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

[Ziggurat]

The proof is in the pudding. Trans people are being victimized at extremely high rates.

In prisons?

Some of the statistics I've seen regarding trans victims are about domestic violence. And while that's bad, that's not really an issue of female space access. I'm sure I haven't seen all the statistics out there, but do you have any that are actually specific to the questions here?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In prisons?

Some of the statistics I've seen regarding trans victims are about domestic violence. And while that's bad, that's not really an issue of female space access. I'm sure I haven't seen all the statistics out there, but do you have any that are actually specific to the questions here?

Considering TERFs absolutely want to exclude trans people from domestic violence shelters, it's relevant to the broader thread discussion.

If anyone has a comprehensive data set relating to who is targeted for prison violence under what circumstances, I'd likewise be interested in seeing it.

 

[Meadmaker]

What do you make of the same statistical evidence that shows trans people are also very much so likely to face violence, including sexual violence, at levels comparable if not exceeding those of ciswomen?

I would like to see more details before accepting the premise. In the past, we've seen reports about transwoman and violence only to later discover that a lot of that violence was directed at sex workers.

I don't mean to seem to condone violence against sex workers, but I think it's a special circumstance.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I would like to see more details before accepting the premise. In the past, we've seen reports about transwoman and violence only to later discover that a lot of that violence was directed at sex workers.

I don't mean to seem to condone violence against sex workers, but I think it's a special circumstance.

It's hard to disentangle the whole mess. The fact that trans people are disproportionately resorting to survival sex work says a lot about their precarious position in society.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What do you make of the same statistical evidence that shows trans people are also very much so likely to face violence, including sexual violence, at levels comparable if not exceeding those of ciswomen?

I say that the data isn't what you think it is.

I find rates of violence of LGBTQ people versus heterosexual people, but those are lumping all of the LGBTQ together, and also lumping all heterosexual people together. They don't distinguish the violence experienced by homosexuals from the violence experienced by transgender people, nor do they disambiguate the violence experienced by biologically male LGBTQ people from that experienced by biologically female LGBTQ people. They also don't separate heterosexual males and females.

The rates of violence experienced by transgender people also fail to control for the fact that a higher proportion of trans people are "sex workers", which is a high-risk practice.

If you can find reporting on the rates of violence and sexual assault among non-sex-worker transwomen versus those of non-sex-worked females, I'd love to see it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The rates of violence experienced by transgender people also fail to control for the fact that a higher proportion of trans people are "sex workers", which is a high-risk practice.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's hard to disentangle the whole mess. The fact that trans people are disproportionately resorting to survival sex work says a lot about their precarious position in society.

I question your assumption that they "resort to" sex work. The venn diagram of people backing "Transwomen are Women" and people backing "Sex Work is Work" is almost a perfect circle.

Although it's all anecdotal self-reported information on reddit and twitter and other social media, there seem to be a lot of transwomen (specifically transwomen, not transmen) who voluntarily seek out prostitution and other "sex work". For many, it seems that being degraded and used as an object for someone else's sexual fulfillment is "affirming".

Not all transwomen, by any means. Probably not even most. But enough to make my skin crawl. The number of transwomen who proudly proclaim their desire to be subjugated, degraded, abused, and treated as a whore or a bimbo with no brain, because that really makes them feel like they're real women is frightening to me. The depiction of what "woman" means as given by Julia Serrano, Andrea Long Chu, and Torrey Peters is actually quite sickening to me.

The fact that those authors not only get printed... but get lauded for their books and get held up as heroes of the transgender movement is disheartening. And I've seen their views repeated by many transgender identified males. The view of being a "woman" being one of dehumanization, submission, and objectification as the highest goal is so incredibly misogynistic that it takes my breath away.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I question your assumption that they "resort to" sex work. The venn diagram of people backing "Transwomen are Women" and people backing "Sex Work is Work" is almost a perfect circle.

Although it's all anecdotal self-reported information on reddit and twitter and other social media, there seem to be a lot of transwomen (specifically transwomen, not transmen) who voluntarily seek out prostitution and other "sex work". For many, it seems that being degraded and used as an object for someone else's sexual fulfillment is "affirming".

Not all transwomen, by any means. Probably not even most. But enough to make my skin crawl. The number of transwomen who proudly proclaim their desire to be subjugated, degraded, abused, and treated as a whore or a bimbo with no brain, because that really makes them feel like they're real women is frightening to me. The depiction of what "woman" means as given by Julia Serrano, Andrea Long Chu, and Torrey Peters is actually quite sickening to me.

The fact that those authors not only get printed... but get lauded for their books and get held up as heroes of the transgender movement is disheartening. And I've seen their views repeated by many transgender identified males. The view of being a "woman" being one of dehumanization, submission, and objectification as the highest goal is so incredibly misogynistic that it takes my breath away.

You don't have to tell me you find transwomen personally disgusting, I'll just assume it unless you say otherwise.

You honestly believe trans people are passing up better careers in order to pursue a line of work that results in them being disproportionately victimized by crime?

 

[Ziggurat]

Considering TERFs absolutely want to exclude trans people from domestic violence shelters

If you're referring to people not in this thread, make that explicit, but I'm not going to defend positions of people not participating, that's a fool's errand. So that's an irrelevancy as far as I'm concerned.

If you are referring to people in this thread, don't use that term, it's uncivil.

I don't know anyone in this thread who wants to exclude trans people from domestic violence shelters. A number of posters here want female-only shelters to be able to exclude transwomen, but that really isn't the same thing. There's a very important distinction between a given shelter excluding males and all shelters excluding males, and there are also male-specific shelters. Availability of shelters for males is a problem in some places because male domestic violence victims are generally underserved, but it's not peculiar to transwomen, cismen face that problem too.

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't have to tell me you find transwomen personally disgusting

Again, take away the assumption that it's a monolithic group, and this doesn't even make sense. If you can't recognize the difference between Blair White and Chris Chan, I really don't know what to tell you. And if Chris Chan doesn't make your skin crawl, it's either because you aren't familiar with that... thing... or there's something wrong with you.

 

[theprestige]

Considering TERFs absolutely want to exclude trans people from domestic violence shelters, it's relevant to the broader thread discussion.

Of course it's relevant to the broader discussion. More about that in a moment.

First, it's not about the RFs, it's about the TEs. This whole discussion is about if and when and why transwomen should be excluded from some women's spaces and activities. This is purely a TE issue. RFs are a red herring.

Obviously arguments for trans exclusion in one specific case (e.g., women's sports or women's prisons) will have implications for trans access and exclusion in the general case(s).

The advantage to talking specifically about specific cases of sex segregation is that it allows us to deal directly with biological facts and correlations with those facts. We can set aside all the cultural baggage around gender identity and acceptance. We can dispense with the anti-debate strategies of vilification in place of engagement. We can look at the facts and see what we conclude.

We can even look at the facts in the context of non-factual things like axiomatic human rights. In that context we might conclude that regardless of risk, the rights we believe in mandate that we opt for trans inclusion.

But you're trying to work it backwards. Instead of addressing a specific case of sex segregation, and seeing what the conclusion tells you about trans inclusion and exclusion more generally, you keep slipping back to the predetermined principle of trans inclusion generally in a way that consistently avoids dealing with the question of sex segregation anywhere that sex segregation matters.

I think this circles us all the way back around to the title of the thread. If we look at women's sports purely in terms of sexual dimorphism and all that comes with it, we conclude that "transwomen are not women", at least not in women's sports. This has all kinds of implications for trans inclusion generally, both in terms of sex and in terms of gender.

I think this is why you keep trying to slip away from the specific case of sex segregation in prisons, with irrelevant statistics that are part of the "broader thread of discussion".

The broader thread of discussion is full of equivocation, elision, conflation, and evasion. The purpose of focusing for a bit on clear cases of sex segregation is to ditch all that baggage and have a clear conversation at least in one small corner of the larger issue. Importing equivocation, elision, conflation and evasion into this more focused part of the debate tells me a lot about the basis of your position and your confidence in defending it honestly.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Of course it's relevant to the broader discussion. More about that in a moment.

First, it's not about the RFs, it's about the TEs. This whole discussion is about if and when and why transwomen should be excluded from some women's spaces and activities. This is purely a TE issue. RFs are a red herring.

Obviously arguments for trans exclusion in one specific case (e.g., women's sports or women's prisons) will have implications for trans access and exclusion in the general case(s).

The advantage to talking specifically about specific cases of sex segregation is that it allows us to deal directly with biological facts and correlations with those facts. We can set aside all the cultural baggage around gender identity and acceptance. We can dispense with the anti-debate strategies of vilification in place of engagement. We can look at the facts and see what we conclude.

We can even look at the facts in the context of non-factual things like axiomatic human rights. In that context we might conclude that regardless of risk, the rights we believe in mandate that we opt for trans inclusion.

But you're trying to work it backwards. Instead of addressing a specific case of sex segregation, and seeing what the conclusion tells you about trans inclusion and exclusion more generally, you keep slipping back to the predetermined principle of trans inclusion generally in a way that consistently avoids dealing with the question of sex segregation anywhere that sex segregation matters.

I think this circles us all the way back around to the title of the thread. If we look at women's sports purely in terms of sexual dimorphism and all that comes with it, we conclude that "transwomen are not women", at least not in women's sports. This has all kinds of implications for trans inclusion generally, both in terms of sex and in terms of gender.

I think this is why you keep trying to slip away from the specific case of sex segregation in prisons, with irrelevant statistics that are part of the "broader thread of discussion".

The broader thread of discussion is full of equivocation, elision, conflation, and evasion. The purpose of focusing for a bit on clear cases of sex segregation is to ditch all that baggage and have a clear conversation at least in one small corner of the larger issue. Importing equivocation, elision, conflation and evasion into this more focused part of the debate tells me a lot about the basis of your position and your confidence in defending it honestly.

Seems to me it's begging the question that sex segregation is the default.

Until relatively recently, sex and gender were considered largely interchangeable terms. Sex segregation and gender segregation were the same thing.

With growing understanding of transgender individuals, we know now that sex and gender are not the same.

So if you look at a sign that says "women only", what does that mean, and why? A change in understanding, such as this, necessitates reevaluation of prior assumptions.

Transwomen and ciswomen are alike in many ways, and dislike in some others. Which of these characteristics are most important?

If the goal of sex (or gender) segregated spaces is to protect women from the specific risk of male aggression, then it's clear that transwomen likewise need similar protection. The evidence is quite clear that they, like ciswomen, face the very same dangers. It's why so many of these women's clinics insist on treating trans women, because they see them as essentially the same problem. Despite their differences, they are very much alike in this regard.

Personally, I see no reason why sex or gender segregation must be the solution to any problem. It can be that solution, but only should be if it proves to be the most effective of all options.

If anything, it seems to be the transexclusionists are trying to work backwards. They have no interest in any solution that does not replicate the status quo.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Seems to me it's begging the question that sex segregation is the default.

I've yet to hear a completely valid reason why it's been pre-rejected as a valid option.

//And before you @ me remember I'm the one on everyone's crap list because I'm both morally and on a practical standpoint opposed to segregation at all//

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I've yet to hear a completely valid reason why it's been pre-rejected as a valid option.

It is inadequate if you intend to prevent gender based violence and discriminatory behavior.

Edit: I am ambivalent that sex or gender based segregation is the best option available. It seems clear to me that it is totally inadequate without significant caveats and additional measures. I can't see any downside, besides some cost, to install personal stalls and do away with communal showering/changing, for example.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It is inadequate if you intend to prevent gender based violence and discriminatory behavior.

Emily Cat will now tell me the exact same thing is the exact same proof for her stance.

What do I do?

 

[theprestige]

Why do you think that is?

Lots of straight men aren't attracted to dick, are squicked out by the idea of participating in dick-on-dick sex, and have a strongly negative reaction to the idea or implication of a bait-and-switch involving dick-sex?

Probably also the kind of men who are into prostitutes are the kind of men who don't think highly of them as human beings in the first place. I bet most female prostitutes also encounter a lot more violence than the general female population.

This has implications for the broader discussion, too. Men tend to be more physically violent than women. If men are statistically more likely to frequent prostitutes*, then we should absolutely expect prostitutes of all genders to see more violence, statistically, than other kinds of occupations. This would be especially true because prostitution is usually illegal or unregulated, and tends to happen while the general public looks the other way. So a lot of the legal and social control rods on (male) violence that protect other professions are missing from this one.

But I digress. My point about the broader discussion was that we see the statistical male propensity for violence tends to hold for transwomen as well. This is something they tend to have in common with other males, rather than with females.

Which is why I tend to the conclusion that in cases where sex segregation makes sense for reasons of safety (prisons, shelters, sports) or fairness (sports), transwomen are males and can reasonably be segregated with the other males. Probably should be, in many cases.

I haven't seen any argument from science, or from axiomatic human rights, that inclines me to change my mind about sex segregation. To be honest, I don't think I've seen any arguments along those lines at all. But to be honest my eyes tend to glaze over at a lot of these posts. If someone has such an argument in this thread, please link it and I'll address it. Sorry in advance for the oversight.

I'd be open to the possibility of segregating transwomen from both men and women in prisons, but that seems to just exacerbate the "trans rights" problem.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Lots of straight men aren't attracted to dick, are squicked out by the idea of participating in dick-on-dick sex, and have a strongly negative reaction to the idea or implication of a bait-and-switch involving dick-sex?

Probably also the kind of men who are into prostitutes are the kind of men who don't think highly of them as human beings in the first place. I bet most female prostitutes also encounter a lot more violence than the general female population.

This has implications for the broader discussion, too. Men tend to be more physically violent than women. If men are statistically more likely to frequent prostitutes*, then we should absolutely expect prostitutes of all genders to see more violence, statistically, than other kinds of occupations. This would be especially true because prostitution is usually illegal or unregulated, and tends to happen while the general public looks the other way. So a lot of the legal and social control rods on (male) violence that protect other professions are missing from this one.

But I digress. My point about the broader discussion was that we see the statistical male propensity for violence tends to hold for transwomen as well. This is something they tend to have in common with other males, rather than with females.

Which is why I tend to the conclusion that in cases where sex segregation makes sense for reasons of safety (prisons, shelters, sports) or fairness (sports), transwomen are males and can reasonably be segregated with the other males. Probably should be, in many cases.

I haven't seen any argument from science, or from axiomatic human rights, that inclines me to change my mind about sex segregation. To be honest, I don't think I've seen any arguments along those lines at all. But to be honest my eyes tend to glaze over at a lot of these posts. If someone has such an argument in this thread, please link it and I'll address it. Sorry in advance for the oversight.

I'd be open to the possibility of segregating transwomen from both men and women in prisons, but that seems to just exacerbate the "trans rights" problem.

My question wasn't why sex workers experienced violence, but rather why so many trans people end up in this line of work.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's hard to disentangle the whole mess. The fact that trans people are disproportionately resorting to survival sex work says a lot about their precarious position in society.

I have to agree there, but especially about how difficult it is to disentangle the whole mess. There are lots of different factors at play trying to explain behavioral differences between transwomen, ciswomen, cismen, and transmen.

But I think to some extent it's a red herring. When dealing with women's prisons, which was the focus of discussions, you have large people with penises and smaller people with vaginas. Using that information alone, I would predict that the transwomen would be less likely to be victims of sexual assault, and I think the statistics confirm that prediction.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My question wasn't why sex workers experienced violence, but rather why so many trans people end up in this line of work.

There's hardly a question to be had there. In societies were sex work is shunned, the margins of society tend to get pushed there.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There's hardly a question to be had there. In societies were sex work is shunned, the margins of society tend to get pushed there.

Seems pretty relevant to this thread topic to acknowledge that trans people are experiencing intense poverty and other downsides from living within an intensely hostile society, which might make them especially vulnerable populations that need access to social services, such as domestic violence and homeless shelters, while also (as any impoverished community) more likely to be incarcerated.