Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Meadmaker]

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.

In a locker room, what's down there is also what's out there.

Yes, I think it matters.

In this thread, every single participant agrees that during ordinary, everyday interaction, trans people should be treated like they wish to be treated, as men or women or any of the dozens of variations available. There are people in society at large who disagree, but none of them post here.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

In this thread, every single participant agrees that during ordinary, everyday interaction, trans people should be treated like they wish to be treated

Bull. Theprestige can't help but roll his eyes with (whatever that means) on the elements he agrees to, and even then is "torn" on letting people pick their own pronouns. Others want it "unpacked" for them so they can decide if they accept it based on the implications their strawmen reach at the base of their slippery slopes.

Theprestige asserted that trans-rights activists don't know what they want. They do. They want people to be able to pick their gender without having to apologize for it.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Bull. Theprestige can't help but roll his eyes with (whatever that means) on the elements he agrees to, and even then is "torn" on letting people pick their own pronouns. Others want it "unpacked" for them so they can decide if they accept it based on the implications their strawmen reach at the base of their slippery slopes.

Theprestige asserted that trans-rights activists don't know what they want. They do. They want people to be able to pick their gender without having to apologize for it.

you really need to read more of these threads. & see my last post above

 

[Meadmaker]

Bull. Theprestige can't help but roll his eyes with (whatever that means) on the elements he agrees to, and even then is "torn" on letting people pick their own pronouns. Others want it "unpacked" for them so they can decide if they accept it based on the implications their strawmen reach at the base of their slippery slopes.

Theprestige asserted that trans-rights activists don't know what they want. They do. They want people to be able to pick their gender without having to apologize for it.

Well all right, I guess prestige will have to answer that himself, but as long as you're here, could you comment on the locker room thing?

 

[Ziggurat]

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

That was but one example of something that isn't an issue of "basic human respect". There are others.

 

[lionking]

Bull. Theprestige can't help but roll his eyes with (whatever that means) on the elements he agrees to, and even then is "torn" on letting people pick their own pronouns. Others want it "unpacked" for them so they can decide if they accept it based on the implications their strawmen reach at the base of their slippery slopes.

Theprestige asserted that trans-rights activists don't know what they want. They do. They want people to be able to pick their gender without having to apologize for it.

I keep coming back to the sports aspect. Do you think biological men who self ID as women should be allowed to play contact sports where the threat of injury to biological women is all too real? If so, why is that injury acceptable?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Well all right, I guess prestige will have to answer that himself, but as long as you're here, could you comment on the locker room thing?

What locker room thing? What exactly are you objecting to? Whose rights are being impacted? Be precise. Unpack it for me.

[ETA] You know what, **** it, I don't need to rely on pedantic crap even ironically, I can answer you. Are gays and lesbians allowed in same-sex locker rooms? Then it's not a sex thing. If it's not a sex thing what do you care, eyes down, jeez, do you not know the first damn thing about locker room etiquette? Yes everybody's naked and we all look horrible, not like horny teenagers would envision at all.

I keep coming back to the sports aspect. Do you think biological men who self ID as women should be allowed to play contact sports where the threat of injury to biological women is all too real? If so, why is that injury acceptable?

What contact sports? What rules ordinarily govern that? Who is responsible for setting the rules? What injuries are already considered acceptable?

[ETA] If that's a concern there should already be rules covering participant weight classes. Use those.

 

[theprestige]

<snip>

As far as I'm concerned, race is a meaningless distinction, but sex is a meaningful distinction with physical consequences that must be taken into account in public policy. So I reject the premise of your questionnaire.

Also, the issue I raised was the inability of trans-inclusionary activists to clearly answer what exactly trans-inclusion ('basic human respect') does and does not encompass.

Your refusal to answer that question, substituting instead a red herring, just exacerbates the issue. You came here to push back against the idea that trans-activists have no clue what they actually want. Instead you're just reinforcing it.

However, in the spirit of amicable debate, I'm happy to answer your questionnaire. All I ask is that you answer mine first, since I asked first. I think that's entirely reasonable. Will you answer my questionnaire?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

As far as I'm concerned, race is a meaningless distinction, but sex is a meaningful distinction with physical consequences that must be taken into account in public policy. So I reject the premise of your questionnaire.

Also, the issue I raised was the inability of trans-inclusionary activists to clearly answer what exactly trans-inclusion ('basic human respect') does and does not encompass.

Your refusal to answer that question, substituting instead a red herring, just exacerbates the issue. You came here to push back against the idea that trans-activists have no clue what they actually want. Instead you're just reinforcing it.

However, in the spirit of amicable debate, I'm happy to answer your questionnaire. All I ask is that you answer mine first, since I asked first. I think that's entirely reasonable. Will you answer my questionnaire?

Ask an honest question, you'll get an honest answer.

 

[theprestige]

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 agree completely.

There's no harm humoring someone who wants to be considered a woman by considering her a woman.

I agree, depending on how far we're expected to go, or required to go as a matter of public policy, in this "humoring".

And depending on what exactly it is that we're supposed to be humoring. I don't see any real harm in humoring a furry who wants to be considered in terms of their fursona.

On the other hand, I'd have serious qualms about humoring somebody who suffers from BIID, even just a little bit.

In the unlikely event that you're running a women's shelter and are overwhelmed by transwomen, that's when to split that hair.

Would you have any objection to a shelter in this situation, that solved it by saying "no transwomen"? Or would that violate your sense of "basic human respect" towards transwomen?

 

[theprestige]

Ask an honest question, you'll get an honest answer.

My questions are, and have always been, honest. Where are your honest answers?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Would you have any objection to a shelter in this situation, that solved it by saying "no transwomen"? Or would that violate your sense of "basic human respect" towards transwomen?

Of course I would object, otherwise it wouldn't be a question. What do you think "that's when to split that hair" means? Do you think it means "let's hypothetically split it now?"

My questions are, and have always been, honest. Where are your honest answers?

You have the answer, as honest as the questions it responds to.

[ETA] In case that's not enough of a clue

As far as I'm concerned, race is a meaningless distinction, but sex is a meaningful distinction with physical consequences that must be taken into account in public policy.

Wanna take a wild guess at what they used to say about race? Go on. Guess. Bathrooms and locker rooms were also contentious topics then, too. The more things change, they more the way people try to fight that change stays the same.

 

[TomB]

Of course I would object, otherwise it wouldn't be a question. What do you think "that's when to split that hair" means? Do you think it means "let's hypothetically split it now?"


You have the answer, as honest as the questions it responds to.

[ETA] In case that's not enough of a clue

Wanna take a wild guess at what they used to say about race? Go on. Guess. Bathrooms and locker rooms were also contentious topics then, too. The more things change, they more the way people try to fight that change stays the same.

This is, and has always been, a better argument for unisex facilities than for segregation based on gender rather than sex. Is that what you advocate?

 

[TomB]

What contact sports? What rules ordinarily govern that? Who is responsible for setting the rules? What injuries are already considered acceptable?

[ETA] If that's a concern there should already be rules covering participant weight classes. Use those.

I've never really been one for the safety argument. Not that it's invalid. Just that I've never considered that as the reason for separate divisions.

To my understanding, the primary reason for women's/female divisions in sports has been the difference in capabilities between males as a population and females as a population. If not for the segregation there would be few female athletes in competitive sports. I think this should remain the primary objective of having separate divisions and rules for trans-inclusion should address that.

I've never seen it as a social thing.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've never really been one for the safety argument. Not that it's invalid. Just that I've never considered that as the reason for separate divisions.

To my understanding, the primary reason for women's/female divisions in sports has been the difference in capabilities between males as a population and females as a population. If not for the segregation there would be few female athletes in competitive sports. I think this should remain the primary objective of having separate divisions and rules for trans-inclusion should address that.

I've never seen it as a social thing.

I agree that's the primary reason, but safety does play an important role in contact sports. A single male-bodied competitor in a women's rugby league can definitely lead to injuries, which is why the rugby officials said no to transwomen in their league.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

This is, and has always been, a better argument for unisex facilities than for segregation based on gender rather than sex. Is that what you advocate?

As critical as locker room advocacy is to society, I'm merely saying it does not constitute a major roadblock to accepting transwomen as women.

 

[Louden Wilde]

As critical as locker room advocacy is to society, I'm merely saying it does not constitute a major roadblock to accepting transwomen as women.

I'm going to repeat most of my post above, since you seem to have missed it:

Women and girls - i.e. females - are oppressed/discriminated against 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) or representation allowed, that people can change sex, and essentially that sexism is either not real or trivial compared to gender/gender identity.

I'm sensing you're taking this latter POV

"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 (some loud) trans-activists say).

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I'm going to repeat most of my post above, since you seem to have missed it:

It did not miss it. I dismissed it by describing it as building a straw man and pushing it down a slippery slope. Did you not make that connection?

I mean, you're saying that respecting someone's pronouns will lead directly to society denying the existence of sexism. There's a lot of mental leaps there.

 

[Louden Wilde]

It did not miss it. I dismissed it by describing it as building a straw man and pushing it down a slippery slope. Did you not make that connection?

Got it - female concerns are not valid to you. I'll feel free to ignore you then, since you're not interested in a serious discussion.

 

[lionking]

What contact sports? What rules ordinarily govern that? Who is responsible for setting the rules? What injuries are already considered acceptable?

[ETA] If that's a concern there should already be rules covering participant weight classes. Use those.

Rugby to start with. Although transwomen are prohibited from competing in women’s competition at the highest level, they are not at the club level. Rugby is nothing other than a contact sport.

https://theconversation.com/why-the...es-from-the-womens-game-are-reasonable-152178

And in data presented by World Rugby, biomechanical modelling studies suggest that, in the women’s game, transgender players create head and neck forces 20-30% greater than elite women’s rugby players as a result of mass differences alone. This suggests a potential risk of injury to female players from transwomen players.

Many in this thread have said “who cares about sport?”. Well sportswomen do and they are sick of the risk of injury and unfairness by participation of self ID, biologically stronger and faster male bodies.

ETA there are no weight classes in rugby.