Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Matthew Best]

No they said the opposite:

"...but the idea that they would just register for an easier category where they could win much more easily while being hailed as heroic and getting sponsorship just for doing it is ridiculous...."


Perhaps some folk are being sarcastic....

Do you really find it difficult to tell?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[theprestige]

You want to be rude for no reason but your own dislike of trans people. It costs no one any effort to refer to someone as they want to be referred to.

Yes it does. It takes an effort to remember someone's name, and put a name to a face. It takes an effort to remember that someone prefers a nickname, and which nickname they prefer. It takes an effort to remember that someone prefers idiosyncratic third-person pronouns, which essentially boil down to another nickname.

In fact I think the effort is an important part of preferred pronoun enforcement.

The point of transgenderism is not how the individual perceives themselves, but how others perceive them (which is why homosexuality is not at all analogous to transgenderism).

And really, third-person pronouns are about how *others* perceive you. At least right now, in a society where the relationship between sex, gender, and third-person pronoun are deeply ingrained. Referring to a known or apparent man as "he" takes far less effort than bucking the trend, overcoming the habit, and using "she" instead.

You have to make an effort to you have to make an effort to perceive a man as a woman, and use the "appropriate" pronoun. Preferred pronouns are about asking people to make an effort to perceive you as other than you are, or at least pretend to.

"Oh, you're a black man? I didn't see that." Of course you did.

"Oh, you're a transwoman? All I see is a woman." Why are you lying? Why are you expected to lie? Why is it not discourteous to demand that you lie about what you perceive?

 

[Lplus]

The problem that has arisen (one I note LondonJohn fully supports) is that rather than say, we must have evidence that transwomen do not retain any male-puberty advantage before we open women's sports to them, which would of course be the logical position, sports authorities have been so brainwashed into the "be kind to this incredibly marginalised minority" mindset that they opened their doors immediately on request.

Then, to compound the issue, they attempted to silence anyone criticising this by threatening girls and women who complained with loss of team places and sponsorship, and they saying, look, the actual women athletes have no problem with it. You bigot.

We're now in the position that should have been the initial move - looking at the evidence to see if men retain the advantages of male puberty when they transition. Which of course they do, it's freaking obvious, you just have to look at Liam Thomas. There is no possible way to unbake that (beef)cake.

So now we have the trans lobby even more up in arms about having "rights taken away from them" (rights they should never have been given in the first place) and being "banned from sports" (no, sunshine, you're not banned, you're just being told to compete in the correct category).

What a mess.

It isn't just sports authorities by any means. Being kind to minorities is one thing, giving them everything they demand however disruptive is quite another.

 

[theprestige]

Because trans men are often woefully and shamefully marginalised by many, even in these types of discussions.

The case for transmen lives and dies by the case for transwomen, I think. No need to carve out a discussion focused on them at the moment. Nor any need to raise them as a red herring to avoid the case for transwomen, but here we are.

And often they are allowed to compete in male sports at all levels without any issues being raised. For example, the international organisation that has ruled that trans women can't compete in women's swimming competitions allow trans men to compete in men's swimming competitions.

The two sexes being not only different but unequal, the problems and solutions for each sex may also be different and unequal.

There is perhaps a safety argument to be made that transmen should be banned from competing as men, but consider: When a transman chooses to compete as a man, he chooses to take on himself any additional safety risk. He chooses to accept for himself the inherent 'unfairness' of the contest.

But when a transwoman chooses to compete as a woman, she imposes an additional safety risk on the other competitors. She imposes an inherent unfairness on the other competitors. She takes none of that on herself. So the things that motivate me to ban transwomen from competing as women turn out to be things that are unique to transwomen, and not things that are shared by transwomen and transmen.

There are people out there who will insist that we cannot have a legitimate discussion of transwomen's rights and accommodations, without mirroring it paragraph for paragraph with a discussion of transmen. But I trust that you are not one of them, and that we can put this sidebar to rest quite soon.

 

[shuttlt]

Yes it does. It takes an effort to remember someone's name, and put a name to a face. It takes an effort to remember that someone prefers a nickname, and which nickname they prefer. It takes an effort to remember that someone prefers idiosyncratic third-person pronouns, which essentially boil down to another nickname.

You also have 200+ years of intellectuals saying first that it would be terrific if things like the family, and motherhood went away as they are the basis for capitalistic social power, or patriarchy, or whatever... you then have later intellectuals saying that "problematising" things in this way is how you achieve that. Now you have people doing it. Approaching it as if it's just coming from people's honest desire to be accepted is myopic. It doesn't matter if this isn't Lia Thomas's motivation. It doesn't matter if Lia Thomas has never read a book. Lia Thomas stands on the shoulders of lunatics.

 

[Darat]

Do you really find it difficult to tell?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course.

 

[Darat]

Bigotry? Your disdain for those who don’t share your views is evident. It doesn’t make you right.

Disdain? I don't think that word means what you think it does. My attitude towards the things bigots express is best summed up with the word disgust or contempt.

 

[Darat]

Yes it does. It takes an effort to remember someone's name, and put a name to a face. It takes an effort to remember that someone prefers a nickname, and which nickname they prefer. It takes an effort to remember that someone prefers idiosyncratic third-person pronouns, which essentially boil down to another nickname. ...snip...

Applying how you are using "effort" it takes "effort" to call anyone anything so we shouldn't be calling anyone anything....

 

[Darat]

It isn't just sports authorities by any means. Being kind to minorities is one thing, giving them everything they demand however disruptive is quite another.

This whole discussion is about what level of disruption we should accept by recognising trans people in our societies and cultures. And of course whether the disruption some people will claim will happen would actually happen.

 

[theprestige]

Applying how you are using "effort" it takes "effort" to call anyone anything so we shouldn't be calling anyone anything....

That's your argument, not mine.

Previously you argued that we should accommodate preferred pronouns because they require no effort. I think that's a bad argument, because preferred pronouns do in fact take effort.

Maybe you meant to argue that we should respect preferred pronouns because while they do in fact take effort, it's a necessary effort towards a good end. Is that your actual argument?

 

[shuttlt]

Disdain? I don't think that word means what you think it does. My attitude towards the things bigots express is best summed up with the word disgust or contempt.

Assuming Rolfe is a bigot, the problem is that her opinions are kind of normal. If that is bigotry, it raises the question of whether all bigotry is necessarily bad, or if it is just a word that people with the right politics get to hurl at people who disagree with them. You might as well call her a counter revolutionary, or a suppressive person. It only really works when applied to people like Rolfe if the audience is entirely progressive, or never check what the person actually said/thinks (which is pretty common).

 

[theprestige]

This whole discussion is about what level of disruption we should accept by recognising trans people in our societies and cultures. And of course whether the disruption some people will claim will happen would actually happen.

We've mostly been discussing disruptions that have actually happened. Disruptions in women's prisons with the introduction of trans-identifying males. Disruption of women's sports by trans-identifying males. Disruption of women's safe spaces by trans-identifying males. Disruptions of medical care, by trans-identifying males.

As for what level of disruption we should accept - what's your position? I've listed several disruptions above. Without getting into whether they're really happening, which of those disruptions do you believe we should accept, and why?

 

[d4m10n]

Anyone else changed their mind at all since the thread started?

Quite a bit.

I didn't think trans-inclusivism was that big a deal at first, it's not like *any* of us are managing sex-segregated spaces or leagues. Much like LJ, I trusted politicians and other policymakers (e.g. IOC) were following soundly scientifically-informed advice.

Since then, I've seen that most policymakers chose inclusion as the default setting (without even considering fairness and safety) and even trusted science outlets like SBM cannot be trusted when discussing issues around sex and gender.

 

[Matthew Best]

Of course.

Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emily's Cat]

Serious question - and when there are two mothers to a child?

(I'm not for nor against this example it just made me think about the above scenario.)

The one that gave birth gets listed as the mother on the birth certificate. Did you really find that difficult?

ETA: Also, let's be clear that we're talking about the literal mother, as opposed to the figurative mother. Given that two lesbians cannot procreate with each other, only one of them is the literal mother, even if the other takes on the figurative role of mother with the child.

Honestly, this is kind of at the heart of the whole fiasco. Some people really need to go back to school and learn the difference between literal and figurative language.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Take away the safety issue, and there's still a fairness issue.

Why do you think transwomen have the right to compete with women at any level of sport?
Why do you not extend that right to "elite" and "sub-elite" levels of sport?

You need to rephrase that to be more explicit. The canned response to how you formulated your question is bound to be "because they're women, duh!"

Better (imo) to ask "Why do you think a subset of males have the right to compete with females at any level of sport?"

Because that's the issue - sex, not gender.

 

[Rolfe]

You want to be rude for no reason but your own dislike of trans people. It costs no one any effort to refer to someone as they want to be referred to. Your objection is as baseless as those that are still against the likes of "Ms." for a woman who doesn't want to have to signify their marriage status in every encounter.

And your bigotry for me was established in the very beginning of these threads with your statements such as "..This is about very feminised homosexual men and boys, and very masculinised homosexual girls and women..."

I'm not trawling this mega-thread to find that quote, but I suspect it's something very specific selected out of context. I suspect that because that is not my opinion of the trans phenomenon in general. In general this is about aggressive, narcissistic men with the paraphilia of autogynaephilia who get a sexual kick out of invading women-only spaces, pretending they belong there, and causing upset and embarrassment to the women they are forcing to act as props for their public fetish play. It is also about mainly adolescent girls who hate their developing bodies and have latched on to the notion they must be "really boys" to explain this and have come to believe that cutting off healthy body parts will make them feel better.

Nevertheless, some of it is indeed about very feminised homosexual men and boys, and very masculinised homosexual girls and women. Just not most of it. And I don't see what is bigoted about making that obviously correct observation.

 

[Lplus]

Assuming Rolfe is a bigot, the problem is that her opinions are kind of normal. If that is bigotry, it raises the question of whether all bigotry is necessarily bad, or if it is just a word that people with the right politics get to hurl at people who disagree with them. You might as well call her a counter revolutionary, or a suppressive person. It only really works when applied to people like Rolfe if the audience is entirely progressive, or never check what the person actually said/thinks (which is pretty common).

From Oxford languages

bigot

noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Note the actuality of the belief opinion or faction is irrelevant - it is the obstinate or unreasonable belief that is the key. I reckon the word could be applied to most of the people who post regularly on this forum.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Huh?

Nobody at all is suggesting that new-born babies should not be sexed/gendered in the way that they always have been.

The issue is around people who come to realise that the gender they were assigned at birth is not in alignment with their true gender identity.

1) Nobody is assigned a gender at birth. Their sex is observed.

2) What is a gender identity, and how do you determine whether it is "true" or not? And what does "true" mean in this context? And what does "true" imply in terms of policy?

 

[shuttlt]

I'm not trawling this mega-thread to find that quote

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12683644#post12683644

Oh, it will stop, of that there is no doubt. This is in the same category as the satanic sex abuse recovered memories scandal, or even the glass delusion of the 15th to 17th centuries. Eventually society comes to its senses. The only question is when this will happen.

Men cannot transform into women or vice versa. This isn't Don't Bite The Sun. Male bodies do not become female in some essential mystical way just because their owner harbours the delusion that he's a woman. There's no such thing as being born in the wrong body. By definition, everyone is born in their own body! And a brain that is part of a male body is a male brain. No man can "feel like a woman" because no man knows what it is to feel like a woman. No woman knows what it is to feel like a woman, she only knows how it feels to be her, which includes living in a female body - which is something men do not experience. The whole concept is riddled with regressive sexist stereotypes.

This is about very feminised homosexual men and boys, and very masculinised homosexual girls and women. While choosing to live as the opposite sex is a perfectly valid choice - after all, this whole idea of gendered clothes and lifestyles is a really sexist concept - actually taking drugs and having surgery to alter the body to resemble that of the opposite sex is a very drastic step and really should be reserved for people who absolutely can't come to terms with their bodies as they are. It's something that should be embarked on very cautiously with a lot of disclaimers and warnings, not celebrated as "brave and stunning" and treated as the preferred option for every little boy who likes princess dresses or every little girl who likes short hair, dungarees and playing with trains.

This is also about teenage girls who hate their developing bodies and men's interest in them and want to get rid of them. (About 40% of such girls are on the autism spectrum or have mental health co-morbidities.) There has been a huge increase in girls declaring that they're "trans boys" and wanting mastectomies and testosterone, and even hysterectomies and phalloplasty. Where is that coming from? It absolutely maps to the earlier manifestation of anorexia nervosa as a cry for help or a cry of despair from a young woman who simply can't cope with being a young woman in today's society. And just as nobody thinks that prescribing an anorectic girl a low-calorie diet sheet and scheduling her for bariatric surgery is a good idea, nobody should think that celebrating such a girl as "stunning and brave" when she declares she's a boy and offering her testosterone and a mastectomy and calling her Calum is a good idea either.

This is also (perhaps mainly, these days) about men with various degrees of autogynaephilia, some of whom are also narcissistic bullies, whose desire to transition to female is driven by an erotic fascination with their own bodies as feminine bodies. It is mainly these men who are demanding access as of right to women's sports, changing rooms, dormitories, swimming sessions, domestic violence shelters, gender-balanced panels, all-women shortlists, business and artistic awards and even prisons. They crave the validation they get from being included in the category "woman" and being in a position where they imagine they're being included in "girl talk". They have appropriated the identity of "the most marginalised people in society" and run with it, using this to force politicians and organisations to accede to their demands and ignore (as bigoted transphobic hate speech) any protestations from women who realise their rights have been given away by stealth.

And possibly worst of all, the autogynaephilic men are the driving force behind the push to affirm young people in the first two groups as members of the opposite sex and fast-track them into damaging alterations to their bodies. Oh, I have a lady brain, says the middle-aged autogynaephilic man, I have always been a woman (ignoring his normal boyish childhood), and look at me now with my deep voice and my beard and my male pattern baldness. If only I'd been allowed to transition when I was a child, how much better things would have been for me! Children must be allowed, indeed encouraged, to transition, and have drugs and surgery as young as possible! (But at the same time he's keeping his penis and testicles and asserting his right to be regarded as a woman without shaving his beard or even adopting feminine stereotypes.)

So we have the obscenity of pre-pubescent children who are non-gender-conforming, the vast majority of whom would grow up to be comfortable in their own bodies if simply left alone, being prescribed puberty blockers to delay the puberty that would actually help get their heads together, then cross-sex hormones which cause permanent sterility and permanent loss of sexual desire if given in this way (also with serious side-effects in relation to bone density and future cancer risk), and then having their healthy bodies surgically altered to resemble the opposite sex, sometimes (in America) as young as 13 for girls. Boys are being castrated and having their penises removed as young as 16, and having a "neovagina" cavity fashioned from part of the large intestine because their infantile penises don't have enough skin to do the job. They then have to push a dildo into this cavity every day for the rest of their lives in order to prevent it from healing up. Girls are being horribly mutliated by having parts of their forearms stripped away to make penis-like structures with no erectile tissue and with serious risks of devascularisation and necrosis. It has to stop.

And now most of this forum is going to (again) turn and denounce me as a terf, a transphobe, a bigot and a peddler of hate speech. Well I don't care. I'm past trying to placate the trans allies by adding in all the modifiers about being kind and cherishing the feelings of these oh-so-marginalised flowers and so on. Women have been gaslighted into the assumption that it's their duty to give up their rights to men who claim to be more oppressed than they are for too long. I'm so far past that it's not even a blip on the horizon any more.

And I'm just one of the less vociferious ones. More and more women are rising up against this by the day. Martina Navratilova's "peak trans" conversion was a joy to behold. That woman rocks! Men too, who understand what's going on, thank you Graham Linehan and Iain MacWhirter and Stuart Campbell and Chris McEleny and many more of you.

So this is going to stop. I just hope it stops soon, before too many more young people are robbed of their healthy bodies and their sexuality and their long-term health, and too many more promising young female athletes have their careers destroyed, and too many more vunerable women are sexually assaulted by predatory men who have been housed in women's prisons and rape shelters.

Your post must have struck a chord. It's from 2019.

You remind me of that well known Oscar Wilde quote - "All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does. That's his."