Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[TomB]

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’m not really familiar with Lily Cade. But the same logic that rules Jessica Yaniv a non-significant data point applies to Ms. Cade.

That said, and without seeing the context, no, calling for anyone to be lynched is not acceptable.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I’m not really familiar with Lily Cade. But the same logic that rules Jessica Yaniv a non-significant data point applies to Ms. Cade.

That said, and without seeing the context, no, calling for anyone to be lynched is not acceptable.

Might be hard to find now, the page has been dropped by her provider last time I checked. Maybe it's on archive.org.

ETA: my criticism is mostly pointed at the BBC. The world is full of nuts, but it speaks very poorly that the BBC would platform some just to advance an anti-trans agenda.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Filp-flop? Maybe. But it sure as hell makes it a LOT easier for a predatory sex offender to gain unfettered access to females, since the law is on their side by letting them just very easily declare themselves to be a "woman".

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.

You're assuming that "filled out a form" is the same as "actually has significant gender dysphoria and truly identifies as a woman". There are no requirements for the person to undergo any treatment at all, no expectation or requirement of hormone treatment or surgery, not even a diagnosis is required.

So... given that a person can be physically and hormonally unaltered in any way, and can dress however they wish even if not stereotypically in the fashion of their declared gender... what is to stop a voyeur or an exhibitionist from just filling out a form so that they can LEGALLY gain access to the object of their fetishes?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This person articulates what I was driving at regarding the BBC much better:

Looks like big names in the gender critical movement are responding to the Lily Cade stuff by pointing to images of anti-TERF stuff. That’s a false equivalence. People saying “Eat TERFs for breakfast” are not platformed at the BBC to speak about the community they’re threatening.

The random person graffiti’ng a wall is not part of a coordinated movement with institutional media power on their side making spurious claims about an entire marginalized community. And those who do make threats are roundly condemned, not met with “well you do it too” ********.

Maybe, just maybe, when someone who shares your ideology posts multiple rants that read like a genocidal manifesto, the correct response is not to highlight “suck my dick you *****," but instead … condemn the genocidial manifesto?

The reality just might be that we’re not seeing TERFs condemning the manifesto because they largely agree with it. But who I am to say. I’m just seeing a deafening silence from most of the top level voices in the gender critical movement.

https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1455640019545243651

I'm not surprised hateful people like Cade exist, but it is very telling that a supposedly respected outlet like the BBC would uncritically give a platform to pretty overt anti-trans bigotry like this. I wonder if they'll make any comment on how the person they platformed is now out there making calls for lynching.

 

[TomB]

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?

Indeed.

I think my whole point is that the whole segregated spaces thing is inconsistent. Arguments to altering segregation are really more compelling as reasons to eliminate segregation.

And no one, majority, minority or otherwise in entitled to freedom from uncomfortable situations. But I think it’s ok for people to try to avoid uncomfortable situations.

I am uncomfortable with laws in either direction regarding access to spaces. I would rather social norms evolve and customs evolve with them. I know this is too slow on one side while forced accommodation is a culture shock on the other.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're assuming that "filled out a form" is the same as "actually has significant gender dysphoria and truly identifies as a woman". There are no requirements for the person to undergo any treatment at all, no expectation or requirement of hormone treatment or surgery, not even a diagnosis is required.

This just reminds me of how doctors gatekeep and demand the husbands consent for a women to be sterilized. Making people jump through hoops is fun.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Indeed.

I think my whole point is that the whole segregated spaces thing is inconsistent. Arguments to altering segregation are really more compelling as reasons to eliminate segregation.

And no one, majority, minority or otherwise in entitled to freedom from uncomfortable situations. But I think it’s ok for people to try to avoid uncomfortable situations.

I am uncomfortable with laws in either direction regarding access to spaces. I would rather social norms evolve and customs evolve with them. I know this is too slow on one side while forced accommodation is a culture shock on the other.

Like how white americans disgust at the existence of blacks and specifically them sharing the same swimming location destroyed americas large public swimming pools built in the 1920's-40's. And to keep blacks off of the beach the entire parkway system in NY was designed to prevent busses and keep the poors from being able to get out to long island beaches, limiting them to only families with their own car.

The forced accommodation that so called antidiscrimination laws put people seriously out of joint. Clearly such access to spaces is not something that should be achieved by law in any fashion.

 

[LondonJohn]

This person articulates what I was driving at regarding the BBC much better:



https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1455640019545243651

I'm not surprised hateful people like Cade exist, but it is very telling that a supposedly respected outlet like the BBC would uncritically give a platform to pretty overt anti-trans bigotry like this. I wonder if they'll make any comment on how the person they platformed is now out there making calls for lynching.

I'm deeply embarrassed at the BBC's part in all this.

Frankly, how the hell this story ever got editorial clearance in the first place - given the extremely questionable matters of tiny sample sizes and self-selecting respondents - was totally beyond me. Even before it became clear what a piece of work Cade was/is. Not only should an organisation such as the BBC have done a great deal more due diligence (obviously).... even if this woman had been totally unimpeachable, this story should never have made it to publication.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the BBC a) having suffered some painful and very public reverses on male/female (in)equality over the past few years, and/or b) being over-keen to be perceived as (ironically) impartial and not "captured" (the BBC constantly faces protests from right-wing commentators and media over its perceived "woke" editorial & operational sensibilities).

For either or both of those reasons, I can easily see how the BBC might have misguidedly run the Cade story. But I have to think that the Beeb's misjudgement - and apparent abdication of its own editorial standards - will result in head-rolling repurcussions at some level. It certainly ought to.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm deeply embarrassed at the BBC's part in all this.

Frankly, how the hell this story ever got editorial clearance in the first place - given the extremely questionable matters of tiny sample sizes and self-selecting respondents - was totally beyond me. Even before it became clear what a piece of work Cade was/is. Not only should an organisation such as the BBC have done a great deal more due diligence (obviously).... even if this woman had been totally unimpeachable, this story should never have made it to publication.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the BBC a) having suffered some painful and very public reverses on male/female (in)equality over the past few years, and/or b) being over-keen to be perceived as (ironically) impartial and not "captured" (the BBC constantly faces protests from right-wing commentators and media over its perceived "woke" editorial & operational sensibilities).

For either or both of those reasons, I can easily see how the BBC might have misguidedly run the Cade story. But I have to think that the Beeb's misjudgement - and apparent abdication of its own editorial standards - will result in head-rolling repurcussions at some level. It certainly ought to.

As of yet they deny that anything went wrong:

The BBC has rejected complaints that it published a transphobic article and has instead given a commitment to covering different viewpoints in the name of impartiality.

The corporation has faced protests outside some of its regional newsrooms, petitions from trans campaign groups and disquiet among many LGBTQ+ staff members over a piece published online last week entitled “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”.

On Monday the BBC said it stood by the article about the experience of some lesbians, adding it had been subject to a rigorous editing process, and that it met its editorial guidelines.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/01/bbc-rejects-complaints-that-it-published-transphobic-article

 

[LondonJohn]

Like how white americans disgust at the existence of blacks and specifically them sharing the same swimming location destroyed americas large public swimming pools built in the 1920's-40's. And to keep blacks off of the beach the entire parkway system in NY was designed to prevent busses and keep the poors from being able to get out to long island beaches, limiting them to only families with their own car.

The forced accommodation that so called antidiscrimination laws put people seriously out of joint. Clearly such access to spaces is not something that should be achieved by law in any fashion.

Indeed. And I bet the principals in those instances also refused to believe that their views/actions/policies were in any way bigotted. They might even have reached into the playbook of "accusing my accusers of bigotry of their own". There's always a (perceived) chance to rationalise one's way out of that sort of accusation, I suspect......

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Indeed.

I think my whole point is that the whole segregated spaces thing is inconsistent. Arguments to altering segregation are really more compelling as reasons to eliminate segregation.

And no one, majority, minority or otherwise in entitled to freedom from uncomfortable situations. But I think it’s ok for people to try to avoid uncomfortable situations.

I am uncomfortable with laws in either direction regarding access to spaces. I would rather social norms evolve and customs evolve with them. I know this is too slow on one side while forced accommodation is a culture shock on the other.

I wouldn't be surprised if trans inclusion accelerates a trend towards ending these communal nude places, something that I estimate is already in progress for largely unrelated reasons relating to a desire for personal bodily privacy.

Seems like a perfectly acceptable outcome to me. Are that many people going to miss the open changing room? Maybe I'm projecting, but I would prefer actual privacy over a sex segregated space any time.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

If the people in this case were unaware that is what they were agreeing to, I'm sympathetic, but their ignorance is not anyone else's fault.

It's not really explicit if lots of people don't know. I would suggest that if most of their customers don't know, then it's not really the customers' fault. And again, there have NEVER been ANY standards that the "pro"-trans side has put forward to allow anyone to determine who is and isn't "genuinely" trans. So how can a rule be explicit about who is and isn't allowed, when it depends on who is and isn't trans, and there are no explicit rules about who is and isn't trans?

On the same level, if Merager was breaking the communal agreement by lying about their gender, that's a breach of order.

How on earth do you determine if Merager is lying about their gender? Absent a confession, I don't think you actually can.

How anyone using the locker room would know is a good question

No ****. As far as I can tell it's impossible.

but I would presume erratic behavior would be something that arises suspicion.

But erratic behavior doesn't tell us whether or not someone is genuinely trans, does it?

 

[LondonJohn]

As of yet they deny that anything went wrong:



https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/01/bbc-rejects-complaints-that-it-published-transphobic-article

Haha well, almost exactly as I suspected!

First, the BBC plays the "worthy impartiality" card ("....has instead given a commitment to covering different viewpoints in the name of impartiality")

As for the "we followed our editorial guidelines rigorously and properly" schtick - the BBC was highly unlikely ever to have volunteered any other claim on this matter. After all, they are expected to enforce those guidelines rigorously and properly. It'll only be if/when a high-level internal inquiry (or even an external inquiry, or one conducted by the BBC Trust) finds otherwise that they'll be forced to admit their failing in this respect.


A very interesting subtext here is a) the immediate issue wrt governance and regulation of the BBC, plus b) the slightly more medium-term - but constantly-debated - matter of the future funding of the BBC. This screw-up could well end up harming the BBC significantly in both respects.

 

[Meadmaker]

I wouldn't be surprised if trans inclusion accelerates a trend towards ending these communal nude places, something that I estimate is already in progress for largely unrelated reasons relating to a desire for personal bodily privacy.

Seems like a perfectly acceptable outcome to me. Are that many people going to miss the open changing room? Maybe I'm projecting, but I would prefer actual privacy over a sex segregated space any time.

Would I "miss" them? No.

But.....

I'll miss the economy and convenience, and won't consider the privacy a benefit.

To achieve locker room privacy, you either have to open and close a lot more doors, walk around a lot more, pick things up and put them down a lot more,
or...
use up a lot more space to have individual private showers, changing stalls, and still have lockers
or....
some combination of both.


I gain nothing of value to me (because I don't value the privacy) and I lose convenience or pay more.


But....whatever. Consumer demand and all that. If that's what people want and are willing to pay for, so be it. If it's a government mandate, though...

 

[Emily's Cat]

This person articulates what I was driving at regarding the BBC much better:



https://twitter.com/diannaeanderson/status/1455640019545243651

I'm not surprised hateful people like Cade exist, but it is very telling that a supposedly respected outlet like the BBC would uncritically give a platform to pretty overt anti-trans bigotry like this. I wonder if they'll make any comment on how the person they platformed is now out there making calls for lynching.

It's probably worth taking a second of your day to peruse gender critical twitter, where Cade is NOT getting support for their views, and where the consensus is that Cade is a nut and is not supported nor accepted as part of the group of people who oppose transgender ideology.

As opposed to the transgender people and advocates calling for harm and rape who get supported and upvoted for it pretty regularly.

 

[Meadmaker]

I just want to clarify the sort of government mandate to which I was referring in my previous post.

I can imagine a possibility where someone decides that additional locker room privacy is beneficial to society, and so mandates new construction codes, regardless of consumer preferences. I would be opposed to such mandates.

 

[Olmstead]

The more interesting question is why we would segregate anything by gender identity? It's arbitrary and doesn't make sense.

Seriously, I would love to hear an answer to that. Segregating sports by sex has an actual justification based on physical performance. What is the justification for segregating things based on gender identity?

 

[p0lka]

How about:

Sex = factual definition based on biology
Gender = Social Stereotypes

'Sex = factual definition based on biology', Yes I agree.

'Gender = Social Stereotypes', I'm not sure about that. I think society has caused people to conform to gender stereotypes, but there's no reason to, just be yourself.

 

[TomB]

The more interesting question is why we would segregate anything by gender identity? It's arbitrary and doesn't make sense.

Seriously, I would love to hear an answer to that. Segregating sports by sex has an actual justification based on physical performance. What is the justification for segregating things based on gender identity?

I've asked that a few times before. Including today, but have not received an answer.

 

[katy_did]

Part of an interview Kathleen Stock gave to BBC Woman's Hour on Radio 4:

https://bit.ly/3bGKl44

I notice no-one's yet managed to pinpoint exactly what it is she said to deserve the treatment she got.