• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elaedith said:
We get this 'analogy' periodically. Deja vu.

As pointed out before, if it's ok for white males to sit next to girls on the bus but not black males, then the issue is clearly race, hence racism. This would be analogous if people thought it was ok for males who identify as men to change in the same rooms as females, but not for males who identify as women. This would then clearly be transphobia. However, nobody has ever argued this. Instead, when it is argued that both males who identify as men/boys and males who identify as woman/girls should not change in female changing rooms, the issue is clearly not being 'trans' but being male. Therefore it is actually analogous to having women-only sections on buses, then arguing that black males only should be allowed to sit in them, then pretending that objections to this are due to race rather than sex.

Of course, some people believe that sex should be replaced by self identified gender identity (similar to having woman-only sections on buses, but where 'woman' is redefined as being unrelated to being female), meaning that women would lose the right to object or react negatively to any male in a women's space. However, nobody ever seems to be able to argue for this from first principles, instead relying on personal attacks and spurious analogies.
Click to expand...

Surely the correct equivalence would be someone of one race passing themselves of as another because of (a) self identity and (b) vague appearance. I think transgender phobia is a good analogy of racism, because why should anyone care if someone identifies other than how they were observed at birth or their birth parents. However, race is such a complex, vast and emotional issue, it is probably not prudent to discuss it here.

Suffice to say, who cares if someone born a boy now identifies as female?
 
Rolfe said:
The multiple fallacies in that analogy were explained and dissected several times earlier in the thread. Continually bringing it up again as if it's a new and devastating gotcha suggests the attention span of the legendary goldfish.

Maybe we should bookmark the most succinct refutations and simply link to them every time this happens.
Click to expand...

I respect your views and understand them. However, it is still only your opinion. Your opinion is not fact set in stone.
 
Vixen said:
Surely the correct equivalence would be someone of one race passing themselves of as another because of (a) self identity and (b) vague appearance. I think transgender phobia is a good analogy of racism, because why should anyone care if someone identifies other than how they were observed at birth or their birth parents. However, race is such a complex, vast and emotional issue, it is probably not prudent to discuss it here.

Suffice to say, who cares if someone born a boy now identifies as female?
Click to expand...

Click back. The people who care, and the good reasons they have for caring, have been extensively discussed.
 
d4m10n said:
I can think of at least three distinct reasons why comparing sex segregation to racial segregation is a poor analogy.

1) Switching the oppressed group for the oppressor group. Females are analogous to African Americans inasmuch as they've both historically been denied the franchise and other manifestations of equality, but here we've analogized females to European Americans, an oppressor class.

2) Analogizing real differences to unreal ones. Sex entails actual measurable differences based in reproductive adaptation, whereas race is an arbitrary ancestral line-drawing exercise at best.

3) Comparing safe spaces designed as an accommodation to segregated spaces designed to maintain an oppressive hierarchy.

Sent from my CopyPastaMatic using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

1) The correct oppressor group would surely be those who deny the right of people to be non-binary. This group can be male or female, black or white.

2) Whilst 'biology is destiny', genetics only count for at most 80% of our make up. At least 20% is social conditioning and nurture. Scrub out that 20% and you'll likely find that apart from genitals and secondary sexual charateristics, people are pretty much the same, give or take scale. IOW concepts such as 'boys schools', 'girls schools', 'girls clothes', 'boys clothes', 'boys games', 'girls games', 'boys comics' and 'girls comics' etcetera, are simply the products of several hundred years of socialised conformity.

Not so long ago men wore skirts (tunics) and stockings (breeches). So much for nature.

3) separating the sexes is surely a like-for-like form of segregation as is race segregation? The proof in the pudding for this is that whilst race segregation was the norm in the US southern states and Rhodesia, in England it was always illegal. So much for the idea it is 'all natural'.
 
Vixen said:
Correct me if I am wrong but it all appears to boil down to the fear of people waving their willy around in front of women.
Click to expand...

OK, you're wrong. Meanwhile, however :

"What is the punishment for indecent exposure in UK?

Indecent exposure is the offence of intentionally exposing the genitals with the specific intent of making a viewer(s) alarmed or distressed.
Indecent exposure, if tried at a Crown Court, carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. However, most indecent exposure cases are tried in Magistrate's Court, where the defendant will receive a summary conviction – carrying a maximum of six months in prison, a fine or both" link

Now, a 'genuine' transwoman might have no intention of 'making a viewer alarmed or distressed', but it's far from guaranteed that women in a traditionally protected space won't be alarmed or distressed. In addition, you can bet your life that if access to those spaces is allowed by self-certification by the person then you've created a flashers' charter to go anywhere for a spot of flashing. It will happen, and it shouldn't be hand-waved away the way you just have.

But all this has been discussed here endlessly. Maybe you should re-read the thread?
 
Vixen said:
Suffice to say, who cares if someone born a boy now identifies as female?
Click to expand...

Nobody should care how you identify. That is absolutely correct. They should care what you actually are. Trans women are not actually female.

If you want to argue that sex segregation is categorically wrong, then do so. That's the conclusion that we should reach if we take your race analogy seriously. But you aren't actually arguing for abolishing sex segregation, because you don't take the analogy seriously yourself. So why should we?
 
Vixen said:
1) The correct oppressor group would surely be those who deny the right of people to be non-binary.
Click to expand...
Merager isn't non-binary; very few of the other natal males pressing for access to women's spaces are non-binary.

While I do find the topic of non-binary identity inherently interesting, there is no longer a thread about it here at ISF.

Vixen said:
2) Whilst 'biology is destiny', genetics only count for at most 80% of our make up. At least 20% is social conditioning and nurture. Scrub out that 20% and you'll likely find that apart from genitals and secondary sexual charateristics, people are pretty much the same, give or take scale. IOW concepts such as 'boys schools', 'girls schools', 'girls clothes', 'boys clothes', 'boys games', 'girls games', 'boys comics' and 'girls comics' etcetera, are simply the products of several hundred years of socialised conformity.
Click to expand...
None of this addresses my point. Race isn't biologically definable; sex is rooted in a biological process which requires one large gamete and one small one. Nearly every case we've discussed upthread involves someone who is unambiguously physically male or female, with the sole exception of Caster Semanya, who is not transgender.

Vixen said:
3) separating the sexes is surely a like-for-like form of segregation as is race segregation?
Click to expand...
Only one of those forms of segregation was designed to accommodate the group with significantly less political power, and only one of them is demanded by many of them to this day.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
None of this addresses my point. Race isn't biologically definable; sex is rooted in a biological process which requires one large gamete and one small one.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the most important distinction. Natural hair color is biologically definable. It's got specific associated genes which, absent certain conditions (such as age making it grey) will determine what hair color grows from your follicles. But we don't segregate by hair color, because the difference is a trivial difference. It doesn't matter. It's inconsequential. Even if we did find a method to biologically define race, the differences would still not be consequential.

Sex differences are not trivial. They are consequential. And even most trans advocates don't actually deny this, because they aren't trying to eliminate all sex segregation. I haven't seen Vixen argue against all sex segregation.
 
I don't see what the problem is with people who identify as non-binary, in principle. It's a bit precious, because practically nobody conforms completely to the gender norms of one sex or the other so in that sense practically everybody is non-binary so why make such an issue out of it?

The problem arises in practice because some (at least) self-professed non-binary people insist on using the single-sex facilities of the sex they are not. Why do they do this? If you're non-binary, just go right on using the facilities appropriate to your biological sex and nobody will mind at all.

The suspicion is of course that some men are adopting the non-binary label to allow them to go into women's intimate spaces without any requirement to look female at all. Look like a man, sound like a man, dress like a man, behave like a man, but fancy using the Ladies' loo? Just say you're non-binary and hey presto, stunning and brave and marginalised, with all the privileges that entails, but without having to worry about eyeshadow or miniskirts or even shaving.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nobody should care how you identify. That is absolutely correct. They should care what you actually are. Trans women are not actually female.

If you want to argue that sex segregation is categorically wrong, then do so. That's the conclusion that we should reach if we take your race analogy seriously. But you aren't actually arguing for abolishing sex segregation, because you don't take the analogy seriously yourself. So why should we?
Click to expand...

Let's take one step at a time. We need to establish why we need sex segregation first.
 
Vixen said:
I have declared nothing of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth or twist them.
Click to expand...
You have done exactly that. Click back to see.

You haven't rebutted where I showed that you did it either.

Eat your own words please
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Merager isn't non-binary; very few of the other natal males pressing for access to women's spaces are non-binary.

While I do find the topic of non-binary identity inherently interesting, there is no longer a thread about it here at ISF.

None of this addresses my point. Race isn't biologically definable; sex is rooted in a biological process which requires one large gamete and one small one. Nearly every case we've discussed upthread involves someone who is unambiguously physically male or female, with the sole exception of Caster Semanya, who is not transgender.

Only one of those forms of segregation was designed to accommodate the group with significantly less political power, and only one of them is demanded by many of them to this day.
Click to expand...

How did you come to the conclusion only one of those forms of segregation was designed to accommodate the group with significantly less political power, and only one of them is demanded by many of them to this day. Are you saying sex segregation came about for the advancement of women because it appears to me that wasn't the reason at all. For example, there used to be a nationwide 11+ exam (an IQ test) and because girls performed better than boys (for whatever reason, perhaps faster development) the entry levels to grammar school were adjusted downwards for girls and to the advantage of boys, otherwise the boys would have been outnumbered. Male advantage has been the norm in society so I should be interested in where you got the idea that female segregation is for female advancement.

BTW so what if Merager is a sexual criminal. Are you claiming only transgender women commit sex offences? I presume ordinary heterosexual men do not is what you are trying to falsely convey?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom