Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Rolfe]

Yes, now I see that it's a small quote from a long post. As I said, this isn't primarily about homosexual trans-sexualism. Mainly, especially these days, it's about autogynaephilia and rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which for some reason I discussed later in the post rather than at the top.

ETA: Thanks for finding that. I think it's a great post and I stand by every word. Maybe I should just re-post it every month or so to save wear and tear on the typing fingers.

Edited by sarge: 

edited to remove rule 12 violation

 

[Emily's Cat]

No that's a different question to what I asked - I was asking about trans-women, which even if you want to describe them as men are a distinct sub-grouping of men.

Genuinely, Darat: What is distinct about them? What objective characteristics distinguishes this sub-grouping of males from all of the other males?

 

[Emily's Cat]

We seem to be back to the LondonJohn argument. How dare you point out that "transwomen" are a subset of men, that is a morally repugnant position and I'm surprised anyone would own up to it in public.

What I find baffling is that both lionking and Darat are referring to transwomen as a subset of males... and they're arguing with each other over that for some reason I haven't quite figured out.

It happens a lot in this thread. It's such a contentious topic, that sometimes vague or polite phrasing gets interpreted as opposition, even when the actual substance of the post is in agreement.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I wouldn't call anyone wanting to be known as he or she by the opposite pronoun, that's simply rude.

Tell that to the rape victim forced to refer to their rapist as "she" under threat of court action.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Of course no one can or should be able to compel you - being rude and a being a bigot should remain your choice.

It is not bigotry to refer to a person by their sex rather than by their gender soul.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

I've become less willing to entertain exceptions since the thread started. I used to be on the side of "use whatever toilet you want, and if you're using changing rooms you better pass pretty well and keep yourself covered". It is a very common sense position, I think.

But actual events in the real world have shown this position to be one where females lose out consistently. We've had multiple instances of males in female-only changing areas and spas who have exposed their genitals and have argued that they are entitled to do so. The common courtesy and respect is not present on the male side of this... so no, no penis-havers at all allowed in the female areas.

When it comes to toilets, there've been so many cases of males putting in hidden cameras, peeping at females while they pee, and videoing themselves masturbating in the female restroom, that I feel it necessary to revoke that concession as well.

We gave the mouse a cookie. And then a whole bunch of rabid carnivorous badgers came and ate everything in sight.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

I assume that you are clever enough to understand *why* transgender identified females are not a threat to males, and are not a risk to fair competition for males?

ETA: People would also complain heartily about 20 year olds being allowed to compete in little league games, but would probably not have any complaints at all if a 6 year old wanted to try out for the college team.

 

[Darat]

Genuinely, Darat: What is distinct about them? What objective characteristics distinguishes this sub-grouping of males from all of the other males?

That they say they are women or trans-women.

Are you not aware that most men don't say that?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It still takes intentional effort on my part to avoid using sex-based pronouns on this forum. And I'm not trying to swap them, just neutralize everything. It's not an insignificant amount of effort, either. I end up having to put some serious thought into how to make a statement clear to readers.

 

[Darat]

That's your argument, not mine.


...snip...

Nope you made effort mean anything. When you make effort to mean remembering anything about someone you have rendered it meaningless.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The case for transmen lives and dies by the case for transwomen, I think.

The exception, I think, is wrapped up in language. Transmen play no small part in erasing female-centered language. Transmen are the ones pushing "menstruator" and "people with uteruses" and similar such dehumanizing language. They excluded themselves from the category of women... and then when their sex is material and relevant, they insist that all of the other females on the planet must change our language so they can be included back into the category that they excluded themselves from in the first place.

 

[theprestige]

Nope you made effort mean anything. When you make effort to mean remembering anything about someone you have rendered it meaningless.

I made effort mean effort. You said there was no effort. And now you're just equivocating. It takes effort. You made a bad argument.

 

[Darat]

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).

The word bigotry means "...obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group...."

How that is akin to a political term like "suppressive person" or "counter-revolutionary" is known only to yourself.

And of course you conveniently forget I did provide one example of Rolfe's opinions that made me consider her view bigotry... but don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative eh?

 

[shuttlt]

It still takes intentional effort on my part to avoid using sex-based pronouns on this forum. And I'm not trying to swap them, just neutralize everything. It's not an insignificant amount of effort, either. I end up having to put some serious thought into how to make a statement clear to readers.

It's also not a neutral thing to do. The more people go along with this, the more pressure there is on people to go along with it.

It's kind of a digression, but I read the Handmaid's Tale recently. I won't volunteer my opinion. Nevertheless, one of the themes there is that because everybody diligently says the mantra of the regime, you kind of have to assume that they believe it and so you conform and they conform and everybody conforms. You only need a relatively small percentage of the population who are zealots about this kind of thing to get everybody else passively pressurising one another to go along.

I tip my hat to you in your defiance. In some ways I think the chunkiness of they/them is good because it forces you to be aware of it when you use it, and forces the reader to be aware of it when they have to unpack it.

 

[Darat]

Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sarcasm of course - read back through the exchange. It was all sarcasm.

 

[Darat]

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.

You need to try to read without preconception.

 

[theprestige]

That they say they are women or trans-women.

If that's the only objective characteristic that distinguishes them from other men, I don't see any basis for making accommodations for them in public policy.

In fact if that's the only objective characteristic that distinguishes them from other men, I see hardly any basis for respecting their preferred pronouns. I rightly perceive a transwoman as male, why should their demand that I pretend to perceive them otherwise trump my rightful perception of them?

Donald Trump may demand I refer to him as an honest man, but is it really rudeness if I insist on calling him a liar anyway? Who's the real jerk, in that scenario?

Anyway, if the only objective characteristic that distinguishes transwomen from men is their claim to be women, then that settles the matter as far as I'm concerned: They have the same standing as otherkin and Rachel Dolezal, in terms of public policy and social acceptance.

Do you have any other objective characteristic, that might reasonably promote transwomen to a more privileged position in public policy?

 

[Darat]

What I find baffling is that both lionking and Darat are referring to transwomen as a subset of males... and they're arguing with each other over that for some reason I haven't quite figured out.

It happens a lot in this thread. It's such a contentious topic, that sometimes vague or polite phrasing gets interpreted as opposition, even when the actual substance of the post is in agreement.

Nope - it was lionking that was arguing against a shadow, or to put it as it is usually put here - he was attacking a strawman or strawwomen of his own devising. He just couldn't get past his preconception of my stance.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That they say they are women or trans-women.

Are you not aware that most men don't say that?

Is it truly just magic words, then? It's the "objective" observation that they said a magic phrase, and some other males did not say the magic phrase?

Are there any actual objective characteristics that distinguish this subset of males from other males?

 

[Darat]

I assume that you are clever enough to understand *why* transgender identified females are not a threat to males, and are not a risk to fair competition for males?

ETA: People would also complain heartily about 20 year olds being allowed to compete in little league games, but would probably not have any complaints at all if a 6 year old wanted to try out for the college team.

Again drop your preconceptions and read what I actually posted - you are reacting to something I didn't actually post.