Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
And EC: any update/comment on the evidence (or lack of evidence) supporting this claim of yours?

For example, I think that something like 95% of the prisoners claiming to be transgender right now are doing it so that either a) they get moved to a less dangerous-to-them ward or b) to gain access to victims.
Click to expand...
 
LondonJohn said:
And since there's zero evidence to validate any "Reefer Madness"-style predictions of hetero cismen masquerading as transwomen in order to offend against the women in the women's changing rooms...
Click to expand...
If we're comparing segregation by sex to segregation by gender, cis men are expected to be in the men's room either way. That said, why doesn't Darren Merager fit the description here?

LondonJohn said:
In the meantime, imagine the plight of the small, wiry 17-year-old boy being eyed up, and subjected to indecent exposure, by a 30-year-old musclebound predatory gay man. In the men's changing rooms.
Click to expand...
How can the boy tell that the man is predatory? Is it an inference from little more than a salacious gaze?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Cue "TERFY transphobic hyperbolic hysteria" in 3... 2... 1...
Click to expand...

LondonJohn said:
For a start, "transexual" has never meant "surgically altered", nor does it today. And I'm interested that you began "talking about transgender issues on this board" without even knowing what it was you were actually talking about. Explains a lot. You still don't seem to know what it really is yet either, and/or why appropriate (and proportionate, and with certain conditions & safeguards) rights for transgender people are important and just.






The above shows that you have a lot more to learn, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Check Wikipedia and get back to me.


Or...if you don't feel like getting back to me, that would be fine, too.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Would you agree in my characterizing this as a dud? I mean, a nasty crime and very unpleasant, but not really seeing how it's the fault of trans people or trans inclusive policies.
Click to expand...


I am travelling and might not be able to give a full answer for a while. However ...

A boy was given access to the girls' restroom, and he raped a girl in that restroom.

Governor-elect Youngkin doesn't seem to think the story was a dud.

Now, I made an assertion, that the boy was given access. I haven't seen confirmation of that, but I strongly suspect it is the case, based on the evidence I have seen. If I find anything that confirms or refutes that assertion, I'll post it, and I ask others to do the same.


I doubt we will see anything about it in the press before Scott Smith's lawsuit gets to court.
 
Meadmaker said:
I am travelling and might not be able to give a full answer for a while. However ...

A boy was given access to the girls' restroom, and he raped a girl in that restroom.

Governor-elect Youngkin doesn't seem to think the story was a dud.

Now, I made an assertion, that the boy was given access. I haven't seen confirmation of that, but I strongly suspect it is the case, based on the evidence I have seen. If I find anything that confirms or refutes that assertion, I'll post it, and I ask others to do the same.


I doubt we will see anything about it in the press before Scott Smith's lawsuit gets to court.
Click to expand...


That the boy got access to the girls' restroom is actually the least concerning aspect of the case. The more important questions include:

- Would the assault have been concealed from the student body and the public if the predator hadn't been gender-nonconforming?

- Would the girl's father have been beaten up and dragged off by cops and vigorously prosecuted for reacting angrily to accusations that his daughter was just making it up, if the predator hadn't been gender-nonconforming?

- Would the predator have been quietly placed in another high school in the same district, with no warning to anyone, resulting in another girl being assaulted, if they hadn't been gender-nonconforming?

Those, not "OMG how could a boy ever possibly get into a girl's bathroom?" are the questions that Virginia's new governor-elect should be grateful could not be honestly answered.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
That the boy got access to the girls' restroom is actually the least concerning aspect of the case. The more important questions include:

- Would the assault have been concealed from the student body and the public if the predator hadn't been gender-nonconforming?

- Would the girl's father have been beaten up and dragged off by cops and vigorously prosecuted for reacting angrily to accusations that his daughter was just making it up, if the predator hadn't been gender-nonconforming?

- Would the predator have been quietly placed in another high school in the same district, with no warning to anyone, resulting in another girl being assaulted, if they hadn't been gender-nonconforming?

Those, not "OMG how could a boy ever possibly get into a girl's bathroom?" are the questions that Virginia's new governor-elect should be grateful could not be honestly answered.
Click to expand...

No they are not more important. They are completely irrelevant given that the predator was gender-nonconforming. Just a load of whataboutism in disguise.
 
Lplus said:
No they are not more important. They are completely irrelevant given that the predator was gender-nonconforming. Just a load of whataboutism in disguise.
Click to expand...


In that case, given that the predator was gender-nonconforming, we can rephrase the questions as follows:

- Was the assault concealed from the student body and the public because the predator was gender-nonconforming?

- Was the girl's father beaten up and dragged off by cops and vigorously prosecuted for reacting angrily to accusations that his daughter was just making it up, because the predator was gender-nonconforming?

- Was the predator quietly placed in another high school in the same district, with no warning to anyone, resulting in another girl being assaulted, because they were gender-nonconforming?

I don't know why this phrasing choice makes such a big difference to you, but I don't mind if you prefer them phrased this way. Either way they're more important than the trivial question "how did a gender nonconforming boy get into the girl's bathroom?" (to which the answer is, "though the door"). Do you think parents in Virginia might care about them? If they do, are they wrong to do so?
 
Myriad said:
In that case, given that the predator was gender-nonconforming, we can rephrase the questions as follows:

- Was the assault concealed from the student body and the public because the predator was gender-nonconforming?

- Was the girl's father beaten up and dragged off by cops and vigorously prosecuted for reacting angrily to accusations that his daughter was just making it up, because the predator was gender-nonconforming?

- Was the predator quietly placed in another high school in the same district, with no warning to anyone, resulting in another girl being assaulted, because they were gender-nonconforming?

I don't know why this phrasing choice makes such a big difference to you, but I don't mind if you prefer them phrased this way. Either way they're more important than the trivial question "how did a gender nonconforming boy get into the girl's bathroom?" (to which the answer is, "though the door"). Do you think parents in Virginia might care about them? If they do, are they wrong to do so?
Click to expand...
Thank you for the rephrasing. Your questions now refer to what actually happened as opposed to what might or might not have happened in another theoretical case involving a gender conforming boy.

I suspect the parents in Virginia would still be more concerned to find that the gender non-conforming predator was presumably given permission to use the girls' bathroom than about the official response to the attack and it's aftermath.
 
Olmstead said:
Well, if we're not willing to make everything unisex without any alterations, we should analyse why that is, and then act accordingly.

Is it because women don't want to ses male genitals? In that case, either forbid the display of male genitals in women's changing rooms, or tell women that they are wrong and make everything unisex.

Personally I would simply make changing rooms and bathrooms unisex without any alterations, but then, I'm not a woman.
Click to expand...
re the highlighted: It would be the simplest solution yes, but then I'm not a woman atm either.
 
p0lka said:
It should have been "woman" or "man", male and female are fixed and we need more education if people are confusing the gender with a constant.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately and regrettably, this whole area is one big mess.

And it's a mess because historically, society has entirely conflated gender and (biological) sex. "Male" and "man" have been treated as perfect synonyms, as have "female" and "woman".

The medical and academic communities, ever since they've reached the understanding that gender and sex are actually not one and the same, have adopted the (sensible) terminology of using "woman"/"man" for expressions of gender identity, and "female"/"male" for sex. And this separation makes it possible to have a clear, unambiguous understanding of the subject.

However, in the real world, things are hugely more complicated. For example, take the matter of passports. Passports have a field in them under the heading "Sex", with the options "F" or "M". And this throws up a big problem where it comes to transgender people. If passports were to follow the medical/academic terminology, a transman would have "F" in this field, and a transwoman would have "M".

However if that were the case, not only would transgender people view it as - reasonably, IMO - a form of denial of their transgender identity, but also it would have the clear potential to cause problems/misunderstandings/prejudice* at border crossings, where border officials might (eg) see "M" on the passport, but see someone presenting as a woman standing in front of them.

Another example of a problematic area is to do with criminal law wrt verbal abuse of transgender people. In most progressive jurisdictions that are introducing legislation to protect transgender rights, the legislation cannot stick rigidly to the medical/academic separations. Rather, the relevant laws deliberately - and entirely correctly IMO - make it just as grave a criminal aggravation to abuse (eg) a transman by calling him "(a) female" as to call him a "woman".

As things stand right now, in late 2021, all the stakeholders in this subject matters - including legislators, regulators, judiciaries, the media, transgender people, and society at large - are still slowly trying to navigate their way bit-by-bit towards a workable and fair consensus wrt definitions of terms. I suspect it'll take some time yet to reach an optimal point.
 
LondonJohn said:
Rather, the relevant laws deliberately - and entirely correctly IMO - make it just as grave a criminal aggravation to abuse (eg) a transman by calling him "(a) female" as to call him a "woman".
Click to expand...
It is your opinion that a criminal offense ought to be aggravated by uttering something which you admit to be true?
 
LondonJohn said:
And it's a mess because historically, society has entirely conflated gender and (biological) sex.
Click to expand...

Whereas I'd say the terms meant exactly the same thing until "gender" was co-opted by "non binary" people in the past 40 years or so.

I use quotation marks, because beyond the very few intersex and other aberrations, the entire trans community is based on feelings rather than genetics or any physical condition. Or common sense, for that matter.
 
The Atheist said:
I use quotation marks, because beyond the very few intersex and other aberrations, the entire trans community is based on feelings rather than genetics or any physical condition. Or common sense, for that matter.
Click to expand...

It seems that for many people these extreme and sometimes even theoretical cases and examples are a handy way to get to say this, to dismiss and marginalize a whole population of very diverse people.

And for what it's worth gender dysphoria is a genuine condition as defined by medical science. And not about fleeting feelings or lack of "common sense".
 
Last edited:
An awful lot of posts this thread argue from nothing but ignorance, whether willful or not, and don't read up on the issue but make a decision based on wishful thinking: This is what I want to be true, so for all intents and purposes I'll pretend that it is true!

I think that this one has appeared more than once in the thread(s): Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic (Scientific American, Oct 22, 2018)

This one, too, I assume, but I stopped following the thread a long time ago, so I am not sure:
Similarly, although some neuroscience studies have shown that brain structures of trans people resemble those of individuals with the same gender identity, rather than people with the same sex at birth, these findings have often involved small samples and have not yet been replicated. Further complicating interpretation of neuroscience results is the fact that brains change in response to experience, so even when differences appear, scientists do not know whether structural or functional brain differences cause the experience of a particular gender identity or reflect the experience of gender identity.
Muddying the already murky waters, neuroscientists continue to debate whether even among people who are not transgender, there are reliable sex (or gender) differences in brains [see “Is There a 'Female' Brain?”]. Thus, whereas the topic is an active line of work in many research laboratories around the world, definitive conclusions about genetic and neural correlates of gender identity remain elusive.
When Sex and Gender Collide (Scientific American, Sep 1, 2017)
Click to expand...


I suspect that toxic masculinity as well as toxic femininity play a role, and that most (maybe all) people would be happier without them. Being more or less forced to adapt to one of these two extremes probably isn't healthy for anyone, and especially not for children.
 
llwyd said:
It seems that for many people these extreme and sometimes even theoretical cases and examples are a handy way to get to say this, to dismiss and marginalize a whole population of very diverse people.

And for what it's worth gender dysphoria is a genuine condition as defined by medical science. And not about fleeting feelings or lack of "common sense".
Click to expand...


Oh, you'll be banging your metaphorical head against a brick wall trying to convince certain individuals in this thread of this.

Some "critical thinkers" in this thread are still peddling the nasty and ignorant "blokes in frocks" mantra. Others are pretending to be all in favour of recognising the validity of transgender identity - but when it comes to enshrining this validity in terms of rights and protections, they find various interesting ways to disagree on points of principle.

At least it's both reassuring and comforting to know that these two types of people are nowhere near the levers of government in those progressive nations where transgender people are getting something closer to the rights and protections that they deserve (with, of course, the appropriate monitoring of unintended undesirable consequences and other safeguarding measures).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom