Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Beelzebuddy]

Nobody has any idea what transgender activists are even asking for.

Basic human respect. If you really have no idea what it means to ask for that, I can see why this is a confusing topic for you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Basic human respect.

Transwomen don't need to compete athletically against ciswomen without any hormone level restrictions in order to get basic human respect. If basic human respect were all this was about, we wouldn't have this thread.

 

[theprestige]

I remember a time when the mainstream psychiatrists of the world regarded homosexuality as a disorder and I disagreed.

I remember a time when the legislators and judiciary regarded homosexuality as something that merited up to 14 years in prison in my country and I disagreed.

Presumably they would have regarded themselves as better informed than me.

I don't see how that can be regarded as an argument

Cool. Now do paranoid schizophrenia, Munchausen's by proxy, and body identity integrity disorder.

 

[Nanny47]

Basic human respect. If you really have no idea what it means to ask for that, I can see why this is a confusing topic for you.

It can be difficult for people who are not transgender to imagine what being transgender feels like. Imagine what it would be like if everyone told you that the gender that you’ve always known yourself to be was wrong. What would you feel like if you woke up one day with a body that’s associated with a different gender? What would you do if everyone else—your doctors, your friends, your family—believed you’re a man and expected you to act like a man when you’re actually a woman, or believed you’re a woman even though you’ve always known you’re a man?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Transwomen don't need to compete athletically against ciswomen without any hormone level restrictions in order to get basic human respect. If basic human respect were all this was about, we wouldn't have this thread.

If competitive athletic standards were all this was about, it would say so in the thread title.

 

[Meadmaker]

It can be difficult for people who are not transgender to imagine what being transgender feels like. Imagine what it would be like if everyone told you that the gender that you’ve always known yourself to be was wrong. What would you feel like if you woke up one day with a body that’s associated with a different gender? What would you do if everyone else—your doctors, your friends, your family—believed you’re a man and expected you to act like a man when you’re actually a woman, or believed you’re a woman even though you’ve always known you’re a man?

Welcome.

Well, as you can see, we've been talking about this for a long time, so some issues are well trodden ground.

You'll find that everyone here pretty much accepts and agrees with what you wrote.

The disagreement really comes down to what ought to be done in a few very narrow areas. So, if you feel like a girl, everyone here figures if you want to wear skirts and watch the Hallmark Channel, thats cool. But, if you have the body of a man, when you join the track team, maybe you should race against the other people who have the body of a man.

It really does come down to a few small areas of human interaction. Even then, most people here are willing to go along if there is some sort of medical transition.

Anyway, stick around and see what gets said. I think you'll find we are a pretty liberal bunch, but at some point there is a line to be drawn where biology really does matter.

 

[theprestige]

Basic human respect. If you really have no idea what it means to ask for that, I can see why this is a confusing topic for you.

More of the vague generalities that have plagued this thread from the beginning. Be specific. Distinguish between what's basic human respect, what's an additional accommodation they're entitled to, and what's an additional accommodation they're not entitled to.

I'll get you started. What is your trans-inclusionary position on these specific points regarding transwomen?

Basic human respect that everyone in this thread already agrees with and supports:
- Not being persecuted or ostracized for being gender nonconforming (whatever that means).
- Not being discriminated against in employment and housing for being gender nonconforming (whatever that means).

Additional accommodations they're entitled to:
- Use of preferred pronouns.

Personally I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I'm happy to accommodate preferred pronouns as a matter of basic courtesy. On the other hand, I don't think furries are entitled to be addressed in the character of their fursona, nor would I be willing to do so as a matter of courtesy, at least not as a blanket rule.

Which leads me to:

- Trans-entitlements by virtue of self-ID alone.

Say we agree that there are certain things trans people should be entitled to, by virtue of being trans. Should those entitlements apply simply because a person claims the identity in question? Or should there be some sort of diagnosis?

Which leads me to additional accommodations they may or may not be entitled to:

- Access to women's shelters.
- Access to women's sports leagues.
- Access to positions of equitable representation of women in business and government.

I say "women", but really these last three are questions of sex segregation.

---

As you can see, we've moved far beyond the simple generalities of "basic human respect".

So be specific. When it comes to the claim that transwomen are women, what does that mean to you in terms of basic human respect? What are some specific things you think that respect requires. What are some specific things you think that respect does not require?

When I say that nobody has any idea what transgender activists are even asking for, I mean that not even trans-activists have any clear answers to the above questions.

What are your own answers to the above questions?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well that is sort of the issue.

You take pronouns (which are meaningless words and semantics), sports, and semi-private public spaces like lockers room and bathrooms out of the equation... what are we talking about?

And if that's all we're talking about I don't anyone really believes that is enough to maintain the biggest civil rights discussion since gay marriage.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Although it is obviously a bit repetitive, the standard of argument in this thread is head and shoulders above that conducted by our so-called public intellectuals, which seems to consist mainly of shouting "terf!' and "woke!" at each other and trading bizarre conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately in the US that does seem to be true. People who are center or left have been afraid to question the current gender ideology (for fear of being lumped with MAGA folk- who have grasped that this is a good wedge issue for them). I think that will change- things like the ACLU censoring RBGs use of the word woman, labeling Rachel Levine the first female of her rank, the sports issues changing that representative status here in NYC from female to woman (& then putting a TW in place) are alerting people that this movement isn't just about helping people with gender dysphoria...

 

[theprestige]

If competitive athletic standards were all this was about, it would say so in the thread title.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the thread title to cover all of the ground of this topic up front. There's also the OP, and several years(!) of discussion about a large and complex topic.

Anyway, here you seem to be implying that it's possible to show basic human respect to transwomen, without entitling them to participation in women's sports leagues. Is that really your position?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What are your own answers to the above questions?

More of the vague generalities that have plagued this thread from the beginning. Be specific. Distinguish between what's basic human respect, what's an additional accommodation they're entitled to, and what's an additional accommodation they're not entitled to.

I'll get you started. What is your race-inclusionary position on these specific points regarding colored people?

Basic human respect that everyone in this thread already agrees with and supports:
- Not being persecuted or ostracized for being colored (whatever that means).
- Not being discriminated against in employment and housing for being colored (whatever that means).

Additional accommodations they're entitled to:
- Use of preferred labels.

Personally I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I'm happy to accommodate preferred labels as a matter of basic courtesy. On the other hand, I don't think furries are entitled to be addressed in the character of their fursona, nor would I be willing to do so as a matter of courtesy, at least not as a blanket rule. [It's kind of funny that this still works]

Which leads me to:

- Race-entitlements by virtue of self-ID alone.

Say we agree that there are certain things colored people should be entitled to, by virtue of being colored. Should those entitlements apply simply because a person claims the identity in question? Or should there be some sort of diagnosis?

Which leads me to additional accommodations they may or may not be entitled to:

- Access to white bathrooms.
- Access to white sports leagues.
- Access to positions of equitable representation of whites in business and government.

I say "white", but really these last three are questions of racial segregation.

---

As you can see, we've moved far beyond the simple generalities of "basic human respect".

So be specific. When it comes to the claim that colored people are people, what does that mean to you in terms of basic human respect? What are some specific things you think that respect requires. What are some specific things you think that respect does not require?

When I say that nobody has any idea what desegregationists are even asking for, I mean that not even desegregationists have any clear answers to the above questions.

What are your own answers to the above questions?

 

[theprestige]

It can be difficult for people who are not transgender to imagine what being transgender feels like. Imagine what it would be like if everyone told you that the gender that you’ve always known yourself to be was wrong. What would you feel like if you woke up one day with a body that’s associated with a different gender? What would you do if everyone else—your doctors, your friends, your family—believed you’re a man and expected you to act like a man when you’re actually a woman, or believed you’re a woman even though you’ve always known you’re a man?

Welcome to ISF! As you can see, this discussion has been going on for several years, and covered a lot of ground. We're mostly focused on what the above means for public policy. Things like access to women's shelters, and participation in women's sports leagues.

What do you think?

Should someone who claims to be a transwoman be entitled to compete in sports as a woman?

Or should a formal diagnosis be required?

Or should women's sports be reserved for females only, regardless transgender diagnosis?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect the thread title to cover all of the ground of this topic up front.

I think it's reasonable to answer the thread's title with "yes they are," not "well we can't possibly reach any conclusion until every hair has been split."

 

[d4m10n]

I think it's reasonable to answer the thread's title with "yes they are," not "well we can't possibly reach any conclusion until every hair has been split."

Yes they are what?

"Woman" has many possible meanings, and I'm fairly confident you aren't using the one from the dictionary.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Yes they are what?

"Woman" has many possible meanings, and I'm fairly confident you aren't using the one from the dictionary.

Not having to stop and define the boundaries of your identity to anyone carrying a dictionary and a semantic bone to pick is one of those things I'd lump under "basic human respect."

 

[d4m10n]

Not having to stop and define the boundaries of your identity to anyone carrying a dictionary and a semantic bone to pick is one of those things I'd lump under "basic human respect."

If you're going to make the claim "Transwomen are women" (on an evidence-oriented forum where we like to test claims) the very least you can do is unpack the meaning of your claim.

I'm guessing you don't mean to say they are adult human females, but I'm not about to guess what you do mean to say.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not having to stop and define the boundaries of your identity to anyone carrying a dictionary and a semantic bone to pick is one of those things I'd lump under "basic human respect."

I think the contentious situations are when the bone is not semantic.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

If you're going to make the claim "Transwomen are women" (on an evidence-oriented forum where we like to test claims) the very least you can do is unpack the meaning of your claim.

I'm guessing you don't mean to say they are adult human females, but I'm not about to guess what you do mean to say.

Like I said to theprestige, I can see why it's confusing. "Muh skepticism" has long been an argument against empathy.

Let me try a blunter tactic: unless you're trying to get in someone's pants, it's none of your goddamn business what's down there. There's no harm humoring someone who wants to be considered a woman by considering her a woman. In the unlikely event that you're running a women's shelter and are overwhelmed by transwomen, that's when to split that hair.

 

[d4m10n]

Let me try a blunter tactic: unless you're trying to get in someone's pants, it's none of your goddamn business what's down there.

I don't think Roviel Detenamo cares what's going on in Laurel Hubbard's pants these days.

Like I said to theprestige, I can see why it's confusing. "Muh skepticism" has long been an argument against empathy.

I've no idea how or why empathy prevents you from unpacking your claim or defining your terms.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Not having to stop and define the boundaries of your identity to anyone carrying a dictionary and a semantic bone to pick is one of those things I'd lump under "basic human respect."

As Meadmaker noted, it's not just semantic and as d4m10n suggested - you should unpack the implications of that claim. Women and girls - i.e. females - are oppressed on the basis of their sex. it's not an identity (or performance), but a biological reality

The problem many of us here have with self-ID (which pronouns seem to be an important part of) is that it leads to the idea that there should be no female-exclusive spaces, activities (e.g. sports), representation allowed, that people can change sex, and essentially that sexism is either not real or trivial compared to gender/gender identity.

"Treating somebody as their preferred gender" (whatever that might mean) will also always be a polite fiction. Meaning transwomen will never be considered a subset of women the way say Arab women are (despite what trans-activists say).

TL/DR: It's not cool to try to ID into an oppressed group in this case either.