• 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.

Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emily's Cat said:
Holy cow - did you... did you just take the position that someone who is gender non-conforming isn't the sex their body has? So a female child that likes trucks and climbing trees isn't a "girl" but a "boy"

Do you even understand that you are taking a position of rigid and regressive enforcement of gender roles?
Click to expand...

I couldn't understand the relevance of that quote either. Is LJ suggesting that being trans without gender dysphoria - which was the subject of the discussion - is simply being gender non-conforming?

LondonJohn said:
Incidentally:

The DSM–5 articulates explicitly that “gender non-conformity is not in itself a mental disorder".
Click to expand...

https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiat...onforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis
Click to expand...
 
Nobody here has any objection to gender nonconformity. None of the public policy concerns raised here are concerns about gender nonconformity.

LJ is trying to defend a certain kind of toxic, misogynistic "gender trans-conformity" (for lack of a better term). A trans-conformity that is quite clearly linked to certain characteristic mental disorders. Disorders that are not healthfully treated by the policies proposed. Not for the people suffering from those disorders, and not for the communities in which they are being "treated".

And LJ's defense of these "treatments" is essentially, "you're just a bigot who hates gender nonconformists." It's a solid play for a lawyer who doesn't have much else to work with. But this isn't a courtroom, and none of us are so easily fooled or intimidated by such lawyerly bluster. LJ would be much better served by doffing the activist-lawyer hat, and donning the scientist or critical thinker hat.
 
theprestige said:
Same with someone whose sex was observed to be male at birth, but now identifies as a cishet lady. He should be entitled to have sex with dudes, and use the women's restroom, without anyone questioning his sanity, sincerity, or standing to do these things. It suffices that he says, "this is who I am."
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone should feel entitled to sex without first gaining another party's consent, and that's sort of how I feel about the restrooms as well. If the users of a previously sex-segregated space haven't generally consented to self-i.d. then they might ought to be consulted prior to forcing a change to the segregation scheme. This isn't really about sanity or sincerity, though, it's about taking everyone's expectations and needs into account.

theprestige said:
And LJ's defense of these "treatments" is essentially, "you're just a bigot who hates gender nonconformists."
Click to expand...
To be clear, do you mean "treatments" as in social transition rather than medical treatment?

theprestige said:
It's a solid play for a lawyer who doesn't have much else to work with.
Click to expand...
Is it, though? Ever been won over that way?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I don't think anyone should feel entitled to sex without first gaining another party's consent,
Click to expand...
I thought that went without saying, so I didn't bother to say it. Oh well.

and that's sort of how I feel about the restrooms as well. If the users of a previously sex-segregated space haven't generally consented to self-i.d. then they might ought to be consulted prior to forcing a change to the segregation scheme. This isn't really about sanity or sincerity, though, it's about taking everyone's expectations and needs into account.
Click to expand...
No disagreement here.

To be clear, do you mean "treatments" as in social transition rather than medical treatment?
Click to expand...
Yes. Mostly I mean it as a shorthand for the entire gamut of medical treatments, "self care", and public policy proposals purported to satisfy the wants and/or needs of transgender people.

Is it, though? Ever been won over that way?
Click to expand...
Heh.

In fact I have, from time to time, been been panicked into silence by an antagonistic emotional appeal. I think arguments in the nature of "your ideas are shameful and you should be ashamed to speak them" can be effective. But you have to know your audience and read the room.

I haven't been won over by such arguments, but I have certainly been shouted down and driven to silence by such arguments. My experience is they tend to work better in person, when the arguer has a forceful personality, and the other people present also don't speak up against the argument.
 
theprestige said:
In fact I have, from time to time, been been panicked into silence by an antagonistic emotional appeal. I think arguments in the nature of "your ideas are shameful and you should be ashamed to speak them" can be effective. But you have to know your audience and read the room.
Click to expand...
I would think such an approach ought to backfire on people who are trained to carefully consider evidence and notice when an argument is founded upon an emotional appeal, but then I've seen it advanced often enough even on skeptical forums.
 
d4m10n said:
I would think such an approach ought to backfire on people who are trained to carefully consider evidence and notice when an argument is founded upon an emotional appeal, but then I've seen it advanced often enough even on skeptical forums.
Click to expand...

I think it can be effective in person. Not necessarily in changing anyone's mind, but effective in silencing dissenting opinions. Obviously it doesn't work so well in this venue.
 
Today, in Scotland, a man was found guilty on two counts of rape. Subsequent to these crimes, shortly before appearing in court, he announced that he was "transitioning". (Yes, this is the creep mentioned previously, whose advocate thought that his transition should lead to his acquittal, fortunately the jury wasn't so gullible. I'll bet that's 15 extremely peaked citizens.)

He has now been sent to the women's prison.

John keeps telling us that this is all fine because "Isla" will be strictly segregated from the women and certainly won't be allowed to shower or sleep with them. (So, NOT treated like any other woman.) I am unaware of any such safeguards in place. There was a report just yesterday of a man incarcerated in a women's prison in Ohio who was allocated a female cellmate and who subsequently raped her. How must the women in Cornton Vale, many of whom are imprisoned for non-payment of fines (for things like not paying their TV licence) and many of whom are vulnerable victims of domestic violence, be feeling today?

Is this all just fine, like the men in women's sports, because the right thing to do is to allow trans-identifying men to have everything they want and then do the risk assessment later?

ETA: Thinking about it though, I read a report not long ago that money given to the Scottish prison service for the purpose of building mother-and-baby accommodation so that young babies weren't separated from their breast-feeding mothers had in fact been used to construct single-room accommodation with en suite facilities for "transwomen" sent to women's jails. So maybe it will all be OK and the women will only have to put up with the rapist during the day, at meals, during activities and so on.

ETA again: Thinking some more, Katie Dolatowski is still in Cornton Vale, being sent there recently despite having violently assaulted a male prisoner while he was in a men's jail serving a sentence for a previous offence. Maybe Isla and Katie can be buddies, share a cell. The women should be used to sharing their accommodation with a violent male criminal by now anyway.
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
I couldn't understand the relevance of that quote either. Is LJ suggesting that being trans without gender dysphoria - which was the subject of the discussion - is simply being gender non-conforming?
Click to expand...

Of all the things that irritate me the most about this stupid ideology, it is the idea that it supports gender nonconformity.

Gender nonconformity means rejecting the stereotypes about behaviour, traits, and social roles associated with your sex if those don't suit your personality and wishes. In other words a man doesn't have to be masculine and a woman doesn't have to be feminine, both sexes can have any personality, any type of gender expression, any social role and any occupation that suits them as individuals. The key to this is understanding that 'man' and 'woman' just refer to sex and therefore nothing else is required. It doesn't even matter to what extent you think gender roles are based on innate sex differences or not; you can be gender nonconforming either way.

We already had decades of people fighting for the right to be gender nonconforming, before this ridiculous movement came along and started promoting the idea that 'who don't identify with the gender assigned to them on the basis of their sex aren't 'men' and 'women',' by changing the meaning of 'man' and 'woman' to refer to 'identification with genders'. Not one person has ever explained why this is anything but regressive and sexist. Instead, they pretend that when you say 'a woman is an adult human female' you are saying that 'all female people have the gender 'woman'' and are not letting people 'be themselves'. There is absolutely nothing you can do by changing the meaning of words to refer to 'genders' rather than sexes, that you can't already do by just rejecting gender roles that don't suit you - other than to try to enter spaces for the other sex.

This movement is not about promoting gender nonconformity; it is just about sex denialism, which is purely ideological. People who are unhappy with their sex (dysphoria), which is not the same as gender nonconformity although they are correlated, are being used as pawns.
 
Elaedith said:
This movement is not about promoting gender nonconformity; it is just about sex denialism, which is purely ideological.
Click to expand...
What movement or ideology do you have in mind here?

If one were to ask me which ideological adherents stand to benefit the most from deprecating (or at least significantly weakening) the social salience of gender roles, I'd say feminists.

If one were to ask me who benefits from "sex denialism" or elevating gender over sex, I'd be somewhat at a loss. Perhaps intersectional feminists?
 
Last edited:
Your midnight check-in on the petition reports 74,111 signatures, so 431 new signatures today. Ticking along nicely again.

The new magic number is 301.
 
d4m10n said:
I identify as Hispanic and Irish American, but I'm not asking anyone to change anything about how they behave, except maybe toning down the relevant ethnic slurs a bit.
Click to expand...

:D So... are you drunk on tequila or whisky? :eek:

I'm German and Irish, so I don't have a leg to stand on... both my legs are too wobbly for that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom