• 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.
stanfr said:
Well you are spoon feeding me crap, Rolfe.

I just glanced at your link. It is a proposed bill

Which means that your statement that

"including the one I happen to live in, are accepting that and are changing or have changed the law so that anyone who says he is a woman must be treated in every way as women are entitled to be treated."

Is already a proven lie! Did you lie intentionally or was it an honest mistake, Rolfe?
Click to expand...


Do you have a problem understanding the words "are changing"? The bill has been introduced and will shortly become law. I do not appreciate being accused of lying when I have been scrupulously accurate.

ETA: Similar legislation is already law in a number of other countries including Canada, Norway, Iceland and Ireland.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Do you have a problem understanding the words "are changing"? The bill has been introduced and will shortly become law. I do not appreciate being accused of lying when I have been scrupulously accurate.

ETA: Similar legislation is already law in a number of other countries including Canada, Norway, Iceland and Ireland.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what the word mean. It is not yet law and it becoming law is not a foregone conclusion (which is implied by "changing")

If I am wrong and it is a foregone conclusion, I apologize. I will have to read the bill to see if it is really "simply" self-id or not (i suspect it is more complicated than that...)
 
stanfr said:
These have not been proven to my satisfaction.
Click to expand...
That first one took me around 2 minutes of googling.

b46e8a7ab5262c0af47f4d644485b6d6.jpg
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
I know exactly what the word mean. It is not yet law and it becoming law is not a foregone conclusion (which is implied by "changing")

If I am wrong and it is a foregone conclusion, I apologize. I will have to read the bill to see if it is really "simply" self-id or not (i suspect it is more complicated than that...)
Click to expand...


It is a foregone conclusion. The government which has introduced the bill has the majority to get it through and will do so.
 
stanfr said:
I know exactly what the word mean. It is not yet law and it becoming law is not a foregone conclusion (which is implied by "changing")

If I am wrong and it is a foregone conclusion, I apologize. I will have to read the bill to see if it is really "simply" self-id or not (i suspect it is more complicated than that...)
Click to expand...

Of course it’s a foregone conclusion.
 
Rolfe said:
What is it about the case I have made that is not supported by the facts?

1. Trans activists are demanding that all trans identification should be by "self-ID", that is a simple form-filling process (if that) with no requirement for any medical intervention.

2. Many legislatures, including the one I happen to live in, are accepting that and are changing or have changed the law so that anyone who says he is a woman must be treated in every way as women are entitled to be treated.
3. This is a door held wide open for predatory men, who previously would have been asked to leave women's intimate single-sex spaces if they went in, to access these spaces as of legal right. As a corollary, any woman who is disturbed by this is liable to be accused of a hate crime.

These are facts. Do you have different ones?
Click to expand...

I just sped read the bill. Nowhere does it include any language to that effect.
Most of the language refers to marriage and civil unions, it seems pretty clear to me that is the intent of the act, to protect people's right to marry. Nothing about prisons or locker rooms.
 
If that was what the act was about there would be little concern.

What do you think a "Gender Recognition Certificate" is, and what rights it gives its holder?

What do you think the phrase "the person's gender is the acquired gender" is supposed to mean?
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
That's what it comes down to...according to you and a few others here.
Click to expand...
So that would be a necessary bias, then? If fiat ID really were happening, you'd be against it?

And maybe there are a few here who argue that is all that is necessary,
Click to expand...
We're mainly concerned with addressing the argument here. But it has been made, and it has been acted on in public policy. Rolfe has you covered there.

but that's not how I see the argument. It conjures up a lot of pouting Trans individuals saying "I will get whatever I want"
Click to expand...
I'd rather it conjured up you explaining how you see the argument, and why, and what conclusions you draw.

This is a complex issue,
Click to expand...
Complex in what way?

and summing it up the way you and others do is degrading to it, IMHO.
Click to expand...
When this thread started, I was a lot more positive and supportive. Now I would just like some straight answers to some simple questions. Or complex questions, I don't care. As long as there are answers somewhere.

We can start with my question about complexity. What complexity do you think we're missing, that needs to be taken into consideration?
 
stanfr said:
I'll clarify because you added the last paragraph after I responded. Do you seriously think that anyone making the case for self-ID is doing so on the basis of "simply because they prefer it" I mean, is that what gender ID and gender dysphoria comes down to--mere whims? I don't think anyone here made that argument, and if that's how you see their responses I'd suggest it is your biases at play.
Click to expand...

I'm stipulating LJ's framework - that transgender identity without reported psychological distress isn't a mental disorder. It doesn't require diagnosis or treatment. It's a "valid lived identity", the same as race and sexuality. Simply declaring it entitles you to all the privileges established for that purpose.

As Rolfe has explained, this is indeed the framework that is being advocated by mainstream trans-rights activists, and being made into public policy.

The case for self-ID is by definition a case of "simply because they prefer it". Gender ID without gender dysphoria is indeed a mere whim. How could it be otherwise?

If we were actually talking about diagnosed gender dysphoria, with some sort of social transition and even transsexual transition being generally recognized as a good course of treatment, that would be a whole other conversation.

But we're not. We're talking about advocacy for fiat self-ID as a public policy. You seem to think fiat self-ID is a bad idea. You seem like you would oppose it, as public policy. So if we're in agreement, that we share a necessary bias, that's good. One less complication.

What are some unnecessary biases you've noticed, in this discussion? If it's that I'm mildly biased against SuburbanTurkey... then guilty as charged, I guess.
 
Rolfe said:
If that was what the act was about there would be little concern.
Click to expand...

I get it. But the act was just a relaxation (mainly the medical requirements, and age reduction from 18-16) from the previous 2004 act. And that act was specifically passed to address concerns about pensions in civil union situations (the act was addressing a court case that ruled on that situation)
When I read what the parliament actually says about the act, I don't get a feel of the sort of outrageous situations described in this thread. For example here's what they say about sports:

"competitive sports: a sports organisation can restrict participation because of gender reassignment. For example, the organisers of a women’s triathlon event could decide to exclude a trans woman if they think her strength gives her an unfair advantage. However, the organisers would need to be able to show this was the only way it could make the event fair for everyone..."

Doesn't seem to me the act is doing as you claimed it would.

Reform
 
You are so far behind on this it's actually embarrassing.

Removing the medical requirements is the entire point. Now it's just on anyone's personal say-so. There are a lot of implications of this you are just not getting. Although in fairness the bill (which is a dog's breakfast) has been written to appear unthreatening to the casual reader.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
So that would be a necessary bias, then? If fiat ID really were happening, you'd be against it?
Click to expand...

Sure if it were truly 'flat'

We're mainly concerned with addressing the argument here. But it has been made, and it has been acted on in public policy. Rolfe has you covered there.


I'd rather it conjured up you explaining how you see the argument, and why, and what conclusions you draw.


Complex in what way?


When this thread started, I was a lot more positive and supportive. Now I would just like some straight answers to some simple questions. Or complex questions, I don't care. As long as there are answers somewhere.

We can start with my question about complexity. What complexity do you think we're missing, that needs to be taken into consideration?
Click to expand...

There aren't hordes of people just arbitrarily deciding they want to change gender, for purely nefarious purposes. It just aint happening. If you ask a simple question, I'll give you a simple answer. But don't conjure up this image of a trans bogeyman sneaking into women's bathrooms.
Address my point to Rolfe--is that act, if passed, gonna lead to the dangers you fear? Proof? I don't see it.
 
Rolfe said:
You are so far behind on this it's actually embarrassing.

Removing the medical requirements is the entire point. Now it's just on anyone's personal say-so. There are a lot of implications of this you are just not getting. Although in fairness the bill (which is a dog's breakfast) has been written to appear unthreatening to the casual reader.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm here to be educated. I'm already learning, just reading the bill and some of the controversy surrounding it. I don't quite see it as the can of worms that you do, but I'll keep reading :)
 
theprestige said:
I'm stipulating LJ's framework - that transgender identity without reported psychological distress isn't a mental disorder. It doesn't require diagnosis or treatment. It's a "valid lived identity", the same as race and sexuality. Simply declaring it entitles you to all the privileges established for that purpose.

As Rolfe has explained, this is indeed the framework that is being advocated by mainstream trans-rights activists, and being made into public policy.

The case for self-ID is by definition a case of "simply because they prefer it". Gender ID without gender dysphoria is indeed a mere whim. How could it be otherwise?

If we were actually talking about diagnosed gender dysphoria, with some sort of social transition and even transsexual transition being generally recognized as a good course of treatment, that would be a whole other conversation.

But we're not. We're talking about advocacy for fiat self-ID as a public policy. You seem to think fiat self-ID is a bad idea. You seem like you would oppose it, as public policy. So if we're in agreement, that we share a necessary bias, that's good. One less complication.

What are some unnecessary biases you've noticed, in this discussion? If it's that I'm mildly biased against SuburbanTurkey... then guilty as charged, I guess.
Click to expand...

I'll get back to you on that, gotta go see a pretty sunset while i still can, way too much time on social media makes me an unhappy boy ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom