Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Emily's Cat]

To the bigger question - I think everyone should be free to decide who they find attractive - it's none of my business.

Fair enough. Are you of the opinion that gay males are sexually attracted to gender? Thus, if they are initially attracted to a person that presents as if they are male, but later find that they have an inny where they expected an outy... that gay male would be *just as* interested in having sex with a vagina?

 

[Emily's Cat]

As I said 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. Language is like that.

Well then, I define "homosexual" as "sexually attracted to grapefruit". Therefore, since you have described yourself as being homosexual, I infer that you are sexually attracted to grapefruit.

How's that "other people use different definitions" working out? Do you think that makes sense?

 

[Emily's Cat]

"...I've just looked and there are a number of dating apps that seem to be dedicated to a wide range of different demographics. Given the number I'm going to assume that it isn't illegal to filter by those demographics - which seems to include everything from sex to if you ride a motorbike to what sort of sexual acts you like...."

You're dodging the question, Darat. Why?

 

[TomB]

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.

Most of the posts you have been making, I consider reasonable.

However, the correction you made here is incorrect.
In the context of this discussion, the terms male and female have referred to biological sex while the terms man and women have referred to gender. There has been some disagreement with this, but generally it has been over man/woman not male/female.

By the generally accepted definition (on both sides) of female, the statement:
"A dating app that allows trans-women is not female only" is an objective fact, not an opinion.

Had it said:
"A dating app that allows trans-women is not women only" then your edit would be correct within the context of this discussion.

The term "women" is a subject of debate. The term female is not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I guess I'm just not seeing any difference between Rolfe and Sphenic's posts. There's like two words different, otherwise they're the same? I feel like I've really missed something, or my eyeballs have stopped functioning properly.

I understood your post... I don't understand sphenic's response to it. I mean, it's the same thing, right? I'm so confused right now.

You're not chopped liver, I was just still missing the connection between the two posts. It took me a while, it had to sort of seep in.

 

[TomB]

shuttlt has provided evidence that with a quick scan through looks like it backs up their claim - do you have evidence for your counter claim?

This is actually a very old point.

Believe it or not, Shuttit actually provided the evidence that supports Rolfe's claim. Here is the relevant link again:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
Notice the bottom portion where the question had been rephrased to indicate that the transgender women had not had gender reassignment surgery.

 

[Meadmaker]

And shutit's other example was describing behaviour that can be criminal whether it happened in an all-male or all-female changing room.

That's one of the dodges we see around here all the time. There are all sorts of variations on it, but basically it's saying that there's no problem with the transwoman in the female changing room as long as there is not lewd behavior.


That's not a position that we accept. The problem is that a male is present in the changing room. It really doesn't matter what he is doing, or what pronouns he is using. If the person is a male, and the person is in a changing room for ... uhh....(oh look, jerks have changed language so much that no matter what I write some moron will say but..... I'm just going to say "women". Anyone who pretends not to know what I mean is lying.) and the person is in a changing room for women, that's unacceptable.


And if you could convince me that most women don't feel that way, I would change my mind. My interest is protecting the interests of women. You know, ordinary women. Regular women. Cis women. Female women. Those sorts of women. If I ever come to believe that, really, they don't mind and would prefer to share the locker room with transwomen, then that's cool by me. Until then, I will support them in their desire to remove all penis equipped people from their private spaces.

ETA: I didn't mean to imply that that particular post of Darat's was a dodge. To be honest, I didn't click on it to see what the context was. I just know that the "lewd behavior" card gets played a lot in order to deflect from the actual problem, which is violation of female modesty by males. Recently, there have been several posts that refer to gross* violations, and I think some people will try to say that only those matter, but I'm emphasizing that even if the male is behaving "themself", its still a problem. Do you have a penis? Stay out of the girls' locker room.


*A couple of different definitions of "gross" would work in that sentence.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're not chopped liver, I was just still missing the connection between the two posts. It took me a while, it had to sort of seep in.

I like the intentional meta-humor explanation better. I choose to believe it instead.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

The greatest risk comes from close family & friends... in part *because* we take precautions against the risk from strangers. Do you think that would remain the same if we removed all of those safeguards?

More kids die from drowning each year than from firearm related incidents. Do you think that it would make sense to eliminate laws that reduce the likelihood of children being exposed to firearms? I mean, seriously - what's your solution for swimming pools?

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's one of the dodges we see around here all the time. There are all sorts of variations on it, but basically it's saying that there's no problem with the transwoman in the female changing room as long as there is not lewd behavior.


That's not a position that we accept. The problem is that a male is present in the changing room. It really doesn't matter what he is doing, or what pronouns he is using. If the person is a male, and the person is in a changing room for ... uhh....(oh look, jerks have changed language so much that no matter what I write some moron will say but..... I'm just going to say "women". Anyone who pretends not to know what I mean is lying.) and the person is in a changing room for women, that's unacceptable.


And if you could convince me that most women don't feel that way, I would change my mind. My interest is protecting the interests of women. You know, ordinary women. Regular women. Cis women. Female women. Those sorts of women. If I ever come to believe that, really, they don't mind and would prefer to share the locker room with transwomen, then that's cool by me. Until then, I will support them in their desire to remove all penis equipped people from their private spaces.

Exactly you are clear, real women are in danger from these predatory fake women who are really men. You refuse to see any trans "woman" as anything other than a predatory man. Why mince words?

 

[shuttlt]

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).

I think it's more that I was too brief in my explanation. I'm not very fussed about what 5% of the population, or 9% of the population think in regard to these polls. Where I think we agree is that women are much more accommodationist than men. You expand on that a bit, and I agree with you. Where I am going is that I think both you and Rolfe have said versions of accomodation being a non-viable strategy. I see that accommodationism being a feminine reaction.

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.

I hope you are right that things are changing. In terms of institutionally approved opinion, I would say that that is very much not the case.

 

[TomB]

FTFY.

I can't see any reason why such an app wouldn't be allowed given the current legislation. As to the "should" part, I'm all for people dating whoever they want so I'm not going to say they shouldn't, and from my perspective it would seem a good idea. But I'm not a lesbian looking to create a dating app so of course I am not going to prescribe what such a person should or should not do.

Here you do it again.

The mainstream definition of male and female are not in dispute on either side of the issue. But if you have to add qualifiers to the definitions of every word, then language has no meaning.

The phrase "I have a cat" can refer to the species canis lupus if the definition of the word is subject to interpretation.

Again, in the context of this discussion, the terms male and female have always referred to biological sex, not gender. Your additions make the phrases less accurate, not more. Especially since you are aware from context exactly what meaning the poster is using.

 

[shuttlt]

The greatest risk comes from close family & friends... in part *because* we take precautions against the risk from strangers. Do you think that would remain the same if we removed all of those safeguards?

This just goes to show how bizarre it is that we don't allow any random stranger who wants to to sleep unsupervised in our homes with our kids.

 

[shuttlt]

This is actually a very old point.

Believe it or not, Shuttit actually provided the evidence that supports Rolfe's claim. Here is the relevant link again:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
Notice the bottom portion where the question had been rephrased to indicate that the transgender women had not had gender reassignment surgery.

The original question was whether women were "coming around" to Rolfe's way of thinking. I provided graphs of them not coming around, and showed that women were much more accommodationist on trans-inclusion than men. The idea that you get more people in favour of accommodating pre-op vs post-op vs not transitioned at all isn't the question. The question is whether women are "coming around".

 

[Meadmaker]

Exactly you are clear, real women are in danger from these predatory fake women who are really men. You refuse to see any trans "woman" as anything other than a predatory man. Why mince words?

That is not what I have said, nor is it what I believe.

I said that women's modesty is being violated whenever a male is present.

Are the transwomen "fake women"? It depends on your definition of fake.

Are transwomen predatory men? The vast majority are not. Some are.

So, I would appreciate it if you didn't impose views on me that I don't hold. I don't expect it, but I would appreciate it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Just putting it in clearer forms. Own up to being against trans people.

Yeah. Well, you've been wrong before. I don't imagine you'll stop being wrong.

I could explain, but Matthew 7:6 is applicable here.

 

[TomB]

The original question was whether women were "coming around" to Rolfe's way of thinking. I provided graphs of them not coming around, and showed that women were much more accommodationist on trans-inclusion than men. The idea that you get more people in favour of accommodating pre-op vs post-op vs not transitioned at all isn't the question. The question is whether women are "coming around".

I was replying to Darat, not you. The link in question supported Rolfe's point that the response of women depended on the question that was asked.

It's an old survey that has been pulled out many times over the course of this thread.

And misinterpreted over and over.

My interpretation is that is says that women in general support trans rights. Moreso than men. But it also says that women believe that some of those rights (or privileges?) are gained when certain milestones are met.

Further, opinions are not uniform across all demographics, including age. (This may be because younger people are less concerned with privacy in general, but that would take more research.)

Also, the issues presented are seen differently in the context of trans-men vs. trans-women.

Most of the time when it's brought up, the person who links to it only posts to one aspect of it and ignores the rest.

 

[Meadmaker]

Just putting it in clearer forms. Own up to being against trans people.

I will add something.

I don't know exactly what it means to be "against trans people". However, there is a movement for "trans rights", and when it comes to the key battlegrounds over what is and is not a "right" for a transperson, I'm against what is usually called "trans rights". I do not believe that trans people ought to have the right to choose their locker room based on where they feel more comfortable. I do not believe that trans women ought to have the right to play in female sports leagues.

I do not believe that "trans women are women". I sometimes refer to them as women just in order to comply with local customs, but, really, I think transwomen have more important commonalities with cis men than with cis women. This is especially true for people who have not experienced any sort of medical transition.

So, that's what I'll own up to. I'm not sure if that means I am "against trans people".

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah. Well, you've been wrong before. I don't imagine you'll stop being wrong.

I could explain, but Matthew 7:6 is applicable here.

ISWYDT.

 

[TomB]

The original question was whether women were "coming around" to Rolfe's way of thinking. I provided graphs of them not coming around, and showed that women were much more accommodationist on trans-inclusion than men. The idea that you get more people in favour of accommodating pre-op vs post-op vs not transitioned at all isn't the question. The question is whether women are "coming around".

I'm actually not sure the graphs you provided show that.

First, the poll I pointed out is not a time series, and can neither confirm nor contradict Rolfe's point.

Second, the other polls, the ones with the time series, are specifically about unisex toilets. And women are only seem to favor them if there non-unisex ones are available for as well.

I don't think they speaks one way or another on whether women are "coming around" to Rolfe's point of view.