Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Emily's Cat]

I just read an entire twitter thread of screenshots of NHS managers or other staff declaring that they will ignore the new guidelines. The genderwoo goes very deep there.

I also saw a screengrab of India Willoughby saying that if anyone objected to him being in the Ladies' he would pull down his pants and poo right there in public. Several people remarked that then perhaps he would show them the cervix he claimed to have and had offered to display.

It's so very surreal.

On one hand you've got females saying "Hey, we're already underrepresented, discriminated against, and subjected to extremely disproportionate levels of violence, especially sexual violence. We'd really like to keep our single-sex spaces where we are vulnerable, please."

On the other hand you've got activists saying "If you don't let us have our way, we're going to punch you, make you suck our dicks, and urinate/defecate in public."

And then you've got the people insisting that "both sides" are just as bad, and "everyone" needs to calm down and be nice.

Most days I really end up feeling like someone has slipped me some psychedelics and didn't tell me.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think it would have struck me as funnier if Sphensic were male

But at least now I get it, thank you for the explanation!

I hate it when I don't a joke, and then when it is explained, I realize it was quite a good joke.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not true, e.g.

That was after quite a bit of back and forth. And I already explained why it wasn't a clear answer. I didn't ask what the law was. I didn't ask who people should date. I didn't even ask what the app developers should do. I asked what they should be allowed to do.

And the closest you came to an answer was "I'm not going to say they shouldn't", which isn't really very clear at all, and again, only came after multiple posts asking for an answer.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Completely missing the point, indeed.

No doubt there are transwomen who behave very discreetly in ladies' toilets and their presence goes unremarked. However, until someone can find a fool-proof way of ensuring that OMLY these particular transwomen enter ladies' toilets, then I am on the side of my own sex. I have some degree of sympathy for inoffensive men who may be inconvenienced by a blanket ban, but enough is enough. It's an all or nothing situation, with "all" becoming more conprehensively inclusive by the day what with men who look and sound and dress in a masculine manner simply declaring themselves trans (or indeed non-binary) and demanding access to female-only spaces on the same basis as the discreet, inoffensive transwomen were tolerated to "be kind".

So it has to be nothing. Sorry. Find another solution to keep men with identity issues happy, women's spaces are not provided for their therapy.

That ends up where I'm at for the most part. Things worked pretty well when the few males in our restrooms and change rooms were those who had a legitimate diagnosis and had undergone quite a bit of therapy - both to alleviate their own anxiety and to teach them how to not instill anxiety in the females around them.

We knew they were male (very few actually pass all that well), but we were also kind and compassionate and assumed 1) they were going through some serious stuff and 2) they had undergone full surgical alteration. Turns out that last bit was false... but at least those males were respectful of women and kept their penises covered so we never knew. It was a compromise that worked relatively well.

But it absolutely does NOT work when the medical gatekeeping is removed, and when access is granted on the basis of nothing more than self-declared gender identity feels, and there's no requirement for any kind of medical transition or therapy or even decent behavior!

Being kind doesn't work in this new world. Being kind puts females in danger.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it would have struck me as funnier if Sphensic were male

But at least now I get it, thank you for the explanation!

What am I, chopped liver?

Or is this intentional meta humor, where Rolfe's explanation gets credit and mine gets ignored?

Now I don't know how to feel about it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What exactly is “conversion therapy”? From what I can tell, it’s any therapy that doesn’t involve reinforcing trans identity.

But we know that some people who think they are trans are really just trying to cope with other issues. You want to outlaw therapists from effectively helping them. That doesn’t protect trans people. That harms people.

Additionally, right now the affirmation only approach is hormonally and surgically converting GAY PEOPLE into straight people. So Trans Affirmative Treatment ends up being LITERAL gay conversion therapy.

Until we have a way of accurately identifying people whose dysphoria is not a manifestation of a different underlying cause, we really need to NOT take an affirmation only approach. And given the turn-around from both Sweden and Finland, two of the most trans-friendly countries on the planet, it really seems like good sense to stop making irreversible and harmful changes to people's bodies when we've got a problem with false positives.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It would probably have worked better if you were aware I'm not a woman/female/ova-genetator or ever been inclined to use their pronouns. Tough crowd...still no-one's slapped me, so I'm going to count that as a win.

Yes, that makes it funnier. Avatars are funny things, I have always assumed you were female.

ETA: I also seem unable to properly spell your user name. Sorry about that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What valid point - that there are horrible, nasty people out there? I hardly think that is something in doubt by anyone or needs to be stated. This India Willoughby may be a terrible person but since they are a human being I will respect their individual rights the same as I respect everyone's individual rights.

In what way are you respecting the right of females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you really think that India Willoughby's rights as an individual can be ignored or denied them?

What rights do you think they should have removed?

Holy crap Darat.

India Willoughby is a MALE. They demand access under threat to female-only spaces. FEMALES have a right to female-only spaces.

So in your zeal to support Willoughby's "rights" you are LITERALLY violating the rights of all females.

 

[theprestige]

It has always been one of the core issues.


What problem did I have?



I've not avoided answering any questions, you may not agree with how I choose to answer but that is not me avoiding questions.



Not true, e.g.

All this churn, just to work around to the discovery that Darat doesn't think transwomen are women, and doesn't think they have any rights by virtue of transwomanhood, that they didn't already have by virtue of being men.

---
Glossary:

Woman - adult human female

Transwoman - adult human male

Rights - moral entitlements you believe people have, whether or not those entitlements are recognized by anyone else

 

[theprestige]

But just to test the conjecture:

A load of nonsense Rolfe, I have not scolded anyone since my nephew and niece were children. That you read that into what I posted says a lot for the fantasy in your head and is not related to reality in the slightest.

Do you really think that India Willoughby's rights as an individual can be ignored or denied them?

What rights do you think they should have removed?

What right as an individual do you believe India Willoughby should have, regarding access to female-only spaces?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Obsessing about trolls and boogiemen and extrapolating wildly about all trans people based on the behavior of individual cranks or bad actors seems to be a central plank of the anti-trans ideology.

This approach is flawed. You're effectively arguing that well, since only a few adults are pedophiles, it makes no sense at all to limit access to children to only their parents and caregivers. Parents are just "obsessing" about "boogiemen" and "extrapolating wildly" about all adults based on the behavior of individual pedos and child molesters, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

In what way are you respecting the right of females?

By redefining what counts as "female".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Perhaps in 50 years we will have moved on and no one will care what biology anyone has, who knows?

I am skeptical that in 50 years we will have eliminated islam and orthodox judaism, nor will we have eliminated male violence against females. I'm inclined to think that as long as we remain a sexually reproductive species... we're going to care about biology in essentially the same way.

 

[theprestige]

This approach is flawed. You're effectively arguing that well, since only a few adults are pedophiles, it makes no sense at all to limit access to children to only their parents and caregivers. Parents are just "obsessing" about "boogiemen" and "extrapolating wildly" about all adults based on the behavior of individual pedos and child molesters, right?

It's a standard trans-activism dodge. As if downplaying the severity of a problem is a valid excuse for not addressing the problem.

You're supposed to believe that if it became a big problem, trans-activism would have a good solution for it. But the truth is, they won't have any solution for it then, just as they have no solution for it now.

Not to mention the obscenity of refusing to put in place any hedges against the problem, or mitigations of its anticipated harm, before it becomes a big problem and does lots of harm. This, by the way, is how I know that trans-activism has no solution. Allowing abuse of the self-ID system, to the detriment of women, is the solution.

 

[theprestige]

I am skeptical that in 50 years we will have eliminated islam and orthodox judaism, nor will we have eliminated male violence against females. I'm inclined to think that as long as we remain a sexually reproductive species... we're going to care about biology in essentially the same way.

It's another standard trans-activism dodge. Trans-activists pretend they don't have to acknowledge the problems caused by their policy proposals in the present, let alone try to solve them, if they can vaguely imagine a future where the issue is rendered moot.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That person is right and you are wrong. I have respect for that person and their position

You respect the position that adult males should be allowed to get naked around young females at their whim? And that if a prepubescent female objects to a naked adult male in their presence... that child a sick pervert?

Are you really sure you want to take that stand?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's a standard trans-activism dodge. As if downplaying the severity of a problem is a valid excuse for not addressing the problem.

You're supposed to believe that if it became a big problem, trans-activism would have a good solution for it. But the truth is, they won't have any solution for it then, just as they have no solution for it now.

Not to mention the obscenity of refusing to put in place any hedges against the problem, or mitigations of its anticipated harm, before it becomes a big problem and does lots of harm. This, by the way, is how I know that trans-activism has no solution. Allowing abuse of the self-ID system, to the detriment of women, is the solution.

Considering that the greatest source of child predation comes from friends and family of the victims and not from "stranger danger", I'm curious how you apply this line of thinking to the legitimacy of the nuclear family. What is your solution for the rapey uncle problem?

Strangely enough, once discrimination against trans people is taken off the table as a solution, real solutions can be readily found such as in the case of retrofitting bathrooms to provide real personal privacy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, the question was "To what extent, if at all, do you agree with the statement, "A transgender woman is a woman""

This poll has women being more in favour of gender neutral toilets than men:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/philoso...al-toilets-in-public-spaces?crossBreak=female

Though weirdly they are less comfortable using them:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/philoso...al-toilets-in-public-spaces?crossBreak=female

You're misreading the first link. Females are more in favor of having male, female, AND neutral toilets available (40% F, 28% M). Males, however, are more in favor of having ONLY neutral toilets available (5% F, 9% M). Both males and females prefer single-sex toilets be available by a MASSIVE margin (90% F, 93% M).

Women are much more positive than men about having self definition be the defining characteristic of gender:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...o-says-they-are-transgender?crossBreak=female

Then here you find that men are against and the plurality of women are in favour of trans-women using women's changing rooms:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
Men think doing this will cause some kind of harm to women, while a plurality of women do not.

My impression from the data I have seen is that women are in favour of policies that make women feel less comfortable.

I think that sentiment is changing, and rapidly. That last link touches on the issue - there are very different responses based on the vague label of "transwoman" versus specifying no surgery and on the basis of self declaration along.

Yes, females are more tolerant than males, this has been true for most of human history. But there's also been a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of changing dynamics recently.

 

[Emily's Cat]

FTFY. Seriously whether you think people are right or wrong some people do use different definitions than you. To some people it would be as you see it, for others it wouldn't.

Are you taking the position that transwomen are *female*? Please elaborate.