Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[TurkeysGhost]

No. It doesn't.

You still are not answering the questions that are asked. Policy and law are irrelevant to the questions. Policy/laws are made for the prevention of harm. Murder is illegal because it harms people. Murder does not harm people because it's illegal. Murder would not become less harmful if it were legalized.

Now, I'm not saying that the existence of harm necessitates a law. Sometimes a law that prevents harm to one person could cause harm to another. So it can be complicated.

To be clear, if you say that the presence of naked males of either gender in female spaces could be harmful, I don't take that as concession that such should never be allowed. That's not my position either.

I think harm hinges directly on expectations in this case. You can try to hand wave that away, but consent is exactly the core of the issue.

I reject your framing as a false dichotomy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Personally, I don't see why it's so complicated?
Sex is a factual definition, it's a constant.
Gender has been a societal based way of fitting in that traditionally had to conform and correlate with sex.
We are finding out that it never really had to conform and correlate with sex, as it's a variable.
So I think a proper definition of gender could be 'the behaviour that would be traditionally associated with a sex, but actually isn't'.
edit:
changed that to the for clarity.

How about:

Sex = factual definition based on biology
Gender = Social Stereotypes

 

[Meadmaker]

I think harm hinges directly on expectations in this case. You can try to hand wave that away, but consent is exactly the core of the issue.

I reject your framing as a false dichotomy.

But the women in question did not consent.

As a matter of law, their actions constituted a form of legal consent. However, they didn't actually consent in a meaningful manner. They were unaware of the law, and were unaware that they had given their consent, legally, by using the facilities in the State of California.

That's why I said I would amend in my previous post. They suffered harm, but their own actions played a substantial role in brining that harm upon themselves. Wouldn't you agree? Their ignorance of the law placed them in a situation where the harm could occur. They thought that they were in a place where no one with a penis was allowed, but that misconception was a cosnequence of their lack of understanding of the laws of the state.

 

[TomB]

Breaching a common understanding is non-trivial to the harm. People enter these spaces under certain conditions they expect to be honored, and if they discover that isn't the case, that deception or breach is a serious cause of harm. Considering the harm being debated here is 100% mental, the conditions in which people consented to enter these spaces and become naked are not only relevant, they are pivotal.

So to your questions, the answer is it depends on what the common agreement is. In this case, the explicit policy and law is makes the conditions of entry quite clear.

I wanted to address the highlighted.

Is harm that is "100% mental" insignificant? Is not the basis for asking for access largely to avoid mental harm? The harm caused by misgendering is certainly 100% mental. As is the harm in not being able to compete as your gender (as opposed to sex).

 

[TomB]

I think harm hinges directly on expectations in this case. You can try to hand wave that away, but consent is exactly the core of the issue.

I reject your framing as a false dichotomy.

And I reject your position as hand-waving.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What's new to comment on? Allegations have been made and denied, and a criminal case is pending. Has any new info arisen since the last time we were discussing this?

Sherkeu's comments are second-hand tales of woe without citation. What's to discuss there? How can anything claimed there be refuted, it's pure unverified anecdote.

Oh No! Anecdotes! Female complaints don't really count, they're "tales of woe" and "second hand"

You dodge a lot of questions. My inference is that you will never answer those questions. An honest answer would cause you to have to either admit that females are being harmed or have to admit that you don't give a crap about females being harmed. Either way, it significantly weakens your argument from assumed moral high ground.

Seriously, why not just own your beliefs and go ahead and admit that you care a whole lot more about the feelings of transgender identified males than you do about the safety, dignity, and rights of female humans?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I wanted to address the highlighted.

Is harm that is "100% mental" insignificant? Is not the basis for asking for access largely to avoid mental harm? The harm caused by misgendering is certainly 100% mental. As is the harm in not being able to compete as your gender (as opposed to sex).

I did not say mental harm was not real.

My point is that the mental harm often hinges on expectations, consent, trust, and so on, which means things like the policy and law, which you dismiss as irrelevant, are pivotal factors.

Does going to a nude beach in France cause harm? Why or why not?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I didn't realize this needed to be said. Someone sexually gratifying themselves in a public place is obviously a crime, though I would point out that this would also be true even if Merager were a cis woman.

The veracity of the claims remain to be proven. Merager claims to have been using the locker room for normal purposes, the accusers claim otherwise. Given Merager's previous criminal record, it seems like there's a very good chance the claims are substantiated. I would point out that the previous offenses date to before any trans inclusive policies were adopted, so it doesn't really seem that this policy was a meaningful barrier to this Merager.

In the absence of any actual statistical data showing a rise in these kinds of crimes, the anti-trans advocates will have to rely of salacious anecdotes.

Funny how when it's a female human being violated and harmed... you frame it as "salacious".

 

[Emily's Cat]

I fail to see why the harm would depend on gender identity, when the events that transpired would be identical in both cases.

I understand why there would be a difference legally.

Because if Merager claims to be a "woman" then it's the females at the spa who did the severe and horrible harm to them! But if Merager claims to be a "man", then maybe the females were harmed a teensy tiny bit of borderline harm.

It's all based on what Merager says about themself, even if it can't be verified or validated in any way at all. Of course, that privilege to define ones role as a victim or not is only granted to Merager, it does not extend to any of the females at the spa. Anything that females have to say is just salacious, hysterical, terfy anecdotes, you know.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Funny how when it's a female human being violated and harmed... you frame it as "salacious".

Any thought on the BBC featured transphobe Lily Cade calling for trans women to be lynched? Surely someone as interested in anecdotes would be giving this your full attention.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's all based on what Merager says about themself, even if it can't be verified or validated in any way at all. Of course, that privilege to define ones role as a victim or not is only granted to Merager, it does not extend to any of the females at the spa. Anything that females have to say is just salacious, hysterical, terfy anecdotes, you know.

This isn't true, California allows for trans people to easily update their official ID, which makes it more difficult to flip flop your gender for cynical purposes.

Whether or not Merager is recognized as a woman by the state is immediately verifiable. This is more of a problem in localities that make it impossible or extremely difficult, as TERFs prefer, for trans people to be officially recognized.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is it a harm if she does so and others see her using it in the normal capacity? Anyone familiar with the law knows that, by walking into a communal locker room, they are signing up for perhaps seeing a trans person naked.

You have some really important unspoken assumptions in here.

First off, you assume that most people are familiar with the law. Sure, you technically say "anyone familiar with", but the implication is clearly that the majority of people would be expected to be familiar with the law. I sincerely doubt that's true. In fact, I doubt that until quite recently, most of the residents of California were completely unaware that this law had been put in place at all. I strongly suspect that this went exactly the same as the more recently passed law regarding self-declared transgender people in prison: the governor and state legislation made a decision without consulting the public, advising the public, or even considering the effects of the law on other people - especially female people.

Secondly, you assume that most people hear "transwoman" and think that includes completely male-looking people with completely normal male genitals. And I think this is also completely wrong. Most people think that transgender means the same thing as transsexual, and assume that the vast majority of people who are referred to as transgender have had genital surgery. Most people assume that a transwoman will not have a penis.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, I'm arguing that seeing a trans woman naked in a place where they are explicitly allowed to be naked is not a harm. People who don't want to be seen naked or see other naked people should not agree to enter places where this occurs.

I'm respectfully asking you to give this some real, genuine, thought. If the law legally allows male-bodied people to use naked rooms that have historically been female-only spaces... and females in general do NOT approve of that law and do NOT want naked male-bodied penis-havers in their spaces... and the spaces are obligated by law to allow male-bodied people in if they say they are transgender (no documentation required)... what do you think is the most likely outcome? Do you think, maybe just maybe, a lot of females are going to feel that they can no longer use those spaces safely? Do you think it could possible result in female-people being *effectively* denied use of public spaces?

On the same level, if Merager was breaking the communal agreement by lying about their gender, that's a breach of order. How anyone using the locker room would know is a good question, but I would presume erratic behavior would be something that arises suspicion.

How would anyone know whether Merager was lying about their gender? How would you determine whether their claim of being transgender is a lie or not?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You have some really important unspoken assumptions in here.

First off, you assume that most people are familiar with the law. Sure, you technically say "anyone familiar with", but the implication is clearly that the majority of people would be expected to be familiar with the law. I sincerely doubt that's true. In fact, I doubt that until quite recently, most of the residents of California were completely unaware that this law had been put in place at all. I strongly suspect that this went exactly the same as the more recently passed law regarding self-declared transgender people in prison: the governor and state legislation made a decision without consulting the public, advising the public, or even considering the effects of the law on other people - especially female people.

Secondly, you assume that most people hear "transwoman" and think that includes completely male-looking people with completely normal male genitals. And I think this is also completely wrong. Most people think that transgender means the same thing as transsexual, and assume that the vast majority of people who are referred to as transgender have had genital surgery. Most people assume that a transwoman will not have a penis.

if it's a case of mistaken assumptions, that's a nasty misunderstanding for the complainants. Not really seeing how that would be a criminal problem for Merager or the spa though. perhaps better communication of these policies in businesses where group nudity is normal would be wise.

Given that an arrest warrant has been issued for Merager well after the fact, either there's more than just a misunderstanding at the root of this, or the cops are misapplying the law.

If I were a betting man, I'd guess that Merager's official gender is male and/or there was lewd conduct of some kind beyond just being nude, in which case this would be criminal. Idle speculation, of course, until more info is available.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I assume some are persuadable. For example, I think some might find it instructive that one of the BBC's purveyors of anti-trans panic mongering would immediately turn around and reveal herself to be a homicidal bigot.

I don't think anyone should think too deeply why anyone here spends much time on a dying forum. Seems rude to point out our shared brain-worms.

In this thread, you have repeatedly and unwaveringly taken the stance that if any transgender person behaves in a horrific and harmful way, they're just outliers and their behavior has nothing at all to do with them being transgender. You've dismissed out of had the actions of transgender people who coerce and harass lesbians into having sex with their penises, you've dismissed the female inmates who have been assaulted and raped by self-declared transwomen who have been placed with them. You've ignored and hand-waved away the plethora of transgender people on the internet advocating for outright violence, rape, torture, and killing of any female who doesn't agree with their views. You even dismissed as unimportant the brigades of transwomen who have been getting rape shelters shut down and have been picketing and harassing any sort of meeting or hearing focused on female rights.

All of those people are "outliers", and their behavior is completely unrelated to them being transgender.

On the other hand, any female person who says bad things about transgender people in any way is the banner-bearer and representative of all females who do not accept the religion of gender.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In this thread, you have repeatedly and unwaveringly taken the stance that if any transgender person behaves in a horrific and harmful way, they're just outliers and their behavior has nothing at all to do with them being transgender. You've dismissed out of had the actions of transgender people who coerce and harass lesbians into having sex with their penises, you've dismissed the female inmates who have been assaulted and raped by self-declared transwomen who have been placed with them. You've ignored and hand-waved away the plethora of transgender people on the internet advocating for outright violence, rape, torture, and killing of any female who doesn't agree with their views. You even dismissed as unimportant the brigades of transwomen who have been getting rape shelters shut down and have been picketing and harassing any sort of meeting or hearing focused on female rights.

All of those people are "outliers", and their behavior is completely unrelated to them being transgender.

On the other hand, any female person who says bad things about transgender people in any way is the banner-bearer and representative of all females who do not accept the religion of gender.

I don't think Cade represents all cis women, or even all TERFs. In fact, she seems singularly unstable, and her blog reads more like a mass shooter's manifesto than anything else. It is instructive how little research the BBC did before uncritically running anti-trans screeds in their paper though. Between the bat-**** crazy woman advocating lynching or the half-baked phony statistics, it's quite clear that this piece of "journalism" was little more than an anti-trans hit piece.

They can't have known that Cade would immediately turn around and burn her credibility by advocating hate crimes, but they probably should have poked around a bit and realized she is a multiply accused sexual assaulter of other lesbian women, and perhaps her credibility on these issues isn't so hot.

I'd be very curious to learn more about what journalistic process occurred before this piece was published.

 

[Emily's Cat]

All very logical.

I would amend somewhat. They suffered harm, but that harm was brought upon them by their own ignorance of the law. They were unaware that the law had created a situation where the harm could occur. Had they understood the law, they could have avoided the harm by not frequenting the location where the communal nudity occurs.

(The implications of that law and the means of avoiding harm are left as an exercise for the reader.)

Also left to the reader is a consideration of whether the means of avoiding harm is something that causes harm in and of itself.

 

[TomB]

I did not say mental harm was not real.

My point is that the mental harm often hinges on expectations, consent, trust, and so on, which means things like the policy and law, which you dismiss as irrelevant, are pivotal factors.

Does going to a nude beach in France cause harm? Why or why not?

For someone who finds public nudity to be uncomfortable (for whatever reason), yes it is. Wandering onto a nude beach could be traumatic for some people and cause harm. Does that mean that there should be no nude beaches? No. Is that harm the fault of the beach? No. But it would be harm to that person.

Bear I. Mind, however, that discomfort with nudity does not prevent access to beaches in France. Most beaches are not nude. Most allow women to be topless, but some do not allow this. (I looked it up before posting).

So people who are uncomfortable with nudity are not given the choice of subjecting themselves to anxiety or forgoing the beach.

The laws you are referring to outlaw the option of female or male only areas and thus do create the choice of subjecting oneself to anxiety (harm) or forgoing services or activities.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Any thought on the BBC featured transphobe Lily Cade calling for trans women to be lynched? Surely someone as interested in anecdotes would be giving this your full attention.

I think Cade is way out of their lane with their screed advocating for violence.

I also, by the way, think that the absolute craploads of self-declared transgender people online who advocate for rape, murder, and violence against females who disagree with them are out of their lane, and should be viewed as being equally as unacceptable as Cade.

What are your thoughts on the latter group?

 

[ponderingturtle]

For someone who finds public nudity to be uncomfortable (for whatever reason), yes it is. Wandering onto a nude beach could be traumatic for some people and cause harm. Does that mean that there should be no nude beaches? No. Is that harm the fault of the beach? No. But it would be harm to that person.

Bear I. Mind, however, that discomfort with nudity does not prevent access to beaches in France. Most beaches are not nude. Most allow women to be topless, but some do not allow this. (I looked it up before posting).

So people who are uncomfortable with nudity are not given the choice of subjecting themselves to anxiety or forgoing the beach.

The laws you are referring to outlaw the option of female or male only areas and thus do create the choice of subjecting oneself to anxiety (harm) or forgoing services or activities.

And why are we discounting the feelings and harm caused by other minority groups? People are legitimately bothered by gay people for example and upset by seeing displays of affection between them. Why are we discounting their pain as unworthy of our concern while holding up this as being so worthy?