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

[theprestige]

I dunno. Show me a transwoman who isn't an athlete, who thinks that making herself physically weaker through medical intervention is a necessary part of her gender identity. Physically weaker as a goal in itself, I mean.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

Informed consent, one would assume.

 

[Olmstead]

What does removing "male advantage" mean though? Does reducing a male athlete to the level of a hypothetical "super woman" count? What's the point if you're just twisting dials until you make someone slow enough? Just write down the lowest time that is acceptable.

 

[theprestige]

What does removing "male advantage" mean though? Does reducing a male athlete to the level of a hypothetical "super woman" count? What's the point if you're just twisting dials until you make someone slow enough? Just write down the lowest time that is acceptable.

Until some female, pushing herself to the absolute limit of her mind and body, beats that time. And then some male, downgrading herself some arbitrary amount, beats the new record.

 

[Meadmaker]

What does removing "male advantage" mean though? Does reducing a male athlete to the level of a hypothetical "super woman" count? What's the point if you're just twisting dials until you make someone slow enough? Just write down the lowest time that is acceptable.

That's my other problem with the idea.

ETA: I guess what it comes down to is that the people who run sports leagues should be looking hard at this decision, with priorities of safety, fairness, and inclusion, in that order. If you can be inclusive, while being fair and safe, that's a good thing. I'll let the professionals decide exactly what that means.

 

[Louden Wilde]

For lurkers/those less familiar with what we’ve waded through here, I saw a pithy summary of the major positions on this issue on twitter - courtesy of one of the UK feminists:

Conservatives/’religionists’:
Accept the reality/importance of (biological) sex;
Accept the legitimacy of gender roles

(Extreme) Transgender Activists ("TRAs"):
Reject the reality of sex;*
Accept the legitimacy of gender roles

Gender Critical Feminists/Allies
Accept the reality/importance of sex;
Reject the legitimacy of gender roles

I think many of us are in the latter camp.

* While this is an exaggeration in some cases, it’s worth noting that many of us have documented influential people in that camp saying things like “sex is a social construct” or that it’s arbitrary, etc. At the very least people making the argument that there should be no female only spaces, representation, events, etc. are forced to downplay the importance of sex. As one poster put it: Why does the campaign to end transphobia revolve almost exclusively around a drive to remove all legal and social distinctions between trans women and females?

We’ve seen that go to what I consider fairly extreme lengths - even in this forum (e.g. when Archie denied that sexism/sex discrimination is real). I find that fairly jaw-dropping from several perspectives- evolutionary theory predicts it strongly and there is overwhelming evidence across many many generations and cultures. I’m still floored by the >100 million missing females due to sex-selective abortions/infanticide/neonatal neglect.

Perhaps even more gob-smacking are claims that TW/TIMs are oppressed by females
E.g.

I gave a few $$ on kickstarter to support further development of a female-only social app, only to find that TRAs had objected and thus gotten kickstarter to halt it. The founder, Sall Grover, is working on another source. A statement by her here.

In short, the further I dive into this morass the more I see misogyny, homophobia (particularly directed at lesbians) but even popular rapper Lil Nas X got flack for saying he likes [familiar form of Richard) and abuse of those with DSDs

In addition to all the damage this is causing, I have to think some of these activists realize that “TWAW” will never be broadly accepted, as it directly opposes the one of the most powerful pressures on biological systems (i.e. selection). Rather I wonder if it is just an outlet for misogyny, paraphilias, etc.

 

[Louden Wilde]

This essay - To the men who tell women what we’re allowed to be afraid of - seems a good rebuttal to the males in this thread who think females who want female only spaces are hysterical, bigots, etc.
Some excerpts:
First of all, thank you. I know you must have better things to do than wade in, yet again, to correct our perceptions of reality. The trouble is, we’re always getting it wrong.
To be fair, it is not our fault. We are not authoritative; we are not you. We are taught from an early age to doubt ourselves, to see our own versions of reality as suspect, requiring external confirmation from the experts, the men. When you are not considered a reliable witness to your own experiences, things become very confusing. This, I guess, is where you step in.
...
Years ago, I was attacked by a stranger. A car pulled up in front of me and I couldn’t decide whether or not to be scared. I dithered, berating myself for my paranoia, reminding myself that stranger danger is more cliché than reality, that “you’re more likely to be attacked in the home than outside it”, even thinking — possibly, I was having a lot of thoughts — “it’s not as if any man would want to assault someone like you”. If only you’d been there to assess the situation. It wouldn’t have made any difference to the outcome, but at least I’d have known whether my — in this case, well-founded — fears meant I was mentally ill, a bigot or a bitch.

 

[Robin]

It's not a knee-jerk reaction when the "progressive" platform is bad for females and bad for homosexuals.

Why is it bad for homosexuals?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I dunno. Show me a transwoman who isn't an athlete, who thinks that making herself physically weaker through medical intervention is a necessary part of her gender identity. Physically weaker as a goal in itself, I mean.

I'm not sure what you mean. Hormone therapy is a common trans-affirming medical option that non-athlete trans people often seek out. Barriers to getting this medical care is an issue that is frequently cited as a problem. Changes in body composition is the intended goal, among others, of this therapy.

Is there any cases where trans people sought out this therapy strictly as a means to meet athletic requirements as opposed to as part of a broader gender-affirming medical program?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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?

Protecting the sanctity of "real" females isn't something that I think government should care about. TERFs can make their own private clubs and organizations, and often do, that make it clear that only certain kinds of women are allowed. They can make it whites only too if they want, so long as they aren't on the public dole.

There are real concerns about bodily autonomy, privacy, and modesty that there is a clear governmental role to protect, and these can be achieved in ways that are both superior to current methods and don't exclude trans people.

It's very telling that the trans exclusionists don't care about violations of body and privacy that are committed on women by cis-women.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why is it bad for homosexuals?

The funny thing (IMO, of course) is:

1) Individuals who believe that transgender people ought to have rights that are commensurate with their trans gender and not their birth gender.... are routinely and aggressively accused of either a) disregarding the opinions/concerns of females and homosexuals, or b) actively holding misogynistic/homophobic beliefs.


Yet (again IMO, of course):

2) A similarly pejorative and provocative charge might easily be made against individuals who do not believe that transgender people ought to have rights that commensurate with their trans gender - that such individuals actually don't believe in the validity of transgender identity (instead choosing to believe that, eg, transwomen are blokes who cosplay in women's clothing, or that at least some transwomen are actually cismen who have nefarious motives in gaining access to ciswomen's spaces for sexual gratification or to cause harm to ciswomen).


The near-certain truth is that in both instances, only a small proportion of individuals fit those respective accusatory categories.

Yet the accusations are far, far more often levelled at individuals in group (1) than at the individuals in group (2). I wonder why that might be?

 

[gnome]

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.

I wouldn't say I agree with that statement as you word it, but in that general category of sentiment could it have to do with whether the person receiving the procedure is the one making the decision?

 

[lionking]

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



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.

As I have said often, it’s contact sports which are most problematic. Biological women are being injured by non- transitioned transwomen in rugby, Australian Rules football (that I’m certain of) and no doubt other contact sports.

Yes, some here say there should some controls with sport, but not all. Some think sport irrelevant. Those people should speak to sportswomen who have had their careers and livelihoods destroyed by transwomen.

 

[LondonJohn]

ETA: An interesting (to me, anyhow) disconnect in the "trans-rights advocates are misogynists" or "trans-rights advocates are men telling women their rights" approach...

... is in the real-world areas of medical (and medico-legal) science, national/state governments, and the judiciary.

Because in each of these fields, transgender rights are being validated, facilitated, enshrined, protected and enforced - more and more each day.

Yet it's demonstrably beyond question that representative or near-representative proportions of females sit on each of those types of public body.

So those females are very significant contributors to the real-world public bodies which are - in greater numbers every day - validating and defending the human rights of transgender people. In moves which are often tarred with the "misogynist" or "men telling women their rights" brushes.

Are these females perhaps misogynists themselves? Or are the (misogynist) men on their public bodies actually telling these females what to do and what to vote for/implement? And are these females being browbeaten into silence, being prevented from (perhaps) complaining to the media along the lines of "Obviously I wanted to protect the rights of my fellow ciswomen, but the males on my public body forced me to comply with their demands"?

Because I don't recall any reports in the gist of that previous paragraph. Maybe there have been such reports, though. Otherwise, it's hard to understand just how and why so many females would have played such a significant role in giving transgender people their rights. All around the Western world. Isn't it?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

ETA: An interesting (to me, anyhow) disconnect in the "trans-rights advocates are misogynists" or "trans-rights advocates are men telling women their rights" approach...

... is in the real-world areas of medical (and medico-legal) science, national/state governments, and the judiciary.

Because in each of these fields, transgender rights are being validated, facilitated, enshrined, protected and enforced - more and more each day.

Yet it's demonstrably beyond question that representative or near-representative proportions of females sit on each of those types of public body.

So those females are very significant contributors to the real-world public bodies which are - in greater numbers every day - validating and defending the human rights of transgender people. In moves which are often tarred with the "misogynist" or "men telling women their rights" brushes.

Are these females perhaps misogynists themselves? Or are the (misogynist) men on their public bodies actually telling these females what to do and what to vote for/implement? And are these females being browbeaten into silence, being prevented from (perhaps) complaining to the media along the lines of "Obviously I wanted to protect the rights of my fellow ciswomen, but the males on my public body forced me to comply with their demands"?

Because I don't recall any reports in the gist of that previous paragraph. Maybe there have been such reports, though. Otherwise, it's hard to understand just how and why so many females would have played such a significant role in giving transgender people their rights. All around the Western world. Isn't it?

As far as I can recall, all available polling generally shows that women are more accepting of trans people and more supportive of their rights than men.

The most vocal opponents of TERFS are frequently other women, specifically vocally feminist women. The attempts to paint this as men intruding into feminist spaces and telling women what to think is patently absurd.

There are far too few trans people for them to successfully bully anything. All that has been achieved for their rights has been done in coordination with the support of others, such as women and others within the LGBT community.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I have said often, it’s contact sports which are most problematic. Biological women are being injured by non- transitioned transwomen in rugby, Australian Rules football (that I’m certain of) and no doubt other contact sports.

Yes, some here say there should some controls with sport, but not all. Some think sport irrelevant. Those people should speak to sportswomen who have had their careers and livelihoods destroyed by transwomen.

Yes. I personally hold the view that transwomen should not be permitted to participate in women's contact sports at any level (and transmen should probably not be permitted to participate in men's contact sports either).

And (as I've said several times previously), I personally hold the view that transgender athletes should not be allowed to participate in elite-level sports representing their trans gender. I regard elite-level sport as an entertainment first and foremost, and this to me puts elite-level sport beyond the remit of these sorts of human rights issues*


* Just as, for example, a modelling agency would be wholly justified in rejecting an application from a short, fat, middle-aged man - wholly on the basis of his physical appearance (in a manner which would be unallowable if that man were applying for an office filing job).

 

[lionking]

Yes. I personally hold the view that transwomen should not be permitted to participate in women's contact sports at any level (and transmen should probably not be permitted to participate in men's contact sports either).

And (as I've said several times previously), I personally hold the view that transgender athletes should not be allowed to participate in elite-level sports representing their trans gender. I regard elite-level sport as an entertainment first and foremost, and this to me puts elite-level sport beyond the remit of these sorts of human rights issues*


* Just as, for example, a modelling agency would be wholly justified in rejecting an application from a short, fat, middle-aged man - wholly on the basis of his physical appearance (in a manner which would be unallowable if that man were applying for an office filing job).

It’s that and an occupation for so many. I’m not happy that women are denied earning money and satisfaction from their sport by the presence of transwomen.

 

[Earthborn]

Earthborn's query was specifically about shelters.

I thought that was pretty obvious. And I like to see more specific references than "multiple things in several states."

In answer to your question, I don't think anyone here has specifically said that a shelter should not be allowed to segregate by sex, but they have said that any shelter that receives any government assistance should not be allowed to do so.

Someone may have; I'd like to see the quote.

Do such shelters get substantial government assistance? I have no problem with that -- you can call me Socialist if you want -- but it would surprise me somewhat.

Government assistance or not, I think such organisations should not be allowed to outright refuse help to someone based solely on sex, but of course they should also consider the sensitivities of other people they are sheltering. If they think another shelter is more appropriate for someone seeking help, they should help them get there. It shouldn't make any difference whether the person seeking help differs in religion, ethnic/cultural background or sex.

 

[Meadmaker]

Protecting the sanctity of "real" females isn't something that I think government should care about. TERFs can make their own private clubs and organizations,

As the Wi Spa incident demonstrates, no, they can't.

They ought to be able to, but in many cases, it isn't allowed.

And perhaps we should take a more Libertarian (large L) approach and keep government out of kids' sports, and education, and parks, and anything else where government policy might be inflicted on us, but until then, it will be a government body that gets to decide who competes as a girl, and who uses the locker room with the "women" sign above the door.

Saying that the TERFs, i.e. people who think differences between males and females are important, can go do their own thing is just a way to dodge the question. In reality, government is imposing requirements, even in private clubs and organizations.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's very telling that the trans exclusionists don't care about violations of body and privacy that are committed on women by cis-women.

Indeed. It's almost as if they treat interactions with males as something fundamentally different than interactions with females, any time either or both of the people interacting have no clothes.

That is truly a telling insight, and definitely deserves to be considered and understood.