Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Louden Wilde]

I think the issue of "misogyny" is interesting. In the end, it's another definition fight.


There are a few trans sorts that I would say are definitely and clearly misogynist. I think Jonathan Yaniv is misogynist. I think he hates women. I could be wrong. I never met the man, but I think he hates women. I think there are trans activists who are misogynists. However, the bulk of them? I don't know, and I don't think it matters. It's a matter of definition. I think some of the activists actually do dislike women, consistently, so should be called misogynists. For the rest of them that consistently disregard the feelings of the majority of women on certain subjects? It's just semantics whether or not to call them misogynists. Calling them that won't make them better or worse.

Yes, sometimes it's contempt or just indifference/apparent narcissism. But there certainly a fair amount of animus by TW towards females - sometimes absurd
Unfortunately, I think that's a feature, not a bug- if you think being a woman is performing femininity, you're going to be angry with those that feel it's a physical descriptor of who they are (i.e. not an identity). But perhaps the bigger issue is jealousy - they want to be considered women, but are not. I think it's human nature that they feel anger towards those are considered women "without having to work at it" (as some TRAs see it).

 

[d4m10n]

I see a lot of this kind of bigotry here specifically since few people here seem to have any issue with trans men being treated as the men they are, but it's an issue when it comes to us being treated like the women we are.

I'm skeptical about this claim. If, say, the WNBA drafted a rule which said trans men were disqualified from play merely for coming out as trans (i.e. prior to HRT) I imagine many would object to the rule on the ground that an individual's gender identity doesn't change the underlying physiology which justifies the existence of the WNBA as a separate league.

 

[Boudicca90]

The asymmetry has been explained plenty of times, but if you're interested in hearing it, I or others would repeat it for you if you're interested.

I've been reading and participating in this thread for quite a while now. I've heard your excuses. Ultimately it comes down to you people denying our womanhood and seeing us as men, and therefore see us as dangerous to cis women while you tend to deny the manhood of trans men and therefore don't see them as a threat.

It's all about wrongly viewing us as men or males and discriminating against us based on a false threat.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oof- yes. & admitting that the only reason there isn't more overt pushback against the ideology is by (falsely) associating any dissent with the far right in the US.

A platform like this should have been a place to win over people.

I'm still a bit shocked by the misogyny and disregard for gay rights I routinely see in the movement. I predict the LGB folks will start to distance themselves from the TQ+ within a few years- lesbians particularly.

They've already begun to. There's been a steady exodus of LGB people out of the LGBTQ+#$&* and into a more specifically-focused LGB Alliance (and similar).

The LGB put a lot of effort and time into being recognized as neither dangerous nor harmful, to getting their sexual orientation decriminalized, to gaining the right to marry (and all of the economic and social benefits that come from that), and to being protected from undue discrimination and mistreatment on the basis of an attraction that literally affects nobody else.

Now they're seeing their orientation being erased. They're seeing their same-sex spaces, where they could meet and enjoy the company of other homosexual people, being invaded - colonized even (and I detest that term) - by people who are, in all rational manners, heterosexual. They're seeing their progress stripped away because the T contingent is busy rewriting language and insisting that they are "same gender orientated" and if they don't accept people of the same "gender" who have the reproductive organs of the opposite sex, it's because they're bigoted and need to "unlearn their preferences".

You know, most of the things about the current ideological push that cause me concern are things that are unlikely to directly affect me. I'm older, I've been married forever, I'm straight, and I'm highly unlikely to end up in prison. But the effects of this ideology on gay and lesbian people, on children, on the incarcerated, and on people seeking partners is massive.

It baffles me that rational people can't seem to find a core commonality. It reminds me of the early efforts to gain equality for homosexuals, where NAMBLA attached itself and tried to ride the tail-coats of the Pride movement. That association with pedophilia, and the influence that NAMBLA had on the perception of homosexuality, was a significant barrier to progress. NAMBLA's core argument was that because it was still attraction between two males, it should fall under the same umbrella as homosexuality, despite the focus on sexual attraction to minors.

Progress was only really made after the Pride alliance broke all ties with NAMBLA and excluded pedophilia from their activism completely.

If the trans movement would simply drop self-id and the irrational notion that gender identity is more important than sex, and that a bearded pre-op, pre-HRT, male-bodied person is just as much of a "woman" as a female is, they'd have massive support for equal treatment and consideration in the economy and in law.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The only misogyny and disregard for gay rights I see is with our opposition.

And yes, there are transphobic people and groups in the LGBTQ+ community who want to exclude us just like you people want to do with mainstream society. They are a distinct minority and are often rightfully excluded from queer events due to their bigotry.

So female lesbians who refuse to submit to romantic interactions with prostate-owners are "bigots" and "transphobes"? And somehow they're also "disregarding gay rights" by refusing to relinquish homosexuality to heterosexual people? Same goes for male gay men, of course. Although transmen are usually a bit less aggressive about demanding that gay males accept their vaginas for potential intercourse.

 

[Emily's Cat]

https://lesbian-rights-nz.org/shame-receipts/
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...&key=bTMzMDNKeC1vbkFkRjlqTHJKM284RU1IQ3JkSlF3

Wow, the homophobia in there is shocking, I hadn't seen the last link. I seriously can't wrap my head around "Gay men need to unlearn/rethink why they don't like vaginas saying you like penis only is a fetish not a sexuality"

 

[Boudicca90]

They've already begun to. There's been a steady exodus of LGB people out of the LGBTQ+#$&* and into a more specifically-focused LGB Alliance (and similar).

The LGB put a lot of effort and time into being recognized as neither dangerous nor harmful, to getting their sexual orientation decriminalized, to gaining the right to marry (and all of the economic and social benefits that come from that), and to being protected from undue discrimination and mistreatment on the basis of an attraction that literally affects nobody else.

Now they're seeing their orientation being erased. They're seeing their same-sex spaces, where they could meet and enjoy the company of other homosexual people, being invaded - colonized even (and I detest that term) - by people who are, in all rational manners, heterosexual. They're seeing their progress stripped away because the T contingent is busy rewriting language and insisting that they are "same gender orientated" and if they don't accept people of the same "gender" who have the reproductive organs of the opposite sex, it's because they're bigoted and need to "unlearn their preferences".

You know, most of the things about the current ideological push that cause me concern are things that are unlikely to directly affect me. I'm older, I've been married forever, I'm straight, and I'm highly unlikely to end up in prison. But the effects of this ideology on gay and lesbian people, on children, on the incarcerated, and on people seeking partners is massive.

LGB Alliance and similar trans-exclusionary groups are correctly considered hate groups by the vast majority of LGBTQ+ groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance#Media_coverage_and_criticism Their bigotry is still very much miniscule in our community.

And yes, you are not a part of our community, no matter how you twist yourself into being non-binary or trans-whatever whenever you want to mock and belittle us. Cisgender gays and lesbians have no issue with us, and the ones that do often have pretty conservative beliefs in general and are usually shunned.

Your crocodile tears are amusing, but I see them for what they are.

It baffles me that rational people can't seem to find a core commonality. It reminds me of the early efforts to gain equality for homosexuals, where NAMBLA attached itself and tried to ride the tail-coats of the Pride movement. That association with pedophilia, and the influence that NAMBLA had on the perception of homosexuality, was a significant barrier to progress. NAMBLA's core argument was that because it was still attraction between two males, it should fall under the same umbrella as homosexuality, despite the focus on sexual attraction to minors.

Progress was only really made after the Pride alliance broke all ties with NAMBLA and excluded pedophilia from their activism completely.

If the trans movement would simply drop self-id and the irrational notion that gender identity is more important than sex, and that a bearded pre-op, pre-HRT, male-bodied person is just as much of a "woman" as a female is, they'd have massive support for equal treatment and consideration in the economy and in law.

And now comparing us to goddamn NAMBLA?!

Edited by xjx388: 

<SNIP> Rule 0; Rule 12

 

[TurkeysGhost]

They've already begun to. There's been a steady exodus of LGB people out of the LGBTQ+#$&* and into a more specifically-focused LGB Alliance (and similar).

The LGB put a lot of effort and time into being recognized as neither dangerous nor harmful, to getting their sexual orientation decriminalized, to gaining the right to marry (and all of the economic and social benefits that come from that), and to being protected from undue discrimination and mistreatment on the basis of an attraction that literally affects nobody else.

Now they're seeing their orientation being erased. They're seeing their same-sex spaces, where they could meet and enjoy the company of other homosexual people, being invaded - colonized even (and I detest that term) - by people who are, in all rational manners, heterosexual. They're seeing their progress stripped away because the T contingent is busy rewriting language and insisting that they are "same gender orientated" and if they don't accept people of the same "gender" who have the reproductive organs of the opposite sex, it's because they're bigoted and need to "unlearn their preferences".

You know, most of the things about the current ideological push that cause me concern are things that are unlikely to directly affect me. I'm older, I've been married forever, I'm straight, and I'm highly unlikely to end up in prison. But the effects of this ideology on gay and lesbian people, on children, on the incarcerated, and on people seeking partners is massive.

It baffles me that rational people can't seem to find a core commonality. It reminds me of the early efforts to gain equality for homosexuals, where NAMBLA attached itself and tried to ride the tail-coats of the Pride movement. That association with pedophilia, and the influence that NAMBLA had on the perception of homosexuality, was a significant barrier to progress. NAMBLA's core argument was that because it was still attraction between two males, it should fall under the same umbrella as homosexuality, despite the focus on sexual attraction to minors.

Progress was only really made after the Pride alliance broke all ties with NAMBLA and excluded pedophilia from their activism completely.

If the trans movement would simply drop self-id and the irrational notion that gender identity is more important than sex, and that a bearded pre-op, pre-HRT, male-bodied person is just as much of a "woman" as a female is, they'd have massive support for equal treatment and consideration in the economy and in law.

You can probably imagine why so many queer people feel sympathy for all the bile and smearing directed towards trans people, as it wasn't so long ago that reactionaries were tarring all gay and lesbian people as crypto pedophiles and sexual deviants worthy of being oppressed by the state.

But as is always the case, there's always some subset of previously oppressed people who are content to pull up the ladder behind them and refuse to empathize those still struggling as they once struggled. It's encouraging that trans exclusionist groups like LGB alliances and TERFs often receive a cold reception from their supposed peers.

 

[Alt+F4]

Cisgender gays and lesbians have no issue with us, and the ones that do often have pretty conservative beliefs in general and are usually shunned.

You're making a lot of generalizations there. I'm a cis woman, a lesbian and my politics are far from conservative. With that said, I don't want to see a penis in a woman's locker room or in the hospital bed next to mine. I'm not worried about safety, I feel uncomfortable, I just don't want to see it and it makes me sad that my feelings are dismissed so easily.

 

[Lplus]

So female lesbians who refuse to submit to romantic interactions with prostate-owners are "bigots" and "transphobes"? And somehow they're also "disregarding gay rights" by refusing to relinquish homosexuality to heterosexual people? Same goes for male gay men, of course. Although transmen are usually a bit less aggressive about demanding that gay males accept their vaginas for potential intercourse.

Well, they do at least have an alternative orifice for use....

 

[Emily's Cat]

Transmisogyny is a common form of bigotry against transgender women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmisogyny

https://www.bwss.org/transmisogyny-101-what-it-is-and-what-can-we-do-about-it/

I see a lot of this kind of bigotry here specifically since few people here seem to have any issue with trans men being treated as the men they are, but it's an issue when it comes to us being treated like the women we are.

I think you're misunderstanding the core concepts of the arguments. Transmen are smaller and weaker than males, because they are females. Transmen represent no risk to males - they don't further disenfranchise males in the economy or in politics, because males already have the market cornered. At the very least, it's the same level of competition males have from females. Males really don't have male-only spaces designed to protect them from overly aggressive and creepy females. Although I do still think that transmen pushing themselves into exclusively gay male spaces and insisting that gay males should accept their vaginas for sex are way out of their lane and homophobic af.

There's a different level of risk when it involves allowing male-bodied people into areas where females (which are smaller and weaker) are particularly vulnerable.

And you do want to exclude us, since you don't believe that people like me should have access to female-only spaces, despite the fact that I belong in them. Luckily in California I have the law on my side as well.

So let's step back a moment. YOU specifically, are probably just fine in most female spaces. YOU specifically are a whole lot different from Yaniv or Oger or Merager or Drummond or Izzard, don't you think?

Sincere Question: Do you believe that any male-bodied person who declares themselves to be transgender has the right to remove their clothes in spaces where females and children are naked?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If by this you're implying an unqualified and automatic entitlement, then I agree.

What qualifications do you personally think should be put in place?

 

[Meadmaker]

I've been reading and participating in this thread for quite a while now. I've heard your excuses. Ultimately it comes down to you people denying our womanhood and seeing us as men, and therefore see us as dangerous to cis women while you tend to deny the manhood of trans men and therefore don't see them as a threat.

Ok. Just checking. You seem to have gotten the point just fine.



There's a lot more that could be said, but it already has been.

ETA: (Especially related to Alt+F4's recent post. To really get it, you have to understand that.)

 

[Boudicca90]

You can probably imagine why so many queer people feel sympathy for all the bile and smearing directed towards trans people, as it wasn't so long ago that reactionaries were tarring all gay and lesbian people as crypto pedophiles and sexual deviants worthy of being oppressed by the state.

But as is always the case, there's always some subset of previously oppressed people who are content to pull up the ladder behind them and refuse to empathize those still struggling as they once struggled. It's encouraging that trans exclusionist groups like LGB alliances and TERFs often receive a cold reception from their supposed peers.

And they often use the same arguments that were used by homophobes against gay rights not even that long ago. The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

The real danger with groups like LGB Alliance is that they have increasing legitimacy in mainstream society. They don't speak for anybody in the LGBTQ+ community, but they claim they do, and the right wing and anti-trans liberals are using them as useful idiots for their goals since they have similar trans-exclusionary views.

 

[Earthborn]

Some people's definitions are muddled. Mine aren't.

Nobody's are. What makes it muddled, is that everybody uses slightly different definitions.

Drastic hormone treatments and surgical replacement of a penis with a vagina? That's adequately male-to-female in my book.

Then you are just inventing your own definition.

But every one of us is binary, because sex in mammals is strictly binary.

Nothing in biology is a perfect binary.

You can quibble if you like, but there is a fairly well documented distinction between the two groups.

It is not a distinction that has been proven to exist, only hypothesised. The existence of bisexual transsexuals throws a spanner in the hypothesis.

The classical feminist/Radical feminist/actual gender critical position is that gender roles are artificially imposed by society (largely by a male-dominated society) and actively prohibit social equality and justice for both sexes, and that those gender roles should be eradicated completely.

Gender roles are what one get when one insists on sex-segregation. As long as "gender-critical feminists" insist on segregationist policies, they are not eradicating gender roles, but rather enforcing them.

I identify as a tall black horse with red hair and green eyes and angel wings!

That's cool.

For example... YOU have refused to acknowledge and validate MY identity as a feminist.

I haven't.

YOU defined "feminism" as being explicitly and only pro-trans-entitlements.

What you call "pro-trans-entitlements" are just equal treatment.

The preferred term by people who actually have the various conditions (as opposed to the trans-activists using their conditions and them for ideological purposes) is Difference of Sexual Development.

There are intersex advocacy organisations. Perhaps you should ask them how their members preferred to be called before deciding for them.

It would be like me trying to insist that people start using "Difference of Neurological Function" for my epilepsy, instead of it being a Seizure Disorder.

If it causes you suffering, it is a disorder. If you consider it to be an integral part of your identity, it is not. Simple.

I'd go more for child abuser and torturer who experimented on kids.

Fair enough. He was also a pioneer in researching the development of gender identity in transsexual and intersexual children, and assumed (quite wrongly) that gender identity was all the result of nurture, not "nature", which why we are now kinda stuck with problematic terms.

Those terms historically referred to people who had undergone vaginoplasty or phalloplasty procedures.

No, the term referred to people who were likely to undergo vaginoplasty or phalloplasty. The -to- implies an ongoing process, not a specific point in that process.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've been reading and participating in this thread for quite a while now. I've heard your excuses. Ultimately it comes down to you people denying our womanhood and seeing us as men, and therefore see us as dangerous to cis women while you tend to deny the manhood of trans men and therefore don't see them as a threat.

It's all about wrongly viewing us as men or males and discriminating against us based on a false threat.

You're half right. It's not about denying your womanhood; it's about understanding that your womanhood does not override your male sex. It's not about denying Page's manhood; it's about accepting the reality that despite their manhood, Page is still female.

Transmen aren't seen as a threat because they are female, and statistically speaking females represent extremely low risk to other females, and virtually no risk to males.

Transwomen are often (not always) seen as a threat because they are male, and statistically speaking males represent moderate risk to other males, and very high risk to females.

Look, I don't think this needs to be so complicated. What do you think of a very high-level starting point for discussion? Let's talk about 3 tiers of access.

1) Post vaginoplasty or phalloplasty transgender people have complete and unfettered access to all single-sex spaces as a right and entitlement.
2) Pre/Non-op, Post-HRT transgender people gain access on a case-by-case basis, contingent on the guidelines of the specific spaces, whether they are perceived to be making a genuine effort to pass, and the expectation of good behavior and mutual respect.
3) Pre/Non-op, Pre/Non-HRT transgender people are denied access to single-sex spaces of the opposite sex and are expected to use the single-sex spaces of their reproductive anatomy.

What is the net effect of this? The first tier would allow free access to fully committed transgender people, and recognizes that fully transitioned people should be generally accepted as their presented sex within society. The second tier would allow access to you, as well as a great many other transgender people who do not represent a threat, but would allow the exclusion of those few who misbehave or take advantage (Yaniv, Zelda Cross). It would also exclude people who are objectively indistinguishable from a transvestite (Drummond, Izzard).

From our prior interactions, you expressed that you would not be comfortable with a very masculine-presenting male-bodied person in the changing room with you. So without getting into policy specifics, can we agree to some broad guidelines from which to start a real conversation?

 

[Emily's Cat]

LGB Alliance and similar trans-exclusionary groups are correctly considered hate groups by the vast majority of LGBTQ+ groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance#Media_coverage_and_criticism Their bigotry is still very much miniscule in our community.

It is genuinely absurd that LGB Alliance is considered a "hate group" by you, solely on the basis that they center the needs and objectives of homosexual people and not the needs and objectives of transgender identity. Gender identity is not a sexual orientation - why should a group focused on issues surrounding sexual orientation be forced to spend their time and efforts on gender identity? Would you consider Special Olympics to be transphobic if they exclude able-bodied transgender people from their efforts?

And yes, you are not a part of our community, no matter how you twist yourself into being non-binary or trans-whatever whenever you want to mock and belittle us. Cisgender gays and lesbians have no issue with us, and the ones that do often have pretty conservative beliefs in general and are usually shunned.

Your crocodile tears are amusing, but I see them for what they are.

I don't twist myself into anything. I reject GENDER completely. It's a social construct that limits and harms people, and that reinforces sex-based stereotypes that buttress oppression. Gender, and identities based on gender, are regressive. Thus, I reject them. I don't "consider myself a woman" any more than I "consider myself a man". I accept that my reality is that of a female human being. Nothing more, nothing less.

And now comparing us to goddamn NAMBLA?! You can go to hell.

I did no such thing. Not at all. I used NAMBLA's early influence on the efforts of the Pride alliances as an example of how a tacked-on fringe group can inhibit the progress of an otherwise worthwhile venture.

In complete sincerity, do you really feel that Yaniv is a good and worthy poster-person for your cause? Do you genuinely feel that Karen White is what the trans rights movement is about?

 

[Emily's Cat]

And they often use the same arguments that were used by homophobes against gay rights not even that long ago. The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

The real danger with groups like LGB Alliance is that they have increasing legitimacy in mainstream society. They don't speak for anybody in the LGBTQ+ community, but they claim they do, and the right wing and anti-trans liberals are using them as useful idiots for their goals since they have similar trans-exclusionary views.

Well, they seem to speak for a fair number of the LGB people, just not for the TQ+.

Why is it a problem for you that a group may wish to focus exclusively on sexual orientation, not on gender identity? There are plenty of organizations that focus on gender identity issues. Why do you deny homosexual people the right to have organizations that focus on sexual orientation?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nothing in biology is a perfect binary.

Gametes in mammals are.

If you disagree, I challenge you to provide proof of a functional third type of gamete, or of a functional in-between type of gamete.

Similarly, human chromosomes are binary: they are either X or they are Y. There is no Z chromosome in humans. There is not "Asterisk" chromosome that is in-between an X and a Y.

Blood RH factors are strictly binary. They are either RH+ or RH-. There is no RH0 blood factor that is in between, nor is there an RHi blood factor that is outside of the positive/negative scale.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nobody's are. What makes it muddled, is that everybody uses slightly different definitions.

Different people using different definitions is certainly one source of confusion. But you're still wrong. There are people in this thread who refuse to even give a definition of these words in anything other than a circular manner.

Nothing in biology is a perfect binary.

I don't know what you require in order for a binary to be "perfect", but sex in humans is actually pretty god damn binary. Sexual development and sexual characteristics are decidedly non-binary, but that's not the same thing as sex.

The only genuine way for sex (and not sexual characteristics) to be nonbinary in humans is the case of mixed-sex chimeras. But all of this is a red herring anyways. The transgender debates have basically nothing to do with mixed sex chimeras or people with nonstandard sexual development and "nonbinary" developed sexual characteristics. Almost all trans people are genetically normal (ie, binary) and their sexual characteristics develop normally (ie, binary) absent medical intervention as well. True "intersex" people, or people with Disorders of Sexual Development, are both rare and essentially irrelevant to trans-advocacy.

If it causes you suffering, it is a disorder. If you consider it to be an integral part of your identity, it is not. Simple.

What if it both causes suffering AND you consider it to be an integral part of your identity?