Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Meadmaker]

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.

Ok.

I would note that the locker rooms that generate the most controversy are in fact the ones used by horny teenagers, i.e. in high schools, or in community facilities frequented by young people.

Be that as it may, you seem to be in the "who cares what the girls think" camp.

If anyone convinces me that most of the girls don't actually care, I'll support the right of people to choose their locker room. Until then, I'll side with the girls.

Aside:. You said you would answer, and then proceeded to ask a question about a different topic. It's a common response, but it really doesn't address the question. Nevertheless, your elaboration gave enough information that your real answer, which was indifference to the girls' feelings, was apparent.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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

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.

And like literally every other question of equality, a distinction may be justified or it may not be. Even if justified, do you think it should have any bearing off the rugby field?

Ok.

I would note that the locker rooms that generate the most controversy are in fact the ones used by horny teenagers, i.e. in high schools, or in community facilities frequented by young people.

Be that as it may, you seem to be in the "who cares what the girls think" camp.

If anyone convinces me that most of the girls don't actually care, I'll support the right of people to choose their locker room. Until then, I'll side with the girls.

Aside:. You said you would answer, and then proceeded to ask a question about a different topic. It's a common response, but it really doesn't address the question. Nevertheless, your elaboration gave enough information that your real answer, which was indifference to the girls' feelings, was apparent.

Would you allow lesbians in a locker room, indifferent to the rest of the girls' feelings?

 

[d4m10n]

And like literally every other question of equality, a distinction may be justified or it may not be. Even if justified, do you think it should have any bearing off the rugby field?

Scroll up to the OP sometime and check to see if it was about the preservation of sex-segregated sports.

 

[lionking]

And like literally every other question of equality, a distinction may be justified or it may not be. Even if justified, do you think it should have any bearing off the rugby field?

I do not believe that male bodies should compete in any women’s sport where male bodies have an advantage. This is nearly every sport, but maybe not archery, shooting, lawn bowls and so on. But maybe even those if men objectively perform better.

To argue otherwise is to advocate unisex sport, which would destroy women’s sport.

 

[porch]

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?

I wish that the trans movement was directly analogous to women's rights, racial equality, and sexual orientation. It would uncomplicate things a lot, and I could wholeheartedly be on the right side of history. But look at how tortured your analogy becomes when all of a sudden women are white people? And yeah, self-identifying to receive reparations or grants or awards or kudos is not very cool when it comes to race, so I don't know who you are helping there. And no one here has said that trans people aren't people. This thread is very wedgie. All about the wedge issues. Even if you find some of the posters offensive, I invite you to get subtle and complexicated with it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In what way do (cis or trans) men have to deal with the norms of femininity? I'd be interested in a non-lyrical answer.

Effeminate gay males have to deal with norms of femininity that get them berated for not being "manly".

But hey, I'll entertain your earlier objection:

What do transwomen have in common with female humans that they do NOT have in common with male humans? What do transmen have in common with male humans that they do NOT have in common with female humans?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is an unanswerable question. And that's largely because we are talking about psychology which, as I've mentioned is very hard to directly measure. The cheap answer is something about a "sense of being female" which can't really be quantified. I can't say that Blaire White's sense of being female is the same as Emily's Cat's sense of being female. But I also can't say that they are not the same.

Interesting study passed along by a transwoman friend of mine.

Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation

It's a pretty technical paper, and there are several terms I don't understand. But I can follow the gist. It seems to be a very well-defined study. They compared both heterosexual and homosexual people of both sexes to transgender people of both sexes using brain scans. They controlled for sexual orientation and a couple of other elements.

The important element is that they're looking at the brains of people with a clear diagnosis of gender dysphoria, who are not nor have ever taken hormones. They exclude people with Autism disorders, or who are taking any neuroactive or psychoactive drugs. It's as clean a study as it's possible to get, even though it's still relatively small sample sizes.

The conclusion is that some parts of the brains of truly transgender people are materially more like that of a person of the opposite sex than their natal sex.

This is pretty strong confirmation for the existence of innate dysphoria. But it also does NOT necessarily apply to anyone who is self-declared as transgender. The limitations on inclusion were pretty strict.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Especially when there's not nearly as much nor as strong a consensus as LondonJohn always implies.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think Donald Trump in 2016 did, too. I think this was the issue that put him over the top.

I don't think this issue was even a drop in the bucket on the 2016 outcome. Maybe for a very, very few... but I genuinely don't think this was the driver. I think it was a whole lot of people who were pretty fed up with being told what was best for them as if they didn't have the brains to determine their own priorities. And also tired of constantly having their traditions, their lives, their livelihoods, and their preferences denigrated and cast as morally repugnant by people who clearly considered themselves better.

I think Biden won, not because people actually support democrats and progressive policies, but because most people really disliked Trump. They didn't vote *for* Biden, they voted *against* Trump.

But I do expect that this will be an issue in 2024 for the presidential, and in the intervening years for every other election. This along with the way race is being treated. In fact, I know on the order of 150 black women who will NOT be voting for democrats until they get off this transgender ideological train, and several black men and women who are completely outraged by the inherent racism of "anti-racism".

 

[Emily's Cat]

To some extent, sure. But (relevant to the thread) not to the point where transwomen will ever be considered women by most males.

The opening scene of the classic "Idiocracy" is worth watching in that regard...

This is a bit off topic, but I am curious about your opinion. There's always this assumption that higher intelligence is always an evolutionary advantage. I'm not convinced. Definitely intelligence in general gave humans an advantage, in that it allowed us to alter our environment to benefit ourselves... but I don't think it's necessarily true that ever-increasing intelligence is better. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we've actually passed 'optimal' and are getting to a stage where too much intelligence reduces our ability to pass on our genes.

Probably worth a split to a different thread though

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I fail to see how completely untreated, male-bodied people being entitled to be housed with female prisoners falls under "basic human respect" for any of the females affected.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

I have sympathy for the distress and dislocation that must cause.

I also, however, don't know what you mean by "actually a woman" or "know you're a man".

What do you believe that being a man or a woman means?

+++++++++++++++++

Also, welcome!

 

[Emily's Cat]

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...

All of those are concerns, but the highlighted bit with the representation of females in NYC really made me super angry, even though I don't live there.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

...

Is it your opinion that the differences between male and female humans are only skin deep and are predominantly socially constructed?

If so, I invite you to support your opinion, while giving consideration to the nature of mammalian reproduction and the sexual dimorphism of mammalian species.

If not, then your entire post was a red herring and not worth reading.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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."

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. But you cannot assume that your opinion is factual without challenge.

Please explain in what way transwomen are women. Specifically, what objective characteristics and traits do transwomen share in common with human females that they do NOT share in common with human males?

Furthermore, do you believe that this tenet that TWAW extends to any person who makes the self-declaration of being a 'woman'? Or is there an additional requirement involved?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Is it your opinion that a male-born person with a penis should have the right to walk around naked in the presence of teenage females who are also naked?

Do you consider it 'basic human dignity' to deny females the right to exclude male people from their presence when they are vulnerable or exposed?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are gays and lesbians allowed in same-sex locker rooms? Then it's not a sex thing.

Well that's just absurd as well as bordering on insulting to homosexual people. Gay males are still unquestionably of the male sex; lesbian females are still unquestionably of the female sex. They're accepted into sex-segregated locker rooms because they have the same sex as all the other people there.

 

[d4m10n]

What is your race-inclusionary position on these specific points regarding colored people?

I'm not an analogy skeptic across the board (i.e. some analogies actually work) but I assume we can agree (1) race is socially constructed and thus malleable and arbitrary, (2) sex is a biological adaptation which precedes the process of social construction by millions of years, and thus (3) analogies from sex to race are precarious at best.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not an analogy skeptic across the board (i.e. some analogies actually work)

Aside: Even well-formed analogies, that are properly analogous in their relevant parts, will be rejected as arguments, by those they are meant to convince. Analogies that actually work, do so as didactic tools between teacher and student. The work to introduce a neophyte to an unfamiliar concept, by means of a familiar concept. It is fully expected that as the neophyte begins to learn about the new concept, they will set aside the analogy and seek to master the concept in its own terms.

Such didactic tools have no place among peers who are already familiar with the concept in question. It's patronizing, distracting, and as an argument (rather than a teaching tool) it's always guaranteed to fail. If the person you're talking to isn't convinced by your arguments from the thing itself, they're not going to be convinced by this imperfect substitution.

---

That's how I read Babbylonian's sidestep of my questionnaire. As he himself says, he's giving dishonest answers. But even though I don't think it's a good analogy even for didactic purposes, and even though I know he's deploying it to avoid substantive discussion and to be insulting and rude, I'm willing to answer his questionnaire, and discuss my answers in the context of trans-inclusivity. All I ask is that he answer mine in the same spirit of good faith.

And note that I'm willing to carry on in good faith even though I know he hasn't been acting in good faith so far. He says I haven't been acting in good faith either. This is untrue, but even if he believes its true, my olive branch remains on offer. Will it be reciprocated? Probably not. As Beelzebuddy has effectively demonstrated, trans-inclusionary activists really do struggle to answer these questions in a straightforward way. Or at all. Instead they have to resort to personal attacks and evasion, just to try to stay in the game.

 

[Emily's Cat]

AWould you allow lesbians in a locker room, indifferent to the rest of the girls' feelings?

Why on earth is it always straight males who bring up lesbians as if that's some magical gotcha? Generally speaking, lesbians don't actually gale other females, that is a male fantasy. Lesbians rarely objectify other females and behave as if they have some innate right to view other females like pieces of meat placed their for their personal enjoyment and titillation. Lesbian sexual assaults of other females are extraordinarily rare, and are in fact as rare as the commission of sexual assaults by females as an entire class. Lesbians very rarely even engage in mild flirting in venues where sexualization is considered inappropriate!

FFS, it's always the same red herrings. It's always some faulty analogy to race or sexual orientation as if it's comparable. It's always some straight white male who is so certain of their moral high-ground that they feel justified in painting females as evil oppressors for not giving some other males whatever the **** they want.