Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Wildy]

So much to unpack, there. Are you imagining a trans woman whipping around the one feature that she's the most self-conscious about because it is a constant reminder of how her body doesn't fit her?

In some places online what you just wrote would be considered "transmedicalism" and you would be deemed a bigot. The current paradigm is that you don't need dysphoria to be trans. So you have a population of people that under self-id would be considered trans but they don't experience that sort of self-consciousness because their body does fit them.

 

[Upchurch]

You seem to be taking a stance of, "We must do something. Self ID is something. We must do self ID."

If you don't like the old system, then wanting it to change is fine. But self ID is worse than the old system. Come up with something better if you don't like the old system.

The old system largely was self ID coupled with a necessity to be able to pass. Those who couldn't pass sufficiently did not fare well in an anti-LGBT world, including beatings and death, or else they had to deny pretend to not be trans at all. Since then, some progress was made to legally change names and genders, but when it comes down to who walks into what bathroom, no one ever verified anything other than who could sufficiently hide their trans status. A passing trans woman who walks into the women's bathroom is self identifying as a woman.

The fear of trans women is so great that even a cis woman can sometimes not sufficiently pass as a woman.

The only change is that society has become increasingly accepting of trans people. The consequences of a trans person not passing have started to decrease, so trans people can come more out of the closet.

Since you attempted to guess at my position, allow me to do the same. You seem to be taking the stance of, "Everything was good when trans people hid who they are. Trans people should be forced back into the closet."

 

[Ziggurat]

The old system largely was self ID coupled with a necessity to be able to pass.

No. Again, if you're passing, then other people are ID'ing you as that sex. That's very different than a government gender ID, but it's also completely different than self ID.

The only change is that society has become increasingly accepting of trans people.

No. The imposition of self ID is also a major change, and it is a DIFFERENT change than general acceptance of trans people, though it has been coincident with that.

The consequences of a trans person not passing have started to decrease, so trans people can come more out of the closet.

I'm sure that's true. But predators have also started coming out of the closet, and are taking advantage of self ID.

Since you attempted to guess at my position, allow me to do the same. You seem to be taking the stance of, "Everything was good when trans people hid who they are. Trans people should be forced back into the closet."

No, not everything was good. But we've made it worse, not better.

 

[LondonJohn]

The "old system" only worked because trans people were largely closeted about being trans and it never worked for trans kids. That system is never going to survive in a society that has greater acceptance of trans people. As I said, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.

So, what would you suggest moving forward?

It's interesting isn't it that the transgender-identity denialists expend all their energy on condemning transgender people and the rights/protections afforded to them.... without offering any coherent alternative.

As an example, I've lost count of the number of times I've asked how these denialists think transgender people should be accommodated at, say, municipal swimming baths with men's/women's/disabled communal changing facilities. I asked the denialists to consider the position of a trans woman; I gave all the available options: should the trans woman:

1) Use the women's changing room
2) Use the men's changing room
3) Use the disabled changing room
4) Be barred from all changing rooms, and have to change in their car etc
5) Not be allowed to use the swimming baths altogether?

The usual "answer" is either (2) or (3). And of course there's vehement opposition to (1). But the denialists answering (2) or (3) seem unable to see the inherent injustice and denialism behind compelling trans women to use either the men's changing room or the disabled changing room if they want to visit the swimming baths.

Of course, if a person holds the reactionary, antiscientific, bigoted view that there's actually no such thing as a trans woman (or trans man....), and that trans women are actually either just cis men LARPing at being women or they are all sexual deviants trying to get into cis women's spaces in order to offend.... then it's easy for that person to come to (what they believe is) the obvious solution: all trans women are men, and therefore they must use the men's changing rooms.

Fortunately though, that person is wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm aware that gay people aren't imposing any obligations on or demanding accommodations from me, so I don't really care who is or isn't gay. I never need to make a determination about whether someone is or isn't.

Weird, that's not what what conservatives were saying during the gay moral panic. Gays being gay out in public were imposing their homosexuality on straight people. Gays were converting straight kids into gays. Same sex marriage was going to ruin the very institution of marriage.

Now, during the trans moral panic, trans people are imposing their pronouns on cis people. Knowledge of trans people in schools is converting cis kids into trans. Trans people being treated as their gender is going to destroy the very idea of gender.

As I've mentioned before, I've known several trans people. I've never had to change my behavior around any of them, even in the restroom.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's entirely immaterial to the question of whether or not transgender identity is a valid condition (ie it is not a mental health disorder).

"Valid lived condition" is meaningless. And you don't have any clue about what gender dysphoria even is, so you can't even figure out when a transgender person does or does not have dysphoria.

 

[LondonJohn]

In some places online what you just wrote would be considered "transmedicalism" and you would be deemed a bigot. The current paradigm is that you don't need dysphoria to be trans. So you have a population of people that under self-id would be considered trans but they don't experience that sort of self-consciousness because their body does fit them.

For any given transgender person, there's a substantial difference between a) not having suffered gender dysphoria before or after their transition, and b) having no self-consciousness around displaying parts of their body (genitals for all trans people, breasts for trans men) which are incongruent with their trans gender.

And in any case, as I said a few posts back, if any trans woman or cis man is deliberately waving his penis around in a women's changing room, then action can and should be taken against that person. I mean, if a cis man was doing that in a men's changing room, action could/should also be taken against that person.

 

[d4m10n]

Why aside from that?

Because of what was being claimed at #109. Here it is again:

Your clear implication here is that (in your opinion) there's nothing more to transgender identity than declaring that one has transgender identity. But of course that's simply flat wrong.

The implication here is that there is something more to transgender identity than self-identification, but we are not yet clear on what that should be taken to mean. As I noted with the example of butch lesbians who tend towards masculinity, gender non-conformity does not make one trans.

Do you often verify your friends' gender purity?

I've no idea what this should be taken to mean. If people want to be masculine or feminine it's none of my business.

 

[LondonJohn]

"Valid lived condition" is meaningless. And you don't have any clue about what gender dysphoria even is, so you can't even figure out when a transgender person does or does not have dysphoria.

I've already explained what "valid lived condition" means, more than several times. It's not my problem that you don't understand it. The people who matter understand it just fine.

And I do understand what gender dysphoria is, thanks.

I'm entirely comfortable to be on the right side of this argument. Do you ever experience any disquiet that your own beliefs on this matter are in stark, direct contradiction with the entire mainstream medical establishment? If it were me, I most certainly would. But that's just me.....

 

[Pixel42]

The fear of trans women is so great ...

It's not fear of trans women, it's fear of cis men pretending to be trans women in order to get access to our safe places. Yes they could just barge in before, but women could at least protest to the management or other, decent, men with a reasonable chance of getting them ejected. The fear of being branded a bigot is making that increasingly difficult, as incidents that have been reported on this thread make clear.

 

[Ziggurat]

Weird, that's not what what conservatives were saying during the gay moral panic.

Why the **** would I give a **** what conservatives were saying during the gay moral panic? I never said any of that stuff.

Now, during the trans moral panic,

There is indeed a moral panic going on, but it's not the one you think. It's the one that's pushing kids to transition because they have a hard time fitting in, can't accept their homosexuality, or are uncomfortable with puberty. And the panic is the supposed threat of suicide.

As I've mentioned before, I've known several trans people. I've never had to change my behavior around any of them, even in the restroom.

First off, it's not going to be the trans people you know that are going to be the problem here.

Second, you personally haven't had to worry about any of this because you're a male. You aren't vulnerable to sexual predators in general, and sexual predators who do target males aren't at an advantage by claiming trans status. So of course this doesn't impact you.

But it impacts females.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've already explained what "valid lived condition" means, more than several times.

And it's been bull **** every time.

And I do understand what gender dysphoria is, thanks.

No, you clearly don't. You think that people without gender dysphoria get sex change operations.

Do you ever experience any disquiet that your own beliefs on this matter are in stark, direct contradiction with the entire mainstream medical establishment?

You don't know what the mainstream medical establishment says either. You falsely take statements specifically about gender dysphoria and interpret them to be about your own definition of "transgender identity" when they are not.

 

[Ziggurat]

And in any case, as I said a few posts back, if any trans woman or cis man is deliberately waving his penis around in a women's changing room, then action can and should be taken against that person. I mean, if a cis man was doing that in a men's changing room, action could/should also be taken against that person.

This only makes sense with a very literal, nay emphatic, interpretation of "waving". If we take it to mean just walking around with a penis clearly visible, then that happens all the time in men's changing rooms, and action will not be taken against a person doing that.

The hard line trans advocate position is that trans women should be allowed to do that in women's changing rooms too. If you think otherwise, welcome to being a transphobe.

 

[Ziggurat]

My post (the one you quoted) was explicitly directed at countering the notion that transgender identity is nothing more than someone announcing "I am transgender".

Under self ID, that's all it is.

Nobody is claiming that there can't be more to it. But it doesn't matter if there can be more to it if the rules we have to abide by only require self ID.

In other words, that there's no such thing as genuine transgender identity, that it's merely people saying they're transgender.

That's literally all self ID is. Merely say it, and you are.

Are you catching on yet that self ID isn't actually a good thing?

 

[Elaedith]

I've already explained what "valid lived condition" means, more than several times. It's not my problem that you don't understand it. The people who matter understand it just fine.

No, what you have done is use a motte and bailey fallacy. When asked to define 'valid' you state 'not a disorder or product of a disorder'. But what you really mean is that being a man or woman is based on self-identity rather than sex. You can't come up with any rational argument for why people should be coerced to accept redefinitions of 'man' and 'woman', and you can't come up with a coherent definition that isn't circular or based on stereotypes. Unable to defend this, you retreat to the motte of pretending that those who disagree with defining these words (and the regressive and unscientific ideology behind it) are claiming trans identity is a mental illness because we don't accept the bailey meaning of valid ('literally true').

We can actually see through this, you know.

 

[Upchurch]

No. Again, if you're passing, then other people are ID'ing you as that sex.

Are you suggesting we judge a book by its cover? Because I've already pointed out how that doesn't work either.

No. The imposition of self ID is also a major change, and it is a DIFFERENT change than general acceptance of trans people, though it has been coincident with that.

It's really not. The ask is that the stereotypes of what women look like needs to updated, even for cis-women.

 

[LondonJohn]

Under self ID, that's all it is.

Nobody is claiming that there can't be more to it. But it doesn't matter if there can be more to it if the rules we have to abide by only require self ID.



That's literally all self ID is. Merely say it, and you are.

Are you catching on yet that self ID isn't actually a good thing?

*sigh*

Do you think gay people should not be able/allowed to "self-ID" as gay? Do you think they should have to be clinically assessed and diagnosed as gay before they're allowed to declare themselves "authentically gay"?

Precisely the same applies to transgender people. And transgender people should not have to go through some sort of clinical assessment & diagnosis before they can be "confirmed" as transgender. End of.

The issue of masquerading and potential offending is a second-order question (and it's one that requires attention, for sure), but it doesn't affect the fundamental point that transgender people should not be forced to be medically examined to validate their identity.

I dunno.... maybe you could/should ask the adults in mainstream medicine and progressive legislatures who understand this issue (and who understand the risks and unintended outcomes perfectly well also), who are introducing self-ID reforms around the world. They know and understand this issue far, far better than you (and me, for that matter).

I trust in the current viewpoint of mainstream medical science and medical practice, and I'm extremely comfortable to be on the same side as them. Are you comfortable with your point of view, and with the identity of the institutions which share your point of view?

 

[Elaedith]

*sigh*

Do you think gay people should not be able/allowed to "self-ID" as gay? Do you think they should have to be clinically assessed and diagnosed as gay before they're allowed to declare themselves "authentically gay"?

When activists seriously propose replacing sex segregation with sexual orientation segregation (everyone attracted to males goes to one place and everyone attracted to females the other) we can start considering potential problems with people self IDing as gay.

 

[LondonJohn]

Obviously it is not a counter argument since you produced no argument.

I see. But do you feel uncomfortable being on the wrong side of the argument though? Do you feel uncomfortable that the entirety of mainstream medicine and increasing numbers of progressive lawmakers are on my side, while on your side sit extreme right-wing institutions/personalities and deeply unpleasant fundamentalist religious organisations?

I know if it were me, that would be more than enough for me to be doing a good deal of navel-gazing and self-interrogation. Personally, I'd be deeply uncomfortable being on that side of this argument. But, as I said earlier, that's just me I guess......

 

[Elaedith]

I see. But do you feel uncomfortable being on the wrong side of the argument though? Do you feel uncomfortable that the entirety of mainstream medicine and increasing numbers of progressive lawmakers are on my side, while on your side sit extreme right-wing institutions/personalities and deeply unpleasant fundamentalist religious organisations?

I know if it were me, that would be more than enough for me to be doing a good deal of navel-gazing and self-interrogation. Personally, I'd be deeply uncomfortable being on that side of this argument. But, as I said earlier, that's just me I guess......

No 'extreme right-wing institutions/personalities and deeply unpleasant fundamentalist religious organisation' are on 'my side'.

Your position (that people should be defined as men or women by conformity to gender stereotypes, and encouraged to think that they might need to alter their bodies to 'match'), is just the flip to that of religious fundamentalists and conservatives, while the gender critical position is the polar opposite. This has been pointed out many times. You just lack any insight.