Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[angrysoba]

Anyway, Manger Douse, your "arguments" such as they exist are beginning to bore me. They seem to consist merely of low-quality rhetorical questions and attempted gotchas are not fleshed out with any data or specifics.

The "Self-ID" thing that you keep harping on is only relevant if we are talking about people being able to determine their own gender.

My position is, and I will have to repeat myself, that I do not really understand what it means to be transgender except for the claim that a person is not the same gender as their biological sex implies, and that while I do not exactly understand it, I think that in most cases it is sincere, and for the most part I would do my best to respect that. [This may not be true in all cases if I begin to suspect that this is obviously insincere].

However, following on from that, I think there are numerous difficulties with accommodating these claims. I think that a society should try to do what it can, but may have to draw the line somewhere. Making glib assertions such as "Yeah, well if you let Self-ID happen, women get sexually assaulted!" doesn't deal with the specifics.

And, to repeat... bullying, belittling and insulting should be utterly unacceptable treatment of transgendered individuals.

 

[Meadmaker]

Quite.

And deliberately referring to a transgender person as "it" is....... pretty transphobic, n'est-ce pas?

(But yeah, apparently it's perfectly OK to do so if the transgender person in question has participated in a sport in accordance with regulations. Or something.)

The explanation why it is OK to do what he did is......wait.....must back up.

Is it "OK" to refer to Laurel Hubbard as "it"? I guess that's a value judgement. The Atheist has a style that is ofen deliberately abrasive, and he sometimes makes statements that a lot of people find offensive. I can see why a lot of people would take offense at any reference to anyoen who identifies themselves as a transwoman as "it".

I, personally, would generally* not refer to anyone as "it", including Laurel Hubbard. I think The Atheist does so while being fully aware that many find it offensive, and so it's part of his sometimes deliberately abrasive manner. Is it "OK"? I am not going to put him on my ignore list as a result of what he does, nor will I even chastise him. So I guess it's ok by me. Feel free to call me an apologist. I won't consider it a personal attack in this case.

However, whether or not it is offensive wasn't really the question. The question was whether it was motivated by anti-trans animus. I would say not. I think the actual explanation for the animus toward Laurel Hubbard can be found by reading the content that was quoted in this post:

I finally got a chance to read through the whole report. ....

Specifically, there's a section quoted that contains the phrase:

The other distinct group believed in the integrity of sport itself.

The Atheist is part of that distinct group, and the animus shown toward Laurel Hubbard is due to the manner in which Laurel Hubbard's participation threatened the integrity of the sport.

ETA:* I can't swear that I have never, ever, done it on this board. It's just something I wouldn't generally do.

 

[angrysoba]

The Atheist is part of that distinct group, and the animus shown toward Laurel Hubbard is due to the manner in which Laurel Hubbard's participation threatened the integrity of the sport.

Then why not criticize the administration of the sport and the rules that exist in that sport?

 

[Manger Douse]

What specifics would you like?

 

[angrysoba]

What specifics would you like?

Well, here is a specific. Should Eddie Izzard be "allowed" to self-ID (your term) as a woman? Bear in mind you said that allowing such things would lead to an increase in sexual assualt against women.

If no, why not? What is the harm in it? (does it lead to a slippery slope?)
If yes, why not others?

 

[Manger Douse]

Well, here is a specific. Should Eddie Izzard be "allowed" to self-ID (your term) as a woman? Bear in mind you said that allowing such things would lead to an increase in sexual assualt against women.

If no, why not? What is the harm in it? (does it lead to a slippery slope?)
If yes, why not others?

No, because for the third time you are cherry picking Eddie Izzard - self-id allows everyone this access and it's the everyone that's the problem. Yeah it stucks - so does getting raped. Why is self-ID so important?

 

[theprestige]

Yes, and I will maintain it is not transphobic to question or even deny that transgender athletes should be able to compete in sports they have transitioned to, but that it is transphobic to insult a person on the basis that they are transgender. How could it be any other way?

Pretty much how I see it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Then why not criticize the administration of the sport and the rules that exist in that sport?

I think he has.

However, I think that your question probably has a different element to it. I think the implication is that since Laurel Hubbard was following the rules, she ought to be immune from criticism at whatever damage was done by her participation.

I don't really agree on that point. I think it's a case of "What I am doing is legal, therefore it's ok." I think Laurel Hubbard's participation in that sport made a mockery of that sport. I think the women who won medals made a powerful statement about that when, at the press conference, they simply refused to answer a question about Laurel Hubbard. Maybe some poeple found that offensive or anti-trans, but I thought their silence spoke volumes. Laurel Hubbard was aware, or should have been aware of the consequences of her actions. She was aware, or should have been aware, not only of the damage to the competition, and how her participation deprived a deserving athlete of her chance to participate in the Olympic games, but also of the negative publicity for transgender people and their cause. I'll cut Terry Miller some slack on this aspect, because she started competing at 14 years of age, and was encouraged by adults. However, at 42, Laurel Hubbard is old enough to know better.

 

[angrysoba]

No, because for the third time you are cherry picking Eddie Izzard - self-id allows everyone this access and it's the everyone that's the problem. Yeah it stucks - so does getting raped. Why is self-ID so important?

Right, then we are clear that you are against all form of transgenderism. Okay, well, at least we know where you stand.

 

[angrysoba]

Pretty much how I see it.

Great! We are in agreement!

 

[angrysoba]

I think he has.

However, I think that your question probably has a different element to it. I think the implication is that since Laurel Hubbard was following the rules, she ought to be immune from criticism at whatever damage was done by her participation.

I don't really agree on that point. I think it's a case of "What I am doing is legal, therefore it's ok." I think Laurel Hubbard's participation in that sport made a mockery of that sport. I think the women who won medals made a powerful statement about that when, at the press conference, they simply refused to answer a question about Laurel Hubbard. Maybe some poeple found that offensive or anti-trans, but I thought their silence spoke volumes. Laurel Hubbard was aware, or should have been aware of the consequences of her actions. She was aware, or should have been aware, not only of the damage to the competition, and how her participation deprived a deserving athlete of her chance to participate in the Olympic games, but also of the negative publicity for transgender people and their cause. I'll cut Terry Miller some slack on this aspect, because she started competing at 14 years of age, and was encouraged by adults. However, at 42, Laurel Hubbard is old enough to know better.

Or maybe it could come down to transgenderism being fairly openly ridiculed and mocked at best up until about five or six years ago when suddenly those who were mocking were getting their feelings hurt for being chastised, and grabbing their pearls and saying, "Transphobic?!?! Moi...?!!? I am merely a lifelong supporter of all women's sports!"

 

[Manger Douse]

Right, then we are clear that you are against all form of transgenderism. Okay, well, at least we know where you stand.

Self-id is the only way one can become transgender?

 

[Meadmaker]

Or maybe it could come down to transgenderism being fairly openly ridiculed and mocked at best up until about five or six years ago when suddenly those who were mocking were getting their feelings hurt for being chastised, and grabbing their pearls and saying, "Transphobic?!?! Moi...?!!? I am merely a lifelong supporter of all women's sports!"

It's interesting you should mention that. I wouldn't call myself a lifelong supporter of all women's sports. My passion for sports came about in a different way. It slowly grew from participating in physical activities through my adult life. It was informed by my own experiences in high school and junior high school, where I was at no time a member of any school sport team, although....well....that's a long story. I could have been. It's not important now.

It's also informed by observation of my own child, and the children of many of my friends.

Whether it is myself, or my peers, or children of my peers, I have watched people put in a heck of a lot of time and work and sweat into trying to get better, and trying to win, and sometimes making it a passion of their lives. For me, that passion and concern about sports wasn't alway there. It has grown over a lifetime.

for spectator sports, I've been a fan of the Chicago Cubs since age 6, but ever since I moved to Detroit I don't follow them. I watched their pennant and World Series victories, but I didn't know the team members' names. I more or less cheer for the Bears. I watch the Olympics fairly religiously, and have since I was a kid, but even that, some years I just don't get around to seeing much of them. So, spectator sports aren't really something I'm into. Yes, I watch a little bit, but not much.

I like the Olympics better than anything else just because the competition seems more pure, and for most of the athletes, winning at the Olympics is the pinnacle of their sporting achievements. Every day, several times per day, for two weeks, you can watch people strive to accomplish that biggest possible step in their sporting achievements. You can see the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat played out over and over.


You might ask, "What's the point of all this? Who cares about your experience?"


The point is that the B.S. in the quoted statement is just ridiculous. Some of us really do give a damn. Some of us care. You or others might think that trans rights are so damned important that any comments about caring about sports in general or womens sports in particular are some sort of smokescreen or pretense, However, that's not just wrong. It's totally clueless.

If you want to try to be insulting, go for a different angle. Go for the, "Oh...you just don't think trans identity is important enough to bother about if it messes up your games." angle.

Because that would be right. Feel free to put a negative spin on it if you wish, but it would be right.

 

[Paul2]

. . . .
This echoes many of the disagreements in this thread, between the values of inclusion and the values of fairness and safety. Almost all of our disagreements in this thread have centered around the conflict between 1) the desire for inclusion of transwomen and 2) fairness and safety of females.

. . . .
Again, this is echoed throughout this thread as well, where there is no animosity or dislike toward transgender people being shown, and where we all pretty much support fair treatment and equality under the law for transgender people.
.

A: So opposition to transwomen in women's sports comes from valuing fairness over inclusion in sports, not antipathy to transwomen.

B: But how do we define what antipathy is? By its effects, and if you put fairness over inclusion, that is one of the effects of antipathy.

A: But how could you oppose putting inclusion over fairness without antipathy?

B: You can't, you're expressing antipathy if you oppose inclusion over fairness. How can it not be antipathy to those seeking inclusion if you value something over inclusion?

Me: It is possible to define antipathy separate from its effect: it's the thing that drives one to produce the effect. Antipathy is the interior emotional state that gets expressed by various effects in the real world.

It can't be that antipathy is only defined by whether it opposes a position or not.

Talk me down.

 

[p0lka]

Banging on about this or that aside, how many legs has a dog got... I suppose you know the rest.

I don't know the rest, is it an analogy or something?

I googled 'how many legs has a dog got' and got nothing in terms of metaphors/analogies or whatever, so you just want an answer?

dogs on average have slightly less than 4 legs,

a dog with no legs is still a dog,

a cat that has cloaked itself as a dog, regardless of legs, is not a dog, it can be treated as such if it wants.

Where are you going with this dog thing?

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't know the rest, is it an analogy or something?

I googled 'how many legs has a dog got' and got nothing in terms of metaphors/analogies or whatever, so you just want an answer?

dogs on average have slightly less than 4 legs,

a dog with no legs is still a dog,

a cat that has cloaked itself as a dog, regardless of legs, is not a dog, it can be treated as such if it wants.

Where are you going with this dog thing?

With apologies for interrupting, but.....(Just trying to get the answer more quickly)

Ok. So, how many legs does a dog have? Four, right?

However, what if I call the dog's, tail a leg? Then it would have five, right?

No. It's still four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.


(Usually attributed to Abraham Lincoln in a cabinet meeting.)

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Where are you going with this dog thing?

I was surprised to see you did not know this old chestnut. But Meadmaker has explained it.

Two short points. Word-magic does not work; and using a well-established word in a new (and eccentric) way does not alter the old usage. Leg still means what it always meant. So does woman.

 

[p0lka]

I was surprised to see you did not know this old chestnut. But Meadmaker has explained it.

Two short points. Word-magic does not work; and using a well-established word in a new (and eccentric) way does not alter the old usage. Leg still means what it always meant. So does woman.

Ah yeah, never heard of it, thx.
I agree regarding male and female definitions, there is no changing them that is reality based at the moment.

gender labels though? very variable.

I can test for male, I can test for female, how do I test for woman?

 

[theprestige]

"I don't like Laurel Hubbard" = The Atheist has animus toward Laurel Hubbard.

Referring to Laurel Hubbard as a "freak" and "it" is pretty obviously transphobic if the only reason for disliking Hubbard is for competing as a woman.

I think we can reasonably be more nuanced than that. Male athletes choosing to compete as women is an antisocial act. It should not be surprising that it receives an antisocial response, and one that disrespects their womanhood just as their own choice disrespects the womanhood of others. It isn't necessarily transphobia per se, especially coming from someone who doesn't suffer from transphobia generally. It's more "quote-phobia-unquote of transwomen who make antisocial and misogynistic choices behind the shield of their transsexuality, which should not be treated as the social get out of jail free card they obviously assume it is".

 

[angrysoba]

I think we can reasonably be more nuanced than that. Male athletes choosing to compete as women is an antisocial act. It should not be surprising that it receives an antisocial response, and one that disrespects their womanhood just as their own choice disrespects the womanhood of others. It isn't necessarily transphobia per se, especially coming from someone who doesn't suffer from transphobia generally. It's more "quote-phobia-unquote of transwomen who make antisocial and misogynistic choices behind the shield of their transsexuality, which should not be treated as the social get out of jail free card they obviously assume it is".

Meh! Sounds like rationalization of transphobia to me.

If you think that Laurel Hubbard is cheating, then just say cheating, or anti-social, or what have you. I think the fact that the insults are indistinguishable from transphobia ("it", "freak") are what make people think it is transphobic, just as it would be racist to call a black man who thinks he is white the n-word or terms that are often associated with racism.