Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Elaedith]

Continued from here. As is usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from previous parts of this thread. But please use your best endeavours to stick to your MA when composing and submitting your posts.

Posted By: Agatha

T As a result, they got rid of the question, and because they got rid of the question, they had to get rid of the answer.

Apparently the interviewer wanted to substitute a different question while keeping the answer, and was unable to see any problem with that. The mind boggles.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Probably need to qualify this middle statement, as it varies quite a bit depending on who you're talking to

That's true of this entire discussion. But at least one side, wrong as they are, isn't demanding the major variable they are arguing for remains forever undefined.

 

[Meadmaker]

If you read the vice article, they also refused to run a follow-up interview question about TERFs aligning themselves with the far right Heritage Foundation, which illustrated the same point without the complexities of the Wi Spa case.



Seems to me that the editors had lots of options short of just avoiding the issue. They easily could have just added an editor's note and/or follow-up question and response, for example, rather than yanking this part of the interview entirely.

So, Gleeson offered to revise history by rewriting the interview to include things that didn't actually happen in the interview.

ETA: Or, as Elaedith put it, the mind boggles.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's true of this entire discussion. But at least one side, wrong as they are, isn't demanding the major variable they are arguing for remains forever undefined.

Drawing hard, clear lines that are needlessly cruel and motivated by animus is often a very simple thing to do.

 

[theprestige]

An awfully strong stance considering the allegations against this person remain unsubstantiated. Criminal charges means we'll likely learn more in time.

Nope, he's already registered as a sex offender. These are entirely substantiated allegations. You're really doubling down on the "pretend he's not real" strategy?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Nope, he's already registered as a sex offender. These are entirely substantiated allegations. You're really doubling down on the "pretend he's not real" strategy?

I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Given a prior history of similar crimes, I would agree it seems likely, perhaps even most likely, that the allegations against this person are more or less correct.

What exactly does a repeat criminal committing a crime say about the broader debate? If anything, the prior convictions for the same crime from before trans-inclusive laws were in effect show that such laws had little impact.

 

[Meadmaker]

You know you don't need to align with "fascists", just to align against a serial sexual assaulter.

The sex related charges against Merager all are related to exposure, not assault. (Assuming I didn't miss anything in the news.)

He (or whatever) was also convicted of burglary.

Basically - 2002 and/or 2003 (can't remember exactly), conviction for indecent exposure. I have seen no information regarding the nature of these incidents. i.e. was it classic "flashing", or was it being nude in a female facility where nudity would be expected, as in the Wi Spa case.

2008 - Conviction for not registering as a sex offender.

2014 - Conviction for burlary.

2018 - (I think) charges of indecent exposure. I don't know why those haven't been resolved. Numerous reports of other indecent exposure incidents.

2021 - Wi spa incident.

The burglary charges were actually quite prominent, and got a lot of press. The victim was an extremely wealthy and well known hedge fund manager, and Merager et. al. broke into his house and stole expensive art. It was noted in one not very trans friendly publication I read about that in none of the 2014 stories were any pronouns other than "he" used to describe Merager, and there was no mention of transgender issues.

ETA: And the above is all from memory. I'm confident I got the "big picture" accurate, but I might be off on a few details.

 

[Ziggurat]

Boudicca has a tendency to use non-standard definitions of terms.

You are making excuses for Boudicca90, and they are excuses that Boudicca90 didn't even use.

 

[theprestige]

The sex related charges against Merager all are related to exposure, not assault. (Assuming I didn't miss anything in the news.)

He (or whatever) was also convicted of burglary.

Basically - 2002 and/or 2003 (can't remember exactly), conviction for indecent exposure. I have seen no information regarding the nature of these incidents. i.e. was it classic "flashing", or was it being nude in a female facility where nudity would be expected, as in the Wi Spa case.

2008 - Conviction for not registering as a sex offender.

2014 - Conviction for burlary.

2018 - (I think) charges of indecent exposure. I don't know why those haven't been resolved. Numerous reports of other indecent exposure incidents.

2021 - Wi spa incident.

The burglary charges were actually quite prominent, and got a lot of press. The victim was an extremely wealthy and well known hedge fund manager, and Merager et. al. broke into his house and stole expensive art. It was noted in one not very trans friendly publication I read about that in none of the 2014 stories were any pronouns other than "he" used to describe Merager, and there was no mention of transgender issues.

ETA: And the above is all from memory. I'm confident I got the "big picture" accurate, but I might be off on a few details.

Thanks for the correction. I withdraw my exaggerated allegations.

 

[d4m10n]

Drawing hard, clear lines that are needlessly cruel and motivated by animus is often a very simple thing to do.

If we're going to have spaces/leagues segregated by gender (instead of sex) we're still going to need some clear lines drawn.

I don't think there is *any* way to draw those lines which won't make anyone feel like they've been hard done by.

Interesting coincidence with the linked author's first name, or are you just quoting yourself here?

Not quoting anyone; just providing a specific example of the level of evidence I would personally bring to the table before throwing around accusations of fascism.

 

[theprestige]

If we're going to have spaces/leagues segregated by gender (instead of sex) we're still going to need some clear lines drawn.

"I prefer to compete against women because men are in a whole other league, biologically."

"Biologically, you're in the same league as men."

"Exactly!"

 

[Emily's Cat]

The first two occur if and only if the transwoman in question takes cross-sex hormones.

Which is very often true of individuals known to be trans.

And since hormone treatment is not required to be considered transgender under the new criteria of self-declaration only...

Just because someone is transgender does not necessarily mean they are a transwoman.

So let me be more clear: What characteristics are shared by pre/non-op, pre/non-HRT transwoman and females, and which are NOT shared by pre/non-op, pre/non-HRT transwomen and males?

The term "transwoman" implies that the person involved is in some sense a "woman", they have taken some steps to transition.
It does not usually include persons with a feminine gender identity who remain closeted. When deciding who goes in which prison, we are talking about individuals who are known to be trans.

Relatively effeminate males are also at risk of being raped (by males, mind you) when thrown into a male prison.

Which just shows that segregation based on biological sex isn't really a solution to anything. Just fix your prison system first.

So... If Eddie Izzard and Alex Drummond were to commit crimes that land them in jail... would you argue that they be placed in the male prison or the female prison? Both have declared themselves to be transwomen, both identify as women, neither have had (nor plan to have) any hormone therapy, neither have had (nor plan to have) any surgical alterations. Yet neither is closeted.

Do they count as "women" to you? Do they gain access to female spaces, honors, shelters, and prisons as a right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

The whole "trans crime of the day" bit is very tired. Reminiscent of white supremacists who love to pluck outrageous stories of "black crime" in their campaign of bigotry.

There is a pattern here.

ST: That never happens, it's all propaganda!
EC et all: It happened here (provides reference)
ST: That's just an anecdote, it doesn't count. Where's the massive number of instances?
EC et all: Well, there's, this and this and this and this and this (supplies multiple references)
ST: <crickets>

~~~ Days pass~~~

ST: That never happens, it's all hysterical overreacting propaganda and animus!

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am perturbed by the number of journalists, editorial authors, self-proclaimed "influencers", and other devout followers who are still defending Merager and casting the female adults and children subjected to Merager's genitals against their will as being evil bigots.

 

[Elaedith]

So, Gleeson offered to revise history by rewriting the interview to include things that didn't actually happen in the interview.

ETA: Or, as Elaedith put it, the mind boggles.

I suppose it's not that surprising considering that the truth of the claims is irrelevant to those who are pushing the narrative.

 

[Emily's Cat]

New Research Shows a Vast Majority of Cis People Won't Date Trans People

I feel like this is kind of a No ****, Sherlock sort of a study. The author seems surprised by these findings, which boggles my mind. The vast majority of people on the planet are attracted to people whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics are in alignment with each other. We're wired that way, we're a sexually dimorphic species that reproduces via two distinct and different sexes. Why on earth would anyone be surprised that this holds true? It's up there with doing research and being surprised to find out that water is wet.

This part also reinforces to me the willful ignorance and fantasy involved:

Surprisingly, among the 127 participants open to dating a trans person, almost half selected a trans person of a gender incongruent with their stated sexual orientation. For example, 50% of the trans-inclusive straight women and 28% of the trans-inclusive gay men were willing to date a trans woman, even though one wouldn’t expect either straight women or gay men to be attracted to women. Similarly, 50% of trans-inclusive straight men and 69% of trans-inclusive lesbians said they’d date a trans man, even though both groups are presumably only attracted to women.

This is what happens when someone somewhere tries to redefine sexual orientation to be "gender identity orientation" instead. Then you end up with researchers being surprised that gay males are attracted to other males, regardless of their presentation, and that gay females are attracted to other females.

Their conclusion really hammers home the lack of rational thought involved.

The high rates of trans exclusion from potential dating pools are undoubtedly due in part to cisnormativity, cissexism, and transphobia — all of which lead to lack of knowledge about transgender people and their bodies, discomfort with these unknowns, and fear of being discriminated against by proxy of one’s romantic partner. It is also possible that at least some of the trans exclusion is due to the fact that for some people, sexual orientation might be not (just) about a partner’s gender identity, but attraction to specific body types and/or judgment of reproductive capabilities.

They're concluding that exclusion of transgender people is transphobia, as opposed to basic sexual function. But hey, at least they consider it a *possibility* that some people are attracted to a sex as opposed to a gender identity.

 

[Meadmaker]

Once again, the mind boggles.

 

[d4m10n]

In (good) legal news:
https://twitter.com/tulsaworld/status/1437563783027822595

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Southeastern Oklahoma State University to reinstate with tenure a transgender professor who was fired after an administrator said her “lifestyle” offended him.

 

[Paul2]

New Research Shows a Vast Majority of Cis People Won't Date Trans People

I feel like this is kind of a No ****, Sherlock sort of a study. The author seems surprised by these findings, which boggles my mind. The vast majority of people on the planet are attracted to people whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics are in alignment with each other. We're wired that way, we're a sexually dimorphic species that reproduces via two distinct and different sexes. Why on earth would anyone be surprised that this holds true? It's up there with doing research and being surprised to find out that water is wet.

This part also reinforces to me the willful ignorance and fantasy involved:



This is what happens when someone somewhere tries to redefine sexual orientation to be "gender identity orientation" instead. Then you end up with researchers being surprised that gay males are attracted to other males, regardless of their presentation, and that gay females are attracted to other females.

Their conclusion really hammers home the lack of rational thought involved.



They're concluding that exclusion of transgender people is transphobia, as opposed to basic sexual function. But hey, at least they consider it a *possibility* that some people are attracted to a sex as opposed to a gender identity.

Sure, it's possible, but all we have is 1.2 billion years of sexual reproduction on earth. Do we really think that any of that has anything to do with why actual people - not the species homo sapiens, but people like you and me - are attracted to someone?

/s

It's the blank slate phenomenon ( Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate), which ignores that we are animals and are part of the animal kingdom, all species in which have evolved, as if our brains are somehow exempt from the influence of that 1.2 billion years.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah, it's funny now until not dating a transperson is seen as transphobic.

Which will happen.