Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Ziggurat]

Maybe part of my inability to sypmathise with some of the arguments here is that I find a real big chunk of the people's faces I see every day don't have an earth shatteringly obvious gender. A lot do but plenty don't. It seems to me that there's a pretty large pool of people out there where I'm relying 100% on their presentation to assume their gender. So Prestige's 'males look like males, females look like females, you are just ignoring the truth' thing rings pretty hollow for me.

Other aspects of physique besides the face often betray sex as well, and in person I can see much more than just a face. I rarely see someone whose sex is actually ambiguous.

 

[Louden Wilde]

I'm not sure "like" is the important verb here. The word that really matters also has four letters, one of which is a k. It's very important to me, and I can only do it with females.

Yes, I know, there are other things I could do, and people even use the same word, but they aren't the same.

Wanting to do that thing, accepting no substitutes, is not weird. It also doesn't require a chromosomal test.

Hmm- I'm pretty sure there are/will be plenty of males will try their luck (I think that's the word you you meant ;-) with TW, but they'll always be seen as lesser than actual women as long-term mates - even if saying that is frowned upon. Note that will be true even as surgeries get better and more TWs are closer to 'passing'.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Maybe part of my inability to sypmathise with some of the arguments here is that I find a real big chunk of the people's faces I see every day don't have an earth shatteringly obvious gender. A lot do but plenty don't. It seems to me that there's a pretty large pool of people out there where I'm relying 100% on their presentation to assume their gender. So Prestige's 'males look like males, females look like females, you are just ignoring the truth' thing rings pretty hollow for me.

We don't assume their gender, we just see it as pointless and not a factor in how we treat people.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The specter of the "Perfect to the point of being undetectable transperson" is one that both sides (as much as there are sides but you know what I mean) have brought up in different context multiple times, both as an argument for and against various trans concept.

It still doesn't address the basic dichotomy of a difference between X that presents as Y and X that presents as X that doesn't exist between X and Y.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe part of my inability to sypmathise with some of the arguments here is that I find a real big chunk of the people's faces I see every day don't have an earth shatteringly obvious gender. A lot do but plenty don't. It seems to me that there's a pretty large pool of people out there where I'm relying 100% on their presentation to assume their gender. So Prestige's 'males look like males, females look like females, you are just ignoring the truth' thing rings pretty hollow for me.

Try it in the bedroom, see what happens.

 

[Meadmaker]

Keep in mind how this particular subthread got started. EC posted a scientific paper where the author's expressed surprise that someone's genitals actually mattered in romantic relationships.

It wasn't about "how we treat people", except in a specific context. The fact that someone would be surprised that genitals matter, and would override other considerations, demonstrates just how out of touch with reality some people are.

Yeah, I might make a mistake about someone's sex when I meet them in an office or supermarket, but if they take their clothes off, I'll get it right darned near every time, and thinking it's important doesn't make me a bigot.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah, I might make a mistake about someone's sex when I meet them in an office or supermarket, but if they take their clothes off, I'll get it right darned near every time, and thinking it's important doesn't make me a bigot.

But that's the linguistic trap we've been lead into by mountains of mush-mouthed non-definitions and constant appeals to "Well it's complicated and personal preference... so it never has to make ANY logical congruent sense."

Nobody (unless maybe Boudicaa if she sticks her head back in the conversation) is going to argue (yet, like I said give it a few years) that preferring a sexual partner to have a specific genital structure makes you a bigot. Nobody is, yet, ready to plant their flag in "You have to like innies and outies the same" territory.

But what they ARE saying and arguing for is a set of definitions and standards for sex and gender where WHY it isn't a problem to pick sexual partners based on genitals can't be answered without directly contradicting yourself. And not in some "HAHA I caught you in a surface level contradiction now I declare you a hypocrite" way like the internet loves, but in actually functionally arguing against your own point on a deep and base directly contradictory level.

Again, and this whole concept just infuriates people for some reason, it's the "You're not saying it, but the arguments you are making is saying it" thing.

Let me put it this way. Ever run into one of the hardcore "Hate the sin, not the sinner" people? They aren't as common as they used to be as people of their stripe have started to own their hatred as lot more in the last few years, but I'm sure they are still around. They were BIG about a decade or two back when gay rights was going through one of its peaks.

Did that argument ever really make sense to anybody? And be honest. Did "Oh I just hate some fundamental part of who you are, but that doesn't mean I hate you?" ever really feel true and honest as an argument? Did you ever encounter that argument and not feel there was no way they were going to maintain, even if they meant it and honestly wanted to, the wall between person and action they claimed they had built in the moral compass?

It's the same thing here. If the entire argument is that anything meaningful about sex and gender is 100% personally dictated BUT you then tack on some "Oh but don't worry that doesn't mean your personal personally personalling along choices about it will EVER be a problem I super-duper pinky swear in fact I'm now going to attack you for even being worried about" it doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[theprestige]

Other aspects of physique besides the face often betray sex as well, and in person I can see much more than just a face. I rarely see someone whose sex is actually ambiguous.

I live in a diverse, progressive, and inclusive urban center. From time to time I do notice someone whose gender is not immediately apparent. Usually at the neighborhood bar where I'm a regular. I usually don't think about it for more than a second or two, because really who cares? I'm sure it would become readily apparent long before the actual bumping of uglies was raised as a possibility. But maybe not. Who knows?

I suspect that a lot of the strangers Lithrael sees are a lot less androgynous than they think. But it says a lot of good things about our society that it's not really important what someone's gender actually is, or whether closer examination is warranted.

 

[gnome]

Perhaps the solution to prevent further Wi Spa incidents is to designate the former "women only" area to "no penis" area. This way people can adopt whatever label/gender/designation they want and those who do not wish to see a penis can avoid it.

I think that there is traction in this approach--to clearly and honestly identify what defines the exclusion's intent. Then it possibly becomes a little easier to decide if it is a reasonable exclusion. At least, it makes it harder to drag the matter into irrelevant topics by leaving the first question too vague.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think that there is traction in this approach--to clearly and honestly identify what defines the exclusion's intent. Then it possibly becomes a little easier to decide if it is a reasonable exclusion. At least, it makes it harder to drag the matter into irrelevant topics by leaving the first question too vague.

You'll never get past the "OMG so you're saying we have to set up genital inspectors" argument to get anywhere with that on a functional level, so any argumentative benefits are pointless.

 

[LondonJohn]

The chromosomal test isn't necessary. The primary and secondary sexual characteristics are already visible.

What if a hot-blooded hetero cisman gets attracted to - and turned on by - a beautiful, confident woman at the next table to him in a restaurant? And then he overhears that his hormones have actually been stirred into action by...... a transwoman?!

Should he perhaps march over to her and demand an apology for making him feel so stupid and cheated in his now-wasted lust for her?


I can't think this whole line of argument is going to end very well (logically-speaking) for you. But I'm sure you'll tell me how my example is entirely unrelated in every way to what you're describing...


(PS: If you want another counterexample to do the same treatment to.... how about a hetero cisman starting to date a ciswoman; they are both really into each other, and after several dates the man's thoughts turn to sex (intercourse) - something which to him is an extremely important component of any relationship - but it's at this point the woman tells him that because of serious complications from endometriosis, she's unable to have intercourse. Should our man feel cheated and slighted that this woman has - somehow, and in his eyes - misrepresented herself to him from the get-go?)

 

[Ziggurat]

I suspect that a lot of the strangers Lithrael sees are a lot less androgynous than they think. But it says a lot of good things about our society that it's not really important what someone's gender actually is, or whether closer examination is warranted.

I don't think it's true that it's not important, and until we transcend our biological impulses (not in my lifetime), I don't think that will ever be the case. Rather, I think you're actually describing it wrong. It's not that gender doesn't matter (because, bumping uglies), it's that nonconformity isn't punished. And I would agree that this is a good thing.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think it's true that it's not important, and until we transcend our biological impulses (not in my lifetime), I don't think that will ever be the case. Rather, I think you're actually describing it wrong. It's not that gender doesn't matter (because, bumping uglies), it's that nonconformity isn't punished. And I would agree that this is a good thing.

I gotta say the question of bumping uglies is almost always completely irrelevant to my day to day social interactions. Especially with strangers. Especially when there's no interaction, it's just some rando in the supermarket or walking down the street who I'm not even going to speak to or remember in a few moments anyway.

 

[Meadmaker]

they are both really into each other, and after several dates the man's thoughts turn to sex (intercourse) -

I'm using a phone, so detailed answers are difficult, but I wanted to say one thing.

The idea that a man's thoughts would only turn to sexual intercourse after several dates is highly unrealistic.

And it does affect the answers to your other questions. More later.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think that there is traction in this approach--to clearly and honestly identify what defines the exclusion's intent. Then it possibly becomes a little easier to decide if it is a reasonable exclusion. At least, it makes it harder to drag the matter into irrelevant topics by leaving the first question too vague.

No, because it doesn't address the core issue here, which is actually: in which changing room should transwomen change in this sort of facility? Or should transwomen simply not be welcome to visit (or perhaps not even permitted to visit) these sorts of facilities?

Both of these require actual answers. And real-world answers (eg no magical-mythical-separate-locked-cubicle-for-each-individual suggestions).


PS: Boy (or, uhm, transboy), this thread is every bit as toxic as I remember. Still with the "boys dressing up as girls" and "trans-allies either a) not giving a damn about ciswomen's rights*, b) nothing but cis men deigning to tell ciswomen what they should think*, or c) flat-out misogynists*. Sceptics' forum LMFAO

* And of course the rather large elephant in the room here is the significant proportion of ciswomen on every single body which has 1) considered transgenderism from the PoV of global medical science, 2) legislated transgender rights in almost every progressive democracy, and 3) considered the implementation and enaction of transgender rights laws in all those jurisdictions. Funny ol' World, eh....?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why don't these questions get asked the other way?

Surely Transpeople are capable of making the exact same mistakes. You're telling me at no point in history has a transperson ever mistaken a cis-person for a trans-one? Do we worry about the existential crisis it causes them?

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, because it doesn't address the core issue here, which is actually: in which changing room should transwomen change in this sort of facility? Or should transwomen simply not be welcome to visit (or perhaps not even permitted to visit) these sorts of facilities?

Both of these require actual answers. And real-world answers (eg no magical-mythical-separate-locked-cubicle-for-each-individual suggestions).

Well we're on the *checks notes* 3rd page of the *checks notes* 7th continuation of the *checks notes* just most recent version a thread about this question so if you have any ways to answer it please share it with the class.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm using a phone, so detailed answers are difficult, but I wanted to say one thing.

The idea that a man's thoughts would only turn to sexual intercourse after several dates is highly unrealistic.

And it does affect the answers to your other questions. More later.

What difference? Let's suppose the man asks the woman to have sex with him on Date 1, to take it to that extreme. Tell me the difference between the woman in this scenario a) telling him she can't have sex with him because of the endo complications; vs b) telling him she can't have sex with him because she's a pre-op transwoman?

 

[LondonJohn]

Well we're on the *checks notes* 3rd page of the *checks notes* 7th continuation of the *checks notes* just most recent version a thread about this question so if you have any ways to answer it please share it with the class.

The answer is that she should be able to use the women's changing rooms. But a) get some sort of risk assessment before gaining that right (which may not have been done here, perhaps), and b) for the establishment to make identification and apprehension as strong as reasonably possible (both as an up-front deterrent, and as a means of bringing any actual offenders to justice).

What's your answer?

 

[LondonJohn]

Why don't these questions get asked the other way?

Surely Transpeople are capable of making the exact same mistakes. You're telling me at no point in history has a transperson ever mistaken a cis-person for a trans-one? Do we worry about the existential crisis it causes them?

No. Because they themselves very probably do not. I certainly don't seem to see many of them complaining about it on "sceptics'" internet forums.