Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Emily's Cat]

It has less to do with perception than it does with intent. Misgendering or deadnaming on accident is rude, but not transphobic. Doing it intentionally is, indeed, transphobic.

Compelling people to repeat a religious catechism when they do not accept your beliefs is also rude.

You can consider me "transphobic" for not kowtowing to your faith, but I'm still not going to refer to Yaniv as "Jessica" nor ever use female pronouns for them. On the other hand, if I'm interacting with Blair White or Buck Angel, I will probably CHOOSE to refer to them in the way they wish to be addressed.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let me ask you about the complementary situation. I (along with a large number of other females) very strongly object to being referred to as "ciswoman". And I am appalled at being referred to as "a menstruator" or "a birthing parent" or "a person with a cervix".

Yet any time I mention that these are all highly offensive and insulting terms, I am repeatedly told that I shouldn't be offended, that I'm WRONG to be offended, that I'm being too sensitive.

Why is it that this DEMAND for politeness only runs one direction? Why is it that misgendering a person who proclaims a transgender identity is a horrible act of bigotry that is unforgiveable... but reducing females to bodily functions and insisting that we're a SUBSET of our own sex class is perfectly fine and acceptable?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sometimes its ignorant and rude, sometimes its intentionally bigoted hence "transphobic".

Sometimes it's neither ignorant nor rude, but a true reflection of a person's perception and belief.

I don't think it is "ignorant and rude" to refer to a male rapist with male pronouns, regardless of what gender identity they profess.

 

[Hercules56]

Sometimes it's neither ignorant nor rude, but a true reflection of a person's perception and belief.

I don't think it is "ignorant and rude" to refer to a male rapist with male pronouns, regardless of what gender identity they profess.

So you're saying as long as someone states they believe trans women do not exist, its neither ignorant nor rude to persistently refer to trans women as "sir"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I WAS taking it up with people who said it. And while doing so, lionking decided to start sticking his oar into the conversation. You people can always choose not to insert yourself into a conversation if you think it has nothing to do with you. It’s actually the height of rudeness to eavesdrop and then declare “NOT ME! I am INNOCENT!” Okay, you are innocent. Then stay out of it.

It's not possible to "eavesdrop" on a discussion thread that is open to all. If you wish to keep that discussion private, you might consider a private message. By posting it in this thread, it becomes open for anyone to comment upon.

That said... I stand by my observation that nobody has said that transphobia doesn't exist. Contextually, what has been communicated is that the label as commonly used has virtually no rational meaning, and instead is applied as a means to insult and demean other people for holding extremely reasonable and logical views.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Fine, but I think I already said that I disagree with self-ID. That is unworkable.

What I think is nonetheless true and some people here definitely deny is that transgenderism still is a thing. It is no doubt a poorly understood phenomenon, but is real. No doubt there are also people who exploit it and whose claims to being trans don’t pass the smell test.

Literally nobody in this thread holds the view you say they do.

And I am keenly aware of the difference between "literally" and "figuratively". I mean "literally" quite literally here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And yet we consider someone a bigot if they refuse to upgrade their lexicon from "Negro" or "Colored".

Inapt analogy.

The terminology being requested as a replacement for prior terms is still consistent with observations of reality. Additionally, the prior terms have been sunset because they had clearly discriminatory implications.

That is not at all consistent with pronouns.

The standard pronouns, which refer to a person's apparent sex, are not considered to be discriminatory terms across the board. The term "she" is not considered to be always intended as a derogatory term.

Additionally, we're being asked to selectively apply pronouns in ways that contradict our observations.

If you want this to be an applicable analogy, you would need to be showing that there's been uptake in calling some - but not all - black people "white", and some - but not all - white people "black" based on how they feel about themselves, and regardless of whether their observable melanin content makes sense related to those terms.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you really want a guy who looks just like a woman, dresses just like a woman, coming into the bathroom with you and other men?

Just so we're clear... A male who wears a dress and lipstick still looks like a male in about 98% of all cases.

Why do you think that females should be required to relinquish our boundaries and let obviously males into our intimate spaces... just so that you and other males don't have to deal with a moment of "ick"?

Seriously, why is it a problem for you to allow males in skirts and eyeshadow to use the same room that all other males use? Do you think it's catching? Do you think some of it might rub off on you? Do you think you'll be unable to control yourself and will attack them on the spot?

Why do you think females should be FORCED to deal with the males that other males reject?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, to ask an example that Destiny raised before, would you want someone who looks like Buck Angel going into the women’s toilet? If you don’t know who I mean then do a quick Google search although some of the images may be NSFW.

Can we apply some common sense?

Some transgender people pass well. If they pass, nobody will know they're in the restroom of the opposite sex. That's what passing means. If Blair White shows up in the female restroom, I can guarantee that the only females who may suspect that White is not female are those who already know that White is male. Same thing with Angel - the only males who would suspect that Angel is not male are those who already know who Angel is, and that they are female in actuality.

That said... Have you seen Buck Angel when they are in the presence of males? Taken in isolation, they pass quite well. At a cursory glance, they're merely a fine-boned delicate male. But when you see them move, walk, and interact in a mixed set group... the inherent reality of their female sex still comes through.

And just to be super duper clear: Exposing one's opposite-sex genitals completely negates any cursory passing. If Buck Angel walked into the male restroom and dropped trou - you would know 100% without question that Angel is female.

 

[d4m10n]

Dunno what happens in female restrooms but in the men's we don't drop our trousers until the cubicle door is locked.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hell, that's an argument for trans women being women.

Do you think this is a good argument?

Some males fear other males, so females who fear all males should have to accept that group of males whether they want to or not?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Good luck with that. We don't get to make that decision and the people who do don't seem to be too sympathetic.

Yep. It seems quite apparent that males who wish to evict some males from their fraternity of "real males" truly do not give a **** what females think about it and have no sympathy with females at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wait… I thought this was about “sex-based rights”. According to your claims, Buck Angel is a woman and therefore is entitled to use of the women’s toilets. Are you saying that you would make a rule that keeps Buck Angel out?

Buck Angel is female.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are you under the impression that trans women are existential threat to cis women's rights? Are you at all aware of what is happening in the US?

In the US:

Teenage males who profess a transgender identity have been allowed to use female locker rooms and showers in school, without the consent or agreement of the females. The females have been told that they have no right to visual privacy - in other words, if a male wants to ogle them while they're naked, they have no right to tell that male to **** off. The male is allowed to look at naked females as much as they want as long as they say magic words.

Females continue to lose athletic positions, and the opportunities that come along with them, because males who profess a transgender identity have been granted the privilege of competing against smaller, weaker females in order to affirm their feelings, regardless of the negative impact this has on females.

Male prisoners who have newly discovered their transgender identity are being transferred to female prisons, without the consent of the females. They are sharing cells with females. These male prisoners are fully intact and most of them have had no medical treatment of any sort.

Males who have lived their entire lives with the privileges of being male are identifying into things like "First female Admiral of HHS" and "Highest Paid Female CEO" and otherwise gaining recognitions that were intended to address the inequities that females face in society.

Males who profess a transgender identity, and their allies, show up at legal events intended to discuss female rights, and proceed to harass, intimidate, verbally abuse, and sometimes physically attack females... and they do so with impunity.

But hey, those don't matter, it only affects females, right? As long as the feelings of a particular group of males are supported, who cares if there are negative effects for females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Basic ***** healthcare. Bodily autonomy. Forced birth. Unprocessed rape kits. Sex trafficking..Are you even kidding me right now?

Yeah. Things that affect females. Those do not affect males with transgender identities, they affect females.

But you expect females to VOLUNTARILY relinquish their right to safe sex-specific spaces where they are vulnerable or naked? You expect females to VOLUNTARILY go along with male prisoners being granted the PRIVILEGE of being housed with unwilling female inmates so that their feelings are affirmed? You expect females to VOLUNTARILY surrender their sports, their domestic violence shelters, their rape shelters so that males who profess a transgender identity can use them at will?

No, scratch that. You don't expect us to VOLUNTARILY do any of those things. You expect us to be FORCED to do them, with no right to protest against them.

The right wants to take away our right to reproductive autonomy. The left wants to take away the entire idea of material sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I was responding to a post that characterized trans women playing sports as a stepping stone toward being like the most oppressive authoritarian countries on the planet.

There are real threats to women in the US. This right-wing moral panic isn’t one of them.

Translation: You as a male don't think females should think this is a threat. You have decided that females shouldn't be allowed to form their own opinions about it. Because clearly, you as a male, know better than females.

Males on the right know better than females what's important to females when it comes to reproduction... and they have decided we can't be allowed to make our own decisions about whether or not we wish to reproduce.

Males on the left know better than females what it means to be female in the first place, and they have decided we can't be allowed to object to males invading our spaces against our will.

On both sides of this are males who insist that they know what's best for females. And both sides are completely ignoring what females have to say about it.

I don't think sexism has a political affiliation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay, allow me to rephrase: Are you under the impression that women losing athletic awards and scholarships to trans women competitors are a slippery slope for the west to slide into authoritarian regimes like in "Afghanistan, Iran and any number of other places"?

Yes.

It's a slippery slope that leads to females being surreptitiously evicted from equal participation in society, economics, and politics. It's a slippery slope because it replaces the material reality of sex - and the thousands of years of discrimination that has hinged upon sex - with a subjective, unverifiable, and indefinable gender identity.

Never mind that gender identity is a belief, a feeling inside a person's head about what set of stereotypes they like most.

This is a slippery slope of religiosity infesting legal policy, but elevating a belief to a protected status that subsumes material reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Samson is not saying that taking away women's spaces and leagues will somehow lead to a regressive theocracy.

On the other hand, Emily's Cat DOES say that taking away the entire ******* concept of female will lead to a regressive theocracy. It's just that in this case, the godhead is gender identity and transhumanism. But it already has religious catechisms, and it already treats unbelievers as heretics who need to be ostracized, punished, and reeducated.

 

[theprestige]

That isn't even close to any position I hold.

I'm very happy to be shown wrong on this point!

What is your position on whether transwomen should have an entitlement in public policy to transcend sex segregation? Specifically, sex segregation in these areas:

* All levels of sports (pro, pro-am, educational, casual, etc.)

* Traditional safe spaces for women (shelters, locker rooms/changing rooms, restrooms, etc.)

* Representation and inclusion (first woman X, Y percentage of women in Z roles, etc.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

So you're saying as long as someone states they believe trans women do not exist, its neither ignorant nor rude to persistently refer to trans women as "sir"?

False framing.

Nobody says that transgender identified males do not exist.

What I (and others) are saying is that being a transgender identified male does not actually make that male into a female.

A transgender identified male may be figuratively a woman, but they are not literally a woman. They are literally male, and therefore a man.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Dunno what happens in female restrooms but in the men's we don't drop our trousers until the cubicle door is locked.

There's a not insignificant volume of proof that males DO drop their trousers in the female restrooms. They also seem to enjoy masturbating while their trousers are down, and posting it to the internet. Some of them pair this with commentary about how much they are aroused by transgressing female boundaries.

It shouldn't be a surprise - males will do horrible things to females that they would never conceive of doing to other males.