Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[shuttlt]

Transphobes "girl radar" is a lot more faulty than you think. Given the small segment of the population that is trans, you can practically guarantee that insufficiently feminine presenting cis-women are going to be hassled by the penis inspectors more often than actual trans women.

I guess publicly embarrassing butch lesbians or women who are too tall or have too wide shoulders is a small price to pay to protect the dignity of women

I'm not sure that to have category distinctions, or segregated spaces based on them, we need to have a method of filtering that never errs.

 

[Rolfe]

Funny, we've been including lesbians in female spaces like forever. It's an side-effect of the recent trans entitlement that has seen some incidents of hyper-sensitive women react to a masculine-looking woman in error.

If men, that is all men, all people born with an active SRY gene and functioning androgen receptors, would simply understand that they should not be trying to get into women's intimate spaces, women are perfectly capable of managing their own.

"Men should be accepted into women's intimate spaces because occasionally a woman might be mistaken for a man" is not the killer argument the TRAs think it is.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Funny, we've been including lesbians in female spaces like forever. It's an side-effect of the recent trans entitlement that has seen some incidents of hyper-sensitive women react to a masculine-looking woman in error.

Yeah, transphobes are a menace.

 

[Rolfe]

Men who insist on embarrassing women and making them uncomfortable are a menace. I think they should stop doing it.

"Men should be accepted into women's intimate spaces because occasionally a woman might be mistaken for a man" is not the killer argument you think it is.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Men who insist on embarrassing women and making them uncomfortable are a menace. I think they should stop doing it.

"Men should be accepted into women's intimate spaces because occasionally a woman might be mistaken for a man" is not the killer argument you think it is.

Not just occasionally. Insufficiently femme cis-women are just going to have to accept being accosted by weird transphobes. Maybe they should wax their lip or wear a dress if they don't want to be interrogated by bigots.

Being harassed by frothy mouthed freaks is simply the price of vigilance.

 

[shuttlt]

Funny, we've been including lesbians in female spaces like forever. It's an side-effect of the recent trans entitlement that has seen some incidents of hyper-sensitive women react to a masculine-looking woman in error.

If men, that is all men, all people born with an active SRY gene and functioning androgen receptors, would simply understand that they should not be trying to get into women's intimate spaces, women are perfectly capable of managing their own.

"Men should be accepted into women's intimate spaces because occasionally a woman might be mistaken for a man" is not the killer argument the TRAs think it is.

There is a claim about Tony Blair's rhetoric, that he would always construct things he wanted to do as inevitable, since they were inevitable the question was how to implement them and be at the forefront of them. Sowell talks about the vision of the anointed and the vision of the anointed.

The anointed believe that obstacles to their visions of a new jerusalem can be managed away, you just need to get everybody onside with the plan. It's a corporate, managerial vision.... you don't like this plan for bepenised people to change in front of 12 year old girls? Are you against change, Rolfe? Let me show you this graph of how people, like you who resist change, and I have already said that this change is inevitable, move through the four stages of change - shock, anger, acceptance, and commitment. Let me pathologize your resistance rather than addressing any of your concerns since, afterall, this change is inevitable. That is the vision of the anointed.



The vision of the benighted is that everything is a tradeoff, there is always a price to be paid by somebody someday and just because you can imagine a beautiful world where your vision works out doesn't mean it can be done in this world.

You are simply not going to make these people accept that their vision has costs that can't be managed away. It's not as if this thinking is isolated to this one case. It's classic getting a big project through strategy.... start implementing regardless of opposition and do whatever you can to ramp up the personal costs of obstructing the project

 

[shuttlt]

Not just occasionally. Insufficiently femme cis-women are just going to have to accept being accosted by weird transphobes. Maybe they should wax their lip or wear a dress if they don't want to be interrogated by bigots.

Being harasser by frothy mouthed freaks is simply the price of vigilance.

This is an unfortunate consequence of the effort to push the trans-activist agenda. I wonder if other groups will have to pay a similar price if they continue?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't understand the first one. Are we going to insist that everyone strips off and displays what genitals they have before they're allowed to access the changing room?

No, that's a purely after-the-fact validation, not a screening test. Your question as phrased was sufficiently broad to include both.

And then of course there are intimate spaces where people are not going to get completely naked in public.

Oh, absolutely.

 

[Rolfe]

You are simply not going to make these people accept that their vision has costs that can't be managed away. It's not as if this thinking is isolated to this one case. It's classic getting a big project through strategy.... start implementing regardless of opposition and do whatever you can to ramp up the personal costs of obstructing the project

It's as if you'd been making a special study of current Scottish government policy and strategy. Admit it, you have, haven't you?

 

[BobTheCoward]

would still be a source of anxiety for most human females. While that is not exactly the same as "fear", and certainly isn't "risk", it is still an important consideration.

Why? Why are we concerned with anxiety?

 

[shuttlt]

Why? Why are we concerned with anxiety?

Isn't one of the big justifications for being kind to trans-women and letting them into womens spaces because of their subjective feelings? Why do their feelings of suffering for not being allowed in trump the suffering caused by anxiety?

 

[IsThisTheLife]

<snip>...

Oh and as an aside, the word "terrific" (just for example) meant - for several hundreds of years, up until around the 1930s - "inspiring terror", "inducing terror" or "causing terror". That's all it meant for all those hundreds of years. And for anyone who was in any doubt as to its meaning, well... the clue was in the word itself. But guess what? Throughout the 20th Century, the meaning of that word changed. So by 2022, if I told you that the movie I saw yesterday was terrific, you would not deduce that the movie had put me into a state of terror, would you? And nobody except super-pedants obsessed with arcane use of language would ever nowadays use "terrific" to mean "causing/inducing terror". Funny how the meaning of some words can change over time - sometimes in extremely big ways.......

The works of Shakespeare are positively choc-a-bloc with words which have never fallen into disuse but whose meanings have changed so completely that its nigh on impossible to understand much of it without first educating oneself. One of the most conspicuous examples is 'gentle'. I won't bore you with the definitions, you can look them up yourself.

Whatever, how any of this forms the basis of a coherent argument for deciding that the meanings of the words 'man' and 'woman' should be changed, in both common usage and the law, escapes me.

 

[shuttlt]

It's as if you'd been making a special study of current Scottish government policy and strategy. Admit it, you have, haven't you?

This is the tragic fate of Scotland. The independence movement becomes a mechanism for the deracinated corpse of the global mercantile empire, long since divested of its English skin suit, to welcome you back. If they offer you shares in a scheme involving the Gulf of Darien, you should decline.

 

[shuttlt]

Whatever, how any of this forms the basis of a coherent argument for deciding that the meanings of the words 'man' and 'woman' should be changed, in both common usage and the law, escapes me.

Having somebody on high decide the meaning of words and expect everybody else to go along sounds French.

 

[theprestige]

Isn't one of the big justifications for being kind to trans-women and letting them into womens spaces because of their subjective feelings?

In this thread? No. Ask what the justification is here, and you'll get hit with either:

* a combination of gish gallops, ad homs, well-poisoning, and fringe resets; or

* a handwave appeal to settled science* and a "valid lived condition"; or

* a handwave appeal to analogies with race or sexual attraction; or

* "it's the law where I live, and that's all the justification you need." [paraphrased]

No reasoned argument, whether from established medical science, or from first principles of human rights, has been forthcoming in this thread. Maybe you'll have better luck than the rest of us doubters, getting to the bottom of what trans-activists actually think the justification is.

---
*Which turns out to be nothing more than the UK's National Statistics Office formal definition policy for reporting sex and gender based statistics.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Isn't one of the big justifications for being kind to trans-women and letting them into womens spaces because of their subjective feelings? Why do their feelings of suffering for not being allowed in trump the suffering caused by anxiety?

I don't think of it as an act of kindness or basing it on their feelings. I'm indifferent to that. I think they are just categorically women.

 

[Paul2]

Thanks.

I think you just said "no".

Which is what I said that I thought.would be the trans rights activist position.

I think we now have to distinguish between gender dysphoria and self-identification. Whether gender dysphoria occurs in people is an empirical question, just like whether happiness occurs in people. Medical science is the place to go to to see if it is a thing or not. AFAIK, medical science says that it is.

But self-ID is closer to attack helicopters than happiness. Self-ID is a position, not a condition.

 

[Paul2]

The works of Shakespeare are positively choc-a-bloc with words which have never fallen into disuse but whose meanings have changed so completely that its nigh on impossible to understand much of it without first educating oneself. One of the most conspicuous examples is 'gentle'. I won't bore you with the definitions, you can look them up yourself.

Whatever, how any of this forms the basis of a coherent argument for deciding that the meanings of the words 'man' and 'woman' should be changed, in both common usage and the law, escapes me.

I think the difference is when the meanings of words are changed with regard to a political or social goal. If you don't agree with the agenda behind the word change, you're not going to agree with the word change.

 

[shuttlt]

No reasoned argument, whether from established medical science, or from first principles of human rights, has been forthcoming in this thread. Maybe you'll have better luck than the rest of us doubters, getting to the bottom of what trans-activists actually think the justification is.

Oh, no. If there is one thing that this forum proves it is the futility of trying to resolve ideological differences through "skepticism" and debate. It turned out that the skeptics, as a community, actually had ideological commitments as well that had to be protected from deconstruction.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't think of it as an act of kindness or basing it on their feelings. I'm indifferent to that. I think they are just categorically women.

OK, but you have done that by adopting a notion of "women" that was invented 5 minutes ago, and rejecting the notion that has persisted for thousands of years. It's not like a definition can be "true". Rolfe's idea of what "women" means, or my idea, or even yours aren't wrong, they are just different. If you are indifferent to things like kindness, what induced you to choose this new definition?