Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[LondonJohn]

You were offering a sneering and derogatory definition. The word is in normal everyday use by people who are Scots speakers, and by people who speak Scots English. It has a much softer connotation than "shut up". Your proffered example was simply insulting, and intentionally so.

How I feel about the Scottish government would go seriously off-topic in a microsecond and lead to the sort of mega-thread in Politics that I don't read.

OK. I'll try again:

When that activist group is using the phrase "women won't wheesht", who - in that specific context - are they considering as the group which might be telling them to wheesht? Is it other women? Because that would cause a logical failure of the phrase - it would have to change to something like "some women won't wheesht". Or does it (it does) refer to people who are not (cis)women, plus governments/legislatures that they consider somehow to be not representative of ciswomen? I'll take a yes or no answer to that last question.

I note also your reluctance/inability to respond to a perfectly on-topic question about the make-up of the Scottish Government: it's on-topic because it's specifically about the Scottish-originated "women won't wheesht" activist group, plus the general phenomenon (amply demonstrated in this very thread) of ciswomen who think transgender rights are somehow being imposed by men, upon women; and I juxtaposed that against the fact that the current Scottish Government (the Government that the "women won't wheesht" group are obviously including as their prime target) has 13 (thirteen) female members out of 27 in total, including of course the First Minister.

But again, I'm hardly surprised that you choose to put up the "off-topic" smokescreen immediately......

 

[shuttlt]

OK. I'll try again:

When that activist group is using the phrase "women won't wheesht", who - in that specific context - are they considering as the group which might be telling them to wheesht? Is it other women? Because that would cause a logical failure of the phrase - it would have to change to something like "some women won't wheesht". Or does it (it does) refer to people who are not (cis)women, plus governments/legislatures that they consider somehow to be not representative of ciswomen? I'll take a yes or no answer to that last question.

I note also your reluctance/inability to respond to a perfectly on-topic question about the make-up of the Scottish Government: it's on-topic because it's specifically about the Scottish-originated "women won't wheesht" activist group, plus the general phenomenon (amply demonstrated in this very thread) of ciswomen who think transgender rights are somehow being imposed by men, upon women; and I juxtaposed that against the fact that the current Scottish Government (the Government that the "women won't wheesht" group are obviously including as their prime target) has 13 (thirteen) female members out of 27 in total, including of course the First Minister.

But again, I'm hardly surprised that you choose to put up the "off-topic" smokescreen immediately......

We all have our frame for understanding the world. I think the difficulty is that challenging that kind of broadens the scope of these threads to infinity. It's one of the reasons why forums like this can't resolve important questions. You can only have consensus if people are coming from a relatively narrowly defined worldview.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's an unlocked article in the NYTimes Magazine about debates in the medical community regarding transgender care for young people.

It's long:

Thanks. That's a really excellent long-form piece, which examines the issue - and the innate difficulty facing clinicians and legislators as they try to strike the most appropriate, respectful and evidence-based balance here - in sober, rational detail.

And it illustrates accurately the conundrum in which clinicians and legislators find themselves when it comes to interventions and therapies for people under the age of 18. It's incredibly difficult to come to the "right answer" here. As I wrote in a previous post: outside of a small number of rogue zealots who've acted right on the extreme edge of (or sometimes outside of) their remit, the mainstream medical community acknowledges the need for caution at this point in time, and that it will take some time - plus a whole load more real-world evidence - before they're able to form an optimal view in this area and put it into practice. In the meantime, there are unfortunately bound to be many more mistakes at either end of the spectrum: either a) intervening in a too invasive and hard-to-reverse manner with a young person whose trans identity turned out to be a passing phase, or b) failing to offer appropriate intervention/treatment to a young person who turned out to have a firm and unflinching transgender identity into adulthood, and who suffered unnecessarily on account of the lack of intervention when they were younger.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I suspect this exists - whether in the extreme paraphrase you provide, or for that matter in any form even remotely approaching it - purely in your imagination (for reasons I can't begin to think of....). But I'm of course open to being proved wrong with actual examples.

ETA: Oh, and the same applies to your next sentence as well....

Out of the entirety of my post, you - a male - have chosen to fixate on one very small portion... and proceed to insinuate that I - a female - am blowing it all out of proportion, being hysterical, am delusional, etc... and to imply that I should essentially just shut up.

I stand by my observation. In fact, I believe you've helped to prove my point quite well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh, cis off.

Seconded.

And added to my lexicon!

 

[LondonJohn]

We all have our frame for understanding the world. I think the difficulty is that challenging that kind of broadens the scope of these threads to infinity. It's one of the reasons why forums like this can't resolve important questions. You can only have consensus if people are coming from a relatively narrowly defined worldview.

I agree, up to a point.

But this thread has already (repeatedly) thrown up the accusation that when it comes to certain areas of transgender rights, it's a case of men telling women what do do, and to put up with it with no recourse. So I think it's entirely germane to set that POV against the reality (using a real-world example that's directly related to a particular activist group's ethos) that almost all legislative, regulatory and clinical bodies in progressive liberal democracies contain a healthy representative proportion of females. And then posing the question regarding that juxtaposition.

As I said: I'm not surprised that certain participants in this thread prefer not to address this issue. But I certainly don't think that their non-engagement in any way implies that the question was either invalid or outside the scope of this thread. I understand that some might feel differently about that though.

 

[LondonJohn]

Out of the entirety of my post, you - a male - have chosen to fixate on one very small portion... and proceed to insinuate that I - a female - am blowing it all out of proportion, being hysterical, am delusional, etc... and to imply that I should essentially just shut up.

I stand by my observation. In fact, I believe you've helped to prove my point quite well.

Remind me how I was either telling you what to do, or levelling any of those (extreme, interestingly) accusations against what you'd written.

You made a claim. I suggested that your claim was false, and invited you to give examples supporting your claim. That's an entirely valid and normal procedure whenever someone makes an unsupported claim in a debate/argument. So can you offer any actual evidence to support your claim, or not? It's entirely your choice. But I'll be entitled to draw certain inferences if you either refuse or neglect to provide any example to support your claim.

 

[shuttlt]

I agree, up to a point.

But this thread has already (repeatedly) thrown up the accusation that when it comes to certain areas of transgender rights, it's a case of men telling women what do do, and to put up with it with no recourse. So I think it's entirely germane to set that POV against the reality (using a real-world example that's directly related to a particular activist group's ethos) that almost all legislative, regulatory and clinical bodies in progressive liberal democracies contain a healthy representative proportion of females. And then posing the question regarding that juxtaposition.

As I said: I'm not surprised that certain participants in this thread prefer not to address this issue. But I certainly don't think that their non-engagement in any way implies that the question was either invalid or outside the scope of this thread. I understand that some might feel differently about that though.

You are highly unlikely to unpick this perspective on the world here. How long has 2nd wave feminism been around? 50+ years? Lots of women were against 1st wave feminism. These views don't persist by being so weak that they collapse under evidence like this. I don't know what Rolfe, or Emily's Cat would say in response, but there have been plenty of responses over the years. The one closest to the front of my mind is "internalised misogyny" - effectively false class consciousness.

 

[d4m10n]

I suspect this exists - whether in the extreme paraphrase you provide, or for that matter in any form even remotely approaching it...

The people saying something substantively equivalent to "people with male genitals ought to be allowed in places previously reserved to females" in this thread are overwhelmingly male-at-birth. Around six to one M/F ratio, at a guess, but then again that's about what I'd expect at TAM.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, cis off.

No response to my post itself, then?

Personally, I'm entirely happy to be referred to as a cisman, and for my "group" in general to be referred to as cismen, when it's in the context of a discussion/debate about transgender identity. I don't feel that it diminishes my identity or my "manliness" in any way whatsoever - in fact, if anything, it might tend to bolster a cisman's "man" identity (though I don't personally feel that way about it myself). I recognise however that you have significant problems with the very term "ciswoman"/"ciswomen", but I don't yet understand why: can you elaborate?

And when, for example, discussing issues which affect both

a) people born female, assigned at birth the gender "woman", who have maintained their "woman" gender identity, and

b) people born male, assigned at birth "man", who have transitioned to the "woman" gender identity

it's respectful, inclusive and convenient to avoid writing all of the above every time, and instead to employ the terms "ciswoman" and "transwoman" to describe each of those two groups respectively. Can you suggest a workable alternative?

So if you prefer that I instead spell things out in the lengthy manner above, whenever there's a need to delineate those two groups in the context of transgender identity, well I'm afraid you're out of luck. I do find it both strange and instructive that you're so resistant to the easily-understandable term (again, strictly and solely in the context of a discussion about transgender identity). But again: there you (one) go.

 

[LondonJohn]

The people saying something substantively equivalent to "people with male genitals ought to be allowed in places previously reserved to females" in this thread are overwhelmingly male-at-birth. Around six to one M/F ratio, at a guess, but then again that's about what I'd expect at TAM.

But that's entirely different from the claim that was made, if you go back to the source here.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are highly unlikely to unpick this perspective on the world here. How long has 2nd wave feminism been around? 50+ years? Lots of women were against 1st wave feminism. These views don't persist by being so weak that they collapse under evidence like this. I don't know what Rolfe, or Emily's Cat would say in response, but there have been plenty of responses over the years. The one closest to the front of my mind is "internalised misogyny" - effectively false class consciousness.

Eh? I'm posing a relatively simple conundrum:

1) A not-insignificant number of ciswomen who are opposed to certain areas of transgender rights are claiming (either explicitly or implicitly) that these things are being imposed upon them by - effectively - male controlled institutions against the will of ciswomen.

2) Almost all of those institutions mentioned in (1) above contain heathily-representative proportions of ciswomen (and I gave a germane example).

My question is: how do people in (1) reconcile their POV with the facts given in (2)? I invited people in this thread who'd identify themselves with the views of the people in (1) to respond.

That's all.

But if you're positing that one answer to that question might be "internalised misogyny", then I'd be genuinely interested in pursuing that line. Because it would necessarily imply that some or all of the ciswomen in those institutions have some form of internalised misogyny themselves, which is prompting them (presumably unconsciously) to propose or support interventions which are innately unfair to their own "caste". Personally, I can't see how that could/would ever materialise, but again if that's being offered as an answer, I'd like to learn more.

On the other hand, no answer whatsoever a) doesn't help address my conundrum (obviously), and b) makes me tend to think that the relevant people here don't actually have a logical/feasible answer. Not that they're under any obligation whatsoever to respond though, of course.

 

[d4m10n]

But that's entirely different from the claim that was made, if you go back to the source here.

Mansplaining a woman's post is a power move, bro.

 

[Aber]

Hmmmm, interesting. Do you think the Catholic Church should have been consulted about the introduction of gay rights legislation?

Yes, in a democracy you need to get views from ALL sides so that you can reach a balanced decision.

 

[Aber]

I dunno: do the female "women won't wheesht*" "gender-critical" crowd in Scotland think that the likes of Nicola Sturgeon (First Minister), Maree Todd (Minister for Public Health & Women's Health) or all the other female members of the Scottish Government - 13 out of 27 govt members are female - are all either a) somehow being browbeaten into silence and complicity in the males' evil machinations, or b) actually males in disguise?

or more likely

c) are Progressive Activists, the only group where most believe transwomen should take part in female sports

 

[LondonJohn]

or more likely

c) are Progressive Activists, the only group where most believe transwomen should take part in female sports

You really think it more likely that most or all of the 13 females in the Scottish Government fall into this "progressive activist" definition that you've provided? And that not only are they progressive activists (per your definition), but that also their progressive activism leads them to aid and abet the 14 horrible males in the government in making policy decisions that give no consideration to the concerns of their own sex/gender (ie female/women)?

I seeeeee..........

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, in a democracy you need to get views from ALL sides so that you can reach a balanced decision.

Your view is duly noted. I wonder therefore if the KKK was consulted on Black civil rights legislation in US southern states in the 50s/60s? After all: "in a democracy you need to get views from ALL sides so that you can reach a balanced decision".

 

[LondonJohn]

Mansplaining a woman's post is a power move, bro.

You appear not to understand the correct definition of "mansplaining". Bro.

 

[angrysoba]

Here's an unlocked article in the NYTimes Magazine about debates in the medical community regarding transgender care for young people.

It's long:

Can we have the TL;DR? Is Trans good or bad?

 

[Aber]

I seeeeee..........

You really think it more likely that most or all of the 13 females in the Scottish Government fall into this "progressive activist" definition that you've provided? )

Yes

The definition comes from the survey I linked to above, where it is estimated to be 15% of the population. The definition

A passionate and vocal group for whom politics is at the core of their identity

fits well with elected politicians in the SNP.

Party discipline is a thing, and the SNP also has a track record of pushing out gender critical females eg Joanna Cherry.