Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Meadmaker]

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".

You added the word "fleeting". That changes the meaning.

Also, TA's reference to "common sense" wasn't related in any way to the nature or cause of gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is not about "common sense", and no thinking person, including The Atheist, would say that it was.

 

[d4m10n]

You're obviously unfamiliar with the concept of (criminal) intent.

Is it your opinion that calling a female individual "female" evinces (aggravated) criminal intent?

 

[theprestige]

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".

This conversation would be going a lot differently if the trans-activists agreed that transgender entitlements and accommodations should be reserved for people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

What TA is talking about is the fact that trans-activism is claims transgender entitlements and accommodations are a human right for anyone who self-IDs as trans. And that a lot of transgender folks are asserting their "rights" by self-ID alone.

I suspect that the number of people who claim to be trans is much larger than the number of people who have actually been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. And that therefore this would be much less of a controversy and much less of a challenge for public policy, if we stuck to just the diagnosis. How many people each year are diagnosed with BIID? How much difficulty is there in crafting public policy to accommodate them? How much controversy over enabling their disorder rather than treating it?

 

[theprestige]

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:



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.

I see Scientific American is getting in on the jargon of lies act. The headline of the article is a lie. It's a double lie. First it lies about binary sex, which is not "overly simplistic" at all. Then it lies about the content of the article itself, which is not about sex. It's about gender identity. Which, in true trans-activist, solve-the-problem-by-blurring-it fashion, leads to the conclusion once again that gender means anything and nothing.

It's the same trans-rights dichotomy as always: All the gender identity rights in the world don't amount to a hill of beans. Because gender identity itself doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Meanwhile, binary sex remains an immutable biological fact, with real-world consequences that cannot be avoided.

Up until very recently, most societies constructed gender around the real-world consequences of binary sex. The recent deconstruction of gender has been a boon to feminists, and seems like it would open the door to transgender freedom as well. But with the deconstruction of gender, transgender freedom turns out to be meaningless. What's the point of identifying as a woman, if even women don't want to identify as women anymore? And no amount of identifying as a woman will make you female.

 

[LondonJohn]

Is it your opinion that calling a female individual "female" evinces (aggravated) criminal intent?

Yes, of course - in certain circumstances*. Are you aware of a concept called "context"?


* And those circumstances are usually where an offender is verbally abusing a transgender person by attacking their transgender identity.

 

[Louden Wilde]

This conversation would be going a lot differently if the trans-activists agreed that transgender entitlements and accommodations should be reserved for people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

What TA is talking about is the fact that trans-activism is claims transgender entitlements and accommodations are a human right for anyone who self-IDs as trans. And that a lot of transgender folks are asserting their "rights" by self-ID alone.

I suspect that the number of people who claim to be trans is much larger than the number of people who have actually been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Yep. TRAs (the loudest voices in the current wave, at least) do not want any assay/diagnosis beyond self-ID. There are a fair amount that are proud of that - and disparage any anyone thinks that gender dysphoria is required as "truscum"

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, of course - in certain circumstances.

Can you think of any other circumstances in which telling the truth should warrant more time in prison?

 

[Cain]

A friend of mine e-mailed me about the distinction between sex (biology) / gender (social construction). He ascribed uncharitable motivations to trans activists.

Distinguishing between gender and sex was one of those ideas common in ivory towers but never really spread to the mainstream. And so commonplace gender essentialism led to lots of harm for gender non-conformers (fags, dykes, tomboys, soft dudes, etc).

Seems like a societal win: We better understand gender as a social construct and grow more inclusive and accepting – the amount of suffering in the world is reduced. But keeping the distinction between bio sex and gender allows horrible bigots to treat trans people respectfully, refer to them as they wish, but still think of them as, say, dudes who want to be chicks. That thinking is unacceptable.

This goes back to the traditional distinction between toleration vs. acceptance. The most we can typically expect is toleration. Imposing a metaphysical program on others is a bridge too far. We can't stop Christians from believing atheists will burn in hell.

Anyway, my buddy, who is a former Catholic, also says:

So, [trans activists] assert biological sex is a myth citing almost 2% intersex. Most of that 2% are conditions like a big clit or a piss hole lower on the dick than normal. The fact that this dichotomous natural phenomenon has some anomalies doesn’t upend the binary reality. They seem to claim it does.

Which seems to touch upon people claiming sex exists along a bimodal spectrum. Except everybody has two biological parents. Even if one of your parents is intersex, they contributed either male sex cells or female sex cells. They didn't contribute a combination.

 

[LondonJohn]

Can you think of any other circumstances in which telling the truth should warrant more time in prison?

You're entirely missing the point here. (Willfully?)

Let me give you another example, in order for you to (perhaps?) understand this properly:

Gay men, when they take other gay men as partners (temporary or more permanent), sometimes engage in anal sex. So we can say it's a factual truth that at least some gay men practise anal sex, and that anal sex is culturally identified in the most part as associated with gay relationships or gay hook-ups*.

In UK English, a derogatory slang term for anal sex is "bumming", and the related term referring to a man engaging in anal sex are "bummer" (or "bum boy" or "bummer boy").

Still with me?

Now, let's suppose that a gang of straight young adult males confront a man whom they either suspect of being gay or know to be gay. They push the man to the ground, then kick him. And while they're doing so, they repeatedly call the man a "bummer".

The group of men get caught, arrested and brought to trial. They are convicted of assault.

In sentencing, the court takes into account the aggravating factor of the attack having been a homophobic hate crime. The men are consequently given harsher sentences.

"But, but but!" interjects d4m10n. "The youths were doing nothing more than stating a factual truism: that gay men sometimes engage in anal sex! How can telling the truth warrant more time in prison?"

"Ah, well", replies LondonJohn, "context is everything".



* Notwithstanding the fact that straight men also occasionally engage in anal sex with their female partners - meaning that the factual attribute "engages in anal sex" is not even a factual differentiator between gay men and straight men....

 

[d4m10n]

You're entirely missing the point here.

I'm going to take this evasion as a negative response.

You cannot think of a single example when non-pejorative truth-telling aggravates a criminal offense, aside from the one under discussion here.

Your attempt to compare calling someone born female "female" to calling a gay man a gay slur is obviously disanalogous and not a little laughable.

Descriptive words like "female" aren't slurs, as you surely must already know, and therefore don't evince hatred of a protected group.

Criminalizing the act of calling females "female" is an obvious ideological ploy, a transparent attempt to leverage criminal law to prevent truth-telling. It's openly and unreservedly Orwellian.

 

[The Atheist]

Also, TA's reference to "common sense" wasn't related in any way to the nature or cause of gender dysphoria.

But it's great to see how the minds of people who don't read it like that work.

See two completely separate points, immediately conflate them and scream "TERF".

Absolute gold.

My post could not have been clearer. Even theprestige got it and we agreed never to agree on anything, just on principle. *


* I have never used that before, but I wouldn't want anyone to be mistaken...

 

[Ziggurat]

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".

Now, let's suppose that a gang of straight young adult males confront a man whom they either suspect of being gay or know to be gay. They push the man to the ground, then kick him. And while they're doing so, they repeatedly call the man a "bummer".

The group of men get caught, arrested and brought to trial. They are convicted of assault.

In sentencing, the court takes into account the aggravating factor of the attack having been a homophobic hate crime. The men are consequently given harsher sentences.

I see you have conflated two VERY different things. Why am I not surprised?

In your second post, you have a crime of assault. That is a crime regardless of what anyone says. What they say can be used as an aggravating factor in the sentencing, but the crime itself is NOT what language they use, but the physical act.

But you are comparing that to a situation in which the language itself is the crime. That is such a fundamentally different issue that I can't help but consider this to be intentional dishonesty.

"Ah, well", replies LondonJohn, "context is everything".

Except when it's inconvenient, apparently.

 

[llwyd]

You added the word "fleeting". That changes the meaning.

Also, TA's reference to "common sense" wasn't related in any way to the nature or cause of gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is not about "common sense", and no thinking person, including The Atheist, would say that it was.

I think the context was pretty obvious for all to see. Unless a person is deliberately obtuse for some reason. And "feelings" there most likely did not refer to deep seated, genuine and serious psychological distress. But if it did the writer is totally free to clarify that to be the case. I will not hold my breath in waiting though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That link in no way addresses the point I was actually making (that certain groups are seeking to induce moral panic around such things as the "heinous" (in their eyes) dangers of letting transgender people use the bathrooms corresponding to their trans gender).

https://www.newsweek.com/amazon-driver-dressed-woman-filmed-girls-shopping-center-bathroom-police-1640572

It Never Happens

https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1169574507696349184?lang=en

Straight up ignoring things that don't fit your "them females be hysterical and just need to wheesht" narrative doesn't really work.

That link (I'm guessing you've got it saved as a bookmark, right....?) reads to me like a small number of transgender people - who are sick and tired of being marginalised and abused - going way too far on social media in their visceral, nasty and unnecessary revenge statements.

As opposed to the females who expressed that sex is real and meaningful, and got brought up on "non-crime hate acts"? Or the females banned from various social media for the heinous crime of misgendering, or saying that men aren't women?

I find it shocking that you approve of and support clearly and directly anti-female sentiments including threats of violence and rape.

 

[Emily's Cat]

For everyone. Provided that proportionate safeguarding processes are put in place.

How exactly is it "least bad" for female humans to create gigantic gaping loopholes where mal-intentioned male humans only need to say magic words in order to gain legal access to invade female spaces and indulge their voyeuristic and exhibitionist fantasies?

I'd like to ask some very straightforward questions:

What do transwomen gain by having access to female spaces, that they do not have in male spaces?

What do transwomen lose by being refused access to female spaces while in possession of male genitalia?

What do female humans gain by a subset of male-bodied people gaining entitlement to female spaces?

What do female humans lose by a subset of male-bodied people being entitled to female spaces?

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.

What do you suggest the gym/pool/etc in question should do about that sort of situation? Should (in your view) all men known to be gay be banned from using the men's changing rooms, in order to reduce the likelihood of that sort of offending behaviour?

The constant attempts to paint male-bodied transwomen as the horribly oppressed group and comparing this to racial and sexual orientation is flawed and wrong.

At the absolute minimum, you should recognize that you're arguing to give privileges and entitlements to a subset of male people, that directly reduces the ability of female people to participate equally in society. And you're doing so by insisting that male-bodied people raise as males are the oppressed victims... and female-bodied people raised as females are the oppressive perpetrators.

To make any even remotely reasonable parallels, you'd have to be arguing that black people are evil bigots for not allowing white people into their black-focused and black-led spaces and endeavors. You'd have to be arguing that gay and lesbians are complete bigots if they don't want to allow completely heterosexual people to be the focus of their LGB charities and their gay clubs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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".

The majority of transgender activists, allies, and lobbying organizations have taken the position that gender dysphoria is not at all required in order to be transgender, and that it is defined solely by how someone feels.

In fact, that majority frequently condemns and harasses transgender people who do believe that gender dysphoria is a necessary element. They call them names, threaten them, and label them as transphobic bigots.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

********. Pretty much every poster in this thread is well aware that gender dysphoria is a genuine mental health condition.

On the other hand, the lobbyists and activists that you advocate on behalf of believe that gender dysphoria is not required in any fashion at all in order to be transgender.

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).

Can you elaborate and specify exactly what rights and protections transgender people deserve? Which rights have they recently been granted? Which are they still denied?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This conversation would be going a lot differently if the trans-activists agreed that transgender entitlements and accommodations should be reserved for people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

There would be massively less objection if a robust clinical diagnosis and treatment were required.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A friend of mine e-mailed me about the distinction between sex (biology) / gender (social construction). He ascribed uncharitable motivations to trans activists.

But keeping the distinction between bio sex and gender allows horrible bigots to treat trans people respectfully, refer to them as they wish, but still think of them as, say, dudes who want to be chicks. That thinking is unacceptable.

That sentiment seems to show up a lot. IIRC, it's one of JoeRandom's complaints. Treating a person with respect and referring to them as they request is insufficient. They want to force other people's brains to perceive them as something else. It's very much Orwellian 'wrongthink".

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're entirely missing the point here. (Willfully?)

Let me give you another example, in order for you to (perhaps?) understand this properly:

Gay men, when they take other gay men as partners (temporary or more permanent), sometimes engage in anal sex. So we can say it's a factual truth that at least some gay men practise anal sex, and that anal sex is culturally identified in the most part as associated with gay relationships or gay hook-ups*.

In UK English, a derogatory slang term for anal sex is "bumming", and the related term referring to a man engaging in anal sex are "bummer" (or "bum boy" or "bummer boy").

Still with me?

Now, let's suppose that a gang of straight young adult males confront a man whom they either suspect of being gay or know to be gay. They push the man to the ground, then kick him. And while they're doing so, they repeatedly call the man a "bummer".

The group of men get caught, arrested and brought to trial. They are convicted of assault.

In sentencing, the court takes into account the aggravating factor of the attack having been a homophobic hate crime. The men are consequently given harsher sentences.

"But, but but!" interjects d4m10n. "The youths were doing nothing more than stating a factual truism: that gay men sometimes engage in anal sex! How can telling the truth warrant more time in prison?"

"Ah, well", replies LondonJohn, "context is everything".



* Notwithstanding the fact that straight men also occasionally engage in anal sex with their female partners - meaning that the factual attribute "engages in anal sex" is not even a factual differentiator between gay men and straight men....

That's absurd. You're conflating a derogatory slang term with a factual medical term.