Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[LondonJohn]

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

Indeed. Elliot Page is just fine. Eddie Izzard, on the other hand, is not fine.

It also bears mentioning at this point that some posters in this thread are dancing around the true meaning of "Exclusionary" in "TERF". It means, purely and simply, that transwomen are excluded from the "sisterhood" of women. That, in other words, transwomen are not women. Nothing more or less than that.

Nothing to do with "should transwomen be allowed to access women's refuges?", or "should transgirls be allowed to use the girls' bathrooms in schools?" For TERFs, the answer to both those questions (and every other similar question) is a straightforward "no". Because in their view, transwomen are not women - and therefore by that definition these "fake men masquerading as women" should of course not be allowed to access women's refuges or use girls' bathrooms and so on.

I wonder how someone like Eddie Izzard feels when a bigot tells her (or says of her) that she's nothing but an out-and-out man who - for reasons that are unimportant, but are probably linked to some form of mental illness or deviancy - is "playing" at being non-binary or a woman......

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The mind boggles that you could write such a thing as the highlighted. Even more so that you could start the rest of your post with that sentence.


I would explain more, but I'm late to taking my kid to Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library.



Ok....I made that up. My only child is 23 years old. He's not part of the target audience for Drag Queen Story Hour. And Drag Queen Story Hour doesn't meet on Friday afternoons anyway.

But.....I'm not making up Drag Queen Story Hour at the local library. That's a real thing.


However, for anyone who wants more information about how the left wing wants to push issues of transgenderism and homosexuality into the school curricula for all age levels, including primary school, just google "transgender curriculum". You'll find more than you have time to read.

ETA: For example: https://www.learningforjustice.org/professional-development/webinars/lets-talk-gender

Drag Queen story hour is not a school program. It's an entirely voluntary program held at public libraries, not schools.

I consider it weird that parents take their kids to programs that teach them they'll go to hell for jerking off, but what they do outside of school hours is largely none of my business. I take a similar attitude to drag queen story hour.

Seems like you're kinda grabbing random nonsense to try to prove that there's some pressing need for a anti-gay censorship bill.

Still trying to figure out how talking to kids that some people have two mommies is radical indoctrination or somehow age inappropriate for anyone.

 

[LondonJohn]

So far as I know, no scientific study has ever been designed (much less implemented) with the goal of discovering how many months of HRT would bring elite male performance averages down to elite female levels, in any sport. I'd be surprised if the answer isn't so high as to age the test subjects out of elite competition altogether. I'd also be surprised if the anti-TERF contingent supported such research.

"the anti-TERF contingent"

Do you mean to say "the mainstream, trans-inclusive contingent"?

 

[LondonJohn]

Drag Queen story hour is not a school program. It's an entirely voluntary program held at public libraries, not schools.

I consider it weird that parents take their kids to programs that teach them they'll go to hell for jerking off, but what they do outside of school hours is largely none of my business. I take a similar attitude to drag queen story hour.

Still trying to figure out how talking to kids that some people have two mommies is radical indoctrination or somehow age inappropriate for anyone.

Yes. We're all just fine with fundamentalist Christian Sunday Schools battering kids' idea of self-esteem and self-confidence with the wages of sin and the eternal damnation of anyone who doesn't adhere assiduously to the rules written in a book of bronze-age middle-eastern stories.

Yeah, that's all good, right? That's healthy and liberal, isn't it?

 

[LondonJohn]

Your assumptions are incorrect. You frequently (and repeatedly, seemingly intentionally) mischaracterize the views of those you think of as "enemies".

Most of "us" (gender critical, gender atheist, radical feminists, common-sense feminists, and basic reasonable people as a whole) don't see it as a zero-sum situation, but we *do* see that *some* proposed policies have *obvious* negative effects on females. That's something that trans 'rights' activists like yourself pretend isn't a thing.

When it comes to actual rights, most of "us" are completely supportive. Even the most dedicated radical feminists in this thread, people who actually genuinely ARE radical feminists, 100% believe that transgender people should not be discriminated against for employment, housing, or medical care. Not a single one of us thinks that transgender people should be expected to suffer harassment, abuse, or violence on the basis of their presentation.

Those are actual, legitimate rights, and they're rights that I (and every other GC/TERF/RadFem I know) will fight for alongside transgender people.

The problem is that several of the things that transgender activists are demanding aren't rights at all - they're privileges. And they're privileges that put females at risk, or which reduce the ability of females to equally participate in society.

A male person competing on a female sports team isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's a special privilege granted to a subset of males, which is normally denied to males and reserved for females. And it's a privilege that is demanded on the presumption that the feelings of the male person are more important than fair competition for females.

A male person changing in a female locker room isn't a right, it's a privilege demanded by a subset of males, which is normally denied to males in general. And it's a privilege that is demanded on the presumption that the feelings of the male person are more important than the right of consent, the dignity, and the safety of females.

This demand for special privileges just got a 26 year old child rapist sentenced to two years in a female juvenile detention center - something that *should* be completely out of the question for any decent and compassionate person.

LOL
Imagine your surprise when the realisation finally dawns on you, in hindsight, that the basic reasonable people were not in fact the people who hold your sort of views...

(People who vehemently opposed gay rights and black civil rights also used to labour under the delusion that they were the "basic reasonable people". A few of the nasty old bigots probably still do.)

 

[d4m10n]

It also bears mentioning at this point that some posters in this thread are dancing around the true meaning of "Exclusionary" in "TERF". It means, purely and simply, that transwomen are excluded from the "sisterhood" of women. That, in other words, transwomen are not women. Nothing more or less than that.

Thankfully we've got someone here to mansplain what the radical feminists really mean, without bothering to quote any of them.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thankfully we've got someone here to mansplain what the radical feminists really mean, without bothering to quote any of them.

Ah right. So what do you think that the word "exclusionary" means in the "TERF" acronym? Or what do you think TERFs take the word "exclusionary" to mean in their acronym? And do you think that only TERFs are qualified to explain what it means?


(And by the way, if I point out that (say) the "G" in "LGBTQ" stands for "gay" and refers to homosexuality (usually male, in the context of that abbreviation, but can also refer to women), would you be accusing me of "straight-splaining", and that only gay people can legitimately explain what that letter stands for and means?)

 

[LondonJohn]

But if it helps you out, here's some wiki-splaining of the meaning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF

If you bother to read it, you'll see that it exactly mirrors my explanation....


(I don't know whether the article was written by a TERF, but presumably you'd reject it out-of-hand unless it was, right?)

 

[TheGoldcountry]

The people commonly referred to as "TERFS" generally don't apply the term to themselves, it's an ad hominem used by others so they can ignore whatever they have to say as automatically bigoted.

Just label everyone and anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot preemptively, and you never have to engage in any debate at all. Circular logic.

 

[LondonJohn]

The people commonly referred to as "TERFS" generally don't apply the term to themselves, it's an ad hominem used by others so they can ignore whatever they have to say as automatically bigoted.

Just label everyone and anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot preemptively, and you never have to engage in any debate at all. Circular logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF

Coinage and usage

Trans-inclusive cisgender radical feminist blogger Viv Smythe has been credited with popularizing the term in 2008 as an online shorthand. It was used to describe a minority of feminists who espouse sentiments that other feminists consider transphobic, including the rejection of the view, predominant in feminist organizations, that trans women are women, opposition to transgender rights, and the exclusion of trans women in women's spaces and organizations.

Smythe has been credited with having coined the term TERF, due to a blog post she wrote reacting to the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival's policy of denying admittance to trans women. She wrote that she rejected the alignment of all radical feminists with "trans-exclusionary radfem (TERF) activists"

But yeah, if it suits your agenda to pretend that this has only ever been a pejorative label applied by "non-TERFs", then... whatever floats your boat

 

[d4m10n]

Ah right. So what do you think that the word "exclusionary" means in the "TERF" acronym?

I think it's appropriate to ask what radical feminists actually want. Have you ever read any of them?

Or what do you think TERFs take the word "exclusionary" to mean in their acronym?

Their acronym? Can you actually name one person who self-identifies as a TERF?

And do you think that only TERFs are qualified to explain what it means?

I think actual radical feminists are the people best qualified to say what radical feminism actually entails.

 

[Meadmaker]

It also bears mentioning at this point that some posters in this thread are dancing around the true meaning of "Exclusionary" in "TERF". It means, purely and simply, that transwomen are excluded from the "sisterhood" of women. That, in other words, transwomen are not women. Nothing more or less than that.

So far so good.

Nothing to do with "should transwomen be allowed to access women's refuges?", or "should transgirls be allowed to use the girls' bathrooms in schools?" For TERFs, the answer to both those questions (and every other similar question) is a straightforward "no". Because in their view, transwomen are not women - and therefore by that definition these "fake men masquerading as women" should of course not be allowed to access women's refuges or use girls' bathrooms and so on.

Wait. You just said it has nothing to do with those questions, and then proceeded to say that the answer to those questions is the thing it has nothing to do with.

 

[Meadmaker]

Drag Queen story hour is not a school program. It's an entirely voluntary program held at public libraries, not schools.

I consider it weird that parents take their kids to programs that teach them they'll go to hell for jerking off, but what they do outside of school hours is largely none of my business. I take a similar attitude to drag queen story hour.

Seems like you're kinda grabbing random nonsense to try to prove that there's some pressing need for a anti-gay censorship bill.

Still trying to figure out how talking to kids that some people have two mommies is radical indoctrination or somehow age inappropriate for anyone.

I'm pretty sure everyone gets the point.


However, be that as it may, you're moving the goalposts. I said that the left wants to include topics of homosexuality and transgenderism into actual curricula. You called that a "whopper" of a claim. I provided a link to a group that is developing curriculum materials for primary schools. Now you are saying

Still trying to figure out how talking to kids that some people have two mommies is radical indoctrination or somehow age inappropriate for anyone.

While you ponder what it is or why it might be age appropriate, you could go back and note that the actual claim was that the left wing was pushing those topics as part of actual curricula, and I provided a link to an actual left wing organization (affiliated with the Southern Poverty Law Center....not exactly some weirdos with Twitter accounts), publishing actual curriculum materials.

By the way, that link actually came from the "ads" portion at the top of the Google search. There were lots of ads. When I put in "transgender curriculum" as search words (I didn't use quotes in the search) , there were several ads from several groups who had prepared several sets of curriculum materials doing exactly what I said they were doing. That link, specifically, has a nice picture of a classroom full of 10 year olds with the "Let's Talk! Discussing Gender in the Classroom" materials.


Now, if you're interested, we could discuss whether or not it's a good idea to include those materials in primary school education. But if you're not interested, that's ok, too.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes. We're all just fine with fundamentalist Christian Sunday Schools battering kids' idea of self-esteem and self-confidence with the wages of sin and the eternal damnation of anyone who doesn't adhere assiduously to the rules written in a book of bronze-age middle-eastern stories.

Yeah, that's all good, right? That's healthy and liberal, isn't it?

SQUIRREL!

 

[Meadmaker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF




But yeah, if it suits your agenda to pretend that this has only ever been a pejorative label applied by "non-TERFs", then... whatever floats your boat

Wait: Gold Country just said that people described as TERFs generally don't call themselves TERFs.

You "countered" this, by noting that the term was coined by a trans-inclusive radical feminist to describe other people.

You just proved Gold Country's point.


Not that it's a critical thing. No matter what term they use, there are indeed radical feminists who say that transwomen are not really women, and so TERF is, linguistically, accurate. However, its usage is almost always derogatory, and it is frequently applied to people who aren't even radical feminists. Its common usage is based on the fact that people who use the term think it sounds like something mean to say, and they want to say something mean.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm pretty sure everyone gets the point.

I really don't. Some private group is engaged in behavior outside of the school you don't agree with, therefore... what exactly? Surely this isn't evidence that there is some school curriculum crisis, having nothing to do with school curricula.


However, be that as it may, you're moving the goalposts. I said that the left wants to include topics of homosexuality and transgenderism into actual curricula. You called that a "whopper" of a claim. I provided a link to a group that is developing curriculum materials for primary schools. Now you are saying

I'm pretty sure everyone gets the point.

While you ponder what it is or why it might be age appropriate, you could go back and note that the actual claim was that the left wing was pushing those topics as part of actual curricula, and I provided a link to an actual left wing organization (affiliated with the Southern Poverty Law Center....not exactly some weirdos with Twitter accounts), publishing actual curriculum materials.

By the way, that link actually came from the "ads" portion at the top of the Google search. There were lots of ads. When I put in "transgender curriculum" as search words (I didn't use quotes in the search) , there were several ads from several groups who had prepared several sets of curriculum materials doing exactly what I said they were doing. That link, specifically, has a nice picture of a classroom full of 10 year olds with the "Let's Talk! Discussing Gender in the Classroom" materials.


Now, if you're interested, we could discuss whether or not it's a good idea to include those materials in primary school education. But if you're not interested, that's ok, too.[/QUOTE]

Do you think the level of radicalism is of roughly the same parity?

The trans inclusivist radicals, as you see them, are writing teaching programs that some school districts may decide to adopt. School curriculum is a local matter, and different localities have different priorities and outlooks. I'm not really interested in sifting through 4 four part seminar, but I trust if there's something outrageously objectionable you will quote it directly.

The right wing side is trying to sue teachers into silence on the entire existence of gay and trans people, likely in a bid to defund public education in favor of privatized charter schools.

In what world is this even close to a "both sides" situation?

That's the whole point with these censorship laws. Local school districts already have tremendous control over the classroom. They only need to stay within the loosest bounds of state and constitutional law when crafting their course materials to suit the interests of the local community. The fact that these censorious freaks feel the need to put a fat thumb on the scale to ensure that little Jimmy doesn't ever learn it's ok to be gay shows how truly radical, even within the context of their immediate community, these right wing reactionaries have become.

There's already a democratic process in which local communities decide how their schools are administered and how curriculum is developed, but the extreme right has decided it's better to get their way with threats of litigation and defunding. It's really difficult to imagine how schools are going to thread the needle of not engaging in illegal discrimination against gay and trans kids while also complying with a "don't say gay" censorship bill. It's the classic right wing radical playbook, writing intentionally destructive laws that make it impossible for otherwise functional public institutions to operate, then privatize the service after the inevitable failure.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you think the level of radicalism is of roughly the same parity?

Oh good lord.

There is none so blind as the one who will not see.

https://www.glsen.org/policy-maps'''


Check out the third section, "Enumerated Curricular Standards Legislation by State".

Yes, indeed, "both sides", really are trying to indoctrinate children, and are passing laws in state legislatures to force the issue onto local school boards who would prefer to do things a different way.



And then there are the folks who want to say that using "wrong" pronouns is a hate crime, but those aren't getting much traction in the US, because we take that "free speech" thing pretty seriously. Over in Loudoun County, Virginia, a teacher was booted for not going along, but he won his lawsuit and was reinstated.


I think most real people are on the "side" that doesn't want state boards of education messing with things like transgender issues for fifth graders, and would prefer that those issues be ignored most of the time, and dealt with by the local school if it can't be ignored, but there are people on the left and on the right that don't think that's good enough, so they pass laws.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh good lord.

There is none so blind as the one who will not see.

https://www.glsen.org/policy-maps'''


Check out the third section, "Enumerated Curricular Standards Legislation by State".

Yes, indeed, "both sides", really are trying to indoctrinate children, and are passing laws in state legislatures to force the issue onto local school boards who would prefer to do things a different way.


And then there are the folks who want to say that using "wrong" pronouns is a hate crime, but those aren't getting much traction in the US, because we take that "free speech" thing pretty seriously. Over in Loudoun County, Virginia, a teacher was booted for not going along, but he won his lawsuit and was reinstated.


I think most real people are on the "side" that doesn't want state boards of education messing with things like transgender issues for fifth graders, and would prefer that those issues be ignored most of the time, and dealt with by the local school if it can't be ignored, but there are people on the left and on the right that don't think that's good enough, so they pass laws.

Ahhhh, the old "my views are representative of "most real people"" beast rears its ugly head once again.....

It's very easy to delude oneself that one's point of view a) is the "correct" one, and b) must be shared by most reasonable people. Isn't it?

 

[theprestige]

It also bears mentioning at this point that some posters in this thread are dancing around the true meaning of "Exclusionary" in "TERF". It means, purely and simply, that transwomen are excluded from the "sisterhood" of women. That, in other words, transwomen are not women. Nothing more or less than that.

In terms of feminism, I don't really see a good argument for including transwomen in the sisterhood of women.

Does Caitlyn Jenner's life experience from the earliest age include subtle and obvious sexism and misogyny? Did she go through puberty with budding breasts and the onset of menses? Spend the next several decades of her life managing her period on a monthly basis? Have to deal with birth control as a woman? Get paid 70 cents on the dollar for the same work? Fight against being pigeonholed with "women's work" throughout her career? Go through menopause? Have any life experiences at all that other women can relate to, as women? No, no, no, no, no, and no. And no.

From a feminist perspective, I think transwomen should absolutely be excluded from certain things. Female representation in government and culture, for example.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ahhhh, the old "my views are representative of "most real people"" beast rears its ugly head once again.....

It's very easy to delude oneself that one's point of view a) is the "correct" one, and b) must be shared by most reasonable people. Isn't it?

If you are interested, you can read this. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/public-still-at-odds-about-lgbtq-issues-in-public-school/


If you are not interested, you can post personal attacks in information-free posts.