• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roboramma said:
I really didn't think we'd get to the point where even JoeMorgue thinks that calling trans women female* is legitimate, but here we are.

*I don't agree with redefining "woman" to refer to gender rather than sex, I don't even think doing so is coherent, but at least it's not as blatantly anti-science as the move to redefine "female". When Boudicca tried it earlier in the thread everyone seemed to see how clearly wrong that was, but now somehow even Joe, who seems to legitimately not be taking a side here, thinks that there's a legitimate debate about the meaning of the word female.
Click to expand...

I've mostly bowed out but I don't know how to say my point any differently anymore.

"Debates about words" are always weird for me... well because they are words. They only work when we all vaguely agree on the broad outlines of what words mean and when discussion degrade into throwing the dictionary back and forth the discussion is both dead and literally never come back.

My issue has been both sides (one more than the other but both) putting on a big showy and rather droll act of pretending like they can't understand the other side is using the terminology different even though it is obvious, as if just the base acknowledgement that one side is saying something different and arguing what they actually saying instead of how you want things defined is some sort of cardinal sin.

Again this is one side shouting "I have four fingers and a thumb!" and the other one shouting "No you have five fingers!" and every few pages they both go "Stop recount your fingers!" and they both get the same answer and nothing changes and they keep acting like there is any real disagreement about how many digits are on a hand.
 
LondonJohn said:
*** Even though, ironically, it's the Conservative (or Conservative-led) governments of the past 10 years which have led the introduction of new legislation to grant rights and protections to transgender people.
Click to expand...

Citation required.
 
I’ve mentioned contact sports before, but nobody seems to care about the safety of ciswomen athletes.

I looked to the Australian Football League policy, and see that testosterone levels are only monitored at the highest level. Self ID is sufficient everywhere else. Also non binary can select where to play.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...d-from-grass-roots-comps-20201001-p5611r.html

The policy has this clause:

They can also "not be excluded from participation in community football competitions for reasons of relevant competitive advantage over cisgender players in the competition," the policy reads.
Click to expand...

So just suck it up ciswomen. Get comfortably beaten and hurt by male bodies week in and week out. You should be proud to sacrifice your enjoyment and even safety so that some selfish transwomen can enjoy easy victories.

And let me assure anyone who is wondering, sub-elite AFL is a heavy collision sport.
 
For information, here's the actual question from the survey LondonJohn referred to:

Some transgender people have gender reassignment surgery. This is surgery by
which a transgender person's physical attributes are altered to match the gender
they identify with (e.g. breast and genital surgery).
Do you think a transgender woman who has not had gender reassignment
surgery should or should not be allowed to...
Use women's changing rooms?

Among 18-24 year olds, the answers were:

Should be allowed: 40%
Should not be allowed: 31%
Don't know: 29%

Older age groups showed progressively more "should not be allowed", and fewer "should be allowed", as one might expect.



I invite people within this thread to draw their own conclusions from the survey.......

including the "intellectual honesty" of statements such as
You may notice that 18-24yr olds (YouGov does not survey people under the age of 18**) have clearly the most progressive attitude: there's strong support for most transgender rights - including allowing transwomen/transgirls to use women's bathrooms and changing rooms.
Click to expand...

ETA: When asked about transgenders in general, with no specific statement about gender reassognment surgery, the "strong support" rockets up to 54% of 18-24 year olds.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
For information, here's the actual question from the survey LondonJohn referred to:

Some transgender people have gender reassignment surgery. This is surgery by
which a transgender person's physical attributes are altered to match the gender
they identify with (e.g. breast and genital surgery).
Do you think a transgender woman who has not had gender reassignment
surgery should or should not be allowed to...
Use women's changing rooms?

Among 18-24 year olds, the answers were:

Should be allowed: 40%
Should not be allowed: 31%
Don't know: 29%

Older age groups showed progressively more "should not be allowed", and fewer "should be allowed", as one might expect.



I invite people within this thread to draw their own conclusions from the survey.......

including the "intellectual honesty" of statements such as

ETA: When asked about transgenders in general, with no specific statement about gender reassognment surgery, the "strong support" rockets up to 54% of 18-24 year olds.
Click to expand...
These parts of the discussion remind me of my freshman year of college. Nuclear Engineering 100 (I was a Nuc E major at the time). One of the suggested books for the class was "How to Lie With Statistics." The big takeaway from the book was that statistics, charts, graphs, etc. should be looked at critically, because the same data can often be presented to support opposite conclusions.

Similarly, you can't read the abstract and conclusions of a study or paper. It takes a deeper dive.
 
TomB said:
These parts of the discussion remind me of my freshman year of college. Nuclear Engineering 100 (I was a Nuc E major at the time). One of the suggested books for the class was "How to Lie With Statistics." The big takeaway from the book was that statistics, charts, graphs, etc. should be looked at critically, because the same data can often be presented to support opposite conclusions.

Similarly, you can't read the abstract and conclusions of a study or paper. It takes a deeper dive.
Click to expand...

The "lying with statistics" aspect doesn't bother me. Everyone spins data. That's pretty normal. That's why people write books about it, and Nuclear Engineering professors recommend the books. No biggie.

What bothers me is this crap:

LondonJohn said:
Ah, very well done in your dishonest misrepresentation.

What you've quoted there refers to the aggregate of the entire set of responses. Which includes people like you.

But in fact, I was very specifically and explicitly talking about the attitudes of younger people (perhaps you failed to remember that in your dishonesty?).

So I invite you to look more closely at the column labelled "18-24yr olds". And not to include the (irrelevant, in this context) right-hand columns representing the likes of you. For obvious reasons.

How embarrassing. And how intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

It's the constant stream of insults and condescension, that isn't even correct, from this poster. We see it over and over and over. It's a constant drumbeat. Oh, well.

Do you suppose he'll actually acknowledge that I did indeed look closely at the column labelled "18-24 year ods", and posted the data from that specific column, demonstrating that perhaps the actual data from that column isn't quite as strong as his presentation made it out to be? Or will he acknowledge that the bold faced quote that prompted his accusations of dishonesty actually did apply to 18-24 year olds as well as to the population at large? I won't hold my breath.



When it comes to the survey itself, it does indeed show that young people are more accepting than other age groups. None of the other age groups had 40% acceptance of uncut transwomen using female changing rooms, so that could suggest a trend for the future. If the "don't know" vote breaks in a particular direction, that would be enough to create a solid majority in the direction it breaks. Feel free to read that into the data. It might be there. Just don't say that this is settled public opinion.

Most importantly, I wish he would cut out the charges of "dishonesty" , and all the other insults, for people who disagree. It's highly unpleasant. Of course, that's just my opinion, so I assume we will continue to see more of the same.

ETA: And, to John specifically, if you think I've misunderstood that data, just say so. I think that when 54% of young people answered "should be allowed" to the general question of transwomen access, but only 40% answered "should be allowed", when untransitioned transwomen were specified, that supports exactly what the bold faced quote says. I think that quote was true across all age groups, including young people. If you think I've made a mistake, feel free to point it out. All I'm asking is that your argument be based on the data, and not on my character.
 
Last edited:
Also young people are less mature, and are likely to have given the issue less serious thought. And as we have seen, the major venues for exposing young people to serious and mature modes of thought have been silencing voices that dissent from the trans dogma.

So it's not surprising that young people are generally more pro-trans "rights". However, this does not mean that they have a better grasp of those "rights" than their elders. It just means they have a better grasp of the dogma.
 
theprestige said:
Also young people are less mature, and are likely to have given the issue less serious thought. And as we have seen, the major venues for exposing young people to serious and mature modes of thought have been silencing voices that dissent from the trans dogma.

So it's not surprising that young people are generally more pro-trans "rights". However, this does not mean that they have a better grasp of those "rights" than their elders. It just means they have a better grasp of the dogma.
Click to expand...

I think there's a few things at work here.

I think just a few years ago, there would have been an awful lot of people who look at transgender folks as sinners or perverts. I think such attitudes are almost entirely absent among young people, but still linger among older generations.

To your point, young people also tend to be idealistic, and as they get older their attitudes can shift. They might realize that while trans folk are not sinners or perverts, it turns out that there are, in fact, sinners and perverts among the ranks of trans people, just as with cis people, and those sinners and pervers can't be ignored. The influence of that idealism and the dogma being preached might wear off in the face of experience, as it so often does, and has for millenia.


One group of people I would like to see polled, but it would be nearly impossible to conduct such a survey, would be the women who, as teenaged girls, were required to use a locker room where a transgender male, i.e. transgirl, was allowed access. Are those girls, some of whom have now matured and are past their college years, perhaps with daughters of their own, more or less likely to support trans access? I really don't know what to expect from that group. Did their experience make them realize that it was no big deal and restrictions should be dropped, or did it cause them a lot of anxiety and they would not wish that anxiety on the younger generation? I've seen no discussion of that subject in the media.
 
Last edited:
Idealism, yes. I think if you polled young people aged 18-24 who have actually had a negative experience of trans "rights" dogma (e.g., a certain swim team), you'd get a very different result than if you polled youths who have only ever considered it in the abstract, without thought to implications or trade-offs.
 
Aren't young people also much more likely to have never shared a communal changing or shower space? Seems like they'd have to be given the usual changes in new builds.
 
theprestige said:
The thing about the new builds solution is that it is absolutely a "transwomen are not women" solution.
Click to expand...

Hey, if this solution to a non-discrimination problem allows for people to grit their teeth and feel this way, I think that's an acceptable price.
 
Meadmaker said:
I think there's a few things at work here.

I think just a few years ago, there would have been an awful lot of people who look at transgender folks as sinners or perverts. I think such attitudes are almost entirely absent among young people, but still linger among older generations.

To your point, young people also tend to be idealistic, and as they get older their attitudes can shift. They might realize that while trans folk are not sinners or perverts, it turns out that there are, in fact, sinners and perverts among the ranks of trans people, just as with cis people, and those sinners and pervers can't be ignored. The influence of that idealism and the dogma being preached might wear off in the face of experience, as it so often does, and has for millenia.
Click to expand...

I think the opposite is also true, and I have no idea what the mix is.

I will say that my *prior* view of just a few years ago was that transgender people are just fine, no big deal, just roll with it. Since then, I've discovered that there are far more paraphiliacs among them than I previously assumed, and I'm less comfortable accepting transgender-identifying strangers into my midst if I'm going to be nude or vulnerable in any way.

And I know a LOT of females who have had that same experience.

And as I've said repeatedly... it's not necessarily transgender people that are a problem, it's almost entirely self-id that is the problem.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think the opposite is also true, and I have no idea what the mix is.

I will say that my *prior* view of just a few years ago was that transgender people are just fine, no big deal, just roll with it. Since then, I've discovered that there are far more paraphiliacs among them than I previously assumed, and I'm less comfortable accepting transgender-identifying strangers into my midst if I'm going to be nude or vulnerable in any way.

And I know a LOT of females who have had that same experience.

And as I've said repeatedly... it's not necessarily transgender people that are a problem, it's almost entirely self-id that is the problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, so you've asserted.

Since you have no data to back this up, I'll just tell my own anecdote. What you said is untrue.

Isn't it fun just making stuff up?

There's a huge test case up in Canada. Self ID with just a minor paperwork hurdle for trans people to officially change their gender. A trip to the DMV and you can walk into the ladies room, just like that. Where's the sex-pervert crime wave?
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yes, so you've asserted.

Since you have no data to back this up, I'll just tell my own anecdote. What you said is untrue.

Isn't it fun just making stuff up?

There's a huge test case up in Canada. Self ID with just a minor paperwork hurdle for trans people to officially change their gender. A trip to the DMV and you can walk into the ladies room, just like that. Where's the sex-pervert crime wave?
Click to expand...

If this is the new metric, why do trans-women need to use women's washrooms? There was no male on trans-female crime wave in Canada either. The entire issue is about feelings. You accept the feelings of trans-people but not those of men or women.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom