Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[theprestige]

I've some trouble wrapping my head around what it means to identify as something one is not.

I can identify as Hispanic since my paternal ancestors were all descended from Spanish colonists who settled in the Caribbean. I cannot (sensibly) identify as Japanese, since I have neither ancestral nor cultural connection to those islands.

My daughter can identify as Native American since she has a tribal enrollment number and can claim direct descent from two of the three Native war chiefs at St. Clair's defeat^WP. Were she to say that she doesn't identify as Native American, she would be (in some sense) factually incorrect since both of her parents had quite a few ancestors living in the Americas in 1491.

My son can sensibly identify as a coder since he gets paid to code. Were he to identify as a poet, he'd have to post up at least a few poems first, preferably someplace where people read poems. Were he to deny being a coder, he'd have to come up with some clever way to explain why looking at code is a paid gig.

I suppose it comes down to the question of whether someone can be mistaken when they claim to identify as something or other, or disclaim an identity which has been put on them. If someone identifies me by saying "Damion is a resident of Oklahoma who suffers from male pattern baldness," they are correct even if I'm deeply discontented with where I live and where my hair grows.

One interesting thing about all this is that when Lia Thomas identifies as female, none of the Identity Rights Activists bat an eye. But when Rachel Dolezal identifies as black, they all lose their minds.

 

[shuttlt]

One interesting thing about all this is that when Lia Thomas identifies as female, none of the Identity Rights Activists bat an eye. But when Rachel Dolezal identifies as black, they all lose their minds.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Sideroxylon]

One interesting thing about all this is that when Lia Thomas identifies as female, none of the Identity Rights Activists bat an eye. But when Rachel Dolezal identifies as black, they all lose their minds.

Analogies ay.

 

[Rolfe]

One interesting thing about all this is that when Lia Thomas identifies as female, none of the Identity Rights Activists bat an eye. But when Rachel Dolezal identifies as black, they all lose their minds.

Suppose Rachel Dolezal had described herself as "trans black" and not simply called black people "cis black" but insisted that everyone else (including themselves) must do so to, I wonder how that would have played?

And yes, analogies are often valid. But sometimes they aren't. Intelligent people can tell the difference.

 

[Elaedith]

Suppose Rachel Dolezal had described herself as "trans black" and not simply called black people "cis black" but insisted that everyone else (including themselves) must do so to, I wonder how that would have played?

And yes, analogies are often valid. But sometimes they aren't. Intelligent people can tell the difference.

Also more oppressed and marginalized than those cis black people because they have cis privilege.

 

[shuttlt]

Suppose Rachel Dolezal had described herself as "trans black" and not simply called black people "cis black" but insisted that everyone else (including themselves) must do so to, I wonder how that would have played?

And yes, analogies are often valid. But sometimes they aren't. Intelligent people can tell the difference.

She did describe herself as trans black, after people found out she was identified as white at birth. She said she "identifies as black".

 

[BobTheCoward]

I suppose it comes down to the question of whether someone can be mistaken when they claim to identify as something

Can a person be mistaken about feeling they like apples?

 

[theprestige]

She did describe herself as trans black, after people found out she was identified as white at birth. She said she "identifies as black".

Assigned white at birth*.

 

[Meadmaker]

My frustration with these conversations is that the TWAW crowd never addresses any of them.

(Note: I'm going to use traditional language below. I'm tired of lengthy phrasing or making up words. I'm going to say "men" for the convex sex, and "women" for the concave sex.)

I think I understand what it means to "identify" as something, whether or not you are that something. I totally get the idea that some people have a deeply held sense that they are more like women than like men, even if their anatomy is unquestionably male. I get that there is science to back up that it is perfectly natural for them to feel that way. I get that they were, as best we can tell, born that way and could not change if they wanted to. I get that that is what they mean when they say "identify as women", and even that doing so is a "valid lived condition."

I understand all that.

Now, can someone connect the dots for me from that position to, "Therefore it's ok for them to watch the girls' swim team undress."

It's that last step where I get lost. Can someone fill that part in?



Well of course they can't. We're about to start continuation number 9, and no one has yet. They aren't going to start now.


But I'm sure they'll make sure that they express their opinion that this makes me a bigot, or something.

 

[BobTheCoward]

My frustration with these conversations is that the TWAW crowd never addresses any of them.

(Note: I'm going to use traditional language below. I'm tired of lengthy phrasing or making up words. I'm going to say "men" for the convex sex, and "women" for the concave sex.)

I think I understand what it means to "identify" as something, whether or not you are that something. I totally get the idea that some people have a deeply held sense that they are more like women than like men, even if their anatomy is unquestionably male. I get that there is science to back up that it is perfectly natural for them to feel that way. I get that they were, as best we can tell, born that way and could not change if they wanted to. I get that that is what they mean when they say "identify as women", and even that doing so is a "valid lived condition."

I understand all that.

Now, can someone connect the dots for me from that position to, "Therefore it's ok for them to watch the girls' swim team undress."

It's that last step where I get lost. Can someone fill that part in?



Well of course they can't. We're about to start continuation number 9, and no one has yet. They aren't going to start now.


But I'm sure they'll make sure that they express their opinion that this makes me a bigot, or something.

It isnt okay for cis girls to watch women undress. It isn't okay for cis males in a cis male locker room to watch cis males undress.

Just as abortion advocates think it is stupid to discuss someone trying to abort a 10 month fetus during delivery, It feels to the pro trans side that other sides are not engaging with how trans people use the spaces.

What do I think a trans girl is doing in a cis girl locker room? Using a locker.

 

[shuttlt]

When are these things ever a conversation? Civil Rights wasn't a conversation, it was implemented by force by the federal government. These kinds of things are never resolved by conversation.

 

[Meadmaker]

It isnt okay for cis girls to watch women undress. It isn't okay for cis males in a cis male locker room to watch cis males undress.

So, this is dodge number 1 that is often used. It's pretending that people don't see each other naked in locker rooms.

Equivocation is at the heart of this particular dodge. They substitute "watch" for "stare" or something and pretend that since that's not ok, there's nothing that happens in locker rooms that anyone ought to care about.

Can we stop pretending that people aren't naked in locker rooms? Why else would there be two locker rooms?


Of course we can't. We're on page 87 of the eighth continuation.

 

[Meadmaker]

Analogies ay.

That might replace "Yawn" next time LJ comes back to the thread.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So, this is dodge number 1 that is often used. It's pretending that people don't see each other naked in locker rooms.

Equivocation is at the heart of this particular dodge. They substitute "watch" for "stare" or something and pretend that since that's not ok, there's nothing that happens in locker rooms that anyone ought to care about.

Well, folks, I use men's locker rooms a lot. I see men in their underwear a lot. I see men naked frequently. I see their penises sometimes.

Yes, all of those things happen. Can we stop pretending that they don't, or that we don't understand what we're talking about?



Of course we can't. We're on page 87 of the eighth continuation.

You are the one now substituting "see" for "watch."

I didn't substitute stare. I meant watch

"look at or observe attentively over a period of time."

Is that what you are doing in a men's locker room? Or are you seeing?

If we are talking about seeing...I don't think generally liberal people have an issue seeing people of the opposite sex nude.

 

[shuttlt]

So, this is dodge number 1 that is often used. It's pretending that people don't see each other naked in locker rooms.

Equivocation is at the heart of this particular dodge. They substitute "watch" for "stare" or something and pretend that since that's not ok, there's nothing that happens in locker rooms that anyone ought to care about.

Can we stop pretending that people aren't naked in locker rooms? Why else would there be two locker rooms?


Of course we can't. We're on page 87 of the eighth continuation.

What liberation movement has ever acknowledged that the other side had reasonable concerns when they didn't have to? That's just not the way these things work

 

[theprestige]

Once again, technically correct is shown to be the worst kind of correct.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What liberation movement has ever acknowledged that the other side had reasonable concerns when they didn't have to? That's just not the way these things work

A reasonable concern and a dollar gets you a cop of coffee

 

[Meadmaker]

"look at or observe attentively over a period of time."

Is that what you are doing in a men's locker room? Or are you seeing?

Sometimes. (Cue next all too familiar retort.)

But yes, "see" would be be a better word for most instances.

If we are talking about seeing...I don't think generally liberal people have an issue seeing people of the opposite sex nude.

I think generally liberal girls and women do in fact have an issue with being seen nude by the opposite sex. Even briefly. They also have an issue with being seen in their underwear by the opposite sex.


(And I can think of a particularly stupid response to the above, but even in this thread, I don't think anyone will go there. Let's find out.)

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sometimes. (Cue next all too familiar retort.)

But yes, "see" would be be a better word for most instances.




I think generally liberal girls and women do in fact have an issue with being seen nude by the opposite sex. Even briefly. They also have an issue with being seen in their underwear by the opposite sex.


(And I can think of a particularly stupid response to the above, but even in this thread, I don't think anyone will go there. Let's find out.)

Then I think you have your answer. Trans rights advocates think things you see as factually right as factually wrong and think things you think are relevant are not relevant. and both sides probably think that way from some set of principles.


I guess my question back to you is....did you think there was some other reason? What conflict between two ideas isn't explained by this?

 

[Rolfe]

I totally get the idea that some people have a deeply held sense that they are more like women than like men, even if their anatomy is unquestionably male. I get that there is science to back up that it is perfectly natural for them to feel that way. I get that they were, as best we can tell, born that way and could not change if they wanted to. I get that that is what they mean when they say "identify as women", and even that doing so is a "valid lived condition."

I understand all that.

I think you might consider challenging that assumption of yours. The "science" that you think backs that up is the sort of made-to-order science we shred when homoeopaths cite it.

There's autogynaephilia, which is the vast majority of male transsexuals in the west, and while that does seem to be an inborn thing, it has bugger-all to do with "a deeply-held sense that they are more like women than men." It's creepy and exploitative and reduces "woman" to a costume and mannerisms.

There's homosexual transsexualism, which is the majority of male transsexuals in the east. Why the difference, you ask? Anyway, again the motivation for transition is sexual, in order to perform a passive role in sex with a male homosexual who is really into effeminate men. That also has bugger-all to do with "a deeply-held sense that they are more like women than men."

Then there may be geeky boys who develop rapid-onset gender dysphoria in the same way that so many adolescent girls are developing it, but some authorities say no, these boys are also AGP when you really get down to it. But if male ROGD is a thing, they're fleeing manhood. They don't have "a deeply-held sense that they are more like women than men" either.

No man is more like a woman than a man. It's an insane proposition. It's a mental health issue involving sexual fetishism. I'm all for treating sufferers with respect and even kindly, but they are not women, they have no idea how it feels to be a woman and they do not belong in women's intimate spaces (as the rest of your post acknowledges). Find ways to treat them and to manage their condition while either retaining them in the male estate or providing them with their own spaces.