• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
This really emphasizes something that has been a theme in your recent posts. If we were only discussing people who had medical transitions, then we would be having a completely different conversation.

If we were only discussing post-HRT, post-op transwomen, there'd be virtually no disagreement on virtually all topics. Some might linger for sports, where physical size still has an impact, but there would be a considerably lower level of frustration involved.

I don't know how many times I've said this, and in how many different ways: It is not transgender people that are a problem, it is SELF-DECLARED GENDER IDENTITY AS THE SOLE ARBITER that is the problem.
 
Was the loving you and the other male made heterosexual or homosexual loving, because if it was the latter you're in a whole lot of trouble

If we respect the gender/sex distinction, then it has to be homosexual, right? Unless the sex in homosexual is different from sex-sex.

I would say that pragmatically, it may also depend on whether the other person had surgically transitioned or not.
 
//Semi-snark but semi-actually making a point.//

Then much like sports aren't we talking "weight class" making for more logical segregation than gender/sex?

Not to be funny but couldn't we accomplish (as much) of what we're talking about by just putting all the weak people in one prison and all the strong ones in another?

Wouldn't that achieve the spirt of what both SuburbanTurkey and EmilyCat want?

If you can guarantee a way by which people in equal weight (and presumably strength) classes are prevented from impregnating other people, I will consider it.
 
I've said before that people who have, are in the process, or intend to transition make absolutely perfect sense.

It's just the "Self Identity = My God the Alpha and the Omega, Creator of All Reality" people I don't get.

But again my issue for about 5 threads now has been the "Transgender Supporters" say one thing, then actual Transgender people saying multiple other things, none of which actually work together.

It's been pretty clear for a while now that the Non-Binary Trans-Imperatron (he/hers/their imperial majesty) has no clothes.
 
Helen Joyce published an except from her book a couple of days ago. It's an interesting read, touching on some of the history of classification within gender dysphoria, as well as some of the responses. I particularly liked the discssions around Blanchard's intent.

https://quillette.com/2021/09/07/the-truth-about-autogynephilia/

None of Blanchard’s work was intended to put obstacles in the way of transition. He wanted to understand the clinic’s patients, and help them decide what to do. Many were conflicted: concerned for their wives and children, and perhaps their careers. Moreover, autogynephilic desire seemed to compete with ordinary heterosexual desire, and could be temporarily eclipsed by a new partner. A man who had started fantasising about being a woman during adolescence might fall in love, conclude that those fantasies were a phase and marry—only for them to return years later. If the significance of persistent fantasies of having female genitalia was more widely known, fewer people would be made miserable by marriages entered in good faith that ended in misery when the husband transitioned.

In the 1980s and 1990s, when Blanchard was doing his research, the number of patients seen by gender clinics was tiny. The sole treatment pathway was physical transition: oestrogen and vaginoplasty for male patients; testosterone and mastectomy, and perhaps phalloplasty (a risky and complex operation in which flesh stripped from an arm or thigh is crafted into a neo-phallus), for female ones. Long delays were common. When patients were eventually seen, the personal crises that led to referral were past. And central to assessment was ensuring that they fully understood the goal of castration and bodily remodelling. They had to confront a tough question: was their desire to transition strong enough?

It made for strict gatekeeping. At the Clarke, four-fifths of patients abandoned the idea of transition before surgery. Some did not show up for the initial assessment. Others never returned, perhaps having concluded that living with gender dysphoria was preferable to proceeding. Even after that, referral for surgery depended on the “real-life test”: changing name, pronouns and clothing, and maintaining a cross-sex presentation for two years. A surprising number presented for follow-up appointments yearly, but never embarked on this trial. Clinicians could be confident that patients who stayed the course were unlikely to experience regret. And indeed, research at the Clarke—and other clinics with similar rules—found that hardly any did, and most were happier post-surgery.

The clinic would write to employers, asking for sympathy and flexibility during the real-life test regarding such questions as which workplace facilities patients would use. Post-surgery, the thinking went, they would use those intended for their adopted sex. Superficially, their bodies were now similar, and as for any risk of sexual violence from admitting males to female spaces, those males’ sexual organs had, after all, been removed.

Some of the comments following the article are pretty good too. But as with any comments section, not all are.
 
More insights into the rift at the UK offices of The Guardian over how to cover trans issues.

The Guardian’s decision to pull a quote critical of transphobes from gender theorist Judith Butler is part of a pattern at the paper of hostility to trans rights, current and former staffers say.

“The British editorial staff seem to be allowing transphobia to crop up even where it's not even relevant,” Jules Gleeson, author of the censored article, told me, adding that “it almost feels like transphobia is getting shoe-horned in for its own sake.”

Gleeson is not on staff at the paper, but her remarks reflect the consensus from the staffers I spoke to, all of whom needed anonymity due to NDAs and fears of reprisal. Their accounts paint a picture of a newsroom dominated by transphobes who use a plethora of tactics, including using the company’s UK union to insulate their bigotry from accountability, in order to maintain control over The Guardian’s editorial direction on gender.

https://eoinhiggins.substack.com/p/the-guardians-censoring-of-judith
 
Segregating by violence is a pretty common and reasonable approach to prison safety. It's not a perfect system, and there's still legit human rights concerns about just creating a thunderdome for our worst offenders, but it at least sorts people by something non-prejudicial.

You're still stuck on an argument from safety, in a discussion about identity.
 
Was the loving you and the other male made heterosexual or homosexual loving, because if it was the latter you're in a whole lot of trouble

Holy crap, am I out of touch or what!

You'll need to explain to me the difference between homosexual and heterosexual love, because my female friend who's owned a legal brothel for 20 years assures me the number one request by allegedly straight males with female prostitutes is anal sex.

I'm always staggered; several of them are exceptionally beautiful and guys spurn the vagina?

Ok, I'm all ears and eyes, away you go.
 
Not sure what mean here. If safety wasn't a concern we would just throw everyone in the same pile and this whole conversation would be moot.

Safety concerns exist independently of identity concerns. You could segregate smaller, weaker males with females out of concern for their safety, without any consideration of their identity.

You could also *not* segregate homosexual males with females even though their identity has safety implications.

If it's not an argument from identity, then it's kind of off topic for this thread.
 
Holy crap, am I out of touch or what!

You'll need to explain to me the difference between homosexual and heterosexual love, because my female friend who's owned a legal brothel for 20 years assures me the number one request by allegedly straight males with female prostitutes is anal sex.

I'm always staggered; several of them are exceptionally beautiful and guys spurn the vagina?

Ok, I'm all ears and eyes, away you go.

Having sex with someone of the same sex is homosexual by definition. It doesn't matter whether or not sodomy specifically is involved.
 
Safety concerns exist independently of identity concerns. You could segregate smaller, weaker males with females out of concern for their safety, without any consideration of their identity.

You could also *not* segregate homosexual males with females even though their identity has safety implications.

If it's not an argument from identity, then it's kind of off topic for this thread.

Somehow I suspect the two concerns intersect at least once or twice.
 
Somehow I suspect the two concerns intersect at least once or twice.

Sure, but the way you're managing the intersection amounts to special pleading.

Plus, the only reason you're introducing the safety argument at all is because you can't figure out how to make sense of "they should be with the women just because they want to be with the women."
 
Sure, but the way you're managing the intersection amounts to special pleading.

Plus, the only reason you're introducing the safety argument at all is because you can't figure out how to make sense of "they should be with the women just because they want to be with the women."

I'm open to other solutions that aren't completely dismissive of the safety and dignity concerns of trans people.
 
I'm open to other solutions that aren't completely dismissive of the safety and dignity concerns of trans people.

And now Emily Cat is going to say she's open to other solutions that aren't completely dismissive of the safety and dignity concerns of women, neither of you will listen to the other, and we will go nowhere but higher and higher up on the moral high grounds you both claim to hold.
 
Last edited:
I'm open to other solutions that aren't completely dismissive of the safety and dignity concerns of trans people.

It's a priority thing again, it seems to me.

We all want improved safety. If any of us could see how a solution improved safety overall, I think everyone would go for it.

Where we come into conflict is in two ways. First, a lot of us see housing a male in a women's prison as a rather obvious safety risk, one which has been confirmed with data posted here.

Second, there's the "dignity" issue. A lot of us would say that telling a female that she has to let a male see her in the shower represents a loss of dignity. You don't see it that way, as long as the male identifies as a woman.( Correct me if I have misrepresented your position). As a result we see the loss of privacy for the females in the women's prison when a male is housed there as a big deal, and you see little or no significance, and generally insult the women who object.
 
I'm open to other solutions that aren't completely dismissive of the safety and dignity concerns of trans people.

Nobody is dismissing the safety and dignity concerns of trans people in prison, just like nobody is dismissing the safety and dignity concerns of homosexual people in prison. Trans people in prison have the exact same safety and dignity concerns as everyone else in prison. I dismiss none of those concerns. Do you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom