Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[d4m10n]

Anyone else getting a queasy "converting" or "turning" feeling about this?

A bit, yeah.

Weird thing is, if someone had a rare sexual fetish (for, say, tightly bound feet) then these same progressive thinkers would be tripping over themselves to be the first to take a public stand against kink shaming.

Evidently everyday sexual preferences don't get nearly the same leeway.

 

[p0lka]

To be fair, it could just be part of vocabulary issues. With no standard definitions of male/female versus man/woman, they might have some issue.

On the other hand, that gets to one of the points made by JoeMorgue. It's not just a case that one side uses one set of definitions, while the other side uses a different set of definitions. The problem is that some people very prominent in the debate and very active in the discussions refuse to use any definitions at all.

That leads us to a discussion about whether penises and vaginas actually matter in sexual relations, and that is, genuinely, flat earth crap.

re the highlighted:
Some people are genuinely attracted to the personality of a person, the genitals they have are a secondary matter, why would that be flat earth crap?

 

[theprestige]

re the highlighted:
Some people are genuinely attracted to the personality of a person, the genitals they have are a secondary matter, why would that be flat earth crap?

It's true. I have a number of close friendships that don't have anything to do with our respective genitalia.

Meanwhile, people passing as a different sex shouldn't hide the truth about their genitalia in the hopes that when their love-seeking friend won't care anyway.

 

[Meadmaker]

re the highlighted:
Some people are genuinely attracted to the personality of a person, the genitals they have are a secondary matter, why would that be flat earth crap?

You can find "some people" genuinely attracted to darned near anything.

Are there people who don't care about genitals? Yes, there are. And that's fine.

But the conversation lately started when researchers expressed surprise when they found out that, for an awful lot of people, genitals matter. Whoa! Who could have seen that one coming? This one just really had those folks scratching their heads. Even in this enlightened age, how could that be the case?

Yes, it's true. Most people actually care about that stuff between the legs. It's not just weirdos and bigots.


More than discussing whether or not people care about genitals, it's more a matter for most of us ridiculing people who call themselves scientists studying human sexuality who were surprised. It shouldn't surprise anyone, much less someone who studies this for a living.

 

[gnome]

Again, I think once you've asserted that gender is more important than sex, you kind of have to push the idea that genitals are trivial

That doesn't hold unless you assert that gender is more important than sex in every single context.

 

[gnome]

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.

Not really--the situation this was suggested for was one where a person would be expected to be seen nude. No inspector needed.

 

[gnome]

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?

Sure it does. Someone proposing a policy has to say what the objective is. Is it to prevent someone looking like a man from being seen in the ladies' room? Or is it to address a question of risk? In the case of bathrooms I think most potential objections fail the reasonableness check, so allowing someone to choose whichever one they are most comfortable with seems the most reasonable.

In communal changing spaces or sports or prisons I don't think it's as easy to say anything goes. And that's because there's potentially a more reasonable objection, but it needs to be expressed clearly to resolve it.

 

[Distracted1]

To be fair, it could just be part of vocabulary issues. With no standard definitions of male/female versus man/woman, they might have some issue.

On the other hand, that gets to one of the points made by JoeMorgue. It's not just a case that one side uses one set of definitions, while the other side uses a different set of definitions. The problem is that some people very prominent in the debate and very active in the discussions refuse to use any definitions at all.

That leads us to a discussion about whether penises and vaginas actually matter in sexual relations, and that is, genuinely, flat earth crap.

"Orwellan" is the term you are looking for.
Control the debate through control of the language until certain thoughts cannot even be expressed.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Except for each of the major incidents already cited.

In Canada? I don't recall any of note. Refresh my memory.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

A bit, yeah.

Weird thing is, if someone had a rare sexual fetish (for, say, tightly bound feet) then these same progressive thinkers would be tripping over themselves to be the first to take a public stand against kink shaming.

Evidently everyday sexual preferences don't get nearly the same leeway.

Yeah, if you think about it, the large heteronormative majority that is constantly reassured by society that their way of life is the correct one is actually the oppressed victim here. Very insightful.

 

[theprestige]

That doesn't hold unless you assert that gender is more important than sex in every single context.

This assertion seems to be implicit or explicit in every argument by trans-inclusionists where the distinction matters.

Preferred pronouns are obviously an assertion of the primacy of gender.

The accesssion of transwomen to positions representing women, including in matters of diversity hiring, is another obvious assertion of the primacy of gender.

Then of course there's the big one we've been debating here: Access to sex-segregated spaces. In restrooms, locker rooms, women's shelters, and women's sports, there is the assertion that gender is more important than sex.

Then there's Boudicca's rather extreme (but certainly not unique) assertion that the biological underpinnings of her gender identity disorder are actually what define her sex.

About the only context in which the primacy of gender over sex has not been asserted has been in the bedroom. And even there, I think that some are already asserting it.

So yeah, I can't think of any context of importance where trans-inclusionists don't assert that gender is more important than sex.

ETA: Ah! Medical care. And even there, trans-inclusionists push for as much gender-oriented care as possible.

 

[d4m10n]

Yeah, if you think about it, the large heteronormative majority that is constantly reassured by society that their way of life is the correct one is actually the oppressed victim here.

It's sort of amazing how some folks feel the need to reframe everything in terms of oppression.

My question remains, why is it considered good to have a norm against kink-shaming but not one against shaming non-kinky sexual preferences (e.g. PIV)?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's sort of amazing how some folks feel the need to frame everything in terms of oppression.

I agree. It's wild the way reactionaries who enjoy the constant assurance of society that their way of life is valid have a persecution complex.

 

[gnome]

This assertion seems to be implicit or explicit in every argument by trans-inclusionists where the distinction matters.

Preferred pronouns are obviously an assertion of the primacy of gender.

The accesssion of transwomen to positions representing women, including in matters of diversity hiring, is another obvious assertion of the primacy of gender.

Then of course there's the big one we've been debating here: Access to sex-segregated spaces. In restrooms, locker rooms, women's shelters, and women's sports, there is the assertion that gender is more important than sex.

Then there's Boudicca's rather extreme (but certainly not unique) assertion that the biological underpinnings of her gender identity disorder are actually what define her sex.

About the only context in which the primacy of gender over sex has not been asserted has been in the bedroom. And even there, I think that some are already asserting it.

So yeah, I can't think of any context of importance where trans-inclusionists don't assert that gender is more important than sex.

ETA: Ah! Medical care. And even there, trans-inclusionists push for as much gender-oriented care as possible.

You can point out that some people inappropriately assert primacy of gender over sex in debatable context. However, my response was to Louden:

Again, I think once you've asserted that gender is more important than sex, you kind of have to push the idea that genitals are trivial

This seems to imply that if you EVER assert that gender is more important than sex in ANY context, then you must believe it is so for all contexts.

And it may be that Louden does not mean that. It is a useful distinction anyway. The fact that some people insist on an unreasonable standard does not make everyone else who advocates wrong. The examples you give are far from how everyone advocates.

 

[d4m10n]

It's wild the way reactionaries who enjoy the constant assurance of society that their way of life is valid have a persecution complex.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of rule 12 removed.

My question remains, why is it considered good to have a norm against kink-shaming but not one against shaming non-kinky sexual preferences (e.g. PIV)?

 

[JoeMorgue]

re the highlighted:
Some people are genuinely attracted to the personality of a person, the genitals they have are a secondary matter, why would that be flat earth crap?

Some people literally think they possess the spirits of anime characters. I don't care.

Again this "Oh so you're saying genitals being important to sex should just be the default" is one of those "Stick your head outside of Tumblr blogs for a few seconds and live in reality for a while" cases of "You've lost the plot."

 

[theprestige]

You can point out that some people inappropriately assert primacy of gender over sex in debatable context. However, my response was to Louden:



This seems to imply that if you EVER assert that gender is more important than sex in ANY context, then you must believe it is so for all contexts.

The actual implication is that the same activism that asserts that gender is more important in almost every other context where the distinction matters, must eventually assert that it's more important in the bedroom as well. And that is indeed the trend we are observing.

And it may be that Louden does not mean that. It is a useful distinction anyway. The fact that some people insist on an unreasonable standard does not make everyone else who advocates wrong. The examples you give are far from how everyone advocates.

Of course it's not how everyone advocates. Louden's claim is that for the ones who do advocate that, they must eventually advocate it in the bedroom also.

And several of the examples I give are examples of the mainstream of trans-inclusionary advocacy. Pronouns are already a done deal. Equitable representation appears to be well-established, if not entirely normalized. Restrooms likewise. Locker rooms, shelters, prisons, and sports are well on their way. And to nobody's surprise (least of all Louden's), we're already hearing rumblings about the bedroom. Because once you start asserting that gender is more important than sex, you have to get to the bedroom sooner or later.

 

[Meadmaker]

ETA: Ah! Medical care. And even there, trans-inclusionists push for as much gender-oriented care as possible.

Recall the discussion from a couple of years ago about a man who checked into a maternity ward in order to give birth, and how the poorly educated staff failed to provide him proper care because they read his chart and just assumed that he could not be in labor.


(ETA: The above is written following the conventions I have adopted for use in this thread, but when I'm in the real world I will tell you that men can't have babies. As with sports leagues and such, if you really, really, want to insist that men can be pregnant, then whatever, but the solution to the problem is to insist that the maternity ward is a place for females, instead of women.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And several of the examples I give are examples of the mainstream of trans-inclusionary advocacy. Pronouns are already a done deal. Equitable representation appears to be well-established, if not entirely normalized. Restrooms likewise. Locker rooms, shelters, prisons, and sports are well on their way. And to nobody's surprise (least of all Louden's), we're already hearing rumblings about the bedroom. Because once you start asserting that gender is more important than sex, you have to get to the bedroom sooner or later.

That's right. We're in the last days of the cis hetero era. Soon, perhaps even sooner than you think, someone is coming to the home to forcibly sissify all us straight cis men with hormones and force us into gay trans poly relationships.

We've careened off the slippery slope into a dark pit with no bottom. All is lost.

Joking aside, I respectfully request you get a grip. These anti-trans horror stories are incredibly pathetic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's right. We're in the last days of the cis hetero era.

And the plot thins. Like with everything else you don't care about or even understand the people or the topic, you just want to be part of the next revolution and make sure everyone knows it.

You want a windmill to tip, nothing more, nothing less.