Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Emily's Cat]

I honestly don't recall anyone here expressing any opposition to using someone's preferred pronoun. I know there are people who go out of their way to mock and belittle others for this, but I usually choose to distance myself from people like that. I just consider it poisonous behavior that I'm not going to volunteer to be around.

I think it's a bit... complicated. For the most part, I think it would be polite to use a person's preferred pronouns. And in the vast majority of cases, that would be what I do IRL. But I also have a real serious problem with being OBLIGATED to do so by threat of punishment. And it becomes even more of a problem when the person demanding pronouns of the opposite sex doesn't come anywhere near passing as the opposite sex.

As an example, I would seriously object to someone telling me that I am obligated under penalty to refer to Alex Drummond with female pronouns. That person does NOT look like a female, and it makes it really incredibly difficult to pretend they are - it's a significant disconnect in my mind.

I am, however, content to use neutral terms for EVERYONE. Once it has been made clear that a venue or site defines pronouns on the basis of gender identity, rather than by sex, I will default to neutral terms. I reject gender identity, because I reject gender itself. It's a regressive set of stereotypes that I actively fight against.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When that internal identity is partially based on cultural and social conventions, expectations, ideals, etc. you can see how there is a big gray area between outside perception and self perception.

Sure. Can you see the other side of that coin? When that internal identity is based on cultural and social conventions, expectations, ideals, etc. that have been a consistent barrier to females for eons... can you understand why many people may object to enshrining those stereotypes and using them as the definition of what makes a "woman"? Especially when those stereotypes are leveraged to grant male-bodied people access to spaces where females are particularly vulnerable to sexual predation, abuse, and harm?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

You mean XX in the highlighted - (i.e. adult females as opposed to TW), no ?


I wish I were exaggerating those statements. But we're at a point where our (US) governments touts Rachel Levine as the first female of her rank
(among the many examples of how crazy things have gotten). Questioning this ideology is only met with cries of "bigot", etc. (as we've seen in this thread). As theprestige noted, folks with psychological distress should be treated, not enabled. More broadly, males who prefer activities, etc. currently more associated with females should not be subject to ridicule, have to feel that they are lesser men (or "women") or to change their pronouns.

This is kind of the difficulty I have in understanding what I consider a paradoxical and impossible request from TRAs. On one hand, we are being told that what others think doesn't matter; that the internal identity of the individual as male or female is what's important. Well, I would agree, speaking for myself, that I consider my personal identity is more important than how others characterize me.

But, we are then told that the rest of society is expected to treat this individual as they identify themselves. Now, all of a sudden, all the social factors come into play. But, do I treat them exactly as they want to be treated? As society generally does? What are the expectations of me, and how can I possibly meet them?

I suppose we could try our best to wipe out gender stereotypes altogether, but is that what TGAs really want? It seems to me that their personal identity hinges at least somewhat on societal expectations.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A fursona is a bad analogy because it doesn't result directly from the condition of a person's brain/mind, and there are many reasons for people to adopt one, from the fetishistic to the spiritual. The mechanisms simply aren't comparable, and I'd say it's generally more akin to a subculture.

Besides, there is already a much closer analogy in the case of transableism.

I agree that BIID is a better analogy overall... but I challenge your assertion that the current prevailing view of what the "trans umbrella" covers is necessarily a condition of a person's mind. Some transgender people most certainly do have inherent dysphoria resulting from a disconnect in their brains... but there is a non-trivial number of people who currently identify as transgender as a) a paraphilia, b) a coping mechanism for prior abuse and other mental health conditions, c) an easy explanation for delayed relationship forming among children with neuro-atypical conditions, or d) an escape from an increasingly sexist and regressive society.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Sure. Can you see the other side of that coin? When that internal identity is based on cultural and social conventions, expectations, ideals, etc. that have been a consistent barrier to females for eons... can you understand why many people may object to enshrining those stereotypes and using them as the definition of what makes a "woman"? Especially when those stereotypes are leveraged to grant male-bodied people access to spaces where females are particularly vulnerable to sexual predation, abuse, and harm?

This is pretty much my point, sorry if I didn't communicate it that well.

I've read most of this LONG thread, and the arguments seem to circle around ad infinitum. This definition relies on this argument, which relies on this factor, which is then taken out of context to prove a point, which is then rationalized to uphold the previously mentioned definition, etc. until nobody remembers how it started or exactly where in the circle we are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm pretty sure there are TW that are analogues to both groups. Remember that the not affectionate name among TRAs for people (including fellow Trans-folks) who think that you must have gender dysphoria to qualify is "truscum". And I've seen TRAs posit that other kinks or that fetishes in general are a valid identity and should be more visible.

The expansion of the LGBTQ++++????? umbrella to include any and all kinks and fetishes has recently been expanded to include the ever-so-politely rebranded "MAPs" as a "valid identity".

People with gender dysphoria would benefit from cutting that out from any association with their goals.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My entire view of this topic changes drastically, the moment Stonewall announces that only people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a reputable medical professional qualify for trans accommodation.

100% agree. And with the caveat of requiring actual meaningful evaluation prior to issuing that diagnosis, all of the "gender critical" or "radical feminist" or "anti-self-ID" or "sex matters" females that I know or interact with would be on board with that benchmark.

The problem has pretty much NEVER been about transgender people, nor about reasonable accommodations for people with significant gender dysphoria. The problem is about self-declaration of subjective gender identity being held as more valid than the objective reality of sex.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I am, however, content to use neutral terms for EVERYONE. Once it has been made clear that a venue or site defines pronouns on the basis of gender identity, rather than by sex, I will default to neutral terms. I reject gender identity, because I reject gender itself. It's a regressive set of stereotypes that I actively fight against.

This is the point where I usually get annoyed when people tell what the "right" way to think is.

I'm willing to take gender out of the equation completely, if someone else wants to, but you can't first tell me that gender is important, and then tell me that how I define gender is unimportant. That seems to be a rather arrogant and condescending attitude.

By "you" I'm referring to the people who think I should somehow magically see someone as a woman just because someone else decided to change all the definitions.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is pretty much my point, sorry if I didn't communicate it that well.

I've read most of this LONG thread, and the arguments seem to circle around ad infinitum. This definition relies on this argument, which relies on this factor, which is then taken out of context to prove a point, which is then rationalized to uphold the previously mentioned definition, etc. until nobody remembers how it started or exactly where in the circle we are.

Very true. There's been some shifting here and there, and it's not a topic I'm willing to be silent on so... I'm still here.

To borrow a phrase from my female siblings across the pond... "Women won't wheesht".

 

[TurkeysGhost]

ETA: I realise that from a practical point of view, there might not be much difference if there is never a requirement for a diagnosis, but there are many legitimate reasons why people wouldn't want to involve doctors.

The most obvious being that gatekeeping access to such medical care is a very common way to install intentional hurdles for trans people to get officially recognized status.

Average wait times for gender affirming care such a diagnosis for gender dysphoria, surgery, or hormone prescriptions, a necessary component of official recognition in the UK, is measured in years.

Requiring a diagnosis of dysphoria might make sense in the abstract, but only if you are willfully blind to the reality of how inaccessible this medical care often is to trans people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The most obvious being that gatekeeping access to such medical care is a very common way to install intentional hurdles for trans people to get officially recognized status.

Average wait times for gender affirming care such a diagnosis for gender dysphoria, surgery, or hormone prescriptions, a necessary component of official recognition in the UK, is measured in years.

Requiring a diagnosis of dysphoria might make sense in the abstract, but only if you are willfully blind to the reality of how inaccessible this medical care often is to trans people.

That's an excellent argument for increasing services and addressing gaps in medical coverage.

It's not a very good argument for removing any requirement for a diagnosis and managed treatment altogether.

 

[JihadJane]

The most obvious being that gatekeeping access to such medical care is a very common way to install intentional hurdles for trans people to get officially recognized status.

Average wait times for gender affirming care such a diagnosis for gender dysphoria, surgery, or hormone prescriptions, a necessary component of official recognition in the UK, is measured in years.

Requiring a diagnosis of dysphoria might make sense in the abstract, but only if you are willfully blind to the reality of how inaccessible this medical care often is to trans people.

Maybe long waiting times for "gender affirming care" are a blessing, allowing more chance for people who will come to accept their sex to avoid lifelong medication and possible surgery, both of which can be harmful.

 

[Aber]

Perhaps some of those who are ignorant of this point might help themselves by considering homosexuals: gay people have an innate internal identity in which they find themselves sexually attracted by people of the same sex as them.

Not according to Stonewall:

​Homosexual
This might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender.

 

[d4m10n]

Not according to Stonewall:

It's tough out there for the lunagender homosexuals. [emoji287]

 

[Elaedith]

It's tough out there for the lunagender homosexuals. [emoji287]

Even worse for the nominalgender ones.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Even worse for the nominalgender ones.

At some point this really starts seeming like D&D without a Dungeon Master.

 

[LondonJohn]

Haha remember when there were earnest proclamations in this thread along the lines of "I totally respect transgender identity and I totally support transgender rights, except for when it comes to this one discrete matter of transwomen in women's safe spaces"?

Well..... the curtain was bound to drop sooner or later, huh?

 

[theprestige]

At some point this really starts seeming like D&D without a Dungeon Master.

That moment when you realize all of society is just one big game of Calvinball (or Nomic, if you're feeling unusual amounts of goodwill towards your fellow man).

 

[d4m10n]

Well..... the curtain was bound to drop sooner or later, huh?

It certainly was.

Now we can all see plainly that you think it's acceptable to compare these (obviously made-up) bespoke genders to the medically recognized diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

 

[Puppycow]

So I guess nobody has a problem with a transgender man playing on a women's soccer team:

Transgender footballer Kumi Yokoyama marries girlfriend in U.S.

Kumi Yokoyama, a U.S.-based Japanese footballer who publicly came out a transgender man in June, revealed Tuesday on Instagram they married their girlfriend.

The 28-year-old Washington Spirit forward posted photos showing the couple holding a marriage license with a caption that read "I'm sharing personal news today that I've registered my marriage in the United States."

Yokoyama, who according to the team prefers the "they" pronoun, goes on to explain that same-sex marriage is not recognized in Japan, but they want to advocate for the social and legal recognition of same-sex marriages in their homeland through their own relationship.

Yokoyama, who also plays for the national team, came out while making an appearance on former teammate Yuki Nagasato's YouTube channel and expressed a desire to someday quit soccer and "live as a man," becoming one of Japan's most visible LGBTQ athletes.

Last month, Yokoyama posted several pictures of the on-field proposal made to partner, Nami, on Instagram.

Yokoyama represented Japan in the 2019 women's World Cup. The player moved from Japanese club AC Nagano Parceiro to the NWSL's Washington Spirit in December 2019.

I have no problem with this myself, if they don't. If they are taking male hormones though, wouldn't that be a kind of performance-enhancing drug? I think the main objection is typically over males who identify as women participating in women's sports, as having a male body is an advantage in most sports.