Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[lionking]

It's not an appeal. It's the continuation of her case against her former employer. She won her appeal, which established that gender critical beliefs are protected (meaning that people cannot be discriminated against simply on the basis of such beliefs). CGD decided not to appeal against that finding, so she is now proceeding to the main stage of the tribunal for wrongful dismissal. Regardless of the outcome, gender critical beliefs remain protected.

Thank you. I must admit I just read enough to see it was an ongoing case.

 

[Paul2]

For me there's a huge difference between someone who says, this is what I think and why, and then asks questions and argues with others who think differently, and someone who never commits to what they think and why, and spends all their time trying to argue about what someone else thinks.

You have no opinion on any of these questions, but you're trying to argue someone else's opinion. You're hoping they'll meet you halfway, and feed you your talking points about their opinions.

Are transwomen women? When and where and why? You have no answer of your own to any of these questions. But you'll happily try to "unpick" Rolfe's answers ad absurdum. Why not do her the basic courtesy of telling her where you stand, same as she's done for you?

Shut did the same thing to me concerning gerrymandering in some thread.

Hey, Shut, hope you’re doing well.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, it seems that way in this thread, it's a weird thread.

people seem to be worrying about 'gotchas', rather than with the reality of the thing itself, it's just a scoring tribal thing?

It prevents getting to the truth of the matter.

I certainly think a lot of that is going on. I think a big factor in that is that if you accept the "trans women are women" position, then so many things make sense. Of course they should be in women's sports. They're women. Of course they should use women's changing rooms. They're women. Then there's nothing to argue about.

What happens next, though, is that some of us still say that regardless of the language, there are still differences between the people formerly known as women, and the people formerly known as men, and when we talk about those differences, there is simply no way to refute it, so it devolves into sniping and "gotcha: stuff.

After going through this thread for a long time, I realized that when someone says, "trans women are women" or "trans women are not women", they are not making a statement about trans women. They are making a statement about the definition of a word.

But behind that word there has to be some sort of reality. Saying "trans women are women" does not take away their muscles, or their ability to impregnate the other sorts of women. Saying "men can have babies" does not change who can have babies.

When all is said and done, there are still two sexes, and while most of us don't really care how you dress or what you call yourself, there comes a point where the anatomical differences between the two sexes actually matters, regardless of how this new word "gender" might be used for someone.

 

[Aber]

Very much enjoyed the spectacle of Forstater getting shredded in court this past week. Couldn't have happened to a nicer specimen of humankind.

I particularly enjoyed when Forstater corrected the opposing QC's misgendering.

 

[Aber]

Keir Starmer, Labour leader trying to find a third way:
https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/status/1502560003164680193/photo/1

A woman is a female adult and in addition trans women are women

 

[TurkeysGhost]

More horror stories out of Texas trying to criminalize parents of trans children, including one where the state is investigating "child abuse" claims against the parents of a trans person who is now an adult.

L., a mom who lives in Austin, Texas, said she was excited and relieved when her transgender son turned 18 last month, because “he made it.”

Her son attempted suicide multiple times, she explained, first when he was just 9 years old. After he came out as trans and started wearing different clothing and using male pronouns, she said she heard him laugh for the first time in a long time.

Now, he’s going to college in another state, and L., whose lawyer recommended she go by an initial instead of her full name to protect her family's privacy, thought her family was safe.

“Nobody has to know that he’s trans unless he wants to tell them, so he’s just been thriving in college,” L. said. “He’s got good friends, he’s in several clubs, working hard at his nursing studies. For once he’s just one of the guys. He’s not that trans kid.”

But on March 1, an agent from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, the state agency that investigates child abuse claims, showed up at her front door and told her that there had been “multiple reports of abuse” filed against her.

The agent’s visit followed a directive by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott last month calling on the department to “conduct a prompt and thorough investigation” of any reported instances of minors undergoing “elective procedures for gender transitioning,” including the prescription of puberty blockers or hormones.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/-state-terrorizing-us-texas-families-transgender-kids-fight-investigat-rcna19282

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is why the term "fringe reset" ends up getting used so often in this conversation. It was usually applied to a pattern in paranormal or conspiracy theories forums. Person A makes a claim. Persons B, C, and D provide objections to claim, citing examples or analogies, or provides information in support of objections. Person A focuses on analogies or supporting information, rather than defending the claim against the objections, effectively changing the subject.

Person A repeats claim.

That's the "fringe reset".


When last time the subject came up, it was pointed out that the solutions you referenced would result in individuals requiring more time to change clothes and/or shower in such facilities as were proposed. The end result is that fewer people can use the facilities at any given time, which forces providers to limit the programming which made changing clothes and/or showering necessary.

You dismissed the problem then. You will dismiss the problem now. It's an inconvenient truth to the "greater privacy for all" solution. Find me an architect that says he has a way to redesign locker rooms to accommodate the same number of people in the same amount of time that they currently can, without knocking out some walls, and I'll take the claim seriously.

I don't dismiss anything. Making accommodations for minorities is often inconvenient. Such is the cost of living in an inclusive society.

I recall much grousing about the requirements of the ADA for example. Making sure people with disabilities can access society is often an inconvenience to the able-bodied, often coming with considerable additional expense. I suppose what is "reasonable" is a judgement call.

 

[shuttlt]

Personally, I think it will be almost impossible to come up with a meaningful general principle that applies to both male only poker clubs, and male only locker rooms. The issues are just totally different.

Not at all, the difficulty depends on what case you are trying to make. A libertarian could easily just say that both are issues of freedom of association.

Trans issues can be applicable in both cases, but deciding whether or not to allow a trans man to join "boys night out" at the pub is not the same as deciding whether or not to allow a trans man to use the men's locker room.

Because? The trans-activist claim, though it's obviously much more focused on women, is that they are the trans-women and women, trans-men are men and that in all cases they should be treated as such. That feels like a general principle.

And, of course, in either case the men might shrug, even if they are somewhat uncomfortable or offended. Now, though, do the same thing with transwomen and the women's locker room and the issue becomes more serious.

Sure, but men have already been steamrollered by feminists for 60 years on this and culturally adapted to the demands of feminists. Women haven't really been on the receiving end of the arguments that were used to dismantle male spaces, so this is new to them.

In reality, I don't think there are any "equity issues" associated with locker rooms, although trans activists will try to cast it that way. There is an identity issue, which can be found in the thread title, which was written in 2019.

Indeed. Separate, but equal and all that. In any argument about equality you always have the side asking for equality, and the side explaining how this is a special case and that segregation is justified for this or that social good. I fail to see what is special here beyond it being women who are at the receiving end of the equality demand.

 

[Rolfe]

What I'm doing is trying to unpick your position. OK, are you saying that because you think women are marginalised by society in some way then freedom of association is trumped by equity issues in regard to allowing them into male spaces? In the case of trans-women they aren't marginalised, so this punching up/down argument doesn't trump women's freedom of association? It seems to me that the trans-activists are claiming that women are punching down in denying them access to womens spaces. If we are basing the argument on punching up/down, it feels like the same argument and the same claim. Is this just an argument about the ordering of the privilege stack?

I'm saying that historically men-only social spaces have been a huge problem for women's rights, and to some extent they can still be.

You seem to think I am advocating a specific solution to this, although I have not propounded one. Why is that?

 

[shuttlt]

I'm saying that historically men-only social spaces have been a huge problem for women's rights, and to some extent they can still be.

How have they been an obstacle to women's rights? I can see how it might get in the way of reaching some target of female representation at some level of management in a particular timescale. I wonder whether the rusj was worth undermining freedom of association. It feels like that is coming back to bite trans-exclusionary feminists now. This feels like an outcomes rather than a rights based position. With freedom and negative rights, you get unequal outcomes. It sounds like you meaning some kind of positive rights notion, say the right not to be the only women in the IT department.

You seem to think I am advocating a specific solution to this, although I have not propounded one. Why is that?

What I'm not clear on is why you think womens positive rights trump men's rights, but trans-womens positive rights don't trump women's rights.... beyond having a sympathy for the cause of women that you don't have for men, or trans-women.

 

[shuttlt]

Keir Starmer, Labour leader trying to find a third way:
https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/status/1502560003164680193/photo/1

This is rhetorical nonsense masquerading as an answer. There is a genuine and fundamental disagreement going on that only one side can win. It's like pretending that if only the curriculum could be presented in the right way conservative muslim parents would be OK with their kids being taught that homosexuality was just fine. It is convincing only to midwits in the liberal bubble.

 

[shuttlt]

I certainly think a lot of that is going on. I think a big factor in that is that if you accept the "trans women are women" position, then so many things make sense. Of course they should be in women's sports. They're women. Of course they should use women's changing rooms. They're women. Then there's nothing to argue about.

It's classic motte and bailey tactics. You are being asked to agree to something that is purely linguistic and about politeness and respecting people. If you agree to it, you have rhetorically given way on a vast array of practical consequences which were in fact the aim all along.

What happens next, though, is that some of us still say that regardless of the language, there are still differences between the people formerly known as women, and the people formerly known as men, and when we talk about those differences, there is simply no way to refute it, so it devolves into sniping and "gotcha: stuff.

You can't give way on the language thing. The language thing is leveraging people's unwillingness to be rude, "kick down" and say what they actually think. You have to be willing to be the ******* about trivial points like this or they will get everything they want with salami tactics if they don't just grab it all in one go.

After going through this thread for a long time, I realized that when someone says, "trans women are women" or "trans women are not women", they are not making a statement about trans women. They are making a statement about the definition of a word.

The definition of the word is arbitrary. The argument about the word is an innocent proxy for all the real world changes that will follow. Once they have won, people will grow up in a world where women can have penises (with whatever consequences go with that change) and these will be looked back on as unenlightened times in the way that the 1950s are today.

But behind that word there has to be some sort of reality. Saying "trans women are women" does not take away their muscles, or their ability to impregnate the other sorts of women. Saying "men can have babies" does not change who can have babies.

No, but power will have been moved by changing the word. Just as much of feminism has been mainstreamed such that accusation of sexism are a powerful weapon and that it has become politically borderline impossible to stand against it, the same thing will happen with trans-activism. Their victory will be total and their politics will be the orthodoxy that is assumed to be true and you are worse than Hitler if you disagree with.

When all is said and done, there are still two sexes, and while most of us don't really care how you dress or what you call yourself, there comes a point where the anatomical differences between the two sexes actually matters, regardless of how this new word "gender" might be used for someone.

In as much as the liberal project is about the freedom of the individual to fully realise themselves in the world, this sounds anti-liberal.... I agree with it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not at all, the difficulty depends on what case you are trying to make. A libertarian could easily just say that both are issues of freedom of association.

I am finding it somewhat difficult to distinguish between your positions versus your characterization of others' positions. In this case, you are saying that someone could say they are both issues of freedom of assocation, and indeed someone could say that. If someone did say that, I would say that someone just said something kind of dumb, though. So, I'm not sure if you are saying, "Those people will say that", or "It's a perfectly sound position to say...."


Yes, people will say that, but it's really bad logic.


So anyway, in a few cases in your recent posts, I'm not sure at points where you are taking positions versus explaining positions, so I'm not sure how to respond.


I think I'm mostly agreeing with you.


In the case of male only spaces that have been invaded by females over the last few decades, I think those spaces that do not involve "modesty" in some form are mostly beyond the scope of the thread. Some are peripherally significant, but I won't be addressing them except as they relate to transgender issues. In the grand scheme of things there is, I would agree, a connection even between a male only country club and a transwoman in a high school locker room, but the connection is sufficiently abstract that I'm not going to try and resolve it here.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't dismiss anything.

You just did.

You are saying "such is the cost of living in an inclusive society", but you aren't actually acknowledging the cost.

Actually try to visiualize the locker room of tomorrow, with enhanced privacy. A person must walk in in street clothes, change clothes to exercise clothes, store the street clothes, exercise, return, remove all clothes, storing both exercise and street clothes, shower, and dress in street clothes, and then either store the exercise clothes for their next use, either at the permanent location as is typical for high school settings, or in a gym bag to be removed for home. Don't forget that all clothes have to remain dry, except of course for unavoidable sweat on the exercise clothes.

Now, visualize how to do that in a traditional locker room and in an enhanced privacy setting such as you advocate. See the differences.

Simply put, gym class as it existed when I was in high school could not exist if the enhanced privacy locker room was a requirement.


And....maybe that's something you think is ok. However, what it means is that, actually, the cost of an inclusive society is that no one is included. At least everyone is equally excluded, and some people seem to think that's an improvement.

In reality, a lot of people simply choose to deny the actual consequences of the changes. They say "such is the cost", without acknowledging the cost.

Making accommodations for minorities is often inconvenient. Such is the cost of living in an inclusive society.

I recall much grousing about the requirements of the ADA for example. Making sure people with disabilities can access society is often an inconvenience to the able-bodied, often coming with considerable additional expense. I suppose what is "reasonable" is a judgement call.

Interesting analogy. Analogies often open up rabbit holes for derails, so I won't debate the ADA here. I'm mostly for it and I think it's mostly a good thing, but I find that an awful lot of advocates don't acknowledge the actual costs, which go beyond mere dollars on a ledger sheet.

 

[shuttlt]

I am finding it somewhat difficult to distinguish between your positions versus your characterization of others' positions. In this case, you are saying that someone could say they are both issues of freedom of assocation, and indeed someone could say that. If someone did say that, I would say that someone just said something kind of dumb, though. So, I'm not sure if you are saying, "Those people will say that", or "It's a perfectly sound position to say...."


Yes, people will say that, but it's really bad logic.

I don't believe in freedom of association as an absolute good. Why is it bad logic though?

So anyway, in a few cases in your recent posts, I'm not sure at points where you are taking positions versus explaining positions, so I'm not sure how to respond.

I was trying to understand Rolfe's position. I genuinely think that much of what is going on is just the arguments that were once applied to a set of targets that old school feminists wanted to attack now being used to attack things they hold sacred. That isn't to say I think society would be improved by trying to placate trans activists. I don't.

I think I'm mostly agreeing with you.

In the case of male only spaces that have been invaded by females over the last few decades, I think those spaces that do not involve "modesty" in some form are mostly beyond the scope of the thread.

Why is modesty such an important thing and all the aspects of male spaces that the people who inhabited them found valuable are of lesser importance? Modestly sounds kind of gendered. It was traditionally a female virtue, I think. Are you sure this isn't just an appeal to the old trope of women needing to be protected from things that men are expected to deal with?

Some are peripherally significant, but I won't be addressing them except as they relate to transgender issues. In the grand scheme of things there is, I would agree, a connection even between a male only country club and a transwoman in a high school locker room, but the connection is sufficiently abstract that I'm not going to try and resolve it here.

They are only unrelated if we ignore the ideological underpinnings of both sides positions. It's not like the traditional feminist opposition to mens spaces that exclude women, or trans-women entering female spaces is coming from nowhere... or indeed the arguments of transwomen. All of these are parts of a liberation ideology that have been actively been moving forward for a hundred years. Treating trans-bathrooms as an issue in isolation is like treating the definition of "woman" in isolation. You cut out all the context that underpins the question.

If it's not about ideas and principles, is it just tribal? Taking apart male spaces advantaged women, and I support women, hence it is good. Letting trans-women into female spaces disadvantages women, and I support women, hence I am against it? I don't necessarily oppose that sort of view, but if that's what is going on, I'm not sure what there is to say.

 

[Meadmaker]

Why is modesty such an important thing and all the aspects of male spaces that the people who inhabited them found valuable are of lesser importance?

It's not a question of more important or less important. It's just a question of this thread or that thread.


And yes, there is some sort of connection, but not enough that I want to pursue it all the way down to first principles and try to articulate every possible place where those principles influence. To me, there is a sufficiently obvious difference between "We don't want girls in our club!" and "We don't want girls in our shower!" that I don't care to try and defend the distinction. (Feel free to substitute "boys", or whatever, in the above.) I recognize how those two positions may actually be related, but the relationship is sufficiently tenuous that I don't care to try and explain why I think of them differently.

 

[shuttlt]

It's not a question of more important or less important. It's just a question of this thread or that thread.


And yes, there is some sort of connection, but not enough that I want to pursue it all the way down to first principles and try to articulate every possible place where those principles influence. To me, there is a sufficiently obvious difference between "We don't want girls in our club!" and "We don't want girls in our shower!" that I don't care to try and defend the distinction. (Feel free to substitute "boys", or whatever, in the above.) I recognize how those two positions may actually be related, but the relationship is sufficiently tenuous that I don't care to try and explain why I think of them differently.

I don't know. I think understanding first principles is important and interesting. Take the "trans-women are women" crowd, if you understand what the ideas are underpinning that, you can look at what the actual implications of the demand is rather than the narrow frame that the person saying it may be restricting the case to.

If one doesn't try to unpick the first principles, what is there to discuss? We just have two sides with a different set of axioms saying "I believe X" and "I believe not X" at one another until somebody gives up.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't know. I think understanding first principles is important and interesting. Take the "trans-women are women" crowd, if you understand what the ideas are underpinning that, you can look at what the actual implications of the demand is rather than the narrow frame that the person saying it may be restricting the case to.

If one doesn't try to unpick the first principles, what is there to discuss? We just have two sides with a different set of axioms saying "I believe X" and "I believe not X" at one another until somebody gives up.

I think an understanding of the feminist movement and the core principles surrounding our understanding of gender and sex can illuminate the origin of various positions related to trans rights.


But you don't really need to know that history in order to figure out why that girl with the really big shoulders is winning all the races.

 

[shuttlt]

But you don't really need to know that history in order to figure out why that girl with the really big shoulders is winning all the races.

Sure. But surely the question is whether the girl with the big shoulders winning is a problem, and if it's a problem, whether it is enough of a problem to call a halt finally to this 100 year process of liberating the individual from societal restrictions and expectations based on their immutable characteristics?

The "crisis in masculinity" and everything that goes with it has been a topic for quite a while now. Was that a price worth paying to change the world to make it more "equal"? Why does there being a price to be paid by women for trans-women escaping these socially defined boundaries mean that they shouldn't get what they want? Surely underpinning all of this is an assumption that a world in which people are free to define themselves however they want, and be what they want to be is a better world?

 

[Matthew Best]

I think an understanding of the feminist movement and the core principles surrounding our understanding of gender and sex can illuminate the origin of various positions related to trans rights.

Sure, but you have to remember that as far as shuttlt is concerned, "men have already been steamrollered by feminists for 60 years".