Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[d4m10n]

Can a person be mistaken about feeling they like apples?

If they actually find apples disgusting to eat, yes.

I used to think I didn't like apples, but it turns out I didn't like Red Delicious in particular.

 

[Meadmaker]

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?

Ok. I don't think I understand the question. Let me try. Correct me if I get it wrong.

So the thing I see as "factually right" is either, "People see each other naked in locker rooms"

Or "Liberal women care about being seen naked by the opposite sex."

And you seem to be suggesting that trans rights advocates would claim that one or both of those statements is factually wrong. I think both of them are factually right.


You then move on to relevant versus irrelevant, and you seem to be saying that I see as relevant the desire of liberal women to not be seen naked by the opposite sex, while trans rights advocates see that as irrelevant. If that's not it, you'll have to correct me and let me know what else you were referring to with your comment about relevance.

And, yes. You are right. Trans rights advocates don't seem to think that it is relevant that women (liberal or otherwise) don't want to be seen naked by the opposite sex. So, if they would just admit that, it would make things easier.

As for your question back to me, I'm not sure I understand it, but if I do, I would say that it explains everything just fine. Trans rights advocates are indifferent to women's desires to avoid the male gaze, and that explains everything, at least in the privacy area of dispute. Once again, if they admit that, it would be easier.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Ok. I don't think I understand the question. Let me try. Correct me if I get it wrong.

So the thing I see as "factually right" is either, "People see each other naked in locker rooms"

Or "Liberal women care about being seen naked by the opposite sex."

And you seem to be suggesting that trans rights advocates would claim that one or both of those statements is factually wrong. I think both of them are factually right.


You then move on to relevant versus irrelevant, and you seem to be saying that I see as relevant the desire of liberal women to not be seen naked by the opposite sex, while trans rights advocates see that as irrelevant. If that's not it, you'll have to correct me and let me know what else you were referring to with your comment about relevance.

And, yes. You are right. Trans rights advocates don't seem to think that it is relevant that women (liberal or otherwise) don't want to be seen naked by the opposite sex. So, if they would just admit that, it would make things easier.

As for your question back to me, I'm not sure I understand it, but if I do, I would say that it explains everything just fine. Trans rights advocates are indifferent to women's desires to avoid the male gaze, and that explains everything, at least in the privacy area of dispute. Once again, if they admit that, it would be easier.

When I talked about relevance at the end, I'm talking more generally. Like any argument...people believe different things from you because of a combination of disagreement of facts and relevance.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Could be. I'm really not sure. So much of the research published in this area is so obviously slanted that it's almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

However, based on what I have read, I think that there are at least some cases where gender dysphoria is "hard wired", and cannot be removed, and it is not a sexual fetish.


I think there are plenty of cases, some of which you talked about (e.g. AGP) where it is a mental illness and/or sexual fetish.

But....the point I was making is that even if I were to concede that a given person truly "identified" in his head, as a female despite having male anatomy, I still don't see why that ought to give him the right to use the girls' locker room. That's the part I want some TRA to connect the dots on.

ETA: And if I were trying to go in a different drection, I could argue about whether, even if it is natural, it is still a mental illness. The truth is, I don't care. Can it be cured? Can it be changed? If not, then I think it's ok to call it a "valid lived condition". But I still don't think they ought to be allowed to see the girls' swim team naked.

 

[Meadmaker]

When I talked about relevance at the end, I'm talking more generally. Like any argument...people believe different things from you because of a combination of disagreement of facts and relevance.

Ok, Well, if you want to talk more generally, talk to shutit. He has "philosopher" right there in his user information.


For me, I would rather talk about connecting the dots between, "Trans women identify as women." and "Trans women ought to be allowed to use the same locker room as the girls' swim team."

 

[BobTheCoward]

As for your question back to me, I'm not sure I understand it, but if I do, I would say that it explains everything just fine. Trans rights advocates are indifferent to women's desires to avoid the male gaze, and that explains everything, at least in the privacy area of dispute. Once again, if they admit that, it would be easier.

To be semi-more specific....I don't care that people that value things differently than me are bothered by things that don't bother me.

The process of changing views on this issue is so mechanical, it's boring. There will be greater exposure as more people identify. Some will react to the greater exposure by lowering their objection through familiarity, some will increase their objection, and some won't change. And if the former outpaces the middle, than that changes things one way.

 

[Meadmaker]

To be semi-more specific....I don't care that people that value things differently than me are bothered by things that don't bother me.

The process of changing views on this issue is so mechanical, it's boring. There will be greater exposure as more people identify. Some will react to the greater exposure by lowering their objection through familiarity, some will increase their objection, and some won't change. And if the former outpaces the middle, than that changes things one way.

Good enough.

It's kind of similar to what I have said fairly frequently. If you can convince me the girls don't mind, I'll drop my objections.

To use your phrasing, if the number of people lowering their objections as a result of familiarity outpaces the middle, I will go with the majority.

One caveat. It has to be the majority of those people who are affected. i.e. if almost all the men and a few of the women thought it was a good idea to let transwomen use the girls' locker room, I would side with the majority of women or girls.

 

[Rolfe]

Could be. I'm really not sure. So much of the research published in this area is so obviously slanted that it's almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

However, based on what I have read, I think that there are at least some cases where gender dysphoria is "hard wired", and cannot be removed, and it is not a sexual fetish.

I think there are plenty of cases, some of which you talked about (e.g. AGP) where it is a mental illness and/or sexual fetish.

But....the point I was making is that even if I were to concede that a given person truly "identified" in his head, as a female despite having male anatomy, I still don't see why that ought to give him the right to use the girls' locker room. That's the part I want some TRA to connect the dots on.

ETA: And if I were trying to go in a different drection, I could argue about whether, even if it is natural, it is still a mental illness. The truth is, I don't care. Can it be cured? Can it be changed? If not, then I think it's ok to call it a "valid lived condition". But I still don't think they ought to be allowed to see the girls' swim team naked.

I think AGP and HSTS are hard-wired and can't be removed either. I think people with sexual fetishes are very concerned indeed to give the impression that what is motivating them is not a sexual fetish. (I think ROGD is a social contagion and very definitely not hard-wired. If it exists in the male which I'm not certain about.)

I'm not disagreeing with your main premise and I see the point you are making, I just want to flag up that the concessions you make in order to highlight your point are highly disputable.

I don't know what isn't a valid lived condition. AGP and HSTS are both valid lived conditions, without any doubt. I agree with your position that irrespective of the underlying causes of the trans-identification, none of that is an argument for giving male-bodied people the legal right to enter (and indeed get naked in) the intimate spaces set aside for female-bodied people.

Being a trans-identifying male is another way of being male.

 

[Meadmaker]

I just want to flag up that the concessions you make in order to highlight your point are highly disputable.

Good idea.

 

[Sideroxylon]

For me, I would rather not be a bastard and tell people they are mentally ill or pretending in how they express fundamentals of their self identity. Life is too short and too ambiguous to be a nasty culture war **** to others.

 

[Meadmaker]

For me, I would rather not be a bastard and tell people they are mentally ill or pretending in how they express fundamentals of their self identity. Life is too short and too ambiguous to be a nasty culture war **** to others.

Great.

Can they use the girls' locker room?

 

[Rolfe]

For me, I would rather not be a bastard and tell people they are mentally ill or pretending in how they express fundamentals of their self identity. Life is too short and too ambiguous to be a nasty culture war **** to others.

Mental illness is a real thing, and acting like there's some sort of stigma to being mentally ill is a bad thing, in my opinion.

I don't care how anyone self-identifies. I do care that I might be in the position of finding myself sharing a hostel dormitory or a changing room or other intimate space with a male person. If they weren't demanding all our intimate spaces be opened to them (and incidentally to any man at all, inter alia), I doubt if I'd give them a second thought.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Mental illness is a real thing, and acting like there's some sort of stigma to being mentally ill is a bad thing, in my opinion.

I don't care how anyone self-identifies. I do care that I might be in the position of finding myself sharing a hostel dormitory or a changing room or other intimate space with a male person. If they weren't demanding all our intimate spaces be opened to them (and incidentally to any man at all, inter alia), I doubt if I'd give them a second thought.

And I don't care you feel that way about those spaces. I wonder where we disagree on what spaces are intimate.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Mental illness is a real thing, and acting like there's some sort of stigma to being mentally ill is a bad thing, in my opinion.

I don't care how anyone self-identifies. I do care that I might be in the position of finding myself sharing a hostel dormitory or a changing room or other intimate space with a male person. If they weren't demanding all our intimate spaces be opened to them (and incidentally to any man at all, inter alia), I doubt if I'd give them a second thought.

Mental illness is a socially constructed concept with an interesting history and and used with, nuance, prudence and pragmatic definitions with aware compassionate utility in the field of mental health. We can ignore its unreflective weaponised use manifest here.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Great.

Can they use the girls' locker room?

Can girls* who sexualise the context or fail to respect the modesty of others use the space?

“great” And why is it that we move so swiftly away from not being a bastard?

 

[Meadmaker]

Can girls* who sexualise the context or fail to respect the modesty of others use the space?

Hmmm.....from past experience, I think this is going toward one of the common dodges, which is a slight variation of dodge 1 mentioned previously. However, I'll try not to jump to that conclusion and just answer the question seriously.

First, girls who "sexualize the context".

I don't know what's going on in their heads, so they might very well be sexualizing the context. If they make no overt display of sexualizing the context, I would never know. People who make an overt display of sexualizing the context would be restricted.

Second "Girls who fail to respect the modesty of others using the space."

I'm having a hard time understanding the question. If you use a girls' locker room, there is an expectation that people will see you fully or partially disrobed. That might violate your sense of modesty, but if all of those people who see a girl disrobed are, themselves, girls, the girl whose modesty is offended in that situation would not have recourse to fix the problem. It's normal. It's expected. The other girls, the ones who are not respecting the modesty of the shy girl, are still allowed to use the locker room. So, yes.


In short, in the normal use of locker rooms, girls who use the locker room do not overtly sexualize that use, but they do see each other fully or partially disrobed, which might offend someone's sense of modesty. Girls who overtly sexualize the use of the locker rooms will likely be prohibited from future use. However, girls who "fail to respect the modesty" of other girls are not excluded. Lack of modesty in same sex situations is expected. That's why we have two locker rooms.


Now, you asked about girls. By "girls", I mean the concave variety of human. If you asked about the convex sort of human, I would answer differently.

I was asking you about convex sorts who, despite their convexity, feel that they ought to be allowed to use the girls' locker room. Do you think that should be allowed?

(If your answer goes beyond "yes" or "no", feel free to use anything in my answer about girls as part of your explanation, if that is useful.)

 

[Meadmaker]

Prediction:

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.

Experimental results:

For me, I would rather not be a bastard and tell people they are mentally ill or pretending in how they express fundamentals of their self identity. Life is too short and too ambiguous to be a nasty culture war **** to others.

“great” And why is it that we move so swiftly away from not being a bastard?

Hypothesis confirmed. Different "something" than usual, but still something.

 

[Sideroxylon]

For me, I would rather not be a bastard and tell people they are mentally ill or pretending in how they express fundamentals of their self identity. Life is too short and too ambiguous to be a nasty culture war **** to others.

It all comes back to this. Not being a bastard in this context is the hill I die on start being rude from as it is too fundamental to my personal moral aesthetic and empathy.

This a cruel and horrible debate and war on self identity expression. If you find yourself arguing alongside nasty reactionary ***** like Ben Shapiro and evangelical preachers with the same talking points you need to take a hard look at yourself.

 

[d4m10n]

This a cruel and horrible debate and war on self identity expression.

Saying that a male individual is mistaken to assume they belong in some space hitherto reserved for females (e.g. women's rugby pitches) isn't waging war on anyone's self-identity or expression. It is a defensive reaction against those who would alter longstanding policy.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Prediction:



Experimental results:





Hypothesis confirmed. Different "something" than usual, but still something.

Sciencey!