Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Sideroxylon]

Oh, what the heck....I'm going to go there.

Maybe, sometimes, the argument is right.


I happen to have friends that are part of the "homeschool Bible crowd." In some cases, homeschool Bible folks dumb as a stump and don't have a clue. I don't think their kids are getting a good education. In other cases, they are highly intelligent Christians who are distressed at the quality of public schools and the values present in those schools. (Among the people I know, the quality is the primary concern.) The two couples I can think of that fit the description of the latter group consist of two very intelligent people. The husband has a good job and makes enough money for the family to live comfortably. The wife is highly intelligent and is perfectly capable of teaching their children, and doing a better job at it than the average elementary school teacher.

But you are going to lump them both in and dismiss them as part of the "homeschool Bible crowd". And then somehow transfer that into attitudes towards transgenders.

With respect to climate change deniers, it's a bit different. What I have seen is that there are a few different categories. I'll break it into three, but we could split it up finer. There's the "Antrhopogenic climate change isn't happening." crowd. Then there's the "Climate change is an existential threat to humanity that must be addressed with immediate and significant changes right now to prevent massive suffering and death." crowd. And finally there's a crowd that says, "Yes it's happening, but we can live with it." (Remember, I only broke into three categories. There's actually more.)

The problem on this front is that people want to shove that third crowd into the first one.

And then you are going one more and saying that people who criticize the transgender agenda are just like that first crowd.


Frankly, it's nonsense. You can paint people with as broad of a brush as you like, and all you will accomplish is the sort of smug satisfaction that comes from allowing yourself to ignore opinions that make you uncomfortable.

Now let's get back, specifically, to transgender issues, without dragging in unrelated things, like Christian homeschooling or climate change. They really have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Lets rewind a bit. This started where I express the idea that university is an organic producer of ideas and not a mere indoctrination facility. Then someone lazily dumps a link to a single instance as a counter point. Yes, that is cherry picking. Yes, I have seen the same attempts to discredit universities with the same cherry picking and ironically a painting a field of people with a broad brush.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Lol TERFs upset that Rufo is treating them as the disposable allies-of-convenience for his fascist clout-chasing that they always were.

I actually haven't been getting flak and I certainly don't believe I need permission from feminists to report on gender. My reporting follows my curiosity and nothing else. And frankly, those of you who have "been at this for years" have done nothing but lose ground.

Chris Rufo joins the TERF wars five minutes ago and announces women have been doing it wrong

This is so ******* annoying. Matt Walsh, Bill Maher, Chris Rufo, etc bathe in praise while the women who’ve been fighting this for years are harassed, ignored, and cast out of their own communities.

Every one of these guys owe a debt to feminists, detransitioners, and others who have been speaking out at no small cost to themselves. Let’s see if they ever acknowledge that.

https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1528399712734179329

Crawling into bed with right wing transphobes not turning out quite like the TERFs had hoped. Damn shame.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I think in these parts, you will find little argument about that.

The problem comes in when they assert their own identify, and demand that others accept their assertion.

It all sounds so lofty when you express it like that, but in the end, it's all about whether or not that 15 year old girl I talked about earlier has to take off her clothes in the presence of a person that has a dick.

ETA: And, if you can convince her that it makes sense, I'll go along. Until then, I'm on her side.

What is the cost in accepting someone’s expressed and internally felt gender identity? The basis for scepticism of their internally felt identity doesn't seem strong at all. What is being demanded or imposed on us?

Change rooms, toilets, children with gender dysphoria, sports. These all seem to be things to work out after we deal with the root question of identity. Too often they could be red herrings, as important as they may seem, and a more convenient debate battle ground.

 

[TomB]

I think in these parts, you will find little argument about that.

The problem comes in when they assert their own identify, and demand that others accept their assertion.

It all sounds so lofty when you express it like that, but in the end, it's all about whether or not that 15 year old girl I talked about earlier has to take off her clothes in the presence of a person that has a dick.
ETA: And, if you can convince her that it makes sense, I'll go along. Until then, I'm on her side.

Actually, it's not.

There are a lot of different subtopics here. Despite what the vocal proponents of each side seem to think, it's not all or nothing. You can support some things and not others.

For example, you can fully support someone's identity (with or without the word "woman"), consider them they way they wish to be considered, etc. but still say that young girls should not be exposed to penises. (The why is also a different issue with multiple possible answers.)

"One can also say: "Yes, you are a woman, but your biology makes you ineligible for the female sports leagues."

One can be open to allowing trans-women into bathrooms, but not changing rooms.

One can be happy to use preferred pronouns, but not access to bathrooms.

There is a lot of nuance that neither side wants to allow. Either from a "still not completely validating" or a slippery slope argument.

What is it "perfect is the enemy of good?" The thing is, there is no perfect. Trans people have been beaten down (sometimes literally) and face risks in their daily lives. Women are often they prey of men, some of whom will take advantage of openings to violate them. There is no scenario where everyone's concerns are addressed in all situations.

It is not some conspiracy for men to take away women's dignity. "Men" invading women's spaces. They may not be women by your definition, but neither are they men by theirs. (Same for FTM but in reverse.) They think they should fit over here and you say they should fit over there. The result is they don't really seem to fit in either. So what's the answer?

Compromise.

But see, that's out of style. "Hey, we will accept you here, but you have to understand we can't accept you there because..." Both sides see compromise as a defeat.

I think that's the real problem.

 

[Meadmaker]

What is the cost in accepting someone’s expressed and internally felt gender identity? The basis for scepticism of their internally felt identity doesn't seem strong at all. What is being demanded or imposed on us?

Change rooms, toilets, children with gender dysphoria, sports. These all seem to be things to work out after we deal with the root question of identity. Too often they could be red herrings, as important as they may seem, and a more convenient debate battle ground.

To my way of thinking, you have it completely backwards.


I don't give a hoot how you identify and the question doesn't matter to me in the least. I don't see why I ought to care.

On the other hand, change rooms, toilets, and sports are real things with practical consequences in the real world. Identify however you like, but when it comes time to hand out medals at the track meet, I don't think someone with balls ought to get the one labelled "girls", regardless of how he/she/they/it/sie/? identifies.

 

[Meadmaker]

Actually, it's not.

I was simplifying for illustration.

It's about that 15 year old girl taking off her clothes.

And about that 30 year old woman using the bathroom.

And about the professional athlete losing a place in the women's league.

And about the high school athlete not going to district championships.

And, and, and.

And you don't have to answer all of them the same way (i.e. trans inclusive versus trans exclusionary)

The point is that it's about real world situations that have to be decided.

I will err on the side of supporting women's (do I have to say female?) privacy until someone can convince me that it shouldn't matter. One way to do that would be to convince me that it doesn't matter to the women. Convince me that most fifteen year old girls don't mind sharing a locker room with a person with a penis, and I'll drop my objection. Likewise for every other element in the list above, and all of the other comparable situations.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I will err on the side of supporting women's (do I have to say female?) privacy until someone can convince me that it shouldn't matter. One way to do that would be to convince me that it doesn't matter to the women. Convince me that most fifteen year old girls don't mind sharing a locker room with a person with a penis, and I'll drop my objection. Likewise for every other element in the list above, and all of the other comparable situations.

Of course, it's already been pointed out that nobody gives the slightest concern when that same 15 year old girl expresses similar objections to changing in front of their same-sex peers.

I would say that it's quite right to respect people's demands for bodily autonomy and modesty concerns, but sex-segregated spaces as commonly implemented obviously do not accomplish this.

 

[Meadmaker]

Of course, it's already been pointed out that nobody gives the slightest concern when that same 15 year old girl expresses similar objections to changing in front of their same-sex peers.

I would say that it's quite right to respect people's demands for bodily autonomy and modesty concerns, but sex-segregated spaces as commonly implemented obviously do not accomplish this.

Well this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I will raise a question one more time in the hopes that this time it will be addressed.


There are tens of thousands of private sector businesses in the United States that provide locker rooms for their customers. Darned near zero of them have unisex facilities with enhanced privacy options. Darned near none of them provide significant modesty protections from the same sex gaze.

If there's a demand for such things, why isn't there a market?

 

[shuttlt]

Well this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I will raise a question one more time in the hopes that this time it will be addressed.


There are tens of thousands of private sector businesses in the United States that provide locker rooms for their customers. Darned near zero of them have unisex facilities with enhanced privacy options. Darned near none of them provide significant modesty protections from the same sex gaze.

If there's a demand for such things, why isn't there a market?

You need to think about this like a marketing exec. There isn't a demand - yet.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Well this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I will raise a question one more time in the hopes that this time it will be addressed.


There are tens of thousands of private sector businesses in the United States that provide locker rooms for their customers. Darned near zero of them have unisex facilities with enhanced privacy options. Darned near none of them provide significant modesty protections from the same sex gaze.

If there's a demand for such things, why isn't there a market?

I suppose it's cultural. Damn near every adult in this country has been conditioned in their childhood that sex-segregated communal facilities were normal, or at least the best they can hope for.

Then again, even across living generations there have been shifts. Unused communal showers in schools, no longer being mandatory, seem compelling proof that sex-segregation isn't adequate at least in some contexts.

Every gym I have every been a member of has had privacy stalls for the showers. Presumably anyone shy enough could change in there if they wanted, but I have no idea how to know how common this is. Sitting around naked and chatting for extended periods of time seems exclusively an old man thing in my experience. I suspect it's a generational culture shift.

 

[Sideroxylon]

To my way of thinking, you have it completely backwards.


I don't give a hoot how you identify and the question doesn't matter to me in the least. I don't see why I ought to care.

On the other hand, change rooms, toilets, and sports are real things with practical consequences in the real world. Identify however you like, but when it comes time to hand out medals at the track meet, I don't think someone with balls ought to get the one labelled "girls", regardless of how he/she/they/it/sie/? identifies.

This was in response to you saying “The problem comes in when they assert their own identify, and demand that others accept their assertion.“ Did you only mean demanding others accept their assertion when it comes to change rooms, sports etc?

If so you will have to excuse the confusion because there are many reactionaries out there who find it an imposition to accept simple assertions of identity in the way they would like to be addressed and treated by others.

I am not denying the importance of the practical issues it is just they cannot be fully addressed without resolving the question of identify. The sports fairness debate and toilets are often convenient battle grounds where people like right wing Christians and reactionaries have a sanitised debate when transphobia is the real driver.

The practical issues are a distraction from the fact that many people find the existence of others an abomination as they challenge the social and religious norms we grew up with. Look at what the title of this thread asserts. If that is what you believe then yes these practical issues are red herings.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not stuck on anything,
I think the people that refuse to accept change over time and where it goes are the ones that are stuck on a thing.

I don't accept your forced redefinition. This isn't a natural shift in language that is happening organically. This is an intentional attempt to make a commonly understood term mean something different - and to also anachronistically revise the prior meaning to be the new one.

I reject it because doing so robs me of the ability to discuss my own life, my experiences, my sex, and my body. It reduces me to an object comprised of a collection of parts and function. It is degrading and dehumanizing.

 

[Meadmaker]

This was in response to you saying “The problem comes in when they assert their own identify, and demand that others accept their assertion.“ Did you only mean demanding others accept their assertion when it comes to change rooms, sports etc?

Yes. That's what I meant.

If so you will have to excuse the confusion because there are many reactionaries out there who find it an imposition to accept simple assertions of identity in the way they would like to be addressed and treated by others.

True.

And, that gets a bit complicated as well. If one of those reactionary people refuses to call someone "he", if they happen to know that the person is a biological female, should they (the reactionary) be fired from their job. My answer is......insufficient details to make a blanket statement. Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Lots of factors.

I am not denying the importance of the practical issues it is just they cannot be fully addressed without resolving the question of identify.

Sure they can. Indeed, they must. The question of identity will never be resolved, ever, and yet we have locker rooms and we have to put signs on them right now.

The sports fairness debate and toilets are often convenient battle grounds where people like right wing Christians and reactionaries have a sanitised debate when transphobia is the real driver.

I can't speak for their real drivers. I can speak for my real drivers. Support for female privacy is my real driver. Convince me that that doesn't matter to females, and I'll drop my objections. The fact that a lot of people who share my position are right wing Christians doesn't matter to me. That's their identify and they are welcome to it.

Look at what the title of this thread asserts. If that is what you believe then yes these practical issues are red herings.

Well, no.

I will agree with the thread title more than I will disagree, but after years of participation my much longer explanation will include...

There is a fundamental difference between people who are biologically male and biologically female, and that fundamental difference ought to be recognized in segregating people into groups based on sex, where such segregation is warranted. In terms of language, we need to have an unambiguous term that identifies that categorization. Historically, the terms used have been "men" and "women". If you want to redefine those terms to mean something else, then we need some other, new, term, to refer to the people in those categories. "Biological female" and "biological male" are rather awkward to use. I would prefer something else.

And, there are people in this thread who say that transwomen are really biological females. And, in general, people refuse to accept any categorization at all. I think that's a mistake. (ETA: In other words, I think it's a bad idea. Refusing to accept the categorization isn't something they do by accident, though. It's part of their position, and in the case of policy advocates, it's part of their strategy.)

There's no red herring. I am not trying to distract anyone from some issue. I'm trying to say that you ought not ignore a real issue. Biology isn't a red herring. Biology affects sports. It isn't a distraction. It's the issue.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is the cost in accepting someone’s expressed and internally felt gender identity?

Accepting an identity is meaningless.

What is being demanded or imposed on us?

Change rooms, toilets, children with gender dysphoria, sports. These all seem to be things to work out after we deal with the root question of identity.

You have that backwards. Those are the concrete issues which need to be addressed. The question of "identity", a word which is even LESS well defined than "woman", is not concrete at all and doesn't need to be addressed. The reason it's become a focal point is to try to short circuit the hard questions of practical concerns.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I wasn't aware of any "be nice to TERFs" edict for the trans rights community. Maybe I missed that memo.

Well, thanks for saying the quiet part out loud, I guess.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Well, thanks for saying the quiet part out loud, I guess.

I don't think it was ever quiet, was it? The adversaries of the TERF agenda are not shy it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What is the cost in accepting someone’s expressed and internally felt gender identity? The basis for scepticism of their internally felt identity doesn't seem strong at all. What is being demanded or imposed on us?

Change rooms, toilets, children with gender dysphoria, sports. These all seem to be things to work out after we deal with the root question of identity. Too often they could be red herrings, as important as they may seem, and a more convenient debate battle ground.

What is the cost of accepting on faith something that someone claims, but which cannot be verified in any way at all? The basis for skepticism of the claim to faith-based knowledge doesn't seem strong to you?

Let me attempt to spell this out in civil yet clear language.

Females are being TOLD that we MUST accept the declaration of any MALE who says that they have "WOMAN FEELS" as true and unquestionable. The claim to a GENDER SOUL is being placed into law and policy, in a way that allows that GENDER SOUL to override the reality of SEX. We are being told that this GENDER SOUL is far more important than SEX, and that if we don't allow GENDER SOUL HAVERS to get their way, then we are apostates and heretics who deserve to be burnt at the stake.

Seriously. We are having a religious faith forced down our throats, regardless of the fact that this cause harm. You can channel ST if you really want to and play the merry-go-round game of "there's no evidence of harm" followed by "well that's just an anecdote" followed by "well all of those anecdotes are just right-wing propaganda" and hand-wave away the harm being done... but it's not an effective strategy. It's tissue-paper thin.

It's one think to be nice the the person down the road who believes they are Napoleon Bonaparte, and even to be polite and refer to them as "your majesty" on occasion. It's quite another to decide that since they believe themselves to be Napoleon Bonaparte, we must let them take control of the Armed Forces.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is a very interesting subject to explore but what messy battlefield this thread is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Actually, it's not.

There are a lot of different subtopics here. Despite what the vocal proponents of each side seem to think, it's not all or nothing. You can support some things and not others.

For example, you can fully support someone's identity (with or without the word "woman"), consider them they way they wish to be considered, etc. but still say that young girls should not be exposed to penises. (The why is also a different issue with multiple possible answers.)

"One can also say: "Yes, you are a woman, but your biology makes you ineligible for the female sports leagues."

One can be open to allowing trans-women into bathrooms, but not changing rooms.

One can be happy to use preferred pronouns, but not access to bathrooms.

There is a lot of nuance that neither side wants to allow. Either from a "still not completely validating" or a slippery slope argument.

What is it "perfect is the enemy of good?" The thing is, there is no perfect. Trans people have been beaten down (sometimes literally) and face risks in their daily lives. Women are often they prey of men, some of whom will take advantage of openings to violate them. There is no scenario where everyone's concerns are addressed in all situations.

It is not some conspiracy for men to take away women's dignity. "Men" invading women's spaces. They may not be women by your definition, but neither are they men by theirs. (Same for FTM but in reverse.) They think they should fit over here and you say they should fit over there. The result is they don't really seem to fit in either. So what's the answer?

Compromise.

But see, that's out of style. "Hey, we will accept you here, but you have to understand we can't accept you there because..." Both sides see compromise as a defeat.

I think that's the real problem.

We tried compromise. We already had compromise. This is ridiculous, TomB. You're in here lecturing those of us who have attempted compromise, have attempted reasoned rational discussion, and have tried to have open discourse of the consequences and the impact. We are not the ******* problem. We are NOT the ones screaming "no debate" and harassing people out of jobs and out of social life, threatening them with rape and death, and stopping them from having rallies or events to support their cause.

Right now, I really think that the real problem is that one side refuses to be nice, and the other side - the rational sane side - is fed up to the gills with being told to "be nice" by people who aren't being directly affected.

I'm done with being nice. It's a failed strategy. I can be civil most definitely. But the opportunity for nice is long gone. It was gone when TRAs started showing up to harass and physically attack females marching to raise awareness of VAWG. It was gone when TRAs started getting rape and domestic shelters shut down because anything being single-sex was unacceptable. It was gone when rape victims were told to "reframe their trauma" so that the feelings of male medical examiners weren't hurt by victims who wanted to have a female doctor attend to their intimate exam. It was gone when male prisoners with histories of sex offenses against females started being placed into female prisons on nothing more than magic words. It was gone when lesbians started being told that their single-sex attraction was bigoted and transphobic, and that they need to educate themselves on how to accept penises into their vaginas.

I'm sorry, but compromise is not possible when dealing with religious zealots.

 

[Meadmaker]

I suppose it's cultural. Damn near every adult in this country has been conditioned in their childhood that sex-segregated communal facilities were normal, or at least the best they can hope for.

Then again, even across living generations there have been shifts. Unused communal showers in schools, no longer being mandatory, seem compelling proof that sex-segregation isn't adequate at least in some contexts.

Every gym I have every been a member of has had privacy stalls for the showers. Presumably anyone shy enough could change in there if they wanted, but I have no idea how to know how common this is. Sitting around naked and chatting for extended periods of time seems exclusively an old man thing in my experience. I suspect it's a generational culture shift.

For those who haven't followed this thread for years, my belief on this subject is that, when using their own money, people are willing to pay for modesty from the opposite sex gaze, but not for modesty from the same sex gaze.




Anyway, you might be right as far as aculturation goes, and if you are, in time, attitudes will change. When they do, I'll stop supporting women who want privacy in their locker rooms. If more people demand privacy with respect to same sex gaze, I'll support that, too. However, honestly, I don't see that at this point in time. What I see is people expressing a desire for that modesty, but not a willingness to pay for it. In those cases where it is moving forward, the driver is to allow biological males into the gilrs' locker rooms while placating those who object based on modesty concerns.