Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[TurkeysGhost]

I have to agree, mostly, with SuburbanTurkey on this one.

The cotton ceiling whiners are fringe weirdos not to be taken seriously. The reason I have to say "mostly" is that it's unfortunate that an awful lot of TRAs won't come out and say that. When I first heard about the term, I assumed it was actually some sort of bogeyman invented, or at least magnified, by anti-trans activists. I was appalled to find out that I was wrong. These people are actually taken seriously in writings from the LGBTQetc+ community, which is unfortunate.

It's important to distinguish that, whether your find them convincing or not, "cotton ceiling" complaints are mostly a cultural/social critique and not a civil rights issue. No law is going to be written to compel people to date trans people.

Some people may claim that a blanket refusal to date trans people is bigoted or whatever, but that's just life in the free market of ideas. Get a thicker skin.

 

[Meadmaker]

Have you been reading this thread? There was a case just linked in my city where a transwoman was jailed for raping a woman.

Rape is not going to be legalised, but to deny that transwomen are not a threat to women is idiocy.

And my take on that would be to emphasize that it's not that transwomen pose some sort of special, unique, threat. It's just that they are generally larger than women, and they have penises. Whehter such a person is called a man, woman, or otherkin really doesn't matter. They can, and in some cases do, still commit rape.

Which means that a lot of women quite understandably aren't keen to take their clothes off when one of those people is looking.

 

[d4m10n]

Sure, if all the participating countries accurately kept such records and none of them had any incentive to forge them...

We have an easy and non-invasive way to filter out folks like Lia Thomas, Rachel McKinnon, and Laurel Hubbard (who ought to compete freely in open leagues rather than leagues set aside for females) but that method might possibly lead to document forgery by parties unknown and unnamed at some unspecified point in the future.

 

[TomB]

It's important to distinguish that, whether your find them convincing or not, "cotton ceiling" complaints are mostly a cultural/social critique and not a civil rights issue. No law is going to be written to compel people to date trans people.

Some people may claim that a blanket refusal to date trans people is bigoted or whatever, but that's just life in the free market of ideas. Get a thicker skin.

And some may point out that calling a lesbian who is not interested in trans women bigoted is also bigotry: homophobic and misogynistic.

 

[Earthborn]

Or, we could just do what we do now, which isn't particularly invasive or involuntary.

What the Olympics do now is what you object to: allow transwomen to compete as long as they have low enough testosterone levels.

Meanwhile, there have been some references to biological women who were excluded, and I wish the references weren't so oblique. If that has happened, I'd kind of like to understand what's going on, but I can't do that without more information.

Before the chromosome tests were abolished in 2000, it was mainly XY women with androgen insensitivity (biological women by Rolfe's favourite definition) who were excluded. They don't have high testosterone, but still may have a bit of an athletic advantage over other women. The chromosome tests were originally intended to replace genital inspections, but those still happened.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And some may point out that calling a lesbian who is not interested in trans women bigoted is also bigotry: homophobic and misogynistic.

That's where I tend to land too, more or less. Not really sure why the dating policies of strangers is really my business, and I don't really see these "cotton ceiling" arguments having much success with a broader audience.

 

[TomB]

It's important to distinguish that, whether your find them convincing or not, "cotton ceiling" complaints are mostly a cultural/social critique and not a civil rights issue. No law is going to be written to compel people to date trans people.

Some people may claim that a blanket refusal to date trans people is bigoted or whatever, but that's just life in the free market of ideas. Get a thicker skin.

I think the major point regarding the "cotton ceiling" is that TRAs tend not to disavow those views. They would rather ignore them. Maybe because it opens the door to the idea that, in some cases, there is a difference between cis and trans women.

I can somewhat understand that from a slippery slope perspective, but I still think its a mistake. The result of this mistake is that when lesbians push back on this they are labelled "TERF," as if they are against trans rights and the TRA side appears to be mostly silent about this mischaracterization. Which snowballs into pushing a group who would likely be allies in the opposite direction.

It's not a civil rights issue, but some advocates frame it that way by using terms like TERF, bigot, transphobe, etc. It's a lot like incels who seem to think that sex with women is their right.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think the major point regarding the "cotton ceiling" is that TRAs tend not to disavow those views. They would rather ignore them. Maybe because it opens the door to the idea that, in some cases, there is a difference between cis and trans women.

I can somewhat understand that from a slippery slope perspective, but I still think its a mistake. The result of this mistake is that when lesbians push back on this they are labelled "TERF," as if they are against trans rights and the TRA side appears to be mostly silent about this mischaracterization. Which snowballs into pushing a group who would likely be allies in the opposite direction.

It's not a civil rights issue, but some advocates frame it that way by using terms like TERF, bigot, transphobe, etc. It's a lot like incels who seem to think that sex with women is their right.

I very much doubt that trans activists universally subscribe the most extreme forms of "cotton ceiling" arguments as TERFS claim. TERFs are notorious for their strawmanning and smears.

Feel free to cite something to show this is some broadly accepted notion.

 

[TomB]

I very much doubt that trans activists universally subscribe the most extreme forms of "cotton ceiling" arguments as TERFS claim. TERFs are notorious for their strawmanning and smears.

Feel free to cite something to show this is some broadly accepted notion.

I didn't mean to imply that they did. What I'm referring to is their apparent failure to support lesbians who push back. Silence can be interpreted as tacit approval.

Let me give an unrelated analogy:

A politician in the Republican party does something bad...I don't know, makes a joke about an Islamic representative being a terrorist. A few Republicans condemn her, but most are silent and make no move to reprimand her for those comments. This says what about Republicans?

Contrast that with:

A Democratic congressman makes a childish and sexist joke picture involving a colleague. When it comes to light, the issue is sent to the ethics committee. a move supported by his own party. Leaders of his own party pressure him into resignation. This says what about Democrats?

Can you see my point?
The larger group can be tainted by the actions of a few members, particularly if the larger group remains silent.

And both sides are adept at strawmanning and smears. (The term TERF, as commonly used, is a smear. It is certainly a smear when applied to lesbians who object to being pressured into sex.)

 

[Meadmaker]

What the Olympics do now is what you object to: allow transwomen to compete as long as they have low enough testosterone levels.

You just moved some goalposts there. The subject was not who should be allowed to compete, but how we would test. The tests aren't invasive. They're not a big deal.

Before the chromosome tests were abolished in 2000, it was mainly XY women with androgen insensitivity (biological women by Rolfe's favourite definition) who were excluded. They don't have high testosterone, but still may have a bit of an athletic advantage over other women. The chromosome tests were originally intended to replace genital inspections, but those still happened.

So, they fixed that problem, eh? Good. Glad we cleared that up.

As I said, I don't have the medical expertise to say exactly what should be done in each and every case, and there's some controversy on some of the edge cases. In some cases, it's the science or technology itself that's evolving.

But it's all a red herring. Yes, the questions related to rare biological or genetic conditions need to be considered and people with knowledge of those realms need to weigh in on it.

And that ain't got nothing to do with Lia Thomas and the new US record for the 500 yard swim, or whether or not Laurel Hubbard should have taken one of the 12 spots available for women's weightlifters at the Tokyo Olympics. Nothing, zero, nada.

And you know that.

 

[Earthborn]

... but that method might possibly lead to document forgery by parties unknown and unnamed at some unspecified point in the future.

If you want to create a rule against what you consider cheating, it seems kind of important to make sure you don't make cheating easier. Especially considering that already have been state-sponsored cheating programmes.

Or maybe you could try organising sporting events without such huge commercial or political incentives to cheat. You know, events that are just for fun.

 

[Meadmaker]

I didn't mean to imply that they did. What I'm referring to is their apparent failure to support lesbians who push back. Silence can be interpreted as tacit approval.

Let me give an unrelated analogy:

A politician in the Republican party does something bad...I don't know, makes a joke about an Islamic representative being a terrorist. A few Republicans condemn her, but most are silent and make no move to reprimand her for those comments. This says what about Republicans?

Contrast that with:

A Democratic congressman makes a childish and sexist joke picture involving a colleague. When it comes to light, the issue is sent to the ethics committee. a move supported by his own party. Leaders of his own party pressure him into resignation. This says what about Democrats?

Can you see my point?
The larger group can be tainted by the actions of a few members, particularly if the larger group remains silent.

And both sides are adept at strawmanning and smears. (The term TERF, as commonly used, is a smear. It is certainly a smear when applied to lesbians who object to being pressured into sex.)

This brings up something I was going to comment on, so I will.

When it comes to the "cotton ceiling" stuff, there's a real simple answer.

It's dumb as hell, and everyone should sneer with derision at the idea.

The fact that they don't is a further illustration of the hyper-partisanship in our society today. They may be saying some incredibly stupid, really goofy, stuff, that no one can take seriously, but they are on our team so our team spokesmen stay quiet or even, in many cases, go along with it.

And that isn't just US Republicans and Democrats. I mean "partisanship" in the broader sense. The tendency to divide into two camps. So the "parties" in this case are the trans rights activist communities, versus everyone else.

 

[Meadmaker]

If you want to create a rule against what you consider cheating, it seems kind of important to make sure you don't make cheating easier. Especially considering that already have been state-sponsored cheating programmes.

Or maybe you could try organising sporting events without such huge commercial or political incentives to cheat. You know, events that are just for fun.

Look over there! ===========>

Or over there! <===========

Or anywhere but the 500 pound gorilla in the room.

She calls herself Laurel these days.

 

[Earthborn]

You just moved some goalposts there. The subject was not who should be allowed to compete, but how we would test.

What sort of tests are used depends on who is allowed and who is excluded from the competition.

So, they fixed that problem, eh? Good.

Took them long enough. And they fixed the problem by opening up the issue you consider to be a problem.

And that ain't got nothing to do with Lia Thomas and the new US record for the 500 yard swim, or whether or not Laurel Hubbard should have taken one of the 12 spots available for women's weightlifters at the Tokyo Olympics. Nothing, zero, nada.

The end of sex tests inevitably led to the issue of whether or not transsexuals would be allowed to participate. The tests were instituted to exclude them, abolishing the tests opened the door to include them.

 

[d4m10n]

If you want to create a rule against what you consider cheating, it seems kind of important to make sure you don't make cheating easier.

Easier than which extant testing regime? AMAB athletes are currently competing in formerly female leagues.

 

[Meadmaker]

What sort of tests are used depends on who is allowed and who is excluded from the competition.

Took them long enough. And they fixed the problem by opening up the issue you consider to be a problem.

The end of sex tests inevitably led to the issue of whether or not transsexuals would be allowed to participate. The tests were instituted to exclude them, abolishing the tests opened the door to include them.

Hogwash.

And this is just getting annoying.

How about you just address the real issue?

Should biological males be allowed to compete in divisions labeled, "women".

Possible answers are

1) Yes, if they declare that they are women.
2) Yes, but only if they have undertaken medical procedures that tend to make them more like women.
3) Yes, but only if they undertake medical procedures, and those procedures have, in the best opinion available to modern medicine, removed the male advantage.
4) No.

And there are other variations on answers, such as "No at the elite level, but yes at high school level."

My answer is 3, but I have serious questions about whether it is actually possible to safely do so. Therefore, in practice, my answer might end up being 4.

Oh, and the exact same question can be asked for "girls" instead of "women".

That's the real question. It's not about nationalism or money or rare genetic conditions or cheating with hormones and banned subpplements. Right now, in the USA, an awful lot of people say either 1 or 2, with the result that girls/women's records are being "scorched" by people who obviously have major male characteristics which make them impossible to beat, with the possible exception of a handful of women who are Olympic level athletes.

And I'm sure these issues are coming up in The Netherlands and Europe as well. High School sports may not be a thing in The Netherlands, but I'm confident that there are oganized sporting competitions for young people, and that those competitions have girls' and boys' divisions.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I didn't mean to imply that they did. What I'm referring to is their apparent failure to support lesbians who push back. Silence can be interpreted as tacit approval.

Let me give an unrelated analogy:

A politician in the Republican party does something bad...I don't know, makes a joke about an Islamic representative being a terrorist. A few Republicans condemn her, but most are silent and make no move to reprimand her for those comments. This says what about Republicans?

Contrast that with:

A Democratic congressman makes a childish and sexist joke picture involving a colleague. When it comes to light, the issue is sent to the ethics committee. a move supported by his own party. Leaders of his own party pressure him into resignation. This says what about Democrats?

Can you see my point?
The larger group can be tainted by the actions of a few members, particularly if the larger group remains silent.

And both sides are adept at strawmanning and smears. (The term TERF, as commonly used, is a smear. It is certainly a smear when applied to lesbians who object to being pressured into sex.)

Are they silent on these issues? Perhaps I missed a citation here showing this rather than just naked assertion by TERFs.

Seems to me groups like Stonewall have pretty unwavering stances on issues of bodily autonomy and the importance of consent.

Is it like you say, or is it anti-trans people desperately cherry picking the most fringe voices in an attempt to create strawmen?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Imagine naming the fact that lesbians don't want to suck your cock after the wage gap

It's so rapey. The first time I heard it I thought it was satire. I was floored when I found it wasn't, and appalled when I found that Planned Parenthood had held conferences for transwomen on the topic of "Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling". I mean, just so much no.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trans people have every right in that regard already too. They can trash talk people who refuse to date them, as ridiculous at that may seem to others.

Surely you're not conflating "cotton ceiling" talk with some deranged view that trans people demand a right to compel others to sleep with them against their will. That would be a ridiculous strawman.

How big a distinction do you draw between that and say... belittling, emotionally coercing, and harassing people as bigoted transphobes for not wanting to have sex with their "ladydicks"?

Do you regularly support the right of males to harass, demean, and denigrate females who refuse to have sex with them?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's so rapey. The first time I heard it I thought it was satire. I was floored when I found it wasn't, and appalled when I found that Planned Parenthood had held conferences for transwomen on the topic of "Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling". I mean, just so much no.

Tell me, did the planned parenthood talk encourage people to make such demands or be abusive?

This is exactly my point about strawmen.

Here's what Planned parenthood Toronto has to say about their program:

The purpose of the workshop “Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women” is to draw attention to the ways in which trans women are socially constructed as undesirable, and are denied full participation in queer women’s communities. Stigma and social exclusion can have immense impacts on the health and well-being of all marginalized people, trans women included. PPT’s mandate is one of equity; as such, we strongly stand behind queer trans women’s right to participate as full members of LGBTQ communities, and are committed to promoting and upholding trans women’s sexual health and well-being. Our programming for LGBTQ women serves all women who have sex with women (WSW), and since trans women are women, we provide programming that addresses the needs of the lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, and queer-identified trans women in our community.

The issue of sexual consent is absolutely paramount at our organization. We believe that all people have the right to say “no” to sex and to exercise other forms of control over their bodies. The workshop does not and was never intended to advocate or promote overcoming any individual woman’s objections to sexual activity. Instead, this workshop explores the ways in which ideologies of transphobia and transmisogyny impact sexual desire.

https://www.facebook.com/PPToronto/posts/in-january-of-2012-planned-parenthood-toronto-in-partnership-with-other-local-pr/10150615471958021/

The strawmen abound.

There's miles of difference between this kind of program and "suck my ladydick", but TERFs aren't interest in nuance or intellectual honesty.