Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[d4m10n]

Referring to someone by their bodily functions is dehumanizing because it’s unnecessarily reductive.

All of the examples I provided reduce people to a single role or function (e.g. lighting fires, donating sperm) but I wouldn't say any of them are unnecessarily reductive if you're trying to pick out a specific attribute.

I suspect there is something else going on here, something to do with the feeling of embarrassment people experience when discussing things they do in private.

 

[Ziggurat]

All of the examples I provided reduce people to a single role or function (e.g. donating sperm) but I wouldn't say any of them are unnecessarily reductive if you're trying to pick out a specific attribute.

A profession is far less reductive than a bodily function. But even then, it’s use can be demeaning. Calling someone a janitor in a context where that isn’t relevant, for example, can be quite rude.

I suspect there is something else going on here, something to do with the feeling of embarrassment people experience when discussing things done in private.

Possibly. But the exact reasons don’t actually matter much here, it suffices to note that such descriptors ARE demeaning, whatever the reason.

 

[llwyd]

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.

Interesting side note. I don't know how you tally the excact balance of views, but it doesn't affect my original point in any which way. It is simply wrong to dismiss and marginalize a whole community of very diverse people. Plus that gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition. I'm sure that pretty much everyone here agrees on these two points, you included?

 

[Meadmaker]

Interesting side note. I don't know how you tally the excact balance of views, but it doesn't affect my original point in any which way. It is simply wrong to dismiss and marginalize a whole community of very diverse people.

You original statement was not equal to the highlighted.

Your original statement was:

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.

I do not believe that these extreme cases are a way to dimiss and marginalize a whole population.

I do believe that it is wrong to dismiss and marginalize the whole trans community. i don't think bringing up those extreme cases does that.



As for theoretical cases, I don't think any theoretical cases were part of the original reference, so I won't bother discussing it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting side note. I don't know how you tally the excact balance of views, but it doesn't affect my original point in any which way. It is simply wrong to dismiss and marginalize a whole community of very diverse people. Plus that gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition. I'm sure that pretty much everyone here agrees on these two points, you included?

What counts as a medical condition? Is a psychological condition different than a medical condition? A subset of medical conditions?

I would describe gender dysphoria as a psychological and not a medical condition, but my definitions may be different than yours.

 

[llwyd]

You original statement was not equal to the highlighted.

Your original statement was:



I do not believe that these extreme cases are a way to dimiss and marginalize a whole population.

I do believe that it is wrong to dismiss and marginalize the whole trans community. i don't think bringing up those extreme cases does that.

Very semantic of you. I think in the context of the argument the difference is rather marginal. But anyway, I take it that you disapprove the first instance of dismissing and marginalizing a whole population of very diverse people but approve of the second intance of dismissing and marginalizing a whole community of very diverse people?

As to the issue of theoretical or hypothetical situations - well, I think this whole debate in this thread is concentrated on very rare and extreme cases which often then are extrapolated to rather theoretical extremes. I don't think this discussion much concerns the great majority of people who identify themselves as trans. Their lives, experiences and actions are not the stuff described and discussed here. And maybe they should be, who knows.

 

[Meadmaker]

Very semantic of you. I think in the context of the argument the difference is rather marginal. But anyway, I take it that you disapprove the first instance of dismissing and marginalizing a whole population of very diverse people but approve of the second intance of dismissing and marginalizing a whole community of very diverse people?

It may be that I am simply misunderstanding the reference, but I don't think there have been any instances of dismissing or marginalizing any group, population, or community.

As to the issue of theoretical or hypothetical situations - well, I think this whole debate in this thread is concentrated on very rare and extreme cases which often then are extrapolated to rather theoretical extremes.

I don't think that's the case at all. I think the bulk of the debate centers on ordinary women in situations where a male is sharing their private space, or competing against them in athletic events.

Nova Maday and Terry Miller are not extreme or hypothetical. Neither is Caster Semenya, who started this thread.

The Loudoun County rapist is pretty extreme, although not in the least hypothetical. We're not yet sure on Darren Merager. Maybe Darren is a woman, in which case what he (as some people refer to him) was just behaving in a completely ordinary manner. If not, he is exactly an instance of a predicted consequence of trans-inclusive policies. It is possible that Darren's case might be unusual, but it is not extreme or hypothetical.

All of the cases that I read in the recently quoted Twitter post were extreme, but none were hypothetical. However, it seems unfair to dismiss the msot extreme cases as if they were insignificant. They are exactly what we expect to happen as a result of trans-inclusive policies. Those extreme situations are rare, but predictable.

And, going back to Nova Maday, who is neither extreme nor hypothetical, people dismiss the concerns about her. (To save googling, Nova Maday is a trans-girl who was granted unlimited access to the girls' locker room at Palatine High School in Illinois.) The girls who didn't want to take off their clothes in front of her (sic) were called bigoted and transphobic.

I think your reference to extremeness is, in fact, a way of dismissing and marginalizing the population of women and girls who don't want penises in their locker room.

I don't think this discussion much concerns the great majority of people who identify themselves as trans. Their lives, experiences and actions are not the stuff described and discussed here. And maybe they should be, who knows.

I think the people like Lila Perry and Nova Maday and any other penis -possessor who wants to use a girls' locker room is very much about the great majority of people who identify themselves as trans. I think the discussion of Terry Miller and any other penis possessor who wants to compete in women's or girls' sports is exactly about the ordinary people who identify themselves as trans.

The trans rights supporters, in this thread and in the mainstream, who dismiss the concerns about privacy rights or competitiveness in sports, are pretty mainstream for the trans rights community, and they routinely dismiss without comment any of the concerns about these sorts of "routine" transgirls. They don't merit mention, except possibly to insult the people who express concern. If it seems that the extreme sorts like Jonathan Yaniv seem to get a lot of the press because their behavior is so absurd that even the most strident trans rights activists can't completely ignore someone so extreme.

 

[Meadmaker]

To more concisely express my last post, the dialog usually goes like this:

"I don't think biological males should be allowed to share female spaces."

"It shouldn't matter as long as they aren't behaving lewdly or breaking the law."

"What about thse people that did behave lewdly and/or break the law?"

"Those don't matter because they are extreme."


In other words, the ordinary cases don't matter. The extreme cases don't matter. Basically, no cases matter. And since most women seem to think that some or all of those cases do matter, it basically comes down to most women's opinions don't matter.



ETA: And if you can convince me that most women do not object to sharing female spaces with intact biological males, I'll go along with them.

 

[Meadmaker]

And here's one I hadn't heard of.

The "right to gestate".

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/do-transgender-women-have-a-right-to-gestate/

It's a brief piece from National Review about people who are transwomen wanting the right to a uterus transplant so they can actually become pregnant and give birth. It hasn't happened yet, but research suggests it is possible.

Honestly, I don't know how to feel about that. If medical science makes it actually possible to do, I'm inclined to say it's ok to try it. National Review isn't keen on the idea, and I think they bring up some good points, but ultimately I would err on the side of allowing people to do what they want to do, and the burden of proof should be on the people who wish to stop them.

 

[Cain]

Yea but you try to actually tie sex to being actively fertile and then people get upset that they are no longer women because they had a hysterectomy. As if a Steer was a Bull to these people.

But an organism's sex is not determined by fertility. Their body is organized for a type of sexual reproduction. A person can be blind and still have eyes. The woman who had a hysterectomy has a body designed for female reproduction.

 

[Cain]

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".

I think it goes back to legislating metaphysics and epistemology. A Christian could whole-heartedly believe that all embryos are endowed with an immortal soul. When it comes to a totally fluid person self-IDing, it's going to be tough to reconcile with female-exclusive spaces.

 

[Puppycow]

And here's one I hadn't heard of.

The "right to gestate".

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/do-transgender-women-have-a-right-to-gestate/

It's a brief piece from National Review about people who are transwomen wanting the right to a uterus transplant so they can actually become pregnant and give birth. It hasn't happened yet, but research suggests it is possible.

Honestly, I don't know how to feel about that. If medical science makes it actually possible to do, I'm inclined to say it's ok to try it. National Review isn't keen on the idea, and I think they bring up some good points, but ultimately I would err on the side of allowing people to do what they want to do, and the burden of proof should be on the people who wish to stop them.

As a general matter, when people have fertility problems (let's put aside the issue of trans women and first consider the case of a cis woman or couple who is (are) infertile for any reason).

The question to me in such a case is, does a "right to gestate" imply a right to have someone else pay for it? I don't believe in that myself.

Is that something that social medicine typically pays for? If a couple is infertile, does the state (the taxpayer) cover the cost for whatever medical procedures might be necessary for them to conceive a child?

Although I could imagine some hypothetical circumstances, such as that there is a public need to increase the birth rate because too few babies are being born.

 

[The Atheist]

I was struck by the irony today of how easy it is to be redeemed if you're a man who inflicts actual violence on women - Chris Brown, Fred Truman, Phil Tufnell and many others all smashed over women and kept their jobs, while if a woman says something the trans lobby doesn't like, she gets cancelled forever.

But trans lobbyists aren't misogynist...

 

[llwyd]

It may be that I am simply misunderstanding the reference, but I don't think there have been any instances of dismissing or marginalizing any group, population, or community.

Well, I originally objected on those basis to the following statement by The Atheist:

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.

So, apart from some "aberrations" the entire transcommunity is based on those rather superficial things, and nor on "common sense". I suppose you heartily agree with the quoted text and don't think it's "dismissing" or "marginalizing" an entire population or community of very diverse people?

I wonder how a similar statement would sound in the context of gay and lesbian people? Or with some slight changes in formulation for the many various minorities...

 

[llwyd]

And for what it's worth, I cannot accept the mere self-identification as the only necessary criteria in some areas, especially is sports but also (with some qualifications) about changing rooms and other such facilities.

But I also profoundly dislike this relentless polarization of the debate towards the extremes. In the wider society these questions are simply cynical tools for conservatives in their endless culture wars. One of the choicest targets is the entire trans community. The laws that are proposed or already implemented are crude and intentionally divisive, and not directed towards these rare and extreme cases but aimed at the legitimacy of, yes, the entire trans community. This can never be accepted.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wonder how a similar statement would sound in the context of gay and lesbian people? Or with some slight changes in formulation for the many various minorities...

Seems quite accurate in regards to gays and lesbians. What else is sexual orientation except a feeling? But it's obviously wrong in regards to ethnic minorities, which do constitute different genetic groups.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Huh. That's weird, because transphobes in progressive governments all around the world are nowhere near the levers of power, or so I'm told. /QUOTE]

You've been misinformed.

 

[d4m10n]

But the exact reasons don’t actually matter much here, it suffices to note that such descriptors ARE demeaning, whatever the reason.

This is precisely the claim of which I am skeptical.

Think of a few bodily functions which we don't find embarrassing: Walking, running, jumping, growing red hair. We've got words for people who do such things (e.g. redheads) and we don't find those words demeaning even though they reduce people to a single function.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is precisely the claim of which I am skeptical.

Think of a few bodily functions which we don't find embarrassing: Walking, running, jumping, growing red hair. We've got words for people who do such things (e.g. redheads) and we don't find those words demeaning even though they reduce people to a single function.

None of those things are bodily functions. Running is a bodily activity, not a bodily function. Red hair is an appearance, not a function. Breathing is a bodily function, and I suppose you could argue that being called a breather isn't really insulting (just... odd). But it doesn't really matter.

Menstruater and ejaculater and defecater and demeaning terms. We agree on that, do we not? For the purposes of this thread, we don't actually need to figure out exactly why.

 

[Meadmaker]

You've been misinformed.

Yeah. I know.