• 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.
Francesca R said:
That's not a good thing. It smacks of spending all your time in a centrifuge, or echo chamber that pulls one's position to an extreme. We are the hammer club, and everything, everywhere out there is a nail.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a good thing. But it's a true thing. Sometimes I'm angrier than others, sometimes I read with more bias than I ought to. So does every other human on the planet.

It's not indicative of an echo chamber. It's indicative of being a human being, with human emotions, which sometimes get the better of my human self.
 
Ziggurat said:
Take allies wherever you can get them, including latecomers.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to allies in any way. But there are some people who share an opposition to some policies that I also oppose, but who do so for entirely different reasons - reasons that I also oppose. I don't accept any and all bedfellows.

For example, a lot of the policies being put in place in Texas and Florida are being driven by people who oppose *some* of the same things I do when it comes to transgender policy. They oppose transgender people using restrooms and locker rooms according to their gender identity, as do I... but not because they care about female safe spaces, or about female rights. They oppose it because they actually and for-realsies oppose transgender people altogether.

Matt Walsh did a documentary that highlights some of the absurdity of gender identity ideology quite well. But Matt is quite clearly anti-trans, and is in no way at all pro-female.

Just because we happen to coincidentally agree on some topic doesn't make a person an ally. Allyship is in the reasons and the consequences, not just the rallying cry.
 
Just seen on Twitter. The fact that the opposition to self-declaration of sex cuts across so many political and ideological divides is evidence of just how widespread this opposition is throughout all strata of society.
 
Francesca R said:
If a trans woman isn't breaking any law being in a place, and is not intending to be predatory, I call it transphobic to claim that they are without any evidence (and/or with manipulated evidence).

I don't think it is transphobic to express opposition to them having access, but that is not the issue I had with this case.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing my point here. Let me try an analogy (yes, theprestige, I know, analogies...)

Envision an elementary school, which has bathrooms with child-sized toilets and sinks. This school also has staff bathrooms, which have adult-sized toilets and sinks. It's not *illegal* for a grown adult male to use the children's restroom. But it simply isn't done. We all know it, it's a well established social norm that adults use the adult bathroom, not the children's. Even if an adult male has no predatory intention... that adult is still knowingly transgressing a well-established social norm. And it's a norm that is in place for the protection and safeguarding of children from predatory adults.

Whether or not that particular adult intends harm or not is irrelevant. Their presence in a space where they are not supposed to be is, in and of itself, a violation of boundaries.

Their intent does not excuse their behavior. They have knowingly and intentionally gone into a space they are not supposed to be in, and done so despite knowing full well that their presence in that space will cause discomfort and fear and mistrust in everyone else.

At the end of the day, even if they intend no direct harm, they surely intended to violate boundaries. At a very minimum they have indicated a reckless disregard for the wellbeing of others.

How much sympathy should we be expected to have for an adult who uses the children's bathroom against all custom and reasonable safeguarding principles, despite the adult bathroom being easily available just half a hallway down? How much leeway do we give that adult when they "lament" that they were not perceived as a child, and do so in a sardonic and mocking fashion, framing it as "Achievement Unlocked, I frightened a child out of the children's bathroom today"

That's my point here. The intentions of this specific individual are irrelevant. They are male. They are obviously and unquestionably male. They knowingly and intentionally transgressed custom and used the female restroom. And they did so with reckless disregard for the wellbeing of any females who might use that room. They did so with full knowledge that their presence as a male was a violation of female boundaries.

Whether you choose to interpret their post as "Oh, this is so sucky for me that people don't actually for realsies perceive me as a female when I'm actually a male" is fine. You can interpret it however you want. But I still don't think that this individual is a victim in any fashion, and all of my sympathies are with the female who was effectively chased out of their onw single-sex space, because some male felt justified in using spaces not meant for them.



Francesca R said:
It's possible to have gender critical views yet not believe that every trans woman, or a typical trans woman is deliberately and delightedly intimidating cis women in this situation. I suspect that is a difference between you and me.
Click to expand...
I suspect you're making a whole lot of suppositions that are entirely unfounded. I suggest you stop doing so.

I have several transgender friends, and a few family members. There are several transgender individuals that I have great respect for. What I do not respect are males who believe that their desires give them the right to violate female boundaries.

And while the "typical" transgender identified male may not deliberately and delightedly intimidate females, a large enough number of them do - and they do so loudly and viciously. Enough of them do so without any opposition from the "typical" transgender identified male, that I have become wary of all of them. Were they truly a minority, and they received regular complaints from other transgender identified males, then this would not be an issue. But they don't, and it is.

Francesca R said:
You may choose to think that this makes me a gender identity ideologist and/or a TRA. You would be incorrect, and I believe it would just be polarised (extremist) thinking on your part again. If you're not 100% with me, you're against me, etc.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're against me. Please stop insinuating views to me that I do not hold.

FFS, at least refrain from making up a hypothetical, and then castigating me for the hypothetical you made up!
 
Francesca R said:
I agree that is a problem. Do you think that that problem legitimises transphobia? Or even defines it from existence?

Or if you don't like the label of transphobia, does this problem justify publicly portraying trans women as if they are predators without knowing that they are, as the twitter user did in this case?

Or do you not think the twitter user actually did publicly portray the relevant trans woman as a predator?
Click to expand...

Does a person knowingly and intentionally violating social norms that are in place for the safeguarding and dignity of a group of people, in a way that they know will cause discomfort and fear in that group, qualify someone as a predator?

Let's be more explicit here.

Do you, Francesca, believe that opposing male access to female-only spaces, regardless of any claimed identity, constitutes transphobia?
 
What can be done about an openly anti trans gym?

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgende...t_can_be_done_about_an_openly_anti_trans_gym/

[qIMG]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230209/80748977295cefc8043bbd5d5692a7d8.jpg[/qIMG]

Here in Adelaide there is a gym really close to me that I would love to use. It’s a very small, basic gym with machines a yoga area and nothing else, not even change rooms. People come in their work out clothes and leave in them. Or should I say women because it’s a woman’s only gym with very big signage saying so.

I went in and asked if I could join and and although this doesn’t matter I plausibly pass and was firmly told I couldn’t join because I was a man. I then said I was trans thinking that might change my status with them but nope.

The thing that really gets me is the majority of their clientele is older women who are more androgynous looking than feminine and I doubt they ever had to prove their sex.

Also it’s very apparent the gym hardly has anyone in it ever when I walk by it, you would think they would want my business or any clients.

I’d really like to expose them for their bigotry and I don’t think gender/sex only gyms should exist.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing our resident lawyer would argue that the relevant jurisdiction ought to change their laws to prevent gyms from operating as single-sex spaces. If so, which model of laws ought they adopt?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Whether or not that particular adult intends harm or not is irrelevant. Their presence in a space where they are not supposed to be is, in and of itself, a violation of boundaries.
Click to expand...


Who is, and who is not, legally allowed to be in a female single-sex space is a bit hazy. Francesca thinks that the transwoman was legally allowed to be there. Why? Are any and all men allowed to be there? Legally (depending on the jurisdiction) that may well be the case. Nobody has explicitly passed a law making it an offence for a man to enter a ladies' lavatory. It just isn't done.

If there is no law saying that men can't go in, then obviously the transwoman wasn't breaking any laws. Neither would any other man be breaking any laws either. (So long as he didn't expose himself or peer into the cubicles. Which I presume Adrienne wasn't doing anyway.) So saying that Adrienne wasn't "doing anything wrong" is a bit disingenuous.

If there is a law saying that men can't go in, I want to know how that works. Adrienne is a man. So how is he not doing anything wrong, in what way was he allowed to be there?

Much of this works, or has worked until now, by social norms. I know a transwoman who transitioned back when there was still some effort to protect women's spaces from males who might cause alarm and distress. He told me that he was under strict instructions not to go into the women's toilets until after he had had sex reassignment surgery, and that he also had a lot of instruction about how to look and behave so as not to cause alarm or distress. Any transgressing of that rule and he would have been dumped from the programme and would not have been allowed the surgery.

Once he had had the surgery and had completed the training on how to look and behave, he was given a letter. That letter was to be shown to anyone in authority if there was any altercation - it stated that he had undergone sex reassignment surgery and he was there in good faith. However, he was expected never to have to use the letter, as the principle edict was that if he perceived that a woman was uncomfortable with his presence there, he was to leave, as immediately and unobtrusively as possible. If he was found to have transgressed decent behaviour and upset women gratuitously, the letter would be revoked and he'd be on his own.

None of that applies now. Men with a swinging cock and balls think they just have to put on a skirt and a bit of lipstick and they can go where they like. Are they doing nothing wrong? According to the letter of the law they may not be. But they are certainly transgressing social norms, and it's clear Adrienne knew that.
 
d4m10n said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgende...t_can_be_done_about_an_openly_anti_trans_gym/

[qIMG]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230209/80748977295cefc8043bbd5d5692a7d8.jpg[/qIMG]



I'm guessing our resident lawyer would argue that the relevant jurisdiction ought to change their laws to prevent gyms from operating as single-sex spaces. If so, which model of laws ought they adopt?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that both the complainant and the rest of the clientele are much more obviously male and female than he'd like us to believe.

Also interesting in this case is the complainant's implicit sex-essentialism. He understands that it's a sex-segregated space, and that access hinges on successfully presenting as one of two sexes.
 
Time for my penultimate explanation of why I consider so many of the participants in this horrible echo-chamber of a thread to be anti-transgender-identity bigots.

It's not because those people express concerns about the effects of transgender rights legislation upon the safety of ciswomen (and the risk of offences being committed against ciswomen). I believe those concerns are legitimate and valid in many respects, and I believe it will take time and effort to reach common ground. As, incidentally, does every legislature tackling this issue.

And it's not because those people express concerns about the effects of transgender rights legislation/codification upon women's sport. I believe those concerns are legitimate and valid in instances either a) where the physical safety of ciswomen is being potentially jeopardised (eg in full-contact rugby), and I don't think transwomen should be permitted to compete in women's teams in such circumstances (which is exactly what's happening already in almost all relevant women's sports); or b) at the elite and sub-elite levels of women's sports, where I think transwomen should be - and are being, or will soon be - excluded (though I strongly believe that transwomen should be able to compete in women's sports at all other levels, provided the safety aspect in (a) is not an issue).

And it's not because those people express concerns about the way children and young adults presenting with transgender identity and gender dysphoria are addressed. This is an exceptionally difficult area in which to achieve optimal outcomes, and there are legitimate concerns (once one has removed most of the "mutilating kids"-style hyperbole, of course). There have been mistakes (at both ends of the spectrum), and there will be further mistakes. But over time the medical, legal and governmental communities will jointly evolve their thinking and their best practice. It won't be easy or quick though.


No. I consider many of the participants in this thread to be anti-transgender-identity bigots because they hold, and express, views which fundamentally deny, mock and invalidate the very notion of transgender identity. I think the descriptors to which I'm referring here are by now well-known: things such as "blokes in dresses" "males LARPing at being females", or the insidious "Trans-Identifying Male/Trans-Identifying Female", and sentiments such as "someone with a cock and balls will never be a woman", or "these people are ill, and what they really need is diagnosis and treatment/management".

And it's because those people use the ever-increasingly-improbable (to the point of being logically practically impossible) terms "policy capture" or "ideological capture" to rationalise why all the medical bodies and governmental bodies disagree with their anti-transgender-identity stance.

And it's because those people constantly frame every single individual or group with whom they are in disagreement as "misogynist" and/or "men once again telling women what's best for them" and so on (in spite of the rather obvious fact that huge numbers of females are constituent members of the very groups which are forming pro-transgender-rights medical and legislative policy, and ironically it's male-heavy groups such as far right political parties and church hierarchies who are most opposed to transgender recognition and rights).


Anyhow, I'll let you all get back to your standard diet of selective poisoning-of-the-transgender-well fare. Looks like it gets gobbled up hungrily round these parts :)
 
May I remind you all of the nub;

I'm now 63 (nearly 64) years old. Transvestites and cross-dressers have been part of the landscape all my life. Back in the late 70's / early 80's, in my 'formative years', I knew a policeman's son who lived just up the road from me, a burly heterosexual who took his (very) pretty girlfriend's birth-control pills and developed a quite impressive cleavage which he showed off with low-cut velvet dresses on weekend summer evenings on Richmond Green.

He (sic) was a one-man cabaret show and I don't recall his ever having to deal with any antipathy or "transphobia".

We've had any number of gender-bending celebs and pop-stars since then, accepted for what they are.

Now, all of a sudden, we have a generation of these oddities, now calling themselves "trans-women" and demanding "womens' rights". Which they are not entitled to.
 
LondonJohn said:
Time for my penultimate explanation of why I consider so many of the participants in this horrible echo-chamber of a thread to be anti-transgender-identity bigots.
Click to expand...

If there is just one more to go, can you get it out of the way now and save time?
 
LondonJohn said:
Time for my penultimate explanation
Click to expand...

So when do we get your ultimate explanation? You do know that "penultimate" is second to last, right?

And it's because those people use the ever-increasingly-improbable (to the point of being logically practically impossible) terms "policy capture" or "ideological capture" to rationalise why all the medical bodies and governmental bodies disagree with their anti-transgender-identity stance.
Click to expand...

Except... they don't all disagree.

Anyhow, I'll let you all get back to your standard diet of selective poisoning-of-the-transgender-well fare. Looks like it gets gobbled up hungrily round these parts :)
Click to expand...

Your entire post was just poisoning the well. It was purely an attack on motives, not once did you engage in substantive debate.
 
Ziggurat said:
Your entire post was just poisoning the well. It was purely an attack on motives, not once did you engage in substantive debate.
Click to expand...


He actually agrees that the trans project threatens women's rights, is a particular problem in sports and athletics, and that mutilating and sterilising children is probably ill-advised. By these admissions he himself is a raving terf.

All he's doing is tone-policing. And the tone police can :rule10 right off.
 
LondonJohn said:
I consider many of the participants in this thread to be anti-transgender-identity bigots because they hold, and express, views which fundamentally deny, mock and invalidate the very notion of transgender identity. I think the descriptors to which I'm referring here are by now well-known: things such as "blokes in dresses" "males LARPing at being females", or the insidious "Trans-Identifying Male/Trans-Identifying Female", and sentiments such as "someone with a cock and balls will never be a woman", or "these people are ill, and what they really need is diagnosis and treatment/management".
Click to expand...
People with any kind of dysphoria really do need diagnosis and treatment (by definition) and you've yet to show us what it means to have a transgender identity apart from the experience of gender dysphoria. Can you provide an outstanding example of the type of person who has a valid transgender identity but never experienced gender dysphoria?
 
Last edited:
I really think LJ should be more honest - he should admit his advocacy is borne of self-interest, not altruism.
 
d4m10n said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgende...t_can_be_done_about_an_openly_anti_trans_gym/

[qIMG]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230209/80748977295cefc8043bbd5d5692a7d8.jpg[/qIMG]



I'm guessing our resident lawyer would argue that the relevant jurisdiction ought to change their laws to prevent gyms from operating as single-sex spaces. If so, which model of laws ought they adopt?
Click to expand...

That line "The thing that really gets me is the majority of their clientele is older women who are more androgynous looking than feminine and I doubt they ever had to prove their sex." is really telling.

Those clientele are female. They are obviously female. This person who is complaining, is basing their assessment on a stereotyped and sexualized concept of females, and is making the blatant assumption that because the clients aren't dressed up in "girly" clothing, or wearing make-up and heels, that they are somehow "androgynous". They are mistaking the costume that they adopt as the actuality of sex.

But sex is not a costume. It's not something that females put on or take off when it suits us. It's a costume for this male person. They do not have to be "girly" or "feminine". It's an option for them.

Females don't have to prove our sex because we ARE female. That person is a male, and they are clearly not passing very well, as they have been excluded - rightfully - from a single-sex gym.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom