Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Paul2]

I don't think I understand the question.

See the end of my post #1018.

 

[Paul2]

Alls I'm saying is you can't, with anything resembling intellectual or moral honesty, land on "They are genuinely and honestly trans... unless they do something bad then they were obviously faking it"

Agreed.

 

[The Atheist]

I really do not understand any of your thought processes in regards to this issue. It's like trying to talk to Trump supporters.

I'm delighted things only get worse after that start.

Women being hurt by women = GOOD

I'll take strawmen for $50, thanks.

If you people actually cared about women as you claim, you would want to fix the issues of inherent violence within the existing systems.

It's good to know Monty Python's influence extends well into generations beyond theirs.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed quoted rule breaches and responses to them

 

[JoeMorgue]

Agreed.

Okay but... that's where we are at.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay but you know what I mean. It's the only one with discourse at this level. It's the only one being presented as a civil rights issue. It's the only one being presented to the society with "Okay now decisions have to be made" message to it.

It's the only one that's an issue.

For now, anyway.

Sure, absolutely, I understand your basic point and I agree with it.

But I think those other examples are useful to consider, because I think they help point out that it's precisely the societal response which is the anomaly, not the condition. The condition itself isn't unique, it's just one of multiple body dysphorias (let's not forget anorexia either), and so there's no logical reason to privilege it so much.

 

[p0lka]

I really do not understand any of your thought processes in regards to this issue. It's like trying to talk to Trump supporters..snip

You know how the common stereotype of a trump supporter is that they come in with preconceptions that they will refuse to think about or change in spite of what's in front of their face?

You are doing it right now,

take a breath, have a read, there's no homogeneity here.

 

[Rolfe]

Can we say "It's [all] a fetish" as opposed to "It's a fetish [for some]," given gender dysphoria in the DSM?

The two are not mutually exclusive. One of the causes (probably the main cause) of gender dysphoria is AGP.

There are fairly rare cases where another mental health issue, some type of psychosis or psychotic delusion, causes a man to believe he is a woman. One of the cases presented on film I linked to earlier was a man from the Netherlands who had some sort of personality disorder that had this effect. So saying "all" is incorrect but in that sense not to a large extent.

The other question is whether HSTS can be regarded as a fetish. Probably not, strictly speaking. It's an extreme form of male homosexuality where the man desires to present as female to his male partner. However, again the motivation for transition is sexual.

 

[Paul2]

The two are not mutually exclusive. One of the causes (probably the main cause) of gender dysphoria is AGP.

There are fairly rare cases where another mental health issue, some type of psychosis or psychotic delusion, causes a man to believe he is a woman. One of the cases presented on film I linked to earlier was a man from the Netherlands who had some sort of personality disorder that had this effect. So saying "all" is incorrect but in that sense not to a large extent.

The other question is whether HSTS can be regarded as a fetish. Probably not, strictly speaking. It's an extreme form of male homosexuality where the man desires to present as female to his male partner. However, again the motivation for transition is sexual.

Agreed, they are not mutually exclusive. The last part of my post #1018 frames my question better.

 

[Elaedith]

ETA: I didn't see your edits before the wrote the following:

First, I'm happy with not bringing in "legit life condition" terminology. The distinction between it all being a fetish and gender dysphoria as defined in the DSM-V does the job to clarify whether it's all a fetish or not by itself (assuming that some people with gender dysphoria do not present with a fetish).

I don't care if someone thinks I'm not allowed to ask about the difference, but we do (might?) have a way to tell the difference *if* some trans folk report dysphoria but some don't. My vague impression is that that's the case.

Which of the following do we have, empirically?
Trans folk with gender dysphoria, no fetish
Trans folk with fetish, no gender dysphoria
Trans folk with fetish and gender dysphoria

I've got it now, I misinterpreted 'can we say it's all a fetish' as a request

My understanding is that some psychologists in this area do think that AGP can produce gender dysphoria. That is, a male who is aroused by the thought of being a woman is locating the source of attraction in his own body (an erotic target identity inversion), but being gynephilic, is then disturbed by his body not matching the sex he is attracted to and desires female anatomy. However, not all males with AGP want to transition.

The key distinction is sexual orientation: only males who are attracted to females can be AGP. Transwomen who are exclusively androphilic have a different pattern in terms of onset of gender dysphoria (usually from early childhood) and a different mechanism behind it.

I think the model is not perfect and needs more research and testing (which is difficult now because nobody dares to research it) but is much more consistent with the evidence and better supported than the ideological view pushed by activists (that all transwomen have some type of 'feminine essence' in a male body, regardless of sexual orientation).

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again the problem is, yet again, that the Trans side refuses, indeed gets rather offended, if you ask them to define what quality of the other sex they are taking on.

You're biological male. Okay I'm with you. But you identify as a female. What does that mean?

You want to wear dress? Long hair? Makeup? That doesn't make you a woman because women don't have to do those things.

If its just that you want access to women only spaces... that's kind of weird a little creepy and this is from me, the guy who is basically only in this discussion because I'm sick of it being used to demonize men.

If its not any of those things... what is it?

Why is asking "Hey could you maybe define literally any part of what change you are making in what you do or are?" treated as such a ******* offensive question?

 

[Ziggurat]

How do I know that the link you're posting is impartial ie trustworthy,

Impartial and trustworthy aren't remotely the same thing. Sources don't need to be impartial to be trustworthy. It's worth keeping any partiality in mind when evaluating information, it can provide important context, but that's not disqualifying on its own.

or just a hitjob by someone who cherrypicks and makes **** up for their own agenda?

Too many examples for me to believe it was just made up. Too many clips are long enough that I don't believe it's all just out of context.

I'm absolutely sure that it's cherry picked. Why wouldn't it be? That's only logical. But that's also OK. If the argument isn't "all trans people" (and I don't see anyone making that claim), then there's nothing dishonest about cherry picking examples which show a certain side of that group. It's worth keeping in mind that it's cherry picked, sure, but god damn, if you can pick that many cherries, you've got an orchard somewhere.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ever heard of the term cause and effect? We're seeing the effect right now. The cause is from decades of women pressing into what was once considered male dominated social structure.

I have no problem with that at all. Break the whole damn social system for all I care. But, a lot of women sure seem to care. So much so that they refuse to allow men to do the exact same thing that they've been doing for generations.

This is baloney. The structure of society prior to the suffragette movement was such that females were PROHIBITED from taking equal part in society. Females were PROHIBITED from voting, from owning property, from representation in politics and the economy, from higher education. There were occasional exceptions, but in general, females were NOT ALLOWED to be fully realized citizens with agency in their own right.

What the suffragettes fought for was that females are not non-citizen beholden to their male spouses or relatives, but would be recognized as actual full people.

That's something we actually do NOT have in the US, by the way. Females have never been granted fully equal protection under the constitution.

So far as males pressing into social structures that are female dominated... Most feminists 100% support that. We would absolutely love to have more male nurses, more male secretaries and office managers, more males doing the dishes, keeping house, doing laundry, and raising children. But that doesn't seem to be what males are pushing into.

Rather, males are pushing into spaces that are separated on the basis of sex. Spaces that females value for privacy and dignity, for safety from the male gaze, etc. Males are demanding that females cannot have the right to specify the sex of the person doing their gynecological exam, or their post-rape exam - they demand that males MUST be allowed to intimated touch females against the will of those females. They demand that males MUST be allowed to enter female-only rape shelters and domestic violence refuges - even though mixed sex and male-only services exist in most areas.

What males are insisting is not that they be treated equally, but that they be exempted from the constraints of consent that females have finally managed to get in place.

Serious question for you: why do you value the feelings of males as more important than the safety and basic human dignity of females?

 

[Rolfe]

Skirt, blouse, shoes, long hair. Classic lady.

Bloody hell. The only reason I have my hair long is because of covid and not feeling that hairdressers are acceptably safe at the moment. Usually I wear it short.

I wear a skirt and a blouse once in a blue moon, for a special occasion.

I always wear shoes, unless I'm wearing sandals. Granted, they're training shoes, but still, shoes.

My normal attire is jeans, a t-shirt, a hoodie and trainers. I'm not a lady? Really?

How dare you reduce the experience and existence of women, the female members of your own species, to a costume a man can put on.

Also, learn to recognise the less extreme presentation of AGP when you see it. Because you have just described it.

 

[Elaedith]

ETA: I didn't see your edits before the wrote the following:

First, I'm happy with not bringing in "legit life condition" terminology. The distinction between it all being a fetish and gender dysphoria as defined in the DSM-V does the job to clarify whether it's all a fetish or not by itself (assuming that some people with gender dysphoria do not present with a fetish).

I don't care if someone thinks I'm not allowed to ask about the difference, but we do (might?) have a way to tell the difference *if* some trans folk report dysphoria but some don't. My vague impression is that that's the case.

Which of the following do we have, empirically?
Trans folk with gender dysphoria, no fetish
Trans folk with fetish, no gender dysphoria
Trans folk with fetish and gender dysphoria

This interview with Dr Michael Bailey explains the different types of gender dysphoria and relationships with sexuality quite well. But it's long, like all of Boyce's interviews.

 

[Paul2]

I've got it now, I misinterpreted 'can we say it's all a fetish' as a request

My understanding is that some psychologists in this area do think that AGP can produce gender dysphoria. That is, a male who is aroused by the thought of being a woman is locating the source of attraction in his own body (an erotic target identity inversion), but being gynephilic, is then disturbed by his body not matching the sex he is attracted to and desires female anatomy. However, not all males with AGP want to transition.

The key distinction is sexual orientation: only males who are attracted to females can be AGP. Transwomen who are exclusively androphilic have a different pattern in terms of onset of gender dysphoria (usually from early childhood) and a different mechanism behind it.

I think the model is not perfect and needs more research and testing (which is difficult now because nobody dares to research it) but is much more consistent with the evidence and better supported than the ideological view pushed by activists (that all transwomen have some type of 'feminine essence' in a male body, regardless of sexual orientation).

So I think you're saying that my three types from post #1018,

Trans folk with gender dysphoria, no fetish
Trans folk with fetish, no gender dysphoria
Trans folk with fetish and gender dysphoria

exist. If that's correct, do we have any sense of the proportion of those three types?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It took the USA decades to get used to civil unions and then same-sex marriage. Feels like the issue of transgender equality is being forced upon us in a much more rapid pace. Perhaps too fast.

And after well over half a century, females in the US *still* don't have full constitutional equality with males.

I think "too fast" is a bit of an understatement.

 

[Rolfe]

How do I know that the link you're posting is impartial ie trustworthy, or just a hitjob by someone who cherrypicks and makes **** up for their own agenda?

That is a classic argumentum ad hominem, you know. Don't like the facts presented, trawl for some way to discredit the presenter.

All she has done is to compile material that is already available in public and put it all together. I'd seen most of it before. And more. Are you saying it doesn't exist because someone chose to make a compilation? Do you think any of it was "made up"?

How much of this fetishistic **** will you excuse as "cherrypicking" before you acknowledge that just maybe women might be granted the right not to have to put up with these people in female-only spaces?

 

[Rolfe]

Impartial and trustworthy aren't remotely the same thing. Sources don't need to be impartial to be trustworthy. It's worth keeping any partiality in mind when evaluating information, it can provide important context, but that's not disqualifying on its own.

Too many examples for me to believe it was just made up. Too many clips are long enough that I don't believe it's all just out of context.

I'm absolutely sure that it's cherry picked. Why wouldn't it be? That's only logical. But that's also OK. If the argument isn't "all trans people" (and I don't see anyone making that claim), then there's nothing dishonest about cherry picking examples which show a certain side of that group. It's worth keeping in mind that it's cherry picked, sure, but god damn, if you can pick that many cherries, you've got an orchard somewhere.

Beautifully put!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hell the cases of body dysphoria, like people who are trans-disabled, make more sense.

Why? Because a trans-disabled person ACTUALLY USES THE WHEELCHAIR.

They don't keep walking on their own two legs but "identify" as a wheelchair user and refuse to ever define what criteria they are using to define "wheelchair user."

They don't identify as a disabled person JUST TO USE THE HANDICAPPED SPOT.

Don't get me wrong it's stupid to the point of being functionally insane, but at least it's honest in a sense of it has internal consistency.

 

[theprestige]

Skirt, blouse, shoes, long hair. Classic lady.

What is your argument for requiring transwomen to dress like "classic ladies" in order to use the women's restroom?

Why shouldn't transwomen be allowed to dress however they damn please, just like other women?