Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Meadmaker]

Well, I guess I have to agree with you. Changing the laws in some places sure did have the effect of changing the laws. Much to consider...

In the grand scheme of things, I think the overall issue is whether people who support trans rights understand exactly what they are supporting. When I google articles, the news reports often include a "what is transgender" section, suggesting that there are a lot of people who still don't understand the terms. A common point of confusion is that a lot of people think that "transgender" implies some sort of medical treatment.

I like the example that I've used about the Pennsylvania lawsuit precisely because there is nothing sensationalized about it. It's a simple situation, but I think there would be a lot of people who would be surprised that it's considered perfectly normal today. There's nothing extreme about it. It's what mainstream trans rights supporters would want to see. They want the trans girl to be seen as just another girl, and if there's a penis and testicles obviously causing bulges in those panties, that's perfectly ok. And if the trans girl is on the swim team and needs to change into a bathing suit, it doesn't matter that her male genitalia are exposed to full view in the girls' locker room. That, in the new scheme of things, is normal and acceptable.

However, I think there are a lot of people in America who don't understand that. (And, I'm focusing on America just because it's the only place I'm familiar with. I'm sure there are similar things happening elsewhere in the world.)

As they come to understand that, how will they react? In the short run, we will of course see protests, but will the protests succeed, and will they hold up in the long run?

I think Darat's post from a few days ago is the relevant factor. How do young people view it? Do they not mind? They're the ones that are most affected, for a variety of reasons. Do they object, or do they think the objections are hopelessly old fashioned? There's surprisingly little discussion of that in the press.

 

[shuttlt]

I think Darat's post from a few days ago is the relevant factor. How do young people view it? Do they not mind? They're the ones that are most affected, for a variety of reasons. Do they object, or do they think the objections are hopelessly old fashioned? There's surprisingly little discussion of that in the press.

If I think about my daughter though... I think she would put up with a lot because she would trust the adults around her that this was all well intentioned and was leading to a better world, and would be entirely unaware about autogynephilia. She'd probably feel uncomfortable, but she'd put up with it unless something really egregious happened. But then, she's spent years being taught that all this is a good idea. I doubt she'll really be in a position to form her own opinion until she's seen way more of life, had kids etc.

 

[The Atheist]

More collateral damage from Texas' war against trans families:

What I find most ironic about problems like that is that if the trans lobby didn't take such extreme positions, I think you'd get 100% of even slightly liberal people behind you.

Texas and other states with outright anti-trans laws are a disgrace, but the position being taken by the pro-trans lobby destroys any chance of widespread support.

Pity really, but you've forced me and a lot of other people into the "**** the pro-trans lobby" group.

C'est la vie.

 

[shuttlt]

What I find most ironic about problems like that is that if the trans lobby didn't take such extreme positions, I think you'd get 100% of even slightly liberal people behind you.

Texas and other states with outright anti-trans laws are a disgrace, but the position being taken by the pro-trans lobby destroys any chance of widespread support.

Pity really, but you've forced me and a lot of other people into the "**** the pro-trans lobby" group.

C'est la vie.

To be able to do this kind of activism, you need to have an opposition that has to be overcome. If there is too much agreement, it doesn't work. Reasonable demands aren't really useful.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What I find most ironic about problems like that is that if the trans lobby didn't take such extreme positions, I think you'd get 100% of even slightly liberal people behind you.

Texas and other states with outright anti-trans laws are a disgrace, but the position being taken by the pro-trans lobby destroys any chance of widespread support.

Pity really, but you've forced me and a lot of other people into the "**** the pro-trans lobby" group.

C'est la vie.

Ironically I think quite the opposite is true. There are plenty of liberals who are squishy on the issues of trans rights, but the extreme, overbroad reach of these reactionary states is not leaving any room for them to waffle. Hell, now these states are throwing out homosexual rights in the same attacks on trans people, making the need for broad LGBT solidarity all the more obvious. instead of focusing on somewhat popular wedge issues like sports or locker rooms the reactionaries are trying to relitigate old culture wars by going after gay marriage or trying to force a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on schools and purging libraries of books. Even ghouls like Andy Sullivan have had to admit that this reactionary freakout has jumped the shark.

The way these red states are acting, I suspect it's going to be politically impossible for "liberal transphobia" to be considered acceptable. So much for the American TERFs

 

[Ziggurat]

To be able to do this kind of activism, you need to have an opposition that has to be overcome. If there is too much agreement, it doesn't work. Reasonable demands aren't really useful.

We are well into the racket phase of the cause.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ironically I think quite the opposite is true.

If I were to use the popular FTFY pattern, I would insert the word "also" between "is" and "true".

But in terms of successful wedge issue use, I think The Atheist's statement is more true. I think that most of the people who are offended by right wing overreach would have supported the left wing side, regardless, whereas a lot of people who would be genuinely supportive of transgender people and their rights are very offended by the TRA positions and, when forced to pick a side, they don't pick yours.

I think when you and your allies constantly call out TERF, transphobe, and bigot in situations like the high school locker rooms, you alienate a lot of people. I think we've seen evidence of that in this thread, where some people who start out as supporters end up solidly against you.

I'm not talking about myself in this situation, long before this thread ever started I had a tendency to use the word "daft" in relation to transgender issues from the moment I understood what TWAW meant.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If I were to use the popular FTFY pattern, I would insert the word "also" between "is" and "true".

But in terms of successful wedge issue use, I think The Atheist's statement is more true. I think that most of the people who are offended by right wing overreach would have supported the left wing side, regardless, whereas a lot of people who would be genuinely supportive of transgender people and their rights are very offended by the TRA positions and, when forced to pick a side, they don't pick yours.

I think when you and your allies constantly call out TERF, transphobe, and bigot in situations like the high school locker rooms, you alienate a lot of people. I think we've seen evidence of that in this thread, where some people who start out as supporters end up solidly against you.

I'm not talking about myself in this situation, long before this thread ever started I had a tendency to use the word "daft" in relation to transgender issues from the moment I understood what TWAW meant.

Time will tell I suppose. My prediction is that the issue largely falls on the predictable partisan lines, with red states passing anti-trans laws along side other laws meant to criminalize abortion, generally limit reproductive rights, and a return of anti-gay laws. I suspect that the nastiness of these regressive backswings will make even mild anti-trans laws very toxic and untenable in blue states, with maybe an exception specifically regarding school sports.

That's my prediction anyway. Right wing excesses on the issue will make centrist and liberal transphobic policies less palatable.

 

[shuttlt]

That's my prediction anyway. Right wing excesses on the issue will make centrist and liberal transphobic policies less palatable.

Aren't right wing excesses on this issue just the norm of 5 or 10 years go That pretty much everybody would have assumed?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Individuals who live their life as a particular gender.

Can you explain this? How does a male live their life as a "woman"? How do "women" live their lives?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Figures don't lie.

But liars figure.

You don't like the answer so obviously it's lies?

Transgender identified males commit sexual crimes at the same rate as other males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's one thing to still have a penis. It's another to expose females to male genitals in a woman's locker room. That is indecent exposure and it always has been. But if a person dresses like a female, looks like a female and maintains that facade I see no reason not to ignore it. The problem surfaces when it obviously is not.

What do you do with butch females? If they don't shave their armpits, wear combat boots, male-styled jeans, and polo shirts? Does that make them "men"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Bigoted. Biassed. Prejudiced.

There has to be a term for this debating tactic. Argument from opprobrium? Badmouth your opponent, make it clear you believe their position is abhorrent to you and should be abhorrent to any "right-thinking" person, and maybe you don't have to look at the evidence or examine the artuments. It often seems to work.

It's the illegitimate love child of Poisoning the Well and Appeal to Emotion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Does nobody understand what 'without context' means anymore?

I understand what it means, and it's irrelevant in the context of this thread. Because this entire discussion is all about context.

 

[theprestige]

Individuals who live their life as a particular gender.

If you can explain what that means, and why it should be privileged or protected by public policy, you'll be the first person in the history of this thread to do so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm becoming increasingly intrigued by this debating tactic. Post reasonable summary of your opponent's position, prefaced by "You obviously believe..." and frame it in an incredulous "no decent person would ever believe that" rhetoric. Then sit back and claim victory.

It's a weird tactic. There was a post on twitter last week that was posting "What GC People ACTUALLY Believe". It included things like GC people think that children should not have access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. They stuck in some shocked smiley faces and a bunch of exclamation points and basically presented it as if it's such an obviously horrible and shameful position, like they were revealing some deep dark secret.

And the gender-abolitionist cohort of twitter was pretty much like "Yes, that's pretty much true. What's your point again?"

 

[lomiller]

But if a person dresses like a female, looks like a female and maintains that facade I see no reason not to ignore it.

The problem I have is that this presupposes that there is a defined way females are supposed to look, dress and act.

If they are not harming anyone I don't really care, but I can't help but be skeptical that identifying as another gender is a real thing, as it required us to adopt needless standards on how certain people are supposed to look, dress and act.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, really.

You might be happy to implement rules that are known to increase the chances of sexual assault by a factor of five times, but women, and a lot of men aren't.

At this stage of the thread, when the evidence has been provided ad nauseum that men - whether in panties or not - are a direct threat to women, defence of the idea that trans "women" should be entitled to all benefits of being female is a good illustration of how deep the misogyny runs.

The really amusing part is that I bet the Defenders of the Trans Faith really think they're the good guys.

It's the callous disregard for the safety, dignity, and well-being of female humans that always gets me. It's just so transparent and blatant.

 

[Rolfe]

The problem I have is that this presupposes that there is a defined way females are supposed to look, dress and act.

If they are not harming anyone I don't really care, but I can't help but be skeptical that identifying as another gender is a real thing, as it required us to adopt needless standards on how certain people are supposed to look, dress and act.

I am honestly wondering whether there really is a sex-based difference in the ability of human beings to determine the sex of other human beings. Specifically, that men are significantly worse at doing this than women. And most particularly that men are significantly worse at identifying other men when they are camouflaged to some extent, compared to women.

Because the way women look and act is so different from the way men look and act (albeit accepting that someone who puts a lot of effort into deception may succeed) that I struggle to understand anyone who says, oh well they're wearing a frock, they must be a woman.

As an example, the ubiquitous India Willoughby was posting some pictures on Twitter, pictures that included a couple of butch lesbians, and saying, well they could easily be trans. Uh, no. He thinks we don't know what butch lesbians look like?

 

[Meadmaker]

I am honestly wondering whether there really is a sex-based difference in the ability of human beings to determine the sex of other human beings.

I would guess that there is. Women are better at recognizing faces than men. I think there is probably a difference in lots of perception of aspects of other people.

ETA: A quick google also suggests reputable science that says women are better than men at reading non-verbal cues.