out what she posted that triggered this prosecution. I'm not too familiar with British speech laws, but the press seems awfully tight lipped about the exact offending statement(s).

The UK seems to have quite the nanny state. It's hard to say if the statements are just that nanny state doing its thing, or if it's something quite severe that might result in criminal charges in less restrictive nations unless we can see what was said and to who.

It is illegal even in the US to send certain threatening communications, and a hate crime to do so in certain cases. Or it's just the UK being the UK.

So far as I know, not a single one of her twitter posts has been removed, so it should be easy for you to find the 'hate speech' that she posted.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What are your thoughts on the gay man being hounded out of the pride parade last weekend for wearing a shirt and hat supporting a charity for gay and lesbian people?

Almost as cool as when pride parades bounce out the cops. Nice to know that solidarity is still the order of the day in many places. Trans exclusionists shouldn't look to the queer community for support, they might be much better off with the reactionary right.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Almost as cool as when pride parades bounce out the cops. Nice to know that solidarity is still the order of the day in many places. Trans exclusionists shouldn't look to the queer community for support, they might be much better off with the reactionary right.

Police have an important place in Pride, that of the target for throwing bricks at them. It is important to keep the traditions alive.

 

[Agatha]

I am in the UK and cannot post the tweet that led to the prosecution. I believe I can describe it.

She posted a picture of green, white and violet ribbons (the GWV traditionally stands for Give Women Votes in the UK) attached to a fence. The ribbons were arranged in loops as most ribbons are when being used for promoting a cause. (see for example the breast cancer and prostate cancer ribbons).

An actor claimed to have felt threatened by the image, though it was not tweeted at him in particular. Police Scotland took action.

Many women have claimed to have felt threatened by images and messages such as the ones collected on this webpage. Neither Police Scotland nor any other police forces in England or Wales have seen fit to take action over any of these images, some of which were posted by social media users based in the UK.