Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

Well this is a fringe reset that would have made SuburbanTurkey proud.

 

[Rolfe]

That's sort of what I asked a long time ago, when I begged people to describe their stance without using the term man, woman, male, female, cis, or trans.

But we cannot break out of the loop of.

"We don't want penises in the vagina room."
"I identify as a woman."
"Well that's great but that's not what I said, I said penises."

Like this entire thread just stays a "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" problem and refuses to move on from it.

Definition of "woman" and "do we separate the penises and vaginas" ARE NOT THE SAME QUESTION.

Like seriously we just rename them "Penis" and "Vagina" restrooms. Outside of the pearl clutching doesn't that solve every problem and give everyone what they want? Nobody is misgendered and nobody has to take a squat with an innie next to an outie.

But it won't make one side happy. Because I don't think anything will.

And before anyone @s me let me again reiterate I am very, very "3rd option" person in this thread who nobody agrees with so I'm not on a side here.

Because you immediately get into the "so you want everyone to have to submit to a genital inspection at the door" territory.

Men who have had their penis removed and an artificial hole constructed will claim to be vagina-havers. We can't tell them apart from any other man while they are dressed. We will be scolded to assume that any man who comes into our intimate spaces has had the operation and how unkind it would be to make any objection. Not to mention transphobic and probably a hate crime. We'd be right back at self-ID by that route.

 

[Vixen]

This has got to be the most callous possible response to a question about inmate safeguarding.

I stand corrected.

How is it in any way 'callous'? I did not design the prison system. If prison authorities were to ask individual female prisoners whether they approve their fellow prisoners, you know in advance we will be back to the days (did they ever go away?) of the Aryan Brotherhood in one cell block and the Black Panthers on the other, Soledad Brother-style, (or cf. Albert Woodfox in Solitary), and with the Hispanic contingent facing off the various different heavily tattooed gangs. So then there would be a transgender posse on one cell block. How would that work, when in female prison culture, women who are 'normal heterosexuals' on the outside quite happily enter consensual gay relationships for the course of their sentencing. Why is there an assumption female inmates would be anti-transgender, seeing as they do not seem to be anti-lesbian? This indicates a capability of being bisexual in certain conditions. So I don't believe the presence of transgender convicts in female penitentiaries would be Big Problem.

 

[Vixen]

Do you actually read anyone else's posts, or do you just go off on context-free rants?

Almost no one cares about how people view themselves as far as gender goes, and indeed think that their rights should be protected as far as speech, employment, and otherwise.

The main concern with most here is the changes in public policy that many TRAs want in regards to self-ID. THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON INDIVIDUAL TRANSGENDER PEOPLE. It is a concern for the situation of women affected by an unconditional surrender to whatever TRAs demand.

Legally a person is what it says on the birth certificate. However, that is not an exact science (cf Lady Colin Campbell was of indeterminate sex at birth so they called her male but she regards herself as female and was able to marry). So yes, on the one hand, one doesn't 'self identify' one's gender. On the other hand, who are we to tell people who or what they are when they know better than anybody who they really are, assuming good faith?

 

[Vixen]

The issue isn't about the presence of a transgender person. The issue is about the presence of a male in sex-segregated spaces for females.

You haven't really explained in which way is it 'natural' for a male to say, wear trousers and have short hair, or even strut down the street saying, 'Hello, darling,' at every woman he meets'. Surely this is learned, imitated, behaviour.

 

[Vixen]

As long as there's any form of sex segregation, nobody has the same rights as ANYONE else. And trans activists are not fighting to remove all sex segregation. The question is, who should a trans person have the same rights as, and why? Should a transwoman or a transman have the same rights as a woman? The same rights as a man? Something in between? Framing it as treating them "the same" is wrong, because if you treat someone the same as women in a sex segregated setting, then you aren't treating them the same as men, and vice versa. So whether or not to treat them "the same" isn't the actual question. The actual question is simply, how should they be treated?

And while that's a simpler question, there aren't any simple answers. Furthermore, the category of "transwoman" and "transman" are not uniform. A transwoman who dresses in women's clothing but isn't doing any medical treatment is different than a transwoman who is undergoing hormone treatment, which is different than a transwoman that has undergone full sex reassignment surgery. Depending on the circumstances, they should probably not all be treated the same as each other.



This is still too vague to be useful. If you're a man and you throw on a dress, does that mean you get to walk into women's changing rooms? Is not being allowed to do so preventing them from living their lives in their "new identity"?

Nobody here wants trans people to be harrassed or persecuted. Everyone here would ideally like for people to be able to comfortably express who they feel themselves to be. But there are different interests here which are in genuine conflict. Women don't want to see penises in their locker rooms. Some people with penises want to be in women's locker rooms. That's a conflict that talking about rights won't solve.

Surely, most cross dressers just do it in private or at special parties. A man who simply dons a dress and high heels, with a dash of lipstick rarely looks female, so no-one would approve such a person, say, using a public female toilet (but there is nothing to stop them really). A genuine transgender person who is convinced they are of the sex opposite to that assigned at birth or by culture would have long adopted the mannerisms and personna of their assumed sex. My ex-sister-in-law who was a lesbian who dressed as a male, had all of the male mannerisms down to a T, including the way she walked, her hairstyle, the way she held a cigarette. It is nothing like a woman who dons a tuxedo for a charity ball as a chic fashion statement, as they usually make sure they dress 'male' comme les garcons but with stilettos.

 

[Vixen]

Well, that's something of a mark in your favour ...


More than a bit of merit and justification in many perspectives and principles of feminism. The problem is that its riven with no end of ideological bias and outright anti-scientific claptrap. You may wish to read an essay by Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico on that point:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ical_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender

This passage, in particular:



Most here are just as dogmatically committed to that "patchwork" "definition" as transactivists are committed to their "trans women are women" mantra. And with as little reason, and with as many problems.


Repeating "2+2=5", even until the cows come home doesn't make it any less false the last time than at the first.

You seem rather desperately committed to the "idea", to the transgender article of faith that people can actually change sex.

Given that most expressions of femininity and masculinity are totally artificial (if they were not, men and women of different cultures would not dress so radically differently - men wear SKIRTS in some cultures). Please don't give me 'marks in [my] favour' as I am not here to curry approval.

 

[Vixen]

The latter is most likely.



This. Vixen's answers are misdirected at the wrong people for irrelevant reasons.



This again. It is a case where the wishes of the majority of the directly affected group, in this case, females, should prevail. If woman do not want persons who have penises between their legs, entering their toilets and changing rooms, then is the way it should be... and there should be no debate about this... otherwise you have a tiny minority dictating to the vast majority.

You speak for the majority of women...?

 

[Vixen]

No, you've got this wrong. The assumption is that male predators 100% WILL claim to be transgender in order to prey on females.

How do you tell the difference between a transgender person and a male pretending to be a transgender person?

It is very easy. I've been down the West End when the clubs spill out and there'd be a stream of very tall men dressed in drag made ridiculously tall by their six-inch platform shoes, blonde wigs and fishnet tights. They are obviously 'drag queens' having a fun night out. This is NOTHING to do with transgender identity where the person concerned will adopt the female or male personna 24/7 and have done so for years in the same way you have your own male of female personna drummed into you from birth, ever since Mum and Dad bought you toy guns, tanks and cowboy outfits or if you are female, dolls and pretty pink dresses with bows.

 

[Matthew Best]

Well, you got one thing right:

"This is NOTHING to do with transgender identity"

So why bring it up?

 

[Vixen]

I strongly suggest that you catch up with what is actually going on in the world.

Here's the deal: back when the occasional male person was seen in a public restroom reserved for females... the understanding was that this person 1) had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria that was 2) persistent, severe, and long-standing, and that they had 3) undergone considerable psychological counseling to meet the criteria to transition and 4) were actively undergoing hormonal therapy and 5) either had already had or were in the process of attaining surgical transition... back then, females were willing to be compassionate and to overlook the fact that we knew they were male. Females in general did not have a problem with those old-school transsexuals.

What you seem to have missed, however, is that the current crop of transgender people do NOT fit those 5 assumptions. The fit NONE of those assumptions. Many of them do NOT have a diagnosis, and they believe that no diagnosis should be required at all. Most of them will take just enough estrogen to grow breast tissue... but NOT enough to impede their ability to maintain an erection. Most of them have no intention of EVER having any surgeries - they rather like their penises.

And... these penis-having males, most of whom are sexually attracted to females... are DEMANDING that because they say magic words about "identifying as a woman", they MUST BE GRANTED access to all single-sex female spaces WITHOUT QUESTION and AS AN ENTILTEMENT.

The result of this has been completely male-bodied athletes knocking females out of their own events, unaltered males in dresses being lauded as the "first female" (pick your label, there are lots), getting female rape victims booted from rape shelters, and convincing the prison system that known sex-offenders with a history of violence against females who only "discovered" their "identity" after being incarcerated have a RIGHT to be housed with female inmates despite having undergone ZERO transition of any sort.

The reality is not what you have assumed. Were it what you have assumed, there would be no particular complaint - there was no particular complaint back in the good old days when what you've assumed actually was the case.

What is it about 'public restrooms'...? I fear there are several false premises here:

• that transgender males want to invade women's spaces
• that women's spaces are some kind of safe haven.
• that a transgender stranger usig a public toilet is different from a female stranger using a public toilet.
• a transgender person who has been raped is not as upset as a cis-female who has been raped.
• that transgenders have an ulterior motive to harass and harm others when they are just an ordinary corss section of the population, no more criminal than others.

I would also argue that those who come out as transgender are more likely to come from the refined upper classes who have personal wealth to shield them (for example, Quentin Crisp, a gay man who dressed outrageously camp when it was still very much a stigma to be gay). In other words less likely to be criminal, although it would need a sociologist to confirm these hypotheses.

 

[smartcooky]

You speak for the majority of women...?

Unlike you, I don't claim to be speaking for anyone.

 

[Vixen]

Sure... but there is also the requirement that the brain has a basis for "feeling" in the first place. A person could say they feel like a cat, and they may very well believe that to be true, their brain could be convinced that they feel like a cat... but it calls into question whether their brain actually has any way of knowing what a cat actually feels like, or whether their brain is just using an assumption of what they imagine a cat might feel like.

Nobody has been brought up from birth to believe they are a cat. People are brought up in the image of the social environment they are born into and we all are all complete random accidents of birth. A transgender person is more likely to have understood and realised the limitations and artifices imposed on them during the first seven years of their lives. Unlike less perceptive persons, they can see that they have been conditioned into the roles they have been given. They might be biologically male or biologically female but that doesn't mean they have to accept behaving in the ways society edicts. As an easy example, very many little girls object instinctively to not being allowed to climb trees or play football so they go ahead and do whatever the boys do because - hey! it's fun! - and before you know it, they are labelled 'tom boys'. Would you argue it is wrong for them to be 'tom boys' and that they are invading male space?

 

[Steersman]

Because you immediately get into the "so you want everyone to have to submit to a genital inspection at the door" territory.

Men who have had their penis removed and an artificial hole constructed will claim to be vagina-havers. We can't tell them apart from any other man while they are dressed. We will be scolded to assume that any man who comes into our intimate spaces has had the operation and how unkind it would be to make any objection. Not to mention transphobic and probably a hate crime. We'd be right back at self-ID by that route.

Seems to me that you have your thumbs - to the elbows - on the scales.

Any "man" [AKA sexless eunuch] who "has had the operation" is far more likely to "pass" than one who hasn't. If they take that rather conclusive step it's also more likely they've taken various other steps to do so.

And even if there are noticeable differences, I don't see how "vagina-havers or reasonable facsimiles" is any more or less enforceable/detectable than "no penis-havers". Many cases of butch lesbians being challenged in the lady's loos, and probably many male transvestites who would pass with no more than a raised eyebrow - if that.

 

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by Steersman:
Well, that's something of a mark in your favour ...

Given that most expressions of femininity and masculinity are totally artificial (if they were not, men and women of different cultures would not dress so radically differently - men wear SKIRTS in some cultures). Please don't give me 'marks in [my] favour' as I am not here to curry approval.

We're not talking about femininity and masculinity which are genders. We're talking about male and female which are the two, and only two sexes. Transwomen are males if they still have their nuts in working order, sexless eunuchs if they don't.

The late Justice Scalia had an illuminating analogy on that score:

The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.

You seem rather desperate in trying to sweep that difference under the carpet; I wonder why ...

And my "marks in your favour" was a jest; notice the winky.

 

[smartcooky]

Nobody has been brought up from birth to believe they are a cat. People are brought up in the image of the social environment they are born into

Compete and utter horsecock.

If you are brought up as a boy, that is because you have a prick and a pair of bollocks between your legs, just as if you are brought up as a girl its because you don't.

As an easy example, very many little girls object instinctively to not being allowed to climb trees or play football so they go ahead and do whatever the boys do because - hey! it's fun! - and before you know it, they are labelled 'tom boys'. Would you argue it is wrong for them to be 'tom boys' and that they are invading male space?

If they wanted to use the boys' toilets and changing rooms at school, then yes.

If they want to sleep in the boy's tents on school camp, then yes.

You can have as many genders as you like (real or imaginary) but sex is BINARY.... there are only two of them, Male and Female. Sports and public ablution spaces are segregated by sex, NOT by gender - this is for fairness to real woman competitors as well their safety. There are already sports which have rules that transgender women cannot participate in women's sports... for example, rugby, rugby league and swimming. There are also others like cycling that have such tight conditions that they are almost impossible to meet.... and this is how it should stay. Why? Because males that have been through male puberty have an overwhelming physiological advantage over women - they are on average stronger by 25% to 50%, 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than biological females. And regardless of any of the spurious bull-**** transgender activists spout, it is impossible to unring the bell of male puberty. No amount of hormone therapy or other woo-woo treatments will ever remove the physiological advantage that a transwoman gains by having gone through male puberty.

 

[Vixen]

We're not talking about femininity and masculinity which are genders. We're talking about male and female which are the two, and only two sexes. Transwomen are males if they still have their nuts in working order, sexless eunuchs if they don't.

The late Justice Scalia had an illuminating analogy on that score:



You seem rather desperate in trying to sweep that difference under the carpet; I wonder why ...

And my "marks in your favour" was a jest; notice the winky.

Male and female are indeed biological facts. However, the behaviours associated with them are to a large extent to do with nurture than nature.

 

[Vixen]

Compete and utter horsecock.

If you are brought up as a boy, that is because you have a prick and a pair of bollocks between your legs, just as if you are brought up as a girl its because you don't.



If they wanted to use the boys' toilets and changing rooms at school, then yes.

If they want to sleep in the boy's tents on school camp, then yes.

You can have as many genders as you like (real or imaginary) but sex is BINARY.... there are only two of them, Male and Female. Sports and public ablution spaces are segregated by sex, NOT by gender - this is for fairness to real woman competitors as well their safety. There are already sports which have rules that transgender women cannot participate in women's sports... for example, rugby, rugby league and swimming. There are also others like cycling that have such tight conditions that they are almost impossible to meet.... and this is how it should stay. Why? Because males that have been through male puberty have an overwhelming physiological advantage over women - they are on average stronger by 25% to 50%, 30% more powerful, 40% heavier, and about 15% faster than biological females. And regardless of any of the spurious bull-**** transgender activists spout, it is impossible to unring the bell of male puberty. No amount of hormone therapy or other woo-woo treatments will ever remove the physiological advantage that a transwoman gains by having gone through male puberty.

There is absolutely nothing 'natural' about 'the boy's tents on school camp'. They are 100% invented social constructs. Boy scouts were invented by Baden-Powell and Girl Guides by his wife, Soames. Indeed, not only is it a social construct it is also political, insofar Hitler banned the Boy Scouts in Germany because he saw it as competing with Hitler Youth. Perhaps you didn't realise segregating children into boys camps and girls camps have nothing at all to do with nature?

As I pointed out before, all sport is physically discriminatory. People with a certain body build do have an advantage over those who do not.

The issue of transgender athletes is a tricky one. Perhaps a genuine transgender person who is genuinely talented at their sport could still compete as a woman or a man by inbuilding a 'handicap', so that a male to female athlete could, for example, start ten yards behind the start line and a female to male given a ten-yard start.

 

[smartcooky]

There is absolutely nothing 'natural' about 'the boy's tents on school camp'. They are 100% invented social constructs. Boy scouts were invented by Baden-Powell and Girl Guides by his wife, Soames. Indeed, not only is it a social construct it is also political, insofar Hitler banned the Boy Scouts in Germany because he saw it as competing with Hitler Youth. Perhaps you didn't realise segregating children into boys camps and girls camps have nothing at all to do with nature?

What a load of unmitigated bollocks!

Firstly, housing boys in tents with other boys and girls in tents with other girls is a perfectly normal and natural way to accommodate students at a school camp, that is, unless you are trying to increase the probability of teenage pregnancies (but I guess, given that arguments and opinions you have posted in other threads, I probably shouldn't be surprised that you don't give a rats arse about that).

Secondly, WTF have boy scouts got to do with anything?

As I pointed out before, all sport is physically discriminatory. People with a certain body build do have an advantage over those who do not.

Which is why we have sports divided in to categories such as sex, weight and age. It is no more fair to allow transgender women to participate in women's sport that it would be to allow a 25 year-old 6ft 4in, 250lb man to compete in an Under 14 rugby match, or allow a heavyweight boxer to compete in the flyweight division.

The issue of transgender athletes is a tricky one.

There is nothing tricky about it at at all. There are no nuances or grey areas. Its really, really simple. You can self ID as a woman all you like, but that does not, and never will, make you a female. People who have been through male puberty with a cock and balls between their legs are male and always will be - and as such should never be allowed to compete in categories reserved for female athletes.

Perhaps a genuine transgender person who is genuinely talented at their sport could still compete as a woman or a man by inbuilding a 'handicap', so that a male to female athlete could, for example, start ten yards behind the start line and a female to male given a ten-yard start.

Yeah, Right. Sports should be forced to change their rules and regulations to accommodate cheaters who want to cheat with impunity! **** them, they can just stay in their lane!
.
.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is absolutely nothing 'natural' about 'the boy's tents on school camp'. They are 100% invented social constructs.

I'm going to disagree with smartcooky and say that there's some truth to this. However, it's also irrelevant, and at the end of the day my disagreement with him is primarily a technicality. But let's get into that technicality.

Society is a social construct (obviously). Laws are a social construct. Schools are social constructs. But... so what? Why is that a bad thing? Social constructs are often very GOOD things. We need social constructs in order to have a society, to not live lives that are nasty, brutish, and short. So something not being "natural", or being a social construct, isn't actually any kind of mark against it.

Now, perhaps what you really mean is arbitrary. People chafe at arbitrary requirements and restrictions, because they're generally considered unnecessary or even harmful. But sex segregation, while perhaps not "natural", is absolutely not arbitrary. It is a response to something that IS natural, namely sex differences. Sex segregation in sleeping accommodations is a way to minimize certain problems that can arise from those natural sex differences. It has utility. It accomplishes a beneficial purpose. It is not, on balance, harmful. So calling it "unnatural" or "socially constructed", while perhaps accurate in some sense, is also completely irrelevant.

The issue of transgender athletes is a tricky one.

No, actually it's pretty easy. Sports are segregated on the basis of sex, not gender, because sex, not gender, is what provides males with physical advantages. Some of those advantages are lessened with hormone therapy/castration, but not all of them. Sports leagues should not be required to accommodate people who choose to reduce their own athletic capabilities. That would be like allowing a 30 year old to compete in a seniors league because he's a smoker.