Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Emily's Cat]

...I invite you to get subtle and complexicated with it.

"complexicated" made me smile.

 

[Louden Wilde]

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

Completely agree. I definitely found (teaching- both in class and to grad students) that one of the concepts that was tough to get across was that evolution isn't necessarily leading to something intrinsically 'better' (just something better adapted to current conditions, including pathogen presence) and that we don't use primitive pejoratively the way it's used when talking about culture.

relevant to this thread: I do sometimes wonder whether the TW "lesbians" (AKA heterosexual males) are (subconsciously) adopting an alternative strategy to pass on their genes....

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't think this issue was even a drop in the bucket on the 2016 outcome. Maybe for a very, very few...

1/2 of 1 percent? In Pennsylvania and Wisconsin?

No one is going to tell a pollster that trans issues were there number one priority, but I think this is the sort of issue that makes people who had always voted Democrat to decide that these people (i.e. Democratic politicians) have just lost their minds.

I don't think there's any way to prove it. It's just a sense I got from listening to right wing sources, especially radio.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

Expressed that way, and in this context, I think it's a good question. (A lot of times, I just think it's a knee jerk with no thought, but I'll try this time.)


The immediate and obvious difference between transwomen and lesbians in female locker rooms is found in my previous statement:

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.

I think, at this point, most of the girls don't actually care. Assuming that the lesbians aren't making a show of their sexuality, i.e. by flirting, lewd behavior, etc, I don't think most women care about the presence of lesbians. Therefore, the conditions of your question don't really exist. There's no "indifferent to the rest of the girls' feelings", because those feelings don't exist.

However, go back some decades ago, and it's possible they might exist back then, so should we have ignored them then?

That's tougher to answer. It's easy to simply assert that of course we shouldn't have, but how can that be justified? If we were willing to tell the homophobes, which after all was most people, to suck it up and deal with it, back then, why not the same thing now? Why not tell the transphobes the same thing?

To understand it, you have to recognize one thing right up front. They aren't transphobes. They're androphobes. That's important to understand, even though lots of people get it wrong again and again, and will continue to do so no matter how many times the explanation is given. Their objection is not and never will be to transgender people. It's to males.

In the case of fear of lesbians, I think that fear was created by society. I don't think it's natural. As a result, when society stopped reinforcing that fear, and in fact, criticizing that fear, the fear went away.

When it comes to body modesty, which includes a component of fear, I think it's instinctive. I think it's natural. It is shaped and influenced by society and by rational thought, but at it's core, I think it's an evolutionary adaptation. Therefore, it's difficult to influence by societal rules. Fighting against it, by telling people they have to put up with the presence of males in a space where they are naked, is not likely to have limited success. I think the presence of males creates an instinctive anxiety.

Some of that is perfectly rational. Males are bigger, stronger, and capable of rape. Even if it were not instinctive to keep a barrier (i.e. clothing) against them, it would be rational to do so, and that does not change based on any observable characteristic of someone who calls herself a transwoman.

So that's the basic answer. I think fear of lesbians is manufacture, and therefore easier to dispel, and it pretty much has been dispelled, while fear of men in a place where women are naked is more instinctive, and cannot be completely eliminated.

If I'm wrong about that, it will be elimiated, at least for most of the population, and at that point I will say that transwomen ought to be given access to female spaces. For now, I don't think that has happened, and it shouldn't be forced.

 

[LondonJohn]

I love how Meadmaker has arbitrarily decided that predatory lesbians never actually existed, and that neither did hetero women experience discomfort (or worse) as a result - flying in the face of plenty of evidence that they did (and do) exist and that they did (and do) cause real anguish - albeit rarely - to hetero women/girls.

"Fear of lesbians is manufactured"? Wow. And then in the very next breath (paraphrasing): "Fear of transwomen is real, because transwomen pose a clear and present danger to ciswomen everywhere."



Yes, it's all too easy to handwave away those inconvenient truths, isn't it..... if the logic gets in the way of one's agenda.

And a more common (though still rare in absolute terms) situation was/is that of predatory gay males in men's bathrooms/changing facilities. Perhaps Meadmaker would like to handwave that one away as well.

As for modesty - including how it pertains to male/female nudity - now that for certain is a social construct. In nature, no male animals exhibit prudish behaviour around naked females, and vice versa. And to illustrate the point further still, in Sharia Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia, people have become even more conditioned than in countries such as the USA: it's considered indecent for an adult man to see even the uncovered ankle of an adult woman who is not his wife.

Oh what a vicious web we weave......

 

[Roboramma]

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

In the context of race, what are "preferred labels"? If someone is black and wants me to refer to them as asian, I don't see why basic human respect would lead me to do that.

Can you explain what your point is, because it's pretty lost on me.

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?

Personally, I don't agree that there are certain things that people should be entitled to by virtue of their race.
But to the extent that there are, yes, probably there should be some objective standard to judge these things. I'm not really in favor of affirmative action programs, but if we judged them to be a good idea, it would probably be good to also have an objective standard to judge who they applied to.

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.

Personally, I think we should avoid racial segregation entirely.

On the other hand, I think segregation by sex in a few areas (sports for instance) is a good idea.

If you want to get rid of segregation by sex entirely, then your analogy might make sense. If you want to maintain segregation by sex your analogy makes no sense as a response to theprestige's questions.

Maybe this conversation would be more productive if you just gave straightforward answers to some straightforward questions?

 

[Roboramma]

I love how Meadmaker has arbitrarily decided that predatory lesbians never actually existed, and that neither did hetero women experience discomfort (or worse) as a result - flying in the face of plenty of evidence that they did (and do) exist and that they did (and do) cause real anguish - albeit rarely - to hetero women/girls.

"Fear of lesbians is manufactured"? Wow. And then in the very next breath (paraphrasing): "Fear of transwomen is real, because transwomen pose a clear and present danger to ciswomen everywhere."



Yes, it's all too easy to handwave away those inconvenient truths, isn't it..... if the logic gets in the way of one's agenda.

And a more common (though still rare in absolute terms) situation was/is that of predatory gay males in men's bathrooms/changing facilities. Perhaps Meadmaker would like to handwave that one away as well.

As for modesty - including how it pertains to male/female nudity - now that for certain is a social construct. In nature, no male animals exhibit prudish behaviour around naked females, and vice versa. And to illustrate the point further still, in Sharia Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia, people have become even more conditioned than in countries such as the USA: it's considered indecent for an adult man to see even the uncovered ankle of an adult woman who is not his wife.

Oh what a vicious web we weave......

Luckily Emily's Cat ninja'd herself with this post that could just as easily have been a response to the above:

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.

 

[Meadmaker]

I love how Meadmaker has arbitrarily decided that predatory lesbians never actually existed, and that neither did hetero women experience discomfort (or worse) as a result - flying in the face of plenty of evidence that they did (and do) exist and that they did (and do) cause real anguish - albeit rarely - to hetero women/girls.

"Fear of lesbians is manufactured"? Wow. And then in the very next breath (paraphrasing): "Fear of transwomen is real, because transwomen pose a clear and present danger to ciswomen everywhere."



Yes, it's all too easy to handwave away those inconvenient truths, isn't it..... if the logic gets in the way of one's agenda.

And a more common (though still rare in absolute terms) situation was/is that of predatory gay males in men's bathrooms/changing facilities. Perhaps Meadmaker would like to handwave that one away as well.

Not going to try to unpack the above, because it's some combination of distortions that it isn't responsive to anything I wrote anyway.

I will simply reiterate, in slightly different form, my earlier point about lesbians in female spaces. As best I can tell, the women don't really mind, and as long as that's the case, neither will I. My thanks to Roboramma for quoting Emily's Cat's prior relevant commentary. As for males in their spaces, if they ever seem to stop minding, so will I.

As for modesty - including how it pertains to male/female nudity - now that for certain is a social construct. In nature, no male animals exhibit prudish behaviour around naked females, and vice versa

.


They also don't cook their food. It seems that human beings have an awful lot of differences from every other animal.

I have concluded that modesty is, in fact, innate, though, like other instinctive human behavior, it is shaped and modified by society. If you have any actual scientific means of testing that would confirm or refute the hypothesis, please discuss it.

And if modesty truly is just a social construct, the logical thing to do would be to end segregation entirely;

 

[Meadmaker]

I just reread the quote from Emily's Cat. This part in particular:

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.

She really seems to have hit the nail on the head here.

 

[Paul2]

Not going to try to unpack the above, because it's some combination of distortions that it isn't responsive to anything I wrote anyway.

I will simply reiterate, in slightly different form, my earlier point about lesbians in female spaces. As best I can tell, the women don't really mind, and as long as that's the case, neither will I. My thanks to Roboramma for quoting Emily's Cat's prior relevant commentary. As for males in their spaces, if they ever seem to stop minding, so will I.


.


They also don't cook their food. It seems that human beings have an awful lot of differences from every other animal.

I have concluded that modesty is, in fact, innate, though, like other instinctive human behavior, it is shaped and modified by society. If you have any actual scientific means of testing that would confirm or refute the hypothesis, please discuss it.

And if modesty truly is just a social construct, the logical thing to do would be to end segregation entirely;

5 minutes of searching the intertubes has come up with not very much about the mix of nature/nurture with regard to modesty. The most direct hit was "The Evolution of Modesty," part of a 1913 book by Havelock Ellis, who, ironically, was one of the pioneers in distinguishing trans phenomenon from homosexuality and who, unfortunately, was a leader in the eugenics movement.

I'm not sure giving much weight to his thoughts from 1913 will do much to inform this conversation. I look forward to other researches with better Google-fu than mine.

 

[Meadmaker]

As critical as locker room advocacy is to society,

I might be mistaken, but the above seems a bit facetious.


I just want to add that I do, in fact, believe that athleticism really is critical to our society. I have watched over my lifetime as it has been de-emphasized, and I think we have suffered a lot of consequences as a result. Childhood obesity, especially.

To the extent that locker room issues contribute to a general deemphasis on participation in sport, I think it's important. "Locker room advocacy" is, at it's core, about making sure that there is a comfortable way for all to participate in sports and fitness activities. If locker rooms are inconvenient or uncomfortable, it creates one more barrier to participation.

I'm merely saying it does not constitute a major roadblock to accepting transwomen as women.

I think it constitutes the single biggest major roadblock to accepting transwomen as women. I think the other major roadblock is participation in sports. Everything else is insignificant compared to those two.

 

[d4m10n]

I think it constitutes the single biggest major roadblock to accepting transwomen as women. I think the other major roadblock is participation in sports. Everything else is insignificant compared to those two.

There are only a handful of spaces where sex-segregation still makes sense, IMO. (For die-hard activists, there are zero such spaces.) Arguments around this topic are bound to be centered in the very few remaining spaces under contention, i.e. changing rooms, sleeper cars, sports leagues.

 

[crazycat]

Yikes. If this thread is head and shoulders above the rest of society, it's hard to imagine what the rest of the world is talking about. I think there's too much "terf" here. I admit that I do yell "woke" a bit, but I hope I have something else to go along with it.

But it does kind of relate to something I was going to say about LondonJohn's argument from the last election results, a variation of argument ad popularem.

In America, I don't think people even understand what they are supporting. In particular, I think a lot of the more lukewarm* supporters of trans rights don't realize that "transgender" includes people who have no medical treatment or even diagnosis. They don't realize that the people who want self ID as the only criterion are not fringe weirdos. They are policy makers at the Department of Education, and on their school board. I think they believe that "transgender" means surgically or at least hormonally altered.

I watched Dave Chapelle's show, and I think that's what even he thinks, and he was in the center of it. He was talking about transgender, but he was describing transsexual.

When that realization dawns on people, some of them switch their vote. I think the governor-elect of Virginia owes his victory to that. I think Donald Trump in 2016 did, too. I think this was the issue that put him over the top.

Anyway, must go to meeting, but I think an argument based on election results is a house of cards.

*ETA: What I mean by that are people who really don't give the issue much thought, but if you ask them about it, they'll say trans people are just fine with them. I think that's most people on the "blue" side of the ledger. I think when they understand exactly what the policies advocated are, a lot of them stop being trans supporters, and some of them jump to the "red" side.

I match what you describe in your ETA. I'm independent, but registered Democrat for the 2020 primary. I'm not committed to either party. However I won't jump to the "red" side of the ledger until or unless Republicans come to their senses regarding Trump and other issues unrelated to this thread.

I've lurked in this thread for quite a while. Sometimes saying "good point" or "I hadn't thought of that". Sometimes my head has exploded from what I just read and the eponymous cat and I have to hide under the bed for a while.

I'm a white cis-woman. Like Emily's Cat, I to not present as a very stereotypical woman (engineering, piloting a plane, skydiving, riding motorcycles, computer programming, hate to shop, think 2 or 3 pairs of shoes and handbags are plenty, and don't wear makeup). I was happily married to a man until his death a few years ago. Yet nobody, including me, has any problem identifying me as a woman.

Transgender and transsexual are different terms (I didn't know that), but both covered by the umbrella of trans rights. I don't think that people posting here have any problem with transsexual people with the exception of some sports, in which having a male body gives them an advantage.

Posters have tried to explain why transgender people feel like they are the opposite sex from the body they were born with and feel more like the other sex. That has been a hard thing for most other people to understand. However, those feeling can't be the entire story, as references here to a pregnant transman (aren't pregnancy, birth, and lactation the most female things that someone can do?) and transwomen who rape (something that is engaged in nearly exclusively by men).

So, the answer to that seems to be "well, they feel more identity with the other gender" - they feel like the stereotype of the other gender rather than the sex that they are. Seriously, stereotypes?

I honestly don't get what people who don't have a diagnosed psychological disorder mean when they self-identify. If someone can post or refer to an understandable explanation, I'd like to see it.

Most of the time, treating transpeople as they want to be treated works just fine. A transman magician, OK. A transwoman receptionist, fine.

The most contention seems to be over transwomen and what rights they have related to cis-women.

While women have been historically restricted in what they are allowed to do, in the U.S., that is mostly gone (at least legally). There are now laws helping women to catch up. Counting transwomen as women dilutes the intent and effect of those laws.

Comparisons with past injustices against POC and gays are not valid. The gay rights movement didn't decree that straight people must have sex with gay people. Yet the trans movement is making a big deal out of lesbians not being interested in transwomen. Women of color are not any different from white women, except for the color of their skin.

But (not sure how to write this - men who self id as women, but do nothing besides possibly changing their driver's license) are very different from ciswomen.

Men are taller, weigh more, and are stronger, than women. And are more prone to violence. That's true, regardless of what they declare themselves to be. Women don't want to be in vulnerable positions, such as a common changing area, with such people. Most men are not monsters or rapists, but the ones who are don't come with labels for women to identify them by. Women avoid situations where they are put in possible danger.

The trans activists here either completely ignore this aspect of women's lives or downplay the importance. Cis-men seem to understand.

Most sports favor the male body type. The fastest person on earth is a man. The best golfer is a man. The reason women's sports has become a thing, is that women can compete against other women like them, and not against men. Taking testosterone-reducing drugs does very little to erase the male advantage.

And finally, does the trans movement mangle other languages as badly as it does English?

I do not read or post as often as the frequent contributors, so a conversation may move faster than I can keep up with. I'll try to answer any questions or comments made directly to me. As a proxy, Emily's Cat often says what I intend to post.

Sorry this post has gotten so long. I just wanted to explain my position as a generally liberal but not aware of the full trans situation voter.

 

[theprestige]

There are only a handful of spaces where sex-segregation still makes sense, IMO. (For die-hard activists, there are zero such spaces.) Arguments around this topic are bound to be centered in the very few remaining spaces under contention, i.e. changing rooms, sleeper cars, sports leagues.

There's two ways to look at it. The way you're looking at it, the public policy and social acceptance issues have been for the most part amicably resolved. Mainstream society generally agrees, and the few haters are outliers the rest of us rightly dismiss. All that's left is to figure out the few remaining edge cases where sex-segregation still makes sense.

That's the way I looked at it, too, at the start of this thread. But now I see it differently.

The moment you say, "transwomen are women, except in certain situations", you're calling into question all of the other previously-resolved public policy and social acceptance issues. You've introduced criteria by which transwomen are not women. So if we don't have to recognize them as women for women's sports, why do we have to recognize them as women anywhere else?

I'm not saying that "not women when it comes to sports" invalidates every other "settled" context. But it does call all of those contexts back into question. So it's not just about the few remaining "handful of spaces". It's about the implications those spaces have for all the other spaces.

I think that's why some trans-inclusionists are trying to give "female" the same treatment they've already given "woman". And I think that's why some trans-inclusionists are so vehemently opposed to answering questions about that "handful of spaces".

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[d4m10n]

The moment you say, "transwomen are women, except in certain situations", you're calling into question all of the other previously-resolved public policy and social acceptance issues. You've introduced criteria by which transwomen are not women. So if we don't have to recognize them as women for women's sports, why do we have to recognize them as women anywhere else?

I don't think we can settle anything with mantras like "trans women are women." The question in each case should be what are the most rational sorting criteria, assuming we still feel the need to do sorting at all. In the case of sport, the question should be whether any given individual athlete has undergone the virilizing effects typical of male puberty. If an individual athlete has done so (even as the result of exogenous hormone treatments) then they do not belong in leagues reserved for females.

 

[lionking]

I think it constitutes the single biggest major roadblock to accepting transwomen as women. I think the other major roadblock is participation in sports. Everything else is insignificant compared to those two.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Paul2]

The moment you say, "transwomen are women, except in certain situations", you're calling into question all of the other previously-resolved public policy and social acceptance issues. You've introduced criteria by which transwomen are not women. So if we don't have to recognize them as women for women's sports, why do we have to recognize them as women anywhere else?

But it's those same criteria that allow, enable, and provide for "all of the other previously-resolved public policy and social acceptance issues." Introduction of those criteria do the exact opposite of what you say they do. If the criteria of fairness says that transwomen who have undergone male puberty not be allowed to complete with females in sports (and whether it does or not is not the point right here), it makes no sense to say that fairness requires that we are allowed to not hire transwomen for some job for which they are otherwise qualified, like anyone else.

If you're saying that it's a problem to make distinctions because someone can abuse those distinctions to serve their prejudice, that sacrifices what should be done because some illogical conclusion might be drawn, and that would suffocate any proper social policy.

 

[Louden Wilde]

That's the way I looked at it, looked at it, too, at the start of this thread. But now I see it differently.

The moment you say, "transwomen are women, except in certain situations", you're calling into question all of the other previously-resolved public policy and social acceptance issues. You've introduced criteria by which transwomen are not women. So if we don't have to recognize them as women for women's sports, why do we have to recognize them as women anywhere else?

I'm not saying that "not women when it comes to sports" invalidates every other "settled" context. But it does call all of those contexts back into question. So it's not just about the few remaining "handful of spaces". It's about the implications those spaces have for all the other spaces.

I think that's why some trans-inclusionists are trying to give "female" the same treatment they've already given "woman". And I think that's why some trans-inclusionists are so vehemently opposed to answering questions about that "handful of spaces".

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Well put! This is has has been my evolution as well over the last 1.5 years. At this point, It's hard for me to see a place where TW should be "treated as women" that it isn't already unisex. Unfortunately, I do see a direct line from I prefer she/her pronouns to TW are W, TW are women in the same sense black women are women, TW are female, 'cis'-women are oppressing transwomen, etc.

I honestly don't see how this ideology (which is wrapped up with self-ID) can be compatible with females being safe, having exclusive spaces, activities, representation. I'd be curious to hear strategies - especially from the women and those not-inclined to just sling "TERF" or similar.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Sorry this post has gotten so long. I just wanted to explain my position as a generally liberal but not aware of the full trans situation voter.

Welcome and nice post! What were the things that made you question/critique this current movement? What kind of discussions have you had with others about it?

 

[crazycat]

Welcome and nice post! What were the things that made you question/critique this current movement? What kind of discussions have you had with others about it?

Thank you. What has gone into my viewpoint is mostly what I have read here and the outside references that people have provided. I know only 1 transperson IRL, but only very casually, and don't feel like I could discuss this with them.

I can understand (or think that I understand) other letters in the LGBTQ+ movements. I don't understand why someone would hate or reject their own body so much that they undergo hormone treatment and even surgery, but I accept that such people exist and really do have a problem.

But I can't understand people who claim to be the other gender than their sex, but do nothing about it, not even seeing a doctor for a diagnosis. And refuse to do anything about it other than maybe changing the gender on their driving license. And then expect everyone to treat them as their chosen gender.

If any of you have outside reading that will help me, I'd appreciate suggestions.

It really concerns me to see various organizations that had originally advocated for trans rights, pulling away from supporting the trans agenda. I think trans activists are managing to alienate everyone, including groups that were previously for trans rights. The trans movement seems to be ignoring cis-women's rights and concerns.