Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Boudicca90]

Yes, I am being subsidized. I am confident I cost them a lot more than ten bucks per month, while the people who never come back earn them free money.

But....without getting too deeply into the economics of gym memberships...what you are doing is basically saying, once again, "I don't care about that, so it's not important. I don't care what happens to them."



Also, as it turns out, I think it's the only place I have ever seen a naked human being other than a sex partner for the last 25 years, which kinda makes gyms relevant to the whole locker room privacy issues. I don't go to Korean spas.

ETA: And, scam or no scam, if they require additional privacy in their locker rooms, they will cost additional money. If the membership thinks it's worth it, that's what they should do. Given the choice between more privacy and higher cost, versus less privacy and lower costs, I'll choose cheap. That's just who I am. I don't care about being naked around other men. They could save even more money by having only one locker room for both men and women, and that would suit me just fine, personally, but darned near zero women would think it was a good idea, and that really is the key to the whole problem.

I go to Planet Fitness and occasionally shower in the women's locker room (where I belong) with no problem. And it's comforting to know that based on past incidents in the news that if a TERF or transphobe tries to give me a problem, I will be protected and they will be asked to leave.

I do still try to cover up my penis however. Just out of courtesy. But that kind of support by the company goes a long way in why I keep my membership there even though there are better gyms out there.

 

[Earthborn]

(intersex not used as much anymore)

"Intersex" is still the politically correct term, by/for people who do not want their genital variation be thought of as a disorder.

 

[Elaedith]

The claim "Saying that a male who is feminine or prefers stereotypically female social roles is not a man but a woman or non-binary" is a (seemingly deliberate) misrepresentation of the transactivist position. "A male who is feminine or prefers stereotypically female social roles" is not a description of someone who is transgender, because someone who can be described that way may or may not be transgender, and a male who is transgender may or may not be described in such a way.

This is what gender evangelists always say in response - just being gender non-conforming is not the same as being transgender. Just as a woman can be gender-nonconforming, a transwoman can be male, have the gender 'woman', and be gender-nonconforming (a woman with some masculine characteristics who prefers more stereotypically male roles). You have then, of course, made the concept of gender completely meaningless, since it is divorced from anything that exists in material reality. And then a few statements later, we will get the contradictory claim again that gender identity ideology frees people from gender stereotypes. It is a totally unfalsifiable, incoherent position.

Actual transgender individuals are doing a lot to challenge gender roles, picking and choosing whatever aspects fit them best, and labelling them in whatever way they see fit. A transwoman might not be stereotypically feminine in (m)any or all aspects of her life.

So can anyone who is not transgender 'pick and choose whatever aspects fit them best, and label them in whatever way they see fit'. And gender non-conforming people already have been doing that for eons.

 

[Boudicca90]

"Intersex" is still the politically correct term, by/for people who do not want their genital variation be thought of as a disorder.

Yep. Just like how being transgender was once considered a 'disorder' and called Gender Identity Disorder, intersex people are also unfairly thought of as 'disordered' with the label DSD.

Hopefully that will change in the future.

 

[d4m10n]

Yep. Just like how being transgender was once considered a 'disorder' and called Gender Identity Disorder, intersex people are also unfairly thought of as 'disordered' with the label DSD.

At the risk of going a bit off-topic, when is it (not) okay to call something a disorder?

 

[Earthborn]

This misrepresentation exists because that's the only thing "gender" could possibly refer to when it is used in the context of a person having a male sex but a female gender.

The term is "gender identity". It is not there same thing as "gender', which is a much broader concept. And yes, the term "gender identity" is kind of problematic too, as seems to imply that it refers to one's social gender role instead of how one feels about the sexual characteristics on one's body, but that is the term we are kinda stuck with.

It's because the guy who coined the term, John Money, was kind of problematic figure himself.

 

[Earthborn]

You have then, of course, made the concept of gender completely meaningless, since it is divorced from anything that exists in material reality.

To anyone familiar with feminist discourse it should be obvious, that is kind of the whole point of the concept of gender; to detach it from material reality. It should not be confused with the concept of "gender identity", which is how one feels about one's own material reality.

So can anyone who is not transgender 'pick and choose whatever aspects fit them best, and label them in whatever way they see fit'.

Yes, of course. Many do not, as they are conforming to societal expectations.

And gender non-conforming people already have been doing that for eons.

Quite a few of them may have been transgender.

 

[Olmstead]

The term is "gender identity". It is not there same thing as "gender', which is a much broader concept. And yes, the term "gender identity" is kind of problematic too, as seems to imply that it refers to one's social gender role instead of how one feels about the sexual characteristics on one's body, but that is the term we are kinda stuck with.

It's because the guy who coined the term, John Money, was kind of problematic figure himself.

That just adds another layer to the mess, covering up the lack of substance underneath. Now, a woman is whoever feels comfortable having female sexual characteristics rather than male ones. Fine. I think it's a silly definition, but at least it's workable. It also doesn't mean that transwomen are more similar to females (rather than males) in anything but this very specific thing along with any physical changes they choose to undergo.

How does that help us determine whether a transwoman should participate in female sports or be put in the female prison ward?

 

[Boudicca90]

At the risk of going a bit off-topic, when is it (not) okay to call something a disorder?

I would say it's a disorder when something negatively affects a person's life.

For example, I deal with anxiety and depression that I take medication to control. Those are both disorders since they impede my daily functioning if I don't keep it under control.

Being transgender and having gender dysphoria isn't an impediment if we are free to be ourselves, it only becomes so because of how we are treated by the rest of society.

So it's not okay to call transgender or intersex conditions a disorder.

 

[Elaedith]

"Intersex" is still the politically correct term, by/for people who do not want their genital variation be thought of as a disorder.

Actually the most modern term is 'Congenital Conditions of Sex/Sexual Development' according to this CCSD activist, who is apparently being harassed by trans activists who are attempting to destroy his livelihood.

 

[Boudicca90]

Actually the most modern term is 'Congenital Conditions of Sex/Sexual Development' according to this CCSD activist, who is apparently being harassed by trans activists who are attempting to destroy his livelihood.

Except that term doesn't seem to exist.

I can't find any reference to 'CCSD' by anybody other than transphobes on Twitter. And just by reading this person's Twitter feed, he is certainly a transphobe. "Blaire White is my queen" - says it all right there.

 

[Earthborn]

I think it's a silly definition, but at least it's workable.

Feel free to propose another one, and i am sure we can find a context in which it is useful. Or advocate getting rid of such segregationist labels entirely if you want to.

How does that help us determine whether a transwoman should participate in female sports or be put in the female prison ward?

Sports organisations can set the rules of their own games. If the Tour de France wants to allow electric motor cycles, that is their decision to make. And yes, obviously, changing the rules can mean the very nature of the game might change, and some people who might have won under one set of rules might not win under different rules. Personally I think it is kind of weird to have two categories in a sport, one of which (the "Women's") disqualifies anyone who dares to have a genetic advantage over other players, and another (the Men's) in which no such disqualifying rule exists. (All to ensure the Men remain better than the Women, I guess) But I am not the one making those rules and as long as it is all fun and games, it is not that important.

When it comes to prisons, the first and most important thing that needs to be done, is to make sure the prisons are safe and secure enough, that from a safety standpoint it wouldn't make a difference where an individual criminal is housed. A prison should stop a criminal from criming, and not be a criminal enterprise itself; that may seem like an impossibility to some but it is a minimum requirement.

After that you can look at where an inmate might fit in best, and whether segregating them by sex/gender still serves a purpose.

 

[Earthborn]

Actually the most modern term is 'Congenital Conditions of Sex/Sexual Development'

A whole mouthful. Let me know when intersex advocacy groups start preferring the term over "intersex".

 

[Olmstead]

Sports organisations can set the rules of their own games. If the Tour de France wants to allow electric motor cycles, that is their decision to make. And yes, obviously, changing the rules can mean the very nature of the game might change, and some people who might have won under one set of rules might not win under different rules. Personally I think it is kind of weird to have two categories in a sport, one of which (the "Women's") disqualifies anyone who dares to have a genetic advantage over other players, and another (the Men's) in which no such disqualifying rule exists. (All to ensure the Men remain better than the Women, I guess) But I am not the one making those rules and as long as it is all fun and games, it is not that important.

I'm not sure what you mean by what I've bolded? A female category exists so that female sports can exist. People care about the women's 100-metre dash. It's not as popular as the men's 100 metre dash, but it is much more popular than a men's local 100-metre dash tryout, which is the only place where the best (not even all, but the best) female athletes MIGHT be able to run competitively.

Desegregation of sports would mean the end of female sports.

I do agree that every competition can set it's own rules, but "because they are women" can't even be an argument based on your definition of gender identity.

 

[p0lka]

Theoretically, sure. But most of the people engaged in these arguments have a pretty strong opinion as to whether being a woman means acting feminine (according to stereotypes) / that women should act feminine. And as I (and others) have pointed out, once you adopt the untenable position that gender is generally important than sex, you look for ways to downplay sex (e.g. claiming it's a spectrum, that it's changeable, etc. - see my response above to the post attempting to throw doubt on sex-determination in humans).

As I posted earlier

..snip.
I don't think gender(being a variable) should override sex(being a constant) if they are in opposition to each other.
That's my simple off the cuff answer, I would have to think about it more to get to the truth of it though.

Still of the same opinion, denying reality is not the way to go.

 

[lionking]

Feel free to propose another one, and i am sure we can find a context in which it is useful. Or advocate getting rid of such segregationist labels entirely if you want to.

Sports organisations can set the rules of their own games. If the Tour de France wants to allow electric motor cycles, that is their decision to make. And yes, obviously, changing the rules can mean the very nature of the game might change, and some people who might have won under one set of rules might not win under different rules. Personally I think it is kind of weird to have two categories in a sport, one of which (the "Women's") disqualifies anyone who dares to have a genetic advantage over other players, and another (the Men's) in which no such disqualifying rule exists. (All to ensure the Men remain better than the Women, I guess) But I am not the one making those rules and as long as it is all fun and games, it is not that important.

When it comes to prisons, the first and most important thing that needs to be done, is to make sure the prisons are safe and secure enough, that from a safety standpoint it wouldn't make a difference where an individual criminal is housed. A prison should stop a criminal from criming, and not be a criminal enterprise itself; that may seem like an impossibility to some but it is a minimum requirement.

After that you can look at where an inmate might fit in best, and whether segregating them by sex/gender still serves a purpose.

I don’t know how many times I have to say it’s more than fun and games. Sportswomen are losing money and sometimes their livelihood because of unfair competition by biological men, and women in contact sports, like rugby, are being physically injured.

Sports may not be of interest to you, but it is to a very large number of people.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Actually the most modern term is 'Congenital Conditions of Sex/Sexual Development' according to this CCSD activist, who is apparently being harassed by trans activists who are attempting to destroy his livelihood.

The other one I've seen is VSD (Variations in sexual development) or repurposing the first D to be differences rather than disorders.

I get not wanting the word disorder or disease attached to it, due to the stigma.
ETA- there seem to be similar movements among some Autism and Deafness groups. Not stigmatizing is good, but reality denial is not.

Per what others were saying:
That being said, whatever word you attach to it, these mutations have harmful consequences they're not neutral variants as Boudicca90 & Earthborn seem to be suggesting. Again, the most common DSD - CAH - can be lethal. Nearly all of them severely reduce or eliminate fertility, which is as bad as it gets for a sex-related condition.

Apart from the obvious consequences there is another major piece of evidence that these are harmful - even in inbred populations, the causative alleles are at low frequency.

I don't hear researchers using "intersex" in seminars, nor do we use it in the clinical setting I work (a genetic testing company that arose out of the one of the largest hospitals in the US). It's also nonsensical- they're not between sexes and many of these conditions are sex specific

Again, there is no data suggesting that a significant number of trans people have DSDs.

 

[Louden Wilde]

At the risk of going a bit off-topic, when is it (not) okay to call something a disorder?

Unfortunately, that seems to becoming political. I'd say when it has to be managed medically, requires surgery, or reduces fertility than it's not a neutral variant. We need to compassionate, but I am concerned that changing language can obfuscate reality.

 

[Louden Wilde]

While I would be "HSTS" based on the description, there is no such thing.

Classifications like this and "AGP" are based on outdated and debunked research and have no basis outside of so-called gender critical arguments.

My attraction to men makes me heterosexual, not homosexual. Although I do have some attraction to women as well, just not typically cis women that much. So I identify as polysexual.

I feel that we should attempt to describe reality objectively. My understanding is that you are male, and are sexually attracted to other males (for arguments sake, let's say exclusively). By definition, that is homosexual, and shouldn't be an insult. That may not be what you'd like, but it's objectively verifiable.

Broadly, TW are never going to be considered a subset of adult human females because of the reproductive role of the latter - the whole reason sex exists.

 

[Meadmaker]

I go to Planet Fitness and occasionally shower in the women's locker room (where I belong) with no problem. And it's comforting to know that based on past incidents in the news that if a TERF or transphobe tries to give me a problem, I will be protected and they will be asked to leave.

I do still try to cover up my penis however. Just out of courtesy. But that kind of support by the company goes a long way in why I keep my membership there even though there are better gyms out there.

PF has a national policy of trans inclusion.

When I gave the answer "3" to LondonJohn, a more complete answer would have to take into account the policies of the gym itself, but that would be complicated. I'm sufficiently libertarian that I think private gyms should be able to make whatever policies they want, and Planet Fitness has made theirs. It doesn't bother me, and if it doesn't suit the women very well, they can always go somewhere else.