Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Emily's Cat]

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?

So... let me make sure I understand. Males are supposed to be able to define what "womanhood" is, based on the understanding of a subset of males who feel as if they are women. And females are supposed to take their word for it, because only the person 'experiencing' being transgender can define what "woman" means to them, and if that's what it means to them, then females just have to take it...

Also, males get to decide what "exclusionary" means in the acronym TERF, and females just have to take that too.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let's drop some actual knowledge on you, rather than LJ's imagineered concept of what LJ thinks something *ought to* mean in LJ's brain.

Trans(women) Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Literally, excludes Transwomen from the entire category of females (and rightly so as they are male), including from the label of feminist itself.

The fundamental belief is that males should not be centered in the effort to remove sex-based oppression from females. Males should not be allowed access to female-only spaces as a right - in some cases they may be allowed as a courtesy or as an exception, but the basic idea is that females retain the right to define female-only spaces and activities, and to exclude males from those services.

That a male may present or identify as a "woman" does not invalidate the fact that they are male, nor does that presentation magically grant those males any real understanding or even sympathy with the actual challenges and barriers that females face in society, economics, and politics.

LJ, since you're so very fond of making analogies to racism and homosexuality...

1) Do you think it would be reasonable and appropriate for white people to demand to be included and centered in activism intended to remove discrimination from black people? Is it reasonable to refer to white people as "black activists" or would it be more appropriate to refer to them as "allies"? If a white person "identified as" a black person, do you think it would be appropriate for them to demand that black people open all black-focused services and events to them as a *right*, based on their identification as black? Should white people who "identify as" black be counted as black when it comes to evaluating whether black people have equitable participation in society, economics, and politics? Should crimes committed by white people be statistically counted as having been committed by black people because those white people "identify as" black? Should crimes in which the victim is a white person who "identifies as" black be considered as potential hate crimes against black people?

2) Do you think it would be reasonable and appropriate for straight people to demand to be included and centered in activism intended to remove discrimination from homosexual people? Is it reasonable to refer to straight people as "gay activists" or would it be more appropriate to refer to them as "allies"? If a straight person "identified as" gay, do you think it would appropriate for them to demand that gay people open all LGB-focused services and events to them as a *right*, based on their identification as gay? Should straight people who "identify as" gay be counted as homosexual when it comes to evaluating whether LGB people have equitable participation in society, economics, and politics? Should crimes committed by straight people be statistically counted as having been committed by LGB people because those straight people "identify as" gay? Should crimes in which the victim is straight be considered as potential hate crimes against LGB people?

 

[AmyStrange]

Well....that's just horrible.

Is that her in the avatar photo? She looks just like my cat....which I suppose is true of most black cats, but I would be heartbroken to lose mine. As much as they have in common, each one has their own special traits that make them unique. My condolences.

Thank you, but no, AmyStrange died a few years ago. Here's a picture of shadow (my Baby Boo Boo):

sorry for going off topic.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

If "woman" is "adult human female", then no, transwomen are not women. That's a simple logical necessity flowing from that definition.

You want to change the definition, but pretend that you aren't changing the definition, and without even providing an alternative one that any significant number of people can actually agree on.

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".

That's certainly not true for most of the posters here who have been labelled "TERFs".

 

[Hevneren]

"You're on the wrong side of history" is an incredibly strong argument. It's right up there with the "My father is stronger than yours" and "My uncle is a policeman" frequently heard in the schoolyard.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's certainly not true for most of the posters here who have been labelled "TERFs".

To be fair, it's kind of true. If you change bathrooms to "locker rooms", it's true of me, and I've been labelled a TERF.....although that's really kind of weird because I'm pretty sure I'm not a radical feminist.

Even when it comes to bathrooms, I would go with Emily's Cat's position. They don't have a right to be there, but a courtesy might be extended.

 

[theprestige]

"You're on the wrong side of history" is an incredibly strong argument. It's right up there with the "My father is stronger than yours" and "My uncle is a policeman" frequently heard in the schoolyard.

In 1935, fascists and communists firmly believed that liberal democrats were on the wrong side of history. Communists still believe that today.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've started reading a little of this thread, and I was surprised at how (and why) some men (and women) are against the whole idea of trans women.

Let's back the truck up a bit here. I don't think anyone in this thread is "against the whole idea of transwomen". Most of us are well aware that people with gender dysphoria do indeed exist. And we almost universally believe that such people should *not* be subject to harassment or abuse, should not be exclude from the basic structures of society, economics, and politics. The should have non-discriminatory access to employment, housing, and medical care.

What many of us *actually* object to is the dogmatic demand that transwomen be considered to be synonymous with female humans, and thus be counted as female humans in all cases - on the basis of their declaration alone.

I have several transgender family and friends. I love them, I respect them. I'm happy to accommodate them in most situations. If my transwoman niece uses the female restroom at a restaurant, I don't care, and I don't bat an eye. They are respectful and considerate of females. But we have also had pretty serious discussions about things like prison arrangements. I suppose I'm lucky that my nibling agrees that it is unjust and unsafe to house male-bodied people with penises in the female prison ward with females. And given that my nibling is 6 feet tall with a size 13 shoe... I'm also happy that they also think that as a general rule, male people should not compete against females in sports, regardless of how they identify.

To reiterate: Nobody denies the existence of transgender people. Nobody wants to eliminate or eradicate them. Nobody wants them to be harmed or abused. Nobody is actually "anti-trans".

Some of us, however, think that sex is important, and real, and a source of abuse, oppression, and disparity for females. And we would like to see sex retain it's role in society, and in single-sex spaces, and in statistical reporting.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I never read the Rowling book with the transgender character. Does anyone know how she handled it?

Rowling's book did not have a transgender character. Rowling's book had a male murderer, who dressed up in traditionally female clothing in order to gain access to their female victim.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What's embarrassing about that?

There is nothing embarrassing about what Blair said.

 

[Ziggurat]

To be fair, it's kind of true. If you change bathrooms to "locker rooms", it's true of me

I suspect it's not true of you. I suspect that you're probably OK with transwomen who have had full transition surgery and hormone therapy using female locker rooms. I'm not sure anyone here is actually opposed to that.

Remember, it's the trans activists who are trying to treat all trans people as a single category in order to conflate different issues. Don't accept that.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have been using duckduckgo for searches more lately, and it's interesting to see what comes up differently in the different search engines.

Specifically, I came across this video in a few places:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGpw04zTMAk

I think it really sums up well the "modesty" aspect of the debate. And why do I think that?

Because there's nothing sensational about it. It isn't some weird fringe case. It doesn't allege any misbehavior on anyone's part. It isn't about sex crimes or hypothetical anythings. It's about a situation that the trans activist side wants to be normal, and the trans exclusionary side wants to be taboo. (In this case, I'm on the trans exclusionary side.)

It was created as part of a lawsuit by the girl who begins the video. Her attorney speaks and gives opinions on both social issues and the law. When it comes to her opinion on the law, I don't think she was persuasive. I think she lost the lawsuit. However, on the issue of what the law ought to be, I think the people in the video present their case about locker room segration simply and directly, without sensation, and without exaggeration.

What happened in this situation would be the new normal, and indeed is the new normal in many places, and has been upheld based on several votes in city councils and school boards, and by judges in several lawsuits.

I think you can watch the video and decide either

1) The girl's feelings are legitimate and ought to be respected, or
2) The girl is a bigot and/or TERF and she ought to be ignored....or
3) You have some sympathy for the girl, but the feelings of the trans girl are more important, so she will just have to accept the situation or take the offer made by the school.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I have been using duckduckgo for searches more lately, and it's interesting to see what comes up differently in the different search engines.

Specifically, I came across this video in a few places:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGpw04zTMAk

I think it really sums up well the "modesty" aspect of the debate. And why do I think that?

Because there's nothing sensational about it. It isn't some weird fringe case. It doesn't allege any misbehavior on anyone's part. It isn't about sex crimes or hypothetical anythings. It's about a situation that the trans activist side wants to be normal, and the trans exclusionary side wants to be taboo. (In this case, I'm on the trans exclusionary side.)

It was created as part of a lawsuit by the girl who begins the video. Her attorney speaks and gives opinions on both social issues and the law. When it comes to her opinion on the law, I don't think she was persuasive. I think she lost the lawsuit. However, on the issue of what the law ought to be, I think the people in the video present their case about locker room segration simply and directly, without sensation, and without exaggeration.

What happened in this situation would be the new normal, and indeed is the new normal in many places, and has been upheld based on several votes in city councils and school boards, and by judges in several lawsuits.

I think you can watch the video and decide either

1) The girl's feelings are legitimate and ought to be respected, or
2) The girl is a bigot and/or TERF and she ought to be ignored....or
3) You have some sympathy for the girl, but the feelings of the trans girl are more important, so she will just have to accept the situation or take the offer made by the school.

Seems like a false choice. Improving facilities that provide meaningful personal privacy seems like a solution that would address the concerns of both parties in this case.

This is only a conflict of interests if you refuse to consider that existing locker room infrastructure could easily be improved.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And don't take it too personally, I'm tired of just about everybody these days.

You're definitely not alone in that sentiment!

 

[Meadmaker]

I suspect it's not true of you. I suspect that you're probably OK with transwomen who have had full transition surgery and hormone therapy using female locker rooms. I'm not sure anyone here is actually opposed to that.

That's true.

Of course that is something that makes things confusing. People use the term "transgender" to describe very different individuals, and then sometimes twist the words of others by substituting one for the other.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So if one is referring to everyone who is pregnant, then using the term "pregnant women" is non-inclusive and wrong. The correct term would be "pregnant people". But if one is addressing a room full of ciswomen who are pregnant (and yes, almost all pregnant people are ciswomen), then of course the use of the term "pregnant women" is correct and acceptable. And if an individual ciswoman is engaging with clinical staff, then of course she will be referred to as a "pregnant woman".

I would love love LOVE to see you put this much zealotry into campaigning that advertisements targeting people with facial hair, people with prostates who may need a screening, people experiencing erectile dysfunction, nocturnal emitters, priapism experiencers, and ejaculators start using "inclusive" language instead of the commonly understood term "men" that is STILL the absolutely predominant term.

Despite all of your opprobrium and condescension, you only ever seem to berate people who want to retain some modicum of respect and humanity for females.

Why is that?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trans and gay students exist and will be entering the public school system.

Prior to puberty, children are neither straight, nor homosexual, nor bisexual.... because prior to puberty CHILDREN ARE NOT SEXUAL.

Anything beyond a passing "Joe has two daddies because they are gay" is inappropriate for a prepubescent age range in my opinion.

 

[Meadmaker]

Seems like a false choice. Improving facilities that provide meaningful personal privacy seems like a solution that would address the concerns of both parties in this case.

This is only a conflict of interests if you refuse to consider that existing locker room infrastructure could easily be improved.

I'll put you down for option 4.

4) Deny reality.

Show me an architect who agrees with you. Locker rooms exist the way they do for a reason. There's a compromise between privacy, utility, and economy, and there's no way around it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You've got your head in the sand.

I don't think I'd have gone with "sand", personally.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's hard for me to take seriously anyone who claims to be a man, claims that being a man is a critical part of their self-identity, and is also pregnant. Mainly because it seems to me that they're not taking it seriously either.

This is part of why I end up really pushing back against the self-declaration without diagnosis aspect. Being pregnant and delivering an infant is the absolute most fundamentally female thing possible. Gestation and delivery of offspring is the very definition of female from a reproductive biology perspective. Males are incapable of gestating offspring, and there's no way to even entertain that notion without actively rejecting evolutionary biology altogether, as well as reproductive medicine.

On the other hand... I can absolutely understand a person, especially a female person, rejecting the sex-based stereotypes and expectations foisted upon them by society. And I can 100% empathize with a female person opting out of the blatant sexualization and pornification of their sex class by modern society.

And in that case, any experienced dysphoria is a result of a misogynistic society... not a disconnect between the mind's perception of the body and the actual sex of the body.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'll put you down for option 4.

4) Deny reality.

Show me an architect who agrees with you. Locker rooms exist the way they do for a reason. There's a compromise between privacy, utility, and economy, and there's no way around it.

Haven't we been through this before?

Even outside of trans panic, the locker room "utility" is extremely poor. Students routinely refuse to use the communal showers unless they are compelled to do so. They are clearly expressing a strong preference for personal privacy, which schools in their supreme wisdom deny.

Kern High School District officials announced at their December board meeting that they were creating new private changing areas, largely in the form of shower stalls, in district locker rooms.

The change comes in response to parents and local religious leaders voicing their opposition to the presence of transgender students in locker rooms at the last few board meetings.

"The district is currently in the process of evaluating all of our sites to determine the needs for potential modifications to meet the increased desire for privacy expressed recently at meetings," said Michael Zulfa, associate superintendent of business.

At November's board meeting, Stephanie Hall told the board that her daughter, a student at Centennial High School, complained about a transgender student in the locker room. Hall said her daughter was told that she could change in a bathroom stall, which Hall said was "not fair."

https://www.bakersfield.com/news/khsd-announces-new-private-changing-areas-to-address-locker-room-controversy/article_f9f5481a-642e-11ec-96ba-d7230fd12360.html

No denial of reality. Hell, you can probably even harness the efforts of anti-trans parents, once they realize that exclusion won't be legally possible, to make this happen.

I can see why the transphobes might insist as trying to force this as a zero-sum conflict of interests between trans and cis students, but that's simply not reality.