Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[d4m10n]

Racial segregation until we get this "black crime" thing under control.

My favorite thing about this analogy is the implication that either (1) races are substantially different, in ways which matter or (2) the sexes are not. Pick a horn, get gored by it.

 

[theprestige]

Pick a horn, get gored by it.

Maybe it's an Impi battle line, and he'll be crushed by the loins of the formation.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

My favorite thing about this analogy is the implication that either (1) races are substantially different, in ways which matter or (2) the sexes are not. Pick a horn, get gored by it.

It's quite clear that some here think that sins committed by individual trans people should be grounds for denying all trans people equal rights.

 

[Louden Wilde]

It's quite clear that some here think that sins committed by individual trans people should be grounds for denying all trans people equal rights.

Please define equal rights here. To put it another way, do you mean to say that all female-only spaces, healthcare, representation/scholarships, etc., spaces are discriminatory towards transwomen?

Why do you think gender/gender ID is (generally) more important than sex?

Do you feel that females that don't buy this ideology are just as bad/oppressive as racists (as you have implied)?

Do you believe that females have not been oppressed on the basis of their sex?

 

[Paul2]

It's quite clear that some here think that sins committed by individual trans people should be grounds for denying all trans people equal rights.

In context, this sounds like you are conflating those who would deny trans folk equal rights, plainly and flatly, right out of the gate, with those who think that the rights of trans folk and the rights of others need to be balanced in some circumstances, when they are in conflict.

Do you agree with the principle that rights may need to be balanced between groups of people when those rights are conflicting? That balancing does not equal bigotry. It's a feature of democracy.

 

[d4m10n]

It's quite clear that some here think that sins committed by individual trans people should be grounds for denying all trans people equal rights.

Did you pick #1 or #2?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In context, this sounds like you are conflating those who would deny trans folk equal rights, plainly and flatly, right out of the gate, with those who think that the rights of trans folk and the rights of others need to be balanced in some circumstances, when they are in conflict.

In the context of the UK, it's quite clearly the former. It is notoriously difficult for trans people to get official recognition from the government, and all these anti-trans groups are in lockstep to keep it that way, if not make it worse. It's a multi-year process involving invasive medical exams and other red tape that has lead to very few trans people actually achieving official recognition. Ability to get trans-affirming medical care is also a nightmare, and many rely on black-market hormones.

Groups like the LGB alliance are categorically opposed to any change in the law that allows for trans women to live as women. There is very little room for haggling with such a stance.

 

[Meadmaker]

Imagine my shock.

You seem to have jumped from "It's not clear what role, if any, gender identity played in this case." to "Gender identity played no role in this case."

Imagine my shock.



It has struck me what things I have NOT seen any coverage in the press. Because both the victim and the attacker are juveniles, it's understandable that details would be sparse, but it's even sparser than I imagined it would be. Until yesterday, I saw nothing to corroborate the father's claim that the assailant was wearing a skirt. In court, though, that was corroborated.

There are two things that I have seen literally no coverage on, and that I think are relevant. First, did the boy routinely wear skirts or other women's clothes? (And, actually, I have a friend who wears skirts once in a while, but they don't look feminine in the least, nor does he. Nor is he "gender fluid", at least in his public life or in any capacity I know him in. He's all man, at least outside the bedroom, and I don't know or care about inside.) Was the boy known as "gender fluid", and, most importantly to this point, was he allowed to use the girls' bathrooms and/or locker room? Did anyone, especially any faculty or staff, know that he was in the girls' bathroom on the day of the attack? Several editorial writers have made much of the fact that the trans-inclusive school board policy could not have had any influence on this incident, because it was only passed a month later, but that misses the point, in a big way. When the policy was passed, did it overturn existing practice, or affirm it? Was this boy allowed to use the girls' bathroom?

The second thing I have seen no coverage on is student attitudes about this case as it relates to transgender access and school policy. Yesterday, students staged walkouts protesting lack of safety, but there has been literally zero coverage that I could find about whether rescinding male access to female spaces was any element of the protest. This case has achieved enough attention, like Congressional hearings, Attorney General attention, being an issue in next week's governor's race, that I would think it would merit a little bit of coverage, but I have seen nothing.


Finally a point that is not all that significant that I am certain I could find if I looked, but I haven't done so, is whether school was actually in session on the day of the assault. I know in my school district, and many others, the entire 2020/2021 school year was online. Classes never resumed in person. It's not critical information, but it might provide context on how a boy and girl might meet for multiple assignations in a girls' bathroom without being very obvious. Was it in the course of a normal school day? Or was it that only a small number of students and staff were present?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You seem to have jumped from "It's not clear what role, if any, gender identity played in this case." to "Gender identity played no role in this case."

Imagine my shock.



It has struck me what things I have NOT seen any coverage in the press. Because both the victim and the attacker are juveniles, it's understandable that details would be sparse, but it's even sparser than I imagined it would be. Until yesterday, I saw nothing to corroborate the father's claim that the assailant was wearing a skirt. In court, though, that was corroborated.

There are two things that I have seen literally no coverage on, and that I think are relevant. First, did the boy routinely wear skirts or other women's clothes? (And, actually, I have a friend who wears skirts once in a while, but they don't look feminine in the least, nor does he. Nor is he "gender fluid", at least in his public life or in any capacity I know him in. He's all man, at least outside the bedroom, and I don't know or care about inside.) Was the boy known as "gender fluid", and, most importantly to this point, was he allowed to use the girls' bathrooms and/or locker room? Did anyone, especially any faculty or staff, know that he was in the girls' bathroom on the day of the attack? Several editorial writers have made much of the fact that the trans-inclusive school board policy could not have had any influence on this incident, because it was only passed a month later, but that misses the point, in a big way. When the policy was passed, did it overturn existing practice, or affirm it? Was this boy allowed to use the girls' bathroom?

The second thing I have seen no coverage on is student attitudes about this case as it relates to transgender access and school policy. Yesterday, students staged walkouts protesting lack of safety, but there has been literally zero coverage that I could find about whether rescinding male access to female spaces was any element of the protest. This case has achieved enough attention, like Congressional hearings, Attorney General attention, being an issue in next week's governor's race, that I would think it would merit a little bit of coverage, but I have seen nothing.


Finally a point that is not all that significant that I am certain I could find if I looked, but I haven't done so, is whether school was actually in session on the day of the assault. I know in my school district, and many others, the entire 2020/2021 school year was online. Classes never resumed in person. It's not critical information, but it might provide context on how a boy and girl might meet for multiple assignations in a girls' bathroom without being very obvious. Was it in the course of a normal school day? Or was it that only a small number of students and staff were present?

Those are all great questions, probably something that should be answered before ascribing blame for this incident on the perpetrator being trans. Strange that "trans-inclusive policies let this rape happen" is the default for some reason.

It's clear that in this case, like many others, the trans boogieman will follow a "God of the gaps" type argument, where blaming trans-inclusive policies will always find a way to contort itself into whatever gaps of knowledge might exist.

Considering the bathroom panic is usually rooted in some "stranger danger" type argument, and this attack was the much more common "violence within an existing relationship" explanation that is far less salacious, I doubt there will be much interest in following up by those who wish to paint with broad brushes.

Not really seeing how the "the school board is trying to cover it up" whopper has stood up to the test of time.

 

[Paul2]

In the context of the UK, it's quite clearly the former. It is notoriously difficult for trans people to get official recognition from the government, and all these anti-trans groups are in lockstep to keep it that way, if not make it worse. It's a multi-year process involving invasive medical exams and other red tape that has lead to very few trans people actually achieving official recognition. Ability to get trans-affirming medical care is also a nightmare, and many rely on black-market hormones.

Groups like the LGB alliance are categorically opposed to any change in the law that allows for trans women to live as women. There is very little room for haggling with such a stance.

OK, I'm not up on the details of the LGB alliance situation. But, moving on:

Do you agree with the principle that rights may need to be balanced between groups of people when those rights are conflicting? That balancing does not equal bigotry. It's a feature of democracy.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

OK, I'm not up on the details of the LGB alliance situation. But, moving on:

That these two groups, cis women and trans people, are inherently in conflict is begging the question.

TERFS certainly think so, and that kind of thinking has significant influence in the UK, but it's begging the question nonetheless.

 

[d4m10n]

That these two groups, cis women and trans people, are inherently in conflict is begging the question.

Is it? Pick any specific sex-segregated situation, e.g. who gets to play on the Chicago Sky^WP roster. Once we change the criteria for admittance (from sex to gender) which group of people are likely to get less representation?

 

[Paul2]

That these two groups, cis women and trans people, are inherently in conflict is begging the question.

TERFS certainly think so, and that kind of thinking has significant influence in the UK, but it's begging the question nonetheless.

Forget about those two groups, as my question isn't framed in terms of those two groups.

Do you agree with the principle that rights may need to be balanced between groups of people when those rights are conflicting? That balancing does not equal bigotry. It's a feature of democracy.

 

[TomB]

Considering the bathroom panic is usually rooted in some "stranger danger" type argument, and this attack was the much more common "violence within an existing relationship" explanation that is far less salacious, I doubt there will be much interest in following up by those who wish to paint with broad brushes.

Accepting the premise that what you call "bathroom panic" is rooted in "stranger danger," it occurs to me that segregated bathrooms are rooted in two things: modesty rooted in social norms and ...well... "stranger danger."

Addressing the first, a social norm exists that one should not be naked in the presence of the opposite sex. As long as this social norm exists at all some people (male and female) will be uncomfortable undressing in the presence of the opposite sex. This discomfort reaction is not based on the self-perception of the other people in the room.

As for the second: "Stranger danger" is either a valid reason for segregated facilities or it is not. If you dismiss the concern that men could get access to women's spaces as "stranger danger" then you dismiss the idea of safety from men as a reason for segregated bathrooms in the first place.

Also not that, for the most part, the argument has not been a desire to keep trans men out of these spaces, but rather concern about giving non-trans men access which cannot be challenged. In the process of letting trans-males into these spaces on self-id, it creates a loophole that can be exploited. One does not have to find instances of trans-people behaving badly to support this claim, because it's not about trans people. And yes, men do this anyway. But burglars rob houses despite door locks and alarms. It doesn't mean we should leave our doors open because someone might rob us anyway.

So instead of hand-waving concerns away as insignificant, why not try to find a way to actually address these concerns while also giving trans-people access? It's not a black and white issue. Both sides have legitimate concerns.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Accepting the premise that what you call "bathroom panic" is rooted in "stranger danger," it occurs to me that segregated bathrooms are rooted in two things: modesty rooted in social norms and ...well... "stranger danger."

Addressing the first, a social norm exists that one should not be naked in the presence of the opposite sex. As long as this social norm exists at all some people (male and female) will be uncomfortable undressing in the presence of the opposite sex. This discomfort reaction is not based on the self-perception of the other people in the room.

As for the second: "Stranger danger" is either a valid reason for segregated facilities or it is not. If you dismiss the concern that men could get access to women's spaces as "stranger danger" then you dismiss the idea of safety from men as a reason for segregated bathrooms in the first place.

Also not that, for the most part, the argument has not been a desire to keep trans men out of these spaces, but rather concern about giving non-trans men access which cannot be challenged. In the process of letting trans-males into these spaces on self-id, it creates a loophole that can be exploited. One does not have to find instances of trans-people behaving badly to support this claim, because it's not about trans people. And yes, men do this anyway. But burglars rob houses despite door locks and alarms. It doesn't mean we should leave our doors open because someone might rob us anyway.

So instead of hand-waving concerns away as insignificant, why not try to find a way to actually address these concerns while also giving trans-people access? It's not a black and white issue. Both sides have legitimate concerns.

Yes, the concerns about trans people using bathrooms as a vector for committing sexual crimes is very clearly explained over and over and over again.

The problem is that the evidence that this is true is very much lacking. Data does not show an explosion of predatory behavior in restrooms when access is granted to trans people. This anecdote of a sex crime was being bandied about as one such example, though on closer examination it doesn't really fit the mold either.

Meanwhile, the harm down to denying this access to trans people is well documented and largely unrefuted, even by the most vicious transphobes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's quite clear that some here think that sins committed by individual trans people should be grounds for denying all trans people equal rights.

Nope. It is, however, clear that some of us think that gender identity does not, and should not, override sex.

I mean, unless you want to make an argument that non-trans males currently have the right to coerce lesbians to have sex with them under threat of harassment, ostracism, and harm?

Do you want to have a go at supporting the right of transgender identified male to pressure and coerce lesbians into accepting their penises?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Groups like the LGB alliance are categorically opposed to any change in the law that allows for trans women to live as women.

No, they are not. They are opposed to SELF-DECLARATION granting males the RIGHT BY LAW to access female-only spaces. They oppose the anti-science ideology that transgender identified males are actually females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, the concerns about trans people using bathrooms as a vector for committing sexual crimes is very clearly explained over and over and over again.

The problem is that the evidence that this is true is very much lacking. Data does not show an explosion of predatory behavior in restrooms when access is granted to trans people. This anecdote of a sex crime was being bandied about as one such anecdote, though on closer examination it doesn't really fit the mold either.

Meanwhile, the harm down to denying this access to trans people is well documented and largely unrefuted, even by the most vicious transphobes.

I see we hit the cue for repeat.

These things will never happen. Oh, well, that's just nutpicking that you found evidence of the thing that will never happen actually having happened. Oh, there's more than one? Well, those are just anecdotes, not real data. It's all just panic mongering and TERF bigots, there's absolutely no reason for female people to be worried about people exploiting these policies. That would never happen.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I see we hit the cue for repeat.

These things will never happen. Oh, well, that's just nutpicking that you found evidence of the thing that will never happen actually having happened. Oh, there's more than one? Well, those are just anecdotes, not real data. It's all just panic mongering and TERF bigots, there's absolutely no reason for female people to be worried about people exploiting these policies. That would never happen.

I'll stop repeating it when it's no longer true. These claims are heavy on fear mongering, light on evidence.

Again, how is "trans crime of day stories" anything different than white racists citing black crime horror stories to justify racism? There's lots of people in this world, a lot of them will commit crimes, and some of them will occassionally be trans.

Reciting individual incidents and their grisly details may be effective for emotional manipulation, but the plural of anecdote is still not data.

The constant reliance on these horror stories is a tacit acknowledgement that compelling statistics or other data do not exist, otherwise such desperate tactics would not be employed.

 

[Louden Wilde]

I'll stop repeating it when it's no longer true. These claims are heavy on fear mongering, light on evidence.

Again, how is "trans crime of day stories" anything different than white racists citing black crime horror stories to justify racism? There's lots of people in this world, a lot of them will commit crimes, and some of them will occassionally be trans.

Reciting individual incidents and their grisly details may be effective for emotional manipulation, but the plural of anecdote is still not data.

The constant reliance on these horror stories is a tacit acknowledgement that compelling statistics or other data do not exist, otherwise such desperate tactics would not be employed.

Males assault females. There is evidence that TW/TIMs assault at the same rate that other males do (& a lot of of TW/TIMs in UK prisons seem to be in there for sex related charges). It's also the null hypothesis.

To the bigger picture - I'll repeat my questions:

Do you mean to say that any/all female-only spaces, healthcare, representation/scholarships, activities (etc.) are discriminatory towards transwomen?

Do you believe that females are oppressed on the basis of their sex or not?

Why do you think gender/gender ID is (generally) more important than sex?

Do you feel that females that don't buy gender ideology are just as bad/oppressive as racists (as you have implied)?