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

Status
Not open for further replies.
SuburbanTurkey said:
If I found myself standing in solidarity with a bunch of fascists, Q cranks, and rabidly homophobic street preachers, it would probably instigate a lot of introspection about what I was doing with my life. Personal preferences may vary.
Click to expand...

You are, however, standing in company with a bunch of rabidly homophobic and misogynistic people. Which doesn't seem to bother you one whit. Iran is a huge supporter of trans rights, including providing all hormonal and surgical transitions paid for by the state. They are your ally on this.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You are, however, standing in company with a bunch of rabidly homophobic and misogynistic people. Which doesn't seem to bother you one whit. Iran is a huge supporter of trans rights, including providing all hormonal and surgical transitions paid for by the state. They are your ally on this.
Click to expand...

Let me know when Iran starts having people stabbed in the streets of the US.
 
Let's step back from the round and round, Suburban Turkey.

Under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate that a female be allowed to expect that they are only in the presence of other females?

Under what circumstance do you think that a female person should be allowed to insist that the person(s) they are interacting with directly also be female?

Under what circumstances do you think that a male person should be entitled to interact with female persons regardless of the will or consent of those females?

Under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate for a homosexual person to refuse to consider members of the opposite sex for romantic interactions?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Let's step back from the round and round, Suburban Turkey.

Under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate that a female be allowed to expect that they are only in the presence of other females?

Under what circumstance do you think that a female person should be allowed to insist that the person(s) they are interacting with directly also be female?

Under what circumstances do you think that a male person should be entitled to interact with female persons regardless of the will or consent of those females?

Under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate for a homosexual person to refuse to consider members of the opposite sex for romantic interactions?
Click to expand...

California law is quite clear in their public accommodations law. Not sure what point there was for these agitators to start a hoax about Wi Spa following the law other than to be a pretext for violent demonstration.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
If I found myself standing in solidarity with a bunch of fascists, Q cranks, and rabidly homophobic street preachers, it would probably instigate a lot of introspection about what I was doing with my life. Personal preferences may vary.
Click to expand...

You find yourself standing in solidarity with Jessica Yaniv and Chris Chan.

Don't try to play the guilt by association game. You aren't immune to it.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Actions taken by some of these leagues to allow trans athletes who have been on hormone replacement therapy for sufficient periods of time seem, tentatively speaking, adequate requirements and ones that show a good-faith interest in balancing the rights of trans people while addressing any unfair advantages they may have. I imagine these will continue to evolve over time based on real-world data, which is slow to come because trans people are such small percentages of the general population.
Click to expand...
What happens if we gather data for decades and never find a sufficient period of time during which HRT causes the strength and bone density advantages caused by male puberty to fully recede, after controlling for other variables such as age group?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
She didn't ask you about California law. She asked you about what was appropriate.
Click to expand...

These questions, not to quibble, are quite idiotic. Only someone reading the most brain poisoned TERF rags would think anyone is ever compelled to date another person.

I'm treating the question with as much respect as it deserves, which is none at all.
 
Ziggurat said:
You find yourself standing in solidarity with Jessica Yaniv and Chris Chan.

Don't try to play the guilt by association game. You aren't immune to it.
Click to expand...

The Wi Spa incident was a fascist rally with an anti-trans pretext. It's not guilt by association if someone is marching in lockstep with fascists. It's fine if TERFs don't want to claim it, but they can't pretend it's a legit grievance and ignore that it's almost certainly an inflammatory hoax. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

I'd be happy to move on if EC wants to disavow the Wi Spa incident, but I doubt they do.

It's an interesting pattern of the most virulent TERFs strategically aligning with far-right elements, be it fascists at Wi Spa or the ADF Christian Domionists for the Evergreen pool. Actually, both incidents have quite a bit in common.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
What happens if we gather data for decades and never find a sufficient period of time during which HRT causes the strength and bone density advantages caused by male puberty to fully recede, after controlling for other variables such as age group?
Click to expand...

We already know bone density advantages don't go away with HRT. Why would it? Estrogen promotes bone density. There's no mystery there.

Nor are bone density or muscle strength the only anatomical advantages. Males also have larger lung capacity, larger hearts, and a smaller Q angle at the knee, all of which provide athletic advantages and none of which are affected by HRT.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
These questions, not to quibble, are quite idiotic. Only someone reading the most brain poisoned TERF rags would think anyone is ever compelled to date another person.
Click to expand...

You've actually misrepresented her question in a subtle but important way. She didn't ask about being forced to date someone. She asked about having to consider dating someone.

And yes, it still sounds really stupid to think that anyone should have to consider dating anyone else. But that is, in fact, EXACTLY what the trans activists complaining about the "cotton ceiling" want. They insist that lesbians must consider dating trans women. Yes, it's absurd, but it isn't Emily's absurdity, it's the radical trans activists' absurdity.

Furthermore, other questions she asked aren't absurd, but at the very heart of this entire debate. Her first question, which I will repeat here, is incredibly fundamental:

Under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate that a female be allowed to expect that they are only in the presence of other females?

Maybe your answer is no circumstances. If so, then say it. That would be a fundamental point of disagreement that no amount of debate can probably ever bridge, so let's stop wasting our time.

But if your answer isn't no circumstances, then none of the questions of trans rights that we are debating here are actually as simple as you pretend.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate that a female be allowed to expect that they are only in the presence of other females?
Click to expand...

This is begging the question. The obvious intention of sex segregated spaces in bathrooms and changing rooms and so on is to protect women (and men) from lustful eyes, based on the assumption that everyone is heterosexual and cis.

It is obvious, in these modern age, that these assumptions are false. Cis women can lust for other cis women, and do so in far greater numbers than exist trans women. In fact, before our current trans panic, complaints about gays and lesbians in these spaces were common.

Again, we've been through this same exact shtick multiple times. There are many ways to ensure personal privacy and respect people's feelings of modesty that isn't trans exclusionary. I don't know why EC keeps asking the same things, maybe they forgot.

There are ways to achieve bodily autonomy and ensure privacy that don't trample all over trans rights. I don't think there is some inalienable right to preserve specifically the communal cis-female naked space, and anyone who insists on specifically this as a solution to bodily privacy sounds an awful lot like a pervert to me.

There is nothing new about people privately judging others about their dating preferences. I don't see how a bunch of weirdos ranting about the "cotton ceiling" is anything to concern ourselves about. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of a policy or government concern, which is what most of this thread is speaking to.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
That's a convenient framing for you, but it's not really true. You don't get to tell people that what upsets them is just a pretext.
Click to expand...

It was overwhelmingly attended by fascists (and those counterprotesting said fascists). The Venn Diagram of the attendees is basically a perfect circle of all the other far-right events in the area. Most of these people are well known because they are regulars a the same revolving set of events, such as Tony Moon aka the "Rooftop Korean", who would later be seen assaulting multiple people at an anti-mask event.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
California law is quite clear in their public accommodations law. Not sure what point there was for these agitators to start a hoax about Wi Spa following the law other than to be a pretext for violent demonstration.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask about CA law, nor did I ask about the Wi Spa incident. I asked about your views on some particular topics.
 
Come to think of it, an anti-trans woman being accidentally stabbed by a fascist at an anti-trans event is a pretty excellent metaphor for the folly of aligning with the far-right, no matter how badly you want to stick it to trans people.

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
This is begging the question. The obvious intention of sex segregated spaces in bathrooms and changing rooms and so on is to protect women (and men) from lustful eyes, based on the assumption that everyone is heterosexual and cis.

It is obvious, in these modern age, that these assumptions are false. Cis women can lust for other cis women, and do so in far greater numbers than exist trans women.
Click to expand...

We've been over this before. You are wrong. There are multiple biological reasons why the risk profile from lesbian sexual attraction is fundamentally different than the risk profile from heterosexual male sexual attraction. I really don't feel like repeating it all here, but they aren't comparable. There's no assumption involved there.

There are ways to achieve bodily autonomy and ensure privacy that don't trample all over trans rights.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question, at all. You're avoiding it.

I don't think there is some inalienable right to preserve specifically the communal cis-female naked space, and anyone who insists on specifically this as a solution to bodily privacy sounds an awful lot like a pervert to me.
Click to expand...

The question is more generic than you seem to comprehend. The fact that you cannot recognize this is itself telling, and indicates a profound ignorance of female concerns. I'm not a female, and even I recognize that it's not just about communal female naked space.

I'll give you an example. Suppose you're a woman, and you've been arrested under suspicion of a crime. The police want to strip search you. Is it reasonable for you to expect this to be done by a female officer? This isn't a communal space. You can't solve this question with optional individual stalls. And in this case, guess what: you don't have any bodily privacy from whoever is conducting the search.

And cis-female is a ******** term. I can accept ciswoman to distinguish from transwoman for clarity in certain discussions, but there's no such thing as trans-female, and so cis-female is meaningless. Biological sex is immutable in humans.

But back on topic, the original question still stands:

Under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate that a female be allowed to expect that they are only in the presence of other females?

It's at the heart of this entire debate, and you're still avoiding actually answering it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom