Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Emily's Cat]

When the right to control your own body is at stake, I'd say music festival attendance requirements are slightly less basic a human right. Let's get the important stuff down first: people's bodies, people's employment, marriage, child custody, healthcare, that sort of thing. We can worry about how many government forms contain the option for "ze/zhir" afterward.

But that's my optimism striking again. Clearly people prefer to wrangle over the less important matters. The state decides your womb's occupancy? Meh. A girl with a penis uses the toilet stall in the ladies room at the mall? Eleven threads and a billion posts.

I'm rather of the opinion that regulatory acknowledgement of what constitutes a female and what constitutes a male are foundational elements that must be hammered out well before any other aspect of sex-based rights can even be addressed. Otherwise, we end up with the situation into which we're quickly sliding... where a person's unverifiable, subjective, internal belief about the stereotypes they like best are being given primacy above the reality of sex. Where female victims of rape and abuse are being driven out of shelters intended to provide support, in favor of males who demand that they must be included in those female-only centers. Where female prisoners are being put at risk from fully intact male inmates with violent pasts... who have "discovered" their "true selves" while incarcerated, and who are moved at their desire to shared spaces with those females. A world where teenage females in school are told that they have no right to expect visual privacy from males in a female-only shower.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Feminists: "my body, my choice when it comes to abortion!"
Trans: "my body, my choice when it comes to surgery!"

Abandon your strawman.

Nobody in this thread has in any fashion argued that adults with gender dysphoria should be prohibited from cosmetic surgeries.

If you want to be more honest, you should acknowledge that the reality is
Trans: "my feelings, so I get to invade female spaces against their will and force females to relinquish their boundaries and their progress"

 

[Brainster]

For some people, feminism's underlying principle is one of overall human rights: everybody should have control of their own bodies, everybody deserves fair pay, etc. Feminism is/was the calling out of the injustice of situations where that principle wasn't being practiced-- female people weren't getting the full rights merited by being human. It shouldn't have been seen as being just about "this group here deserves X, and any other groups have to start their own movement"...but apparently that's how some people view/viewed it. Trans women "aren't women" so they don't get the benefits of feminism. But that's reducing what should be a common effort of all humanity to ensure all humanity gets justice and equality to a series of battles between establishment and subgroups. And each group's victories have to be separate, then, as each separate group has to fight its own separate battles. Which means wasted energy, time, and resources even if groups didn't compete directly against each other, which they do. And the establishment, of course, is the real victor: be divided, stay conquered.

Misses the point. How can you have a group dedicated to supporting women if there is no definition of what a woman is? This isn't like some association of mortgage bankers, where membership is self-selected.

What was the old saying, "women's rights are human rights"? They are, and so are transgendered people's rights.

And what happens when those rights come into conflict, as they are now?

If feminism wants to only concentrate on fighting for women, that's one thing; but if feminism wants to actively fight against other groups fighting for their own fair treatment, that's another. I don't see it succeeding with that approach. In fact, I think it's part of the reason why there have been recent setbacks in female rights. The fuss over transgenderism contributed to the kicked up dust of the "culture wars" and now we lost abortion rights. I don't think that would have happened if everyone was on the same page about agreeing every human deserves certain basic rights and equality.

Sorry, that's completely ridiculous, unless you think a whole bunch of liberals and Democrats have been so tied up in this trans-terf battle that they failed to notice a majority of the court had been appointed by anti-abortion presidents, or that there was a risk this might result in the overturning of Roe.

 

[Brainster]

Feminists: "my body, my choice when it comes to abortion!"
Trans: "my body, my choice when it comes to surgery!"

Nobody is saying that trans adults can't mutilate themselves to their heart's content. Hack away! And I'd guess that the feminists here aren't worried about post-op transwomen, it's the ones who still have a cock and balls that seem to be the concern.

 

[TragicMonkey]

In order to treat the heart attack of Dobbs we need to wait until a few more Supreme Court justices die off or voluntarily retire.

The Supreme Court's only power is in interpreting the law passed by the other two branches. If the legislature were to legislate a right to abortion in unambiguous terms that couldn't be interpreted away, even by the most hostile SC. But we've had (until recently) better luck with nine justices getting it right than a whole Congress, much less Congress plus the states for a constitutional amendment.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Feminism is the political fight to gain equality within society for FEMALES.

If you want a political fight to gain equality for EVERYONE, start a different one. Otherwise, you're simply opining that "All Lives Matter" and insisting that BLM should focus on attaining justice for abused white people.

Seriously, I get really tired of males telling me that FEMINISM isn't actually about females, it's about everyone, and that we females ought to place our own fight for equality as a secondary priority behind anyone else's desires.

Very well, you'll fight your fight alone. Good luck! I'd suggest as a matter of practicality you should reserve your ammunition to fire against the main enemy, but you'd clearly rather shoot at other factions. The enemy of your enemy is an even worse enemy! That's the path to victory.

 

[Robin]

The last word in your sentence is all "about biological sex," IMO.

That's a bit circular, given the discussion.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Misses the point. How can you have a group dedicated to supporting women if there is no definition of what a woman is? This isn't like some association of mortgage bankers, where membership is self-selected.

Maybe defining the exact boundaries of a group is less important than achieving the group's goals?

And what happens when those rights come into conflict, as they are now?

Compromises can be made. After the shared and important goals have been met.

Sorry, that's completely ridiculous, unless you think a whole bunch of liberals and Democrats have been so tied up in this trans-terf battle that they failed to notice a majority of the court had been appointed by anti-abortion presidents, or that there was a risk this might result in the overturning of Roe.

Well, here we sit, Roe- less. Here we sit, everybody from the Harry Potter woman to our own ISF posters, wrangling over "penis-havers" and hypothetical music festival attendence requirements. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a defeat in the culture war followed an acrimonious split in the losing side. I'm sure we're in for more such coincidences in the near future. Gay marriage is next. But of course only the female ones will merit attention from some feminists, gotta keep those lines of who to care about very firm!

 

[d4m10n]

That's a bit circular, given the discussion.

Rowling wrote "concept of sex" just a few sentences earlier, so I'd say it is fairly obviously in play when she talks about life as a "female" a few sentences later. Honestly I'm not sure what you're even contesting at this point.

 

[d4m10n]

Well, here we sit, Roe- less.

If only there were a separate thread about how to fix that.

Here we sit, everybody from the Harry Potter woman to our own ISF posters, wrangling over "penis-havers" and hypothetical music festival attendence requirements.

It was an actual music festival, but now it no longer exists. Some say this is because they failed to reach consensus on whom to include.

Sent from my Relative Privator using Tapatalk

 

[theprestige]

It occurs to me that Rowling, being both a biological female and a gender identified woman, is supremely qualified to comment on these issues.

What transwoman could possibly claim standing to contradict her?

 

[Robin]

Meanwhile we have the abortion debate: Religious nutters making faith-based arguments loosely connected to their own scriptures vs. people who think women ought to have a fairly basic level of bodily autonomy. No one has made any new arguments since around five decades ago.

Religious nutters they may be but really well funded and strategically smart religious nutters who are gaining ground. The overturning of Roe v Wade was well planned . The Strategic campaigning in seats with small margins and large fundamentalist and Catholic populations in the run up to the 2016 election when some vacancies were about to present in SCOTUS.

The discussions by groups like the Heritage Foundations about exactly what sort of laws needed to be introduced to maximise the chance of them succeeding in the SCOTUS.

My problem with this is that you have people on the gender critical side such as the LGB Alliance who say that it is necessary for them to work with groups like the Heritage Foundation and others who were working to overturn Roe v Wade.

Well fine I suppose, but if they get all high and mighty about women's rights how are we supposed to take that seriously if they are working with the groups who were part of the overturning of Roe v Wade and are now gunning for Obegefell and probably Lawrence v Texas?

 

[Brainster]

Compromises can be made. After the shared and important goals have been met.

But the goals aren't shared:

1. Transwomen want to be able to compete in women's sporting events and win prizes and scholarships that were intended for biological females.
2. Transwomen want to be incarcerated with biological females.
3. Transwomen want to be in spaces reserved for biological females, like women's locker rooms, shower, saunas, bathrooms etc.

Again, post-op, I doubt you'd get a lot of complaints from the feminist side about #2 and #3, and it's true that in some of these situations, compromises can indeed be made--single occupancy areas for #3 will work sometimes. I don't think there's a good compromise on #1, which is why the tide seems to be turning against the transwomen there.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But the goals aren't shared:

Not all the goals are shared, but some are. And those are the important ones. Employment, marriage, control over one's own body, child custody, healthcare, that kind of thing. The rest of the stuff can be worked out.

1. Transwomen want to be able to compete in women's sporting events and win prizes and scholarships that were intended for biological females.

Percentage of the population competing in sports events and trying for prizes and scholarships? Negligable compared to the percentage of the population needing stable employment where the can't be fired because of who they are.

2. Transwomen want to be incarcerated with biological females.

I'd venture to say very few people of any type want to be incarcerated at all.

3. Transwomen want to be in spaces reserved for biological females, like women's locker rooms, shower, saunas, bathrooms etc.

Again, post-op, I doubt you'd get a lot of complaints from the feminist side about #2 and #3, and it's true that in some of these situations, compromises can indeed be made--single occupancy areas for #3 will work sometimes. I don't think there's a good compromise on #1, which is why the tide seems to be turning against the transwomen there.

I think the matters directly concerning genitals, seeing genitals, maybe seeing genitals, maybe being seen by somebody who has genitals are not as pressing as the aforementioned.

 

[d4m10n]

My problem with this is that you have people on the gender critical side such as the LGB Alliance who say that it is necessary for them to work with groups like the Heritage Foundation and others who were working to overturn Roe v Wade.

What strikes me as odd about this is that general principles of autonomy and consent would lead me to conclude that female humans ought to be allowed to determine their own fate, whether we're talking about a single individual's womb or a pair of lesbians in bed or an entire female sports league or music festival. Instead, we see males trying to intervene at every level, sometimes forcibly.

Sent from my Mansplainer 9000 using Tapatalk

 

[Robin]

Rowling wrote "concept of sex" just a few sentences earlier, so I'd say it is fairly obviously in play when she talks about life as a "female" a few sentences later. Honestly I'm not sure what you're even contesting at this point.

Yes, it's pretty clear from your posts that you don't know what the discussion is about.

I asked what "sex is real" meant and for an example of someone saying that sex wasn't real.

The answer would go something like "'Sex is real' means ..."

And "An example of someone saying that sex isn't real is..."

That was the starting point.

My position is tha her statement is just a bit of handwaving.

The kind of responses I have received on this tend, on the whole to reinforce that position.

 

[Robin]

What strikes me as odd about this is that general principles of autonomy and consent would lead me to conclude that female humans ought to be allowed to determine their own fate, whether we're talking about a single individual's womb or a pair of lesbians in bed or an entire female sports league or music festival. Instead, we see males trying to intervene at every level, sometimes forcibly.

I never suggested otherwise. The discussion was about what Rowling meant by a certain tweet.

 

[d4m10n]

I asked what "sex is real" meant and for an example of someone saying that sex wasn't real.

An example of someone saying that sex isn't real is the ACLU claim that sex reduces to gender identity, which I've already pointed out a few times upthread.

Sent from my Loop-Stuck-Innator using Tapatalk

 

[Robin]

An example of someone saying that sex isn't real is the ACLU claim that sex reduces to gender identity, which I've already pointed out a few times upthread.

How does that equate to "sex isn't real"? If someone said "The laws of chemistry reduce to the laws of physics" that wouldn't be saying that the laws of chemistry aren't real.

The ACLU statement just seems to be a statement about how they define the word.

 

[Brainster]

Not all the goals are shared, but some are. And those are the important ones. Employment, marriage, control over one's own body, child custody, healthcare, that kind of thing. The rest of the stuff can be worked out.

Percentage of the population competing in sports events and trying for prizes and scholarships? Negligable compared to the percentage of the population needing stable employment where the can't be fired because of who they are.

I'd venture to say very few people of any type want to be incarcerated at all.

I think the matters directly concerning genitals, seeing genitals, maybe seeing genitals, maybe being seen by somebody who has genitals are not as pressing as the aforementioned.

Fine, so don't push so hard on these not pressing issues. You have to pick and choose which hills are worth dying on and which aren't. But we keep hearing that the trans issues can't wait, that they are all going to kill themselves if we don't immediately agree to their demands (a threat that only worked in Blazing Saddles).

Putting intact males in women's prisons is not a winning issue. Letting them destroy every woman's sporting record is not a winning issue. Puberty blockers for trans kids is the Washington Generals of issues.