Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Emily's Cat]

Again, what "right" are they demanding beyond the right to have opinions about other people. It's probably for the best for the "cotton ceiling" people be open about their strange beliefs to help them find compatible romantic partners.

It strikes me as stupid, but let's not pretend that a small fringe of strangers having opinions about the dating market is something anyone should really care about.

It seems like the lesbians being harassed and coerced might should care. And well, I care about those lesbians too. I care about ANY social movement which seeks to normalize coercive control of females, especially with respect to sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Criminals gonna commit crimes. Some trans people, like all people, are criminals.

Not sure what an anecdote about some trans person committing a crime and being appropriately charged contributes to this conversation.

What exactly should society have done differently to prevent this? A rapist attacked someone on the street. This is already mega illegal. What else do you think can be done?

Are all trans people culpable for the sins of an unabashed rapist who happens to be trans? Are their rights somehow implicated because of this broad daylight crime?

Trans ACTIVISTS are culpable for pushing unquestioned self-declaration with no consideration to the GAPING ******* LOOPHOLE that this provides to malicious males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I trust you have good evidence to suggest that this is a universally held view by those opposed to TERFs.

You've been provided ample and repeated evidence that it is a COMMONLY held view. BBC did an entire show about it. You just ignore it and handwave it away.

At the end of the day, you simply refuse to even consider the actual real life effects of your advocated policies with respect to females. You have made it fairly clear that you do not care about harm done to females, and that you are quite happy to sacrifice females to achieve your goal of allowing transgender identified males to affirm their feelings.

 

[Olmstead]

[...]

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

Blimey.

How about trying to use the same rhetoric with regards to men who think lesbians are misandrist and need to be educated?

It's messed up.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

That sums up my attitude.

Of course there will people so clueless that they don't get the problem, but the fact than an organization like Planned Parenthood would give them the time of day was just bizarre to me.

ETA: But, generally, I think ST has it right. They're fringe and not really a meaningful part of any trans rights debate. At least, they ought to be. Sadly, they are not completely a straw man, because there are people in the trans rights support arena who aren't willing to tell people with cotton ceiling issues that their issues are really ones that they kept out of the rights debate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you disallow transwomen to compete openly because you don't want transwomen competing against female athletes, you'll still have to have some way of figuring out whether an athlete may be a transwoman without telling anyone. You will need testing to know whether they enjoy the advantages of male puberty or whether they enjoy the advantages of just having the physique of a person who is really good at their sport.

In hypothetical world, sure, you're correct. In reality, this is likely to be an extremely rare occurrence. This would affect extraordinarily masculine looking females, in which case it is also ruling out doping. It would otherwise affect males.

What it doesn't affect is the vast majority of females who look like females as a result of their secondary and tertiary sex characteristics.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Blimey.

How about trying to use the same rhetoric with regards to men who think lesbians are misandrist and need to be educated?

It's messed up.

Rhetoric on how internalized biases impact attraction and the how the "conventional beauty standard" is hostile to marginalized groups is extremely common even outside of how this impacts trans people.

There's really nothing novel about discussing how the intense bigotry against trans people that is just in the air we breathe might impact how trans people fare in the dating world. Much discussion about such topics, broadly speaking, occurs in feminist circles. TERFs only get mad when trans people get included.

ETA: An extremely common example discussed is how modern beauty standards routinely are quite hostile to black women in particular. There's no shortage of articles, discussions, and workshops concerning this topic, you just may not notice them because they aren't subject to an intense reactionary backlash like the TERF meltdowns we routinely see.

 

[Olmstead]

Rhetoric on how internalized biases impact attraction and the how the "conventional beauty standard" are hostile to marginalized groups are extremely common even outside of how this impacts trans people.

Wait what?

Are you saying men who think lesbians should consider having sex with them have a point?

 

[Emily's Cat]

...but for all practical purposes discriminating on the basis of sex is banned in some locations.

and explicitly ALLOWED in other locations where it is relevant.

The way I see it, TERFS and other exclusionists insist that sex differences are basically the only thing that matters and gender differences are basically irrelevant. I reject that.

Can you tell us the following:
1) what do you consider to be sex differences?
2) why do you believe that those sex differences are irrelevant?
3) what do you consider to be gender differences?
4) why do you believe that those gender differences are relevant?

 

[Meadmaker]

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

For what it's worth, I almost always support free speech, so in a sense, I do.


When it comes to direct, one on one, interaction, especially in workplaces or other places where "sexual harassment" is a real thing, I would have a problem with it, but no more than any other situation of sexual harassment.

In other words, if they are carrying signs complaining about terfy chicks who won't sleep with them, or making blog posts, or something like that, I would fully respect their right to make themselves look as stupid as they wish. On a personal level, though, they ought to be subject to the same restrictions we all are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Meanwhile, there have been some references to biological women who were excluded

Females who have been excluded have been excluded because they were DOPING.

Some few females with medical conditions that produce unusually masculine characteristics have been questioned and allowed to compete - for example, females with PCOS are overrepresented in the Olympics, but are not barred despite having a higher testosterone level than the majority of females. Note, however, that the highest end of the range of testosterone for a female with PCOS is half the lowest end of the range for a normal male.

Some few males with DSDs have been questioned, tested, and excluded from participation. Caster Semenya, for example.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Wait what?

Are you saying men who think lesbians should consider having sex with them have a point?

No. I have edited my comment to provide more context.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

You seem to be pretty quick to label females as transphobes or TERFs for the slightest fault. I have yet to see you actually refer to any transgender identified male as a homophobe or a misogynist. It would be refreshing if you did so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Fringey perhaps... but it might be... interesting... for you to google "transmaxxing".

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Really? How about you provide some support for your assertions?

You frequently toss out all sorts of nasty, malicious, negative characterizations of females who don't kowtow to gender ideology, but you don't provide any evidence. It's as if you believe that if you repeat it enough times it will become truth.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Maybe like allowing males to declare themselves to be "women" with no diagnosis, no treatment, and no effort at presentation required? Kind of like how that *might* possibly create a gigantic gaping loophole for any mal-intentioned male to gain access to females in vulnerable situations?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm curious, since apparently this is such a huge problem, what exactly was said at this workshop that is so frequently cited. Here it is cited in the infamous BBC article (you know, the one where they had to redact comments from the woman who shortly after advocated lynching trans women).

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385

The title of the workshop was: "Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women", and the description explained how participants would "work together to identify barriers, strategize ways to overcome them, and build community".

What exactly was said at this workshop that is so objectionable? A google search of this finds all the usual TERF pundits having a freakout, but actual quotes or links to materials are suspiciously absent. Surely these reactionaries aren't just reading a title of a workshop and letting their frothy brains run wild...

 

[Olmstead]

Rhetoric on how internalized biases impact attraction and the how the "conventional beauty standard" is hostile to marginalized groups is extremely common even outside of how this impacts trans people.

There's really nothing novel about discussing how the intense bigotry against trans people that is just in the air we breathe might impact how trans people fare in the dating world. Much discussion about such topics, broadly speaking, occurs in feminist circles. TERFs only get mad when trans people get included.

ETA: An extremely common example discussed is how modern beauty standards routinely are quite hostile to black women in particular. There's no shortage of articles, discussions, and workshops concerning this topic, you just may not notice them because they aren't subject to an intense reactionary backlash like the TERF meltdowns we routinely see.

I can explain why a heterosexual man outright refusing to date black women is different from the same man refusing to date other men (although not necessarily racist).

Can you explain why a lesbian outright refusing to date transwomen is different from the same lesbian refusing to date men?


ETA: I also think that black women complaining about this is somewhat misguided and ultimately pointless (you can't address this without addressing the core issue), but that's a different story.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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:



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.

Uh huh.

"Females totally have a right to say no, and no means no, but... well... let's all get together and come up with strategies for how to overcome other people's sexual boundaries that keep them from being interested in having sex with us"

It's no different from an Incel seminar on tactics for overcoming a female's boundaries when they're not interested in having sex. Same approach. You can give lip service to "no means no"... but when the entire premise is that transgender identified males should develop strategies to overcome the objections of lesbians who are not interested in their penises, it rings a bit hollow.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Blimey.

How about trying to use the same rhetoric with regards to men who think lesbians are misandrist and need to be educated?

It's messed up.

It's Incel logic. And it supports the very frequent argument that lesbians are transphobic bigots if they reject penises entirely. Out of one side of their mouths, they support consent. Out of the other side of their mouths, they're harassing and denigrating females who reject their advances and claiming that "genital preferences" or "genital fetishes" are transphobic... and thus, any lesbian that wants nothing to do with their penises are bad people and bigots and not deserving of respect or dignity.