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

[TurkeysGhost]

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.



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



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.

I find the Canada approach to public accommodations law pretty good.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Nobody was "attending" anything when a male was exposing his genitals in the women's changing room.

Even the LAPD doubts this happened, and they're not exactly known for being woke.

 

[d4m10n]

That's not true, there's always been an exception to non-discrimination law for private clubs and the like.

There has always been an exception to non-discrimination law for sexed bathrooms, changing rooms, sports leagues.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

First off... you are ignoring all of the questions because of one of the questions? Dating has nothing to do with when it is appropriate for a person to insist upon the sex of the person they're interacting with. Dating might fall under that very broadly, but so do things like specifying the sex of the doctor performing your intimate exam or patting you down at the airport.

Secondly... Do these count as "terf rags" or are you just tossing out inflammatory rhetoric in order to dodge a response?

https://eveywinters.com/genital-preferences-or-bigotry/
https://medium.com/@ignatiusweeks/genital-preferences-are-********-54091d38a6f9
https://twitter.com/sportisaright/status/1178619997704327168?lang=en
https://www.out.com/celebs/2021/1/20/how-miley-cyruss-preference-remarks-show-underlying-transphobia
https://aninjusticemag.com/why-its-transphobic-to-deny-attraction-to-transgender-people-fbe608d9df6d
https://the-orbit.net/alyssa/2020/07/07/the-last-word-on-genital-preference/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_lvFWHWaxUTMRSco7LYhj2aXKXQOCbCvSjVYL3kGE8cs-1630529571-0-gqNtZGzNAhCjcnBszQdR
https://transgenderteensurvivalguide.com/post/181950225230/are-genital-preferences-transphobic


Then of course, there's reddit and twitter as well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

So... No circumstances then? You believe there are zero circumstances where it is reasonable for a female person to expect to be only in the presence of other females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

In compete seriousness, why are you so completely unwilling to even consider the perspective of females in this discussion? Why do you feel a need to constantly denigrate and deride any question of female safety, privacy, and dignity?

 

[Elaedith]

Even the LAPD doubts this happened, and they're not exactly known for being woke.

What difference does that make for your position? If it happens, you will defend it and call the women who complained bigots, 'anti-trans' and 'reactionary freaks' (as you already did without caring whether it happened and despite the fact that here is no evidence presented that this male was transgender if it did).

Indecent exposure and voyeurism* are two common forms of sexual harassment experienced by women. Not long ago there would be no question that any male who walked into a women's changing room and viewed women undressing or exposed his genitals was committing an act of sexual harassment. Anyone who mocked, jeered or bullied women for complaining would clearly be a vile misogynist. Now you freely admit there is no point in women complaining about this, and women who do are fair game for abuse.


*Incidentally, both sexual exhibitionism and voyeurism are paraphilias, and paraphilias (with the exception of masochism) are almost exclusively confined to males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Even the LAPD doubts this happened, and they're not exactly known for being woke.

Provide your proof. I previously provided information from multiple females who had been present that day, as well as others who came forward and said it had happened to them previously, as well as several females having made complaints to the police for indecent exposure.

Is it your contention that all of those females conspired to lie about it?
Is it your contention that at no time was a bepenised person in the nude portion of the spa that is reserved for 'women'?

Do you have any actual evidence that it is all made up, other than that it fits your narrative best?

 

[Distracted1]

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.

That is nonsense.
Are you comfortable with an eight year old girl seeing your penis?
Obviously not. Is that because you feel like she is looing in a lustful manner? Again- probably not.

That you find our culture too prudish for your own tastes' is, of course, your prerogative. But the discomfort I might feel showering openly in front of women and girls is one that is- and has been- shared by the vast majority of human beings throughout the world.
When facilities exist to prevent this from being a necessity are readily available the only tyranny being displayed is that of those who insist that the segregation=unlawful discrimination.

 

[Ziggurat]

I find the Canada approach to public accommodations law pretty good.

That doesn’t answer the question. Your continued evasiveness is really peculiar. So let me make it simple for you to start with, in case your difficulty is in handling subtleties.

Are there any circumstances in which it is appropriate that a female be allowed to expect that they are only in the presence of other females?

This is just a yes or no question. If the answer is yes, there may be all sorts of nuances about what these circumstances are. But either there are some such circumstances, or there are not. That’s a binary choice. Surely you can manage at least that much.

 

[Ziggurat]

In compete seriousness, why are you so completely unwilling to even consider the perspective of females in this discussion? Why do you feel a need to constantly denigrate and deride any question of female safety, privacy, and dignity?

The funny thing is, I bet he considers himself a feminist.

 

[theprestige]

The funny thing is, I bet he considers himself a feminist.

A recurring theme in this discussion is that men are better at everything, including being women. Keeping with that theme, the acme of feminism is supporting men who are working at being women.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Ok. Let's start with the principles. Your position seems to be that if the male advantage can be removed via medical treatment, the transwomen should be allowed to compete as women.

We agree. I suspect that almost all of the participants in the thread agree. I suspect that the majority of Americans, and an even bigger majority in the rest of the English speaking world agree. (I limit myself to the English speaking world because I mostly interact with foreigners on this forum, and they speak English.)

So, on the core principle. I think we're good. Not just with me, but I think with everyone, or nearly everyone, else in this thread.

We'll revisit this in a moment, but on the principles, we seem to be in agreement.

This works well for elite level sports, where testing and the like are already common, but obviously does not work for more pedestrian sports leagues like schools. Especially given the context of the US, where financial barriers to trans-affirming medical care abound.

Here, though, I think we would disagree.

I think the reason it doesn't work for high schools is that those people who support inclusion of trans-girls in girls' athletics also, by a wide margin, insist that no other stipulation be applied to their participation.

In other words, there are some people who are adamantly opposed to transgirl participation in girls' sports. Those people don't care about medical transitions. They still say no. There's another group, including me, who are open minded on the subject, but are skeptical that a reasonable metric could be defined that is useful for teenagers. There are just a whole lot of issues. I, personally, would not slam the door on transgirl participation, but I'm unsure about the position of supporting medical transition as a participation requirement for high school sports. The entire subject makes me nervous, for reasons of health of the minors involved. Finally, there is the mainstream pro-trans rights crowd, and they would insist that it is wrong to impose such a stipulation on minors.

So what you end up with is that there is no one who actually supports allowing participation of transgirl teens subject to some medical criteria.

It has nothing to do with availability of care.




Ok. Now, revisiting the first point. We agree that a person whose male advantage has been removed via medical treatment should be allowed to participate in the women's league. Where there is controversy is that merely specifying a current hormone level does not appear to actually remove the advantage. The tricky thing is to figure out a way to remove the male advantage without threatening the health of the athlete. It's no easy task.


I don't want to misrepresent you. You didn't actually say anything about the male advantage. You only said hormone level. However, I am saying that the only reason to worry about hormone levels is because that is one source of the male advantage. It's not the hormones as such that are the issue. Some of us are offended that women who have naturally high levels of testesterone are actually excluded by these rules. If they are biological females, although very unusual females that have an abnormal, but natural, advantage from high testesterone levels, I think they should be allowed to compete as women.

So, there's some technical issues that are difficult to work out, and are beyond the expertise of anyone here to go into great detail on, but a lot of us agree that if a solution could be found, that would be great, but until then, we prefer segregation by sex.

Above all, we are absolutely opposed to segregation based on self identified gender, either at an elite or school level.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

That is nonsense.
Are you comfortable with an eight year old girl seeing your penis?
Obviously not. ...

Actually....I'm pretty ok with that, myself. It's the 12 to 14 year olds that give me the willies.

At the Pennsic War (google it if you care), there was a place called the "classic swimming hole", a clothing optional (but of course, discouraged) creek. Ah...memories. When it started, we were all adults, mostly young adults. Great fun. Then, we got older, and married, and some had kids, and some of those let their kids come to the swimming hole. Well...who cares? It's just human bodies and these little tykes were innocent anyway. And then one day I found myself stripping naked next to a young girl with peachfuzz and breasts that were just starting to grow. I never went back. I think it was the next year that it was declared closed.

Directly addressing ST's post.

I think, ST, you have it wrong. Zig addressed it somewhat. The lust itself doesn't bother the women. It's the thread posed by the individual with the lustful eyes. On the male side, it isn't just like the female side. I think most of us are somewhat nervous about being naked around women, but the ones who look at us lustfully aren't the ones we worry about. We're afraid of the ones that aren't lustful.

I won't say it has nothing to do with everyone being cisgender and heterosexual, but that isn't really important. I believe it's an instinctive feeling that should be respected.

 

[Myriad]

Consequently, I have three lesbians in my family who used to be out and proud and are now re-closeted due to harassment and sexual coercion from the most oppressed group of people ever.

I'd say by the two hundredth time you point out to someone, "here's the harm caused when people do that," and they continue to find excuses to disregard the harm and continue supporting the harmful thing anyhow, it becomes reasonable to conclude that the harm is intentional and the desire to cause that harm is the real motivation for their support.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If the male advantage can be negated sufficiently, there's no objection when it comes to competing in sports.

Some of us are offended that women who have naturally high levels of testesterone are actually excluded by these rules. If they are biological females, although very unusual females that have an abnormal, but natural, advantage from high testesterone levels, I think they should be allowed to compete as women.

Interstingly, the high end of the range for females with "unusually high testosterone" is 5 NMol/L... the current requirement for transgender identified males is no higher than 10 NMol/L - twice that of the high end for PCOS. On the other hand, the average for normal female testosterone is about 2 NMol/L.

The current guidelines (which the Olympic Committee is in the process of revising) end up still giving transgender identified males a considerable advantage with respect to the performance enhancing benefits of steroids.

 

[theprestige]

Honestly I'd have a problem with this. Even if we stipulate that gender dysphoria is an alternative but healthy form of self perception... Intentionally downgrading the physical capabilities of your healthy body, especially to such a degree, can't possibly be the product of a healthy mind. Can it?

In principle, sure, I'd admit them to the women's team. In practice? I'd be inclined to admit them to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation.

At the top level of every sport, you see athletes pushing their bodies to the uttermost limits of capability. But now you have these athletes who want to compete at the highest levels by being less than they could be. Doesn't that seem a little perverse?

Also, if you have to downgrade your body just to give a woman a fair fight, why even bother? Why don't we just take it as read that you'll win?

The only reason I can think of is that competing as an athlete isn't the goal. Competing as a woman is the goal. And that goal makes a travesty of athleticism.

At this point trans activism is beginning to look like a stalking horse for Big Obesity.

 

[The Atheist]

Honestly I'd have a problem with this. Even if we stipulate that gender dysphoria is an alternative but healthy form of self perception... Intentionally downgrading the physical capabilities of your healthy body, especially to such a degree, can't possibly be the product of a healthy mind. Can it?

I wish I could answer that, but I'm still struggling to get past why removing 1/8th of an inch of foreskin is a crime against humanity, while removing the entire genitalia is a step forward for humankind.

 

[Meadmaker]

Honestly I'd have a problem with this. Even if we stipulate that gender dysphoria is an alternative but healthy form of self perception... Intentionally downgrading the physical capabilities of your healthy body, especially to such a degree, can't possibly be the product of a healthy mind. Can it?

In principle, sure, I'd admit them to the women's team. In practice? I'd be inclined to admit them to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation.

I don't see it that way. What I would see is that goal number 1 is becoming more like a female, so that your body more closely matches what you perceive your identity to be.

I admit that isn't a feeling I can really relate to, but I can read about it and be fairly certain it's a real desire and something that would make people happier.

So, having done that, it still makes sense that some people would want to compete athletically.

In other words, the two desires, being a woman and competing athletically, are kind of two different axes.

So, if they don't have an advantage from being a man, I don't have an objection to competing as a woman. It makes sense that someone would still want to push their body as it is to be better or stronger, even if that was a secondary desire to being more feminine.

My biggest concern related to what you are getting at is that they might do things that are not medically wise in order to meet some competition standard. I would be concerned about their heatlh. In other words, if you accept the idea that "gender affirming" medical treatment is a good idea, the goals of that treatment might be accomplished with a certain does of hormones, but someone might take a bigger dose in order to meet a sports league's requirements for competing in the women's division.

 

[Meadmaker]

To phrase it a bit differently, I share the idea that it is a very weird thing to do, damaging a perfectly good human body like that. However, my default position is to allow people to do what they want to do, regardless of whether or not I think it's a good idea. That isn't some absolute, never to be violated axiom, but if someone tells me they really want to have no penis, an artificial vagina, and nonfunctional breast tissue, and there's a psychiatrist around saying, "Trust me. It works for a lot of people." I'll let them go ahead.

ETA: And then compete in sports as a woman, if you can convince me that they don't have an advantage from being male. It's just there, the burden of proof goes the other way for me. If they want to have surgery or hormones or whatever that alters their body, that's their decision about their body. If, having done so, they want to compete as a woman, that interferes with the other athletes. My first priority at that point would be fairness of the competition, not the feelings that someone might have about being excluded.