Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
Sometimes I wonder if the people who trot out the analogy really support trans people in any meaningful way. The differences in the situations are so obvious that they can't be missed. If someone can't see that, are they really trying to achieve an effective solution that values all people, or are they just repeating slogans?

ETA:. Similarly for every variation on, "Why don't you ever talk about transmen?" Anyone with a basic grasp of the actual issue understands why the focus is on transwomen more often than not. Bringing it up just demonstrates poor comprehension and obsession with some sort of "equality", without any understanding of why equality is often a worthy goal, but sometimes is not .
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that a opinion poll of the general public has its moral limitations. People's perception of most things, including safety and modesty, can easily be influenced by prejudice.
 
p0lka said:
Cis women have been known to pretend to be male and deceive for sexual gratification in the past,
I don't think your implicit trust is warranted.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
There is a dramatic asymmetry in the frequency and impact of male sexual assault/rape on females than of females on males.
 
p0lka said:
I agree.
The implicit trust in the blanket statement I replied to is still not warranted though.
Click to expand...

It's not an implicit trust. It's an implicit deferral of a less-serious issue that will anyway be largely addressed by whatever conclusions you reach on the more-serious issue. Repeatedly stalling out on the deferral starts to look like intentional fringe reset after a short while.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I was just pointing out that a opinion poll of the general public has its moral limitations. People's perception of most things, including safety and modesty, can easily be influenced by prejudice.
Click to expand...


You are affirming the consequent.

If women are prejudiced against transwomen, they will want to keep transwomen out of the locker rooms.
Women want transwomen out of the locker rooms.

Therefore, women are prejudiced.

QED

ETA: Well, wait. You didn't say it was influence by prejudice. You just said that it "can easily be" influenced by prejudice. Well, whatever. It might not be. In fact, I don't think it is. If you take a stand, we can discuss it.

For my part, my resoning is:

Most women want males out of their locker rooms.
Transwomen are males.

Therefore most women want transwomen out of their locker rooms.

If you can convince me that the first premise above is false, i.e. by proving that women will accept some men in their locker rooms, I'll go along.

I would also entertain arguments of this form.

Women want cis-men out of their locker rooms because of X.
Women want transwomen out of their locker rooms because of Y.
Reason Y is not legitimate.
Therefore, transwomen should be allowed in despite women's opposition.

If you can convince me that X and Y are not equal, I'll consider supporting transwomen in their opposition to most women's opinion. I just don't see how you can do that. I think X and Y are equal. On the other hand, if a poll of women showed support for sharing locker rooms with transwomen, then the entire premise would become false, regardless of the value of Y.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
You are affirming the consequent.

If women are prejudiced against transwomen, they will want to keep transwomen out of the locker rooms.
Women want transwomen out of the locker rooms.

Therefore, women are prejudiced.

QED

ETA: Well, wait. You didn't say it was influence by prejudice. You just said that it "can easily be" influenced by prejudice. Well, whatever. It might not be. In fact, I don't think it is. If you take a stand, we can discuss it.

For my part, my resoning is:

Most women want males out of their locker rooms.
Transwomen are males.

Therefore most women want transwomen out of their locker rooms.

If you can convince me that the first premise above is false, i.e. by proving that women will accept some men in their locker rooms, I'll go along.

I would also entertain arguments of this form.

Women want cis-men out of their locker rooms because of X.
Women want transwomen out of their locker rooms because of Y.
Reason Y is not legitimate.
Therefore, transwomen should be allowed in despite women's opposition.

If you can convince me that X and Y are not equal, I'll consider supporting transwomen in their opposition to most women's opinion. I just don't see how you can do that. I think X and Y are equal. On the other hand, if a poll of women showed support for sharing locker rooms with transwomen, then the entire premise would become false, regardless of the value of Y.
Click to expand...

Women are not a monolith. Some are indeed quite bigoted. Many are not. Polling generally shows that women are far more accepting of queer people, including trans people, than men.

I imagine concerns for privacy and safety are largely not rooted in anti-trans animus, especially when it comes to the most sensitive contexts like locker rooms.

I caution against those that would hold up these reservations as proof that women, as a monolith, demand trans exclusion as the only possible solution. I imagine many would be open to, or even prefer, solutions that actively provide personal privacy and bodily autonomy rather than gatekeeping gender-segregated spaces.

It strikes me that this issue is often framed as a false choice between maintaining the status quo or allowing trans women into these spaces without any other changes. Concerns about personal privacy and safety are legitimate, and trans-exclusion is not the only or even most effective way to meet those needs.

That's why I was brining up the examples of unused school showers before. The status quo is already broken. Without authority figures compelling people to accept sex-segregated communal nudity, there is a very clear preference being demonstrated. People want individual privacy.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Women are not a monolith. Some are indeed quite bigoted. Many are not. Polling generally shows that women are far more accepting of queer people, including trans people, than men.

I imagine concerns for privacy and safety are largely not rooted in anti-trans animus, especially when it comes to the most sensitive contexts like locker rooms.

I caution against those that would hold up these reservations as proof that women, as a monolith, demand trans exclusion as the only possible solution. I imagine many would be open to, or even prefer, solutions that actively provide personal privacy and bodily autonomy rather than gatekeeping gender-segregated spaces.

It strikes me that this issue is often framed as a false choice between maintaining the status quo or allowing trans women into these spaces without any other changes. Concerns about personal privacy and safety are legitimate, and trans-exclusion is not the only or even most effective way to meet those needs.

That's why I was brining up the examples of unused school showers before. The status quo is already broken. Without authority figures compelling people to accept sex-segregated communal nudity, there is a very clear preference being demonstrated. People want individual privacy.
Click to expand...

Certainly women are not a monolith. That's why I threw in "most".

There will never be complete agreement from everyone, or from all women.

As for individual privacy, we know, and have always known, that people want it. Are they willing to pay for it? Also, when it comes to school showers, those authority figures used to also compel people toward a lot more physical activity than they do now. Come to think of it, they compelled people toward a lot more things in general than they do now. Things have changed, and continue to change. Some of the changes are good. Others are good for some people, not so good for others. Some are good in the short term, not so good long term.

Regardless, whatever changes are proposed, I'll support women's right to female only spaces as long as most of them want it that way. If there's some other work around that makes those spaces unnecessary, that's cool, too.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Women are not a monolith. Some are indeed quite bigoted. Many are not. Polling generally shows that women are far more accepting of queer people, including trans people, than men.
Click to expand...

When women are made aware that most trans "women" retain their male genitalia, the majority, unsurprisingly (to the ideologically unblinkered, at least) say NO THANKS to mixed-sex changing rooms and showers. This has nothing to do with bigotry.

Entitlement and outrage at feeling excluded from things one has no right to be included in, are two major hallmarks of narcissism.
 
Last edited:
p0lka said:
Cis women have been known to pretend to be male and deceive for sexual gratification in the past,
I don't think your implicit trust is warranted.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. On the other hand, not only is there an asymmetry in frequency, there is also a massive asymmetry in the consequences of such trust being misplaced. A woman who gets off watching naked men in the locker room is very unlikely to pose a physical threat to any of them. It's really not something men need to worry about.

And as I've said before, it's not that female sexual predators don't exist. They do (for example, teachers having sex with minor students). But the patterns aren't the same.
 
JihadJane said:
When women are made aware that most trans "women" retain their male genitalia, the majority, unsurprisingly (to the ideologically unblinkered, at least) say NO THANKS to mixed-sex changing rooms and showers. This has nothing to do with bigotry.

Entitlement and outrage at feeling excluded from things one has no right to be included in, are two major hallmarks of narcissism.
Click to expand...

Very well said. But be prepared for the “some authorities in some countries think that male people with penises should be allowed in female locker rooms, so this should happen” argument. This, of course, is not an argument at all, but it keeps getting trotted out.
 
TomB said:
I think the majority of the concerns of trans men having access to the women's spaces have little to do with trans people and more to do with cis people abusing loopholes that may be created.
Click to expand...

That... and also the subset of transgender identified males who are autogynephiles, and who use those spaces to feed their sexual fetish.

Not all transgender identified males are AGP... but some portion of them are. And it's intensely disconcerting and frightening to be a female who finds themself being forced into participation in someone else's fetish against their will.
 
Meadmaker said:
In one situation, group A objected to sharing a bathroom with group B.

Although group A's objection had been accommodated for a long time, at some point society at large evaluated the objections and decided that those objections should no longer be accommodated.

Therefore, any time any group objects to sharing a bathroom with a different group, the first group's objections should be ignored.

QED.
Click to expand...

Young children shouldn't be allowed to object to adult male sex offenders using their restrooms with them because of racism!
 
Abooga said:
You ere arguing that females objecting to undressing in front of males is the same as whites objecting to be in a state of partial undress in front of blacks. Do you really think that´s similar? Do you think that a girl feeling uncomfortable if naked in front of a guy is like racism? Seriously?
Click to expand...
Yes, he seems to really actually believe that. Because females who don't kowtow to the wishes of males who declare themselves to be transgender are all hysterical whiny TERF bitches and bigots, clearly. No proper female would dare to countermand the desires of males, proper females would know that the desires of males are far more important than the dignity and safety of mere females.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom