Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[shuttlt]

I would say a TERF is someone who believes that the advancement of trans rights necessarily results in a zero-sum loss of important rights for cis-women, and is thus opposed to trans rights as an expression of feminist principles.

I will think on this further. Thanks.

 

[Distracted1]

I think there is a more fundamental and older pattern going on. "Progress" is a direction not a destination. It is towards something like freeing the individual from moral prescriptions around outsider sexuality and lifestyle. At each step in the progress, the demand is looked at as a specific case. That the argument about sex may contradict the argument previously made on gender doesn't matter. What unifies them is the direction of travel - to liberate the abnormal from the tyranny of the normal. You do that by deconstructing the category "normal".

I can see O'Brian explaining it just that way to Winston.

 

[shuttlt]

[deleted]

 

[shuttlt]

I can see O'Brian explaining it just that way to Winston.

https://youtu.be/g1WI8BUe9Eg

 

[LondonJohn]

That's a perfect way to remove any doubt that you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking about regarding sports.

If it was amateur sport, blokes wouldn't be wearing panties to compete. It's 100% down to professionalism that they want to compete against women.

No money = no fake chicks in the competition.

Ahh.... the (tawdry) irony of comparing your first sentence above... with this and that.

I must have been in some sort of coma when - for example - a whole bunch of averagely-good male college tennis players tactically (and mendaciously) declared themselves to be transwomen, in order to leap straight to the top echelon in the women's game and hoover up the extremely lucrative rewards in women's tennis.

So, that being the case, perhaps you'd direct me to the reports of this having taken place? I assume women's tennis would clearly be the best starting point for these....what was it?.... "blokes wearing panties", seeing as a) pro tennis is notably the professional sport in which women's earnings are both (relatively) huge and nearly on a par with men's earnings; and b) even an average male college player could almost certainly achieve & maintain top-30 status in the women's professional ranks.

I mean.... imagine a 22-year-old male who'd made his US college tennis team, but who was languishing at around 600 on the world men's rankings (meaning there was effectively zero chance of him being able to make any living as a touring pro on the men's circuit). Surely (per your firm contention) this person - or any of the hundreds of males in a similar position - ought to have twigged that "pulling on a pair of panties" and self-identifying as a transwoman would immediately and easily lead to riches and adulation on the women's tour.

Surely this must have happened, right? And not once, but dozens of times by now? Why would it not have happened?

Oh.

Wait.

It hasn't happened??


Oh.

 

[LondonJohn]

I would say a TERF is someone who believes that the advancement of trans rights necessarily results in a zero-sum loss of important rights for cis-women, and is thus opposed to trans rights as an expression of feminist principles.

In practical effect, I suppose there isn't much difference between a TERF and your run of the mill anti-gay/anti-trans right wing reactionary (which is why you see occasional cooperation between these otherwise opposed groups), but there is a difference in motivation.

While I agree with your definitions and categorisations, I'd also suggest that there's a (minority, most likely) subset of TERF ideologues who are, to a greater or lesser extent, using the "rights for ciswomen" argument as a cloak for their latent underlying distaste/disapproval/disavowal of transgender identity in general. Occasionally the cloak slips - as it has done several times within these threads - to reveal darker truths.

 

[TomB]

I would say a TERF is someone who believes that the advancement of trans rights necessarily results in a zero-sum loss of important rights for cis-women, and is thus opposed to trans rights as an expression of feminist principles.

In practical effect, I suppose there isn't much difference between a TERF and your run of the mill anti-gay/anti-trans right wing reactionary (which is why you see occasional cooperation between these otherwise opposed groups), but there is a difference in motivation.

Actually, there is a great deal of difference between TERF (as you've defined it here , perhaps not as it's often used) and the "run of the mill anti-gay/anti-trans right wing reactionary."

By your definition, a TERF is not a trans-phobe and is not anti-trans. The position is not based on hate or fear of trans-people. It's based on a perception or belief (correct or not, that's debateable) that particular stated goals of some parts of the trans rights movements are likely to have a negative effect on the rights or safety of females.

The "right wing reactionary" is against trans rights because they are against trans people.

There's a huge difference. One is based on conflicts when the rights of two groups conflict and the other is based on hate. Although there may be an overlap in positions, they are not the same. Using the terms interchangeably or arguments based upon the commonality of positions is an association fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy It's a common fallacy used not only on this thread, but also on threads about fascists.

As for the term TERF, you have decided that it's a descriptive term. That's fair. But the term has been weaponized as an insult. It's also been used to dismiss arguments without actually addressing them by instead attacking the arguer. Also, when a you know a group has a preferred term, but you continue to refer them with a term that they view as an insult...what does that say about you?

The "E" part in TERF stands for exclusive. While I'm not sure how it applies to the people it was originally intended to apply to, many people who are called TERFs do not exclude trans people entirely. Some only want them excluded from particular settings and even then under certain circumstances. For example sports, but with possible inclusion after treatment. Or locker rooms, but with inclusion after surgery.

For others, the "E" simply means that their organization focuses on female issues and not trans issues. This does not necessarily mean that the organization is anti-trans just as the Susan G. Komen center focusing on breast cancer does not mean the organization is agains finding a cure for prostate cancer.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There's a huge difference. One is based on conflicts when the rights of two groups conflict and the other is based on hate. Although there may be an overlap in positions, they are not the same. Using the terms interchangeably or arguments based upon the commonality of positions is an association fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy It's a common fallacy used not only on this thread, but also on threads about fascists.

Yes, I agree there's a large difference between TERFS and right wing transphobes, both in their motivations and expression of anti-trans positions. It's a great reason to have separate terms to make the distinction clear. Broadly painting them all as "transphobes" may be true, but it's a bit imprecise and elides the differences between various factions.

As for the term TERF, you have decided that it's a descriptive term. That's fair. But the term has been weaponized as an insult. It's also been used to dismiss arguments without actually addressing them by instead attacking the arguer. Also, when a you know a group has a preferred term, but you continue to refer them with a term that they view as an insult...what does that say about you?

It's my opinion that TERFs object to the term largely because they don't like it when people focus on how extreme their trans-exclusion positions are, which is often only revealed when the question is asked pointedly. The complaints about the term strike me as an attempt to muddy the waters about their beliefs and intentions. As a matter of general principle, we should not cater to people who attempt to obscure their intentions and ideas through semantic games. TERFs should either have the courage of their convictions, or stop being TERFs.

I am also aware that many do not like the term and consider it insulting. I would assume that my continued use of the term would indicate that I hold these people in contempt, which happens to be true. I assure you, a TERF by any other label would still be the subject of the same contempt.

The "E" part in TERF stands for exclusive. While I'm not sure how it applies to the people it was originally intended to apply to, many people who are called TERFs do not exclude trans people entirely. Some only want them excluded from particular settings and even then under certain circumstances. For example sports, but with possible inclusion after treatment. Or locker rooms, but with inclusion after surgery.

For others, the "E" simply means that their organization focuses on female issues and not trans issues. This does not necessarily mean that the organization is anti-trans just as the Susan G. Komen center focusing on breast cancer does not mean the organization is agains finding a cure for prostate cancer.

Let's not play games. Some of these groups formed as a splintering off from other groups that were trans-inclusive. Anti-trans positions are central to their ideology. Anti-trans positions are the reason they exist to begin with. They feel that their broader goal is in direct conflict with trans-inclusive policies. Trans exclusion is literally the reason they exist as an organization at all. ETA: What exactly do you think a group called the "LGB Alliance" is trying to communicate? The obvious comparison to the more common LGBT is clearly intentional.

 

[TomB]

Ahh.... the (tawdry) irony of comparing your first sentence above... with this and that.

I must have been in some sort of coma when - for example - a whole bunch of averagely-good male college tennis players tactically (and mendaciously) declared themselves to be transwomen, in order to leap straight to the top echelon in the women's game and hoover up the extremely lucrative rewards in women's tennis.

So, that being the case, perhaps you'd direct me to the reports of this having taken place? I assume women's tennis would clearly be the best starting point for these....what was it?.... "blokes wearing panties", seeing as a) pro tennis is notably the professional sport in which women's earnings are both (relatively) huge and nearly on a par with men's earnings; and b) even an average male college player could almost certainly achieve & maintain top-30 status in the women's professional ranks.

I mean.... imagine a 22-year-old male who'd made his US college tennis team, but who was languishing at around 600 on the world men's rankings (meaning there was effectively zero chance of him being able to make any living as a touring pro on the men's circuit). Surely (per your firm contention) this person - or any of the hundreds of males in a similar position - ought to have twigged that "pulling on a pair of panties" and self-identifying as a transwoman would immediately and easily lead to riches and adulation on the women's tour.

Surely this must have happened, right? And not once, but dozens of times by now? Why would it not have happened?

Oh.

Wait.

It hasn't happened??


Oh.

I'll agree with you that the number of males who transition for the purpose of competing in sports is vanishingly small. (I can't think of an example.)

But there are an apparently increasing number of athletes who transition and find themselves able to compete at a higher level in the women's division than they did in the men's division pre-transition. The real question is how this affects female athletes and how to manage the situation.

The atheists posts do nothing to address this issue and neither does yours.

 

[TomB]

Yes, I agree there's a large difference between TERFS and right wing transphobes, both in their motivations and expression of anti-trans positions. It's a great reason to have separate terms to make the distinction clear. Broadly painting them all as "transphobes" may be true, but it's a bit imprecise and elides the differences between various factions.

I dispute that. There are reasons someone might oppose planks of the trans-rights movement that are not rooted in trans-phobia.

It's my opinion that TERFs object to the term largely because they don't like it when people focus on how extreme their trans-exclusion positions are, which is often only revealed when the question is asked pointedly. The complaints about the term strike me as an attempt to muddy the waters about their beliefs and intentions. As a matter of general principle, we should not cater to people who attempt to obscure their intentions and ideas through semantic games. TERFs should either have the courage of their convictions, or stop being TERFs.

Except that you lump all people who oppose any plank of the trans-rights platform for any reason into extremist groups. The definition of TERF that you yourself posted does not cite hate, fear, or bad intentions, but rather concern for how those rights might negatively affect another marginalised group.

Is it any less legitimate to label those who dismiss those concerns as "misogynists?"

I am also aware that many do not like the term and consider it insulting. I would assume that my continued use of the term would indicate that I hold these people in contempt, which happens to be true. I assure you, a TERF by any other label would still be the subject of the same contempt.

Great. You have just justified the use of hate speech. IT's OK to use slurs against people you hold in contempt.

Let's not play games. Some of these groups formed as a splintering off from other groups that were trans-inclusive. Anti-trans positions are central to their ideology. Anti-trans positions are the reason they exist to begin with. They feel that their broader goal is in direct conflict with trans-inclusive policies. Trans exclusion is literally the reason they exist as an organization at all.

Well, yeah.

Some people wanted advocacy focused on certain issues. The organization who did that started devoting resources in another direction. So they formed another group that would focus resources on the areas of their advocacy. There is nothing inherently anti-trans in that, although people who are anti-trans are likely to choose the new group over the old.

Splinter groups exist all over various civil rights movements. The National Women's Party splintered off from NAWSA. The American Society of Muslims and the current Nation of Islam are splits from the original Nation of Islam.

Groups grow and split. Sometimes the extremists split out. Sometimes non-extremists split out when the organization becomes to extreme.

Trans-policy can cause a split in an organization for at least two reasons: trans-hate, as you suggest. Dissatisfatction with diversion of mission and resources from the original mission in a manner that they feel conflicts with the original mission is another (and perfectly legitimate) reason.

 

[TomB]

Yes, I agree there's a large difference between TERFS and right wing transphobes, both in their motivations and expression of anti-trans positions. It's a great reason to have separate terms to make the distinction clear. Broadly painting them all as "transphobes" may be true, but it's a bit imprecise and elides the differences between various factions.

I dispute that. There are reasons someone might oppose planks of the trans-rights movement that are not rooted in trans-phobia.

It's my opinion that TERFs object to the term largely because they don't like it when people focus on how extreme their trans-exclusion positions are, which is often only revealed when the question is asked pointedly. The complaints about the term strike me as an attempt to muddy the waters about their beliefs and intentions. As a matter of general principle, we should not cater to people who attempt to obscure their intentions and ideas through semantic games. TERFs should either have the courage of their convictions, or stop being TERFs.

Except that you lump all people who oppose any plank of the trans-rights platform for any reason into extremist groups. The definition of TERF that you yourself posted does not cite hate, fear, or bad intentions, but rather concern for how those rights might negatively affect another marginalised group.

Is it any less legitimate to label those who dismiss those concerns as "misogynists?"

I am also aware that many do not like the term and consider it insulting. I would assume that my continued use of the term would indicate that I hold these people in contempt, which happens to be true. I assure you, a TERF by any other label would still be the subject of the same contempt.

Great. You have just justified the use of hate speech. IT's OK to use slurs against people you hold in contempt.

Let's not play games. Some of these groups formed as a splintering off from other groups that were trans-inclusive. Anti-trans positions are central to their ideology. Anti-trans positions are the reason they exist to begin with. They feel that their broader goal is in direct conflict with trans-inclusive policies. Trans exclusion is literally the reason they exist as an organization at all.

Well, yeah.

Some people wanted advocacy focused on certain issues. The organization who did that started devoting resources in another direction. So they formed another group that would focus resources on the areas of their advocacy. There is nothing inherently anti-trans in that, although people who are anti-trans are likely to choose the new group over the old.

Splinter groups exist all over various civil rights movements. The National Women's Party splintered off from NAWSA. The American Society of Muslims and the current Nation of Islam are splits from the original Nation of Islam.

Groups grow and split. Sometimes the extremists split out. Sometimes non-extremists split out when the organization becomes to extreme.

Trans-policy can cause a split in an organization for at least two reasons: trans-hate, as you suggest. Dissatisfatction with diversion of mission and resources from the original mission in a manner that they feel conflicts with the original mission is another (and perfectly legitimate) reason.

 

[shuttlt]

I'll agree with you that the number of males who transition for the purpose of competing in sports is vanishingly small. (I can't think of an example.)

How would we know? Is the criteria that they need to publicly say that that is what they are doing?

 

[Meadmaker]

Occasionally the cloak slips - as it has done several times within these threads - to reveal darker truths.

For some definition of "dark".

 

[shuttlt]

There's a huge difference. One is based on conflicts when the rights of two groups conflict and the other is based on hate.

It's weird how it's the people who are to the right of you who are filled with hate, and SuburbanTurkey thinks it's the people to the right of SuburbanTurkey who are filled with hate. Why do you get to characterise the intentions of the people to the right of you, but SuburbanTurkey doesn't get to characterise the opinions of people to the right of SuburbanTurkey?

 

[Meadmaker]

I'll agree with you that the number of males who transition for the purpose of competing in sports is vanishingly small. (I can't think of an example.)

Questions that begin with "why" rarely have answers as simple as people want.

Why does someone transition?

That's a really complex question, and it varies from one person to another. Why do some people choose a little bit of transition, while others choose a lot of transition? When it comes to something that big, it is probably impossible to distill it into something that can be expressed in a sentence or two. Moreover, the person making that kind of major life decision often can't express why they want to do it. They may not even be aware of it themselves. Psychologists study people and often see patterns of behavior and decision making that point to an obvious motivation that the object of study (often a patient) does not recognize or would deny. It's a subconscious motivation.

What we can say about transitioners is that they believe that they will be happier or will have a better life if they transition. The life they imagine for themselves after transitioning is better than the life they see for themselves without transition.

I cannot imagine someone saying, "I really want to win a gold medal, but I'll never do it as a man, so I'm going to become a woman." On the other hand, it would be folly to assume that someone struggling with a sexual identity, and who is also a competitive athlete, would not feel some sort of influence.

Let's put it this way. Let's suppose someone is "really trans", whatever that means. They are a high school, male, athlete, and they love it, but they live in one of those states where they just passed a law prohibiting males from participating in girls' sports. They know that if they chemically transition, which they are inclined to do, they will not be competitive as a male anymore, and they will not be allowed to compete as a female. Is there any individual who would choose to avoid transition in order to remain eligible and competitive? I'm pretty sure there are.

What that means is that race results might influence a decision to transition.

The rest of the implications are left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[JihadJane]

Same thing, right?



In a way, I've always been amused at the use of "TERF" as a slur. The radical feminists, and the not quite so radical feminists, and anyone who is concerned about women's rights recognizes that there are some ways where biology really is paramount, is going to end up excluding transwomen from something. So, "trans exclusionary" isn't an insult. But of course, the people who use the term don't really think, and so they use it as an insult, and so it's an insult. Like all sorts of other group tags, the word is not inherently offensive, but it becomes offensive based on how it is used.

It's worth emphasising that only transwomen are excluded (because they are male). Transmen (female) are not excluded.

 

[TomB]

How would we know? Is the criteria that they need to publicly say that that is what they are doing?

It's an opinion based on my impressions of the cases I've seen. I've also read the experiences of a trans-man who delayed his medical transition until after completing a career in women's hockey.

In my opinion, there are probably very few who will transition only to be competitive in sports. The social cost (opportunity cost) of doing so would make that pretty rare, I think. Fake transitions (again, my opinion) are more likely where anonymity is possible. Such as for voyeurism purposes.

 

[TomB]

It's weird how it's the people who are to the right of you who are filled with hate, and SuburbanTurkey thinks it's the people to the right of SuburbanTurkey who are filled with hate. Why do you get to characterise the intentions of the people to the right of you, but SuburbanTurkey doesn't get to characterise the opinions of people to the right of SuburbanTurkey?

I wasn't characterizing anyone's intentions. I was subdividing between two groups that he defined, based on definitions that he gave. And he gets to characterize people however he wants. As do I. But when he does so, he is open to disagreement and criticism. As am I.

 

[TomB]

Let's put it this way. Let's suppose someone is "really trans", whatever that means. They are a high school, male, athlete, and they love it, but they live in one of those states where they just passed a law prohibiting males from participating in girls' sports. They know that if they chemically transition, which they are inclined to do, they will not be competitive as a male anymore, and they will not be allowed to compete as a female. Is there any individual who would choose to avoid transition in order to remain eligible and competitive? I'm pretty sure there are.

What that means is that race results might influence a decision to transition.

The rest of the implications are left as an exercise for the reader.

Sure. I'm sure it's a factor for some. As you say, I think others may decide to delay their medical transition in order to keep competing. (This is true for both trans-men and trans-women.) Life is, unfortunately, full of choices. Sometimes you have to give one thing up for another.

Personally, I don't like absolute rules. I like general guidelines with the allowance for exceptions if the circumstances dictate. Unfortunately, exceptions are hard to codify.

 

[shuttlt]

I wasn't characterizing anyone's intentions. I was subdividing between two groups that he defined, based on definitions that he gave. And he gets to characterize people however he wants. As do I. But when he does so, he is open to disagreement and criticism. As am I.

Apologies. "Intentions" is maybe not quite the right word, "motivations" is better. I never said that you weren't entitled to do this. I do think it is a feature of the layers of the onion, so to speak, of particular types of thinking that the members of each layer think all the members of the layers further out from them are wicked.