Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[Emily's Cat]

So, she's a TERF, not a TIRF. Or at least shes a TEF. Although after reading d4m10n's link I'd say she is radical, just not extremist.

I'm also probably more of a TERF than a TIRF.

Rowling isn't a radical feminist though. Radical Feminism is a specific branch of feminism with a specific set of ideas. A surface viewing of those ideas would probably apply to nearly all feminists. But a deeper reading reveals some differences that don't transfer over. For example, Radical Feminism holds that males as a class form an intentional structure of oppression, and that males are entrenched in that power and take steps to maintain their intentional dominance over females.

That's not a view I hold, and I don't believe it's a view that Rowling holds either. Rather, there is a tendency for males to just not think about females as being separate from males. It's not intentional, it's lack of thought in most cases.

For example, most vehicles are build to male physical specifications. The seats, the button locations, the seat belt positions are all based around the average male build. That's not how females are built. A lot of seat belts hit females in the wrong place - they don't cross our chest from outer shoulder, across chest, to waist. In a lot of cases, they actually start traversing our bodies at the neck, and instead of the center of the crossing being just above the diaphragm, it ends up being just below our collarbone. This puts females at greater risk of injury in a collision than males.

A Radical Feminist would hold that this is intentional, because males build for males with the intention of excluding females. To the extent that this isn't the impetus for ALL males, those other males are silent partners in the continuation of the oppression of females, including through increased risk of injury.

A Classical Feminist, however, would hold that this is not intentional. It's a result of males being in positions of power for so long, that even when they are nominally supportive of equal treatment... they don't think about it. It's the "Invisible Knapsack" of male privilege, not intentional oppression.

A lot of Radical Feminists support Female Isolationism, Political Lesbianism, and a lot of fairly anti-male separatist ideas. Not all of them, but that's the only faction of feminism where you're likely to find those ideas surfaced.

 

[Brainster]

We are much too kind. Guys who do this are jerks. They need to be called out as such.

Check out the video here of him trying to ram another rider off the course. Major-league jerkage there.

 

[theprestige]

So, she's a TERF, not a TIRF. Or at least shes a TEF. Although after reading d4m10n's link I'd say she is radical, just not extremist.

I'm also probably more of a TERF than a TIRF.

There are two kinds of "TERF" in question here: Transgender-exclusionaries that I suspect are very rare, and transsexual-exclusionaries that are becoming more and more common.

 

[theprestige]

Rowling isn't a radical feminist though. Radical Feminism is a specific branch of feminism with a specific set of ideas. A surface viewing of those ideas would probably apply to nearly all feminists. But a deeper reading reveals some differences that don't transfer over. For example, Radical Feminism holds that males as a class form an intentional structure of oppression, and that males are entrenched in that power and take steps to maintain their intentional dominance over females.

That's not a view I hold, and I don't believe it's a view that Rowling holds either. Rather, there is a tendency for males to just not think about females as being separate from males. It's not intentional, it's lack of thought in most cases.

For example, most vehicles are build to male physical specifications. The seats, the button locations, the seat belt positions are all based around the average male build. That's not how females are built. A lot of seat belts hit females in the wrong place - they don't cross our chest from outer shoulder, across chest, to waist. In a lot of cases, they actually start traversing our bodies at the neck, and instead of the center of the crossing being just above the diaphragm, it ends up being just below our collarbone. This puts females at greater risk of injury in a collision than males.

A Radical Feminist would hold that this is intentional, because males build for males with the intention of excluding females. To the extent that this isn't the impetus for ALL males, those other males are silent partners in the continuation of the oppression of females, including through increased risk of injury.

A Classical Feminist, however, would hold that this is not intentional. It's a result of males being in positions of power for so long, that even when they are nominally supportive of equal treatment... they don't think about it. It's the "Invisible Knapsack" of male privilege, not intentional oppression.

A lot of Radical Feminists support Female Isolationism, Political Lesbianism, and a lot of fairly anti-male separatist ideas. Not all of them, but that's the only faction of feminism where you're likely to find those ideas surfaced.

As interesting as this is, we'd be better off leaving the "radfem" aspect of the question to another thread. We've got our hands full with the "trans exclusion" aspect already, and that's the actual topic here.

 

[Thermal]

These mofos gotta get together to come up with insulting acronyms that don't rhyme, or no one will know what variety of contemptable you're supposed to be.

 

[Shrinker]

Transwoman wins elite women's mountain bike race by over 4 minutes; would have lost men's division by over an hour.

Kudos to the second-place rider, who was about as gracious as she could be:

I think that’s what you’d call a veiled livid condition.

 

[d4m10n]

As interesting as this is, we'd be better off leaving the "radfem" aspect of the question to another thread. We've got our hands full with the "trans exclusion" aspect already, and that's the actual topic here.

I think it's worth pointing out a couple things with respect to the TERF label.

1) It is nearly always literally inaccurate, since radical feminism is a fairly narrow project even within feminism.

2) It's usually just an applause light in reverse, verbal shorthand for "EVERYONE BOO NOW!"

As a result, calling someone a TERF is much more likely to close minds than to clarify discussion.

 

[Brainster]

I think that’s what you’d call a veiled livid condition.

Nominated.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think that’s what you’d call a veiled livid condition.

ISWYDT

 

[Cain]

Of course quite a few commenters noted that there is indeed a place for Austin to ride; it's called the men's division.

Michael Shermer interviewed Inga Thompson (an elite cyclist) and she said the divisions should be called "Women" and "Open."

We are much too kind. Guys who do this are jerks. They need to be called out as such.

In the same interview, Thompson said she's tried to avoid calling out individual athletes, and I think that's the right move (though she's having doubts). I was procrastinating from doing real work -- like right now -- and I made the mistake of listening to a Jordan Peterson podcast. He was supposed to be interviewing an elite female swimmer but blabbed on endlessly. She would speak for thirty seconds, and then he'd lecture for minutes. "You know why that is..." I finally gave up, but not before listening to a rant where he said, "Think about the narcissism of someone who enters women's competitions." It's a bad argument, and probably bad politics. Some would rather be anti-trans than pro-women. In terms of athletics, the emphasis should be on fairness, especially if persuadable people are more moderate to liberal (Thompson talks about "gender doping"). Of course, if you're preaching to the choir, then such rants are probably cathartic and enriching.

 

[smartcooky]

How about some specifics? What SPECIFICALLY does Rowling say that you believe justifies labeling them with vitriol that stands a reasonable chance of inciting violence against them? What SPECIFICALLY does Rowling say that you feel excuses the threats of violence and sexual assault that they have endured?

Trust me on this Emily, you will not get an answer that amounts to anything more than hand-waving, evading, dodging or spurious claims about not having said that in the first place.

 

[Chanakya]

Rowling isn't a radical feminist though. Radical Feminism is a specific branch of feminism with a specific set of ideas. A surface viewing of those ideas would probably apply to nearly all feminists. But a deeper reading reveals some differences that don't transfer over. For example, Radical Feminism holds that males as a class form an intentional structure of oppression, and that males are entrenched in that power and take steps to maintain their intentional dominance over females.

That's not a view I hold, and I don't believe it's a view that Rowling holds either. Rather, there is a tendency for males to just not think about females as being separate from males. It's not intentional, it's lack of thought in most cases.

For example, most vehicles are build to male physical specifications. The seats, the button locations, the seat belt positions are all based around the average male build. That's not how females are built. A lot of seat belts hit females in the wrong place - they don't cross our chest from outer shoulder, across chest, to waist. In a lot of cases, they actually start traversing our bodies at the neck, and instead of the center of the crossing being just above the diaphragm, it ends up being just below our collarbone. This puts females at greater risk of injury in a collision than males.

A Radical Feminist would hold that this is intentional, because males build for males with the intention of excluding females. To the extent that this isn't the impetus for ALL males, those other males are silent partners in the continuation of the oppression of females, including through increased risk of injury.

A Classical Feminist, however, would hold that this is not intentional. It's a result of males being in positions of power for so long, that even when they are nominally supportive of equal treatment... they don't think about it. It's the "Invisible Knapsack" of male privilege, not intentional oppression.

A lot of Radical Feminists support Female Isolationism, Political Lesbianism, and a lot of fairly anti-male separatist ideas. Not all of them, but that's the only faction of feminism where you're likely to find those ideas surfaced.

Hah, cool analysis.

Visited this thread after ages, following a nommed post, and landed on your post at random. And enjoyed reading your description of classical feminism vs radical feminism. Something I haven't studied, at all.

Yes, you're right about the car thing. Never thought about it, at all. Agreed, a female, particularly a petite one, may have difficulty with cars unless she gets it customized for full comfort. (So might a male dwarf, or for that matter a six foot seven basketball player; but both those are rarities, while petite women aren't. Cool point, well made.

(No clue how that ties in to the trans question. Not commenting on any larger argument you might be making here. Just wanted to express appreciation for this post, before moving on from this thread.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Hey look it happened again

Two Kelowna moms are speaking out after their 9-year-old daughter was verbally assaulted at a track and field event on Thursday at Kelowna's Apple Bowl.

The mothers, who choose not to identify their daughter, say she was competing in a shot-put event when a grandfather of one of the other participants started yelling at her.

"She went to step up to compete for the grade four shot-put final, and right before she went to throw, a grandfather of a student said, 'Hey, this is supposed to be a girls' event, and why are you letting boys compete.' My daughter is cisgender, born female, uses she/her pronouns. She has a pixie haircut," said mom Heidi Star. Star says the man then carried on to demand certification to prove that her daughter was born female.

"He stopped the entire event. He also pointed at another girl who also had short hair. He then piped in and said, 'Well, if she is not a boy, then she is obviously trans.'"

Star said the man's wife then started calling her "a genital mutilator, a groomer, and a pedophile."

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/431500/Girl-9-accused-of-being-trans-at-Kelowna-track-meet

Another defective transdar leading to bigot screaming at a cis girl. oh well

 

[Matthew Best]

It's not only transwomen who aren't women. Lesbians aren't women either! At least according to Johns Hopkins University:

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/

"Lesbian [sexual orientation]: A non-man attracted to non-men. While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label."

However:

"Gay Man: A man who is emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionately, or relationally attracted to other men, or who identifies as a member of the gay community. At times, “gay” is used to refer to all people, regardless of gender, who have their primary sexual and or romantic attractions to people of the same gender."

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's not only transwomen who aren't women. Lesbians aren't women either! At least according to Johns Hopkins University:

https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/

"Lesbian [sexual orientation]: A non-man attracted to non-men. While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label."

However:

"Gay Man: A man who is emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionately, or relationally attracted to other men, or who identifies as a member of the gay community. At times, “gay” is used to refer to all people, regardless of gender, who have their primary sexual and or romantic attractions to people of the same gender."

Ahh, the fine reactionary tradition of finding some college student handbook to get mad about.

 

[smartcooky]

It's not only transwomen who aren't women. Lesbians aren't women either! At least according to Johns Hopkins University:
https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/lgbtq/education/glossary/

"Lesbian [sexual orientation]: A non-man attracted to non-men. While past definitions refer to ‘lesbian’ as a woman who is emotionally, romantically, and/or sexually attracted to other women, this updated definition includes non-binary people who may also identify with the label."

I'm having trouble parsing the highlighted claim... their definition neither says nor implies what you are claiming it does.

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm having trouble parsing the highlighted claim... their definition neither says nor implies what you are claiming it does.

It says a lesbian is "a non-man".

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm having trouble parsing the highlighted claim... their definition neither says nor implies what you are claiming it does.

With a bit of room for rhetorical hyperbole, it implies something pretty close. The category of "non-men" is used rather than "women" specifically because "non-men" isn't synonymous with "women". Which means not all lesbians are women, according to that definition. Sure, that's not quite the same as saying no lesbians are women, but again, a bit of hyperbole for effect.

 

[d4m10n]

Ahh, the fine reactionary tradition of finding some college student handbook to get mad about.

Ah the fine progressive tradition of ignoring the substantive question* in favor of a personal remark.

* What is a lesbian, anyhow?

 

[Ziggurat]

Hey look it happened again



https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/431500/Girl-9-accused-of-being-trans-at-Kelowna-track-meet

Another defective transdar leading to bigot screaming at a cis girl. oh well

So we've got another case of a male harassing lesbians. And this is supposed to prove the pro-trans position... how?

BTW, this happened in British Columbia, Canada, where I believe the policy is to allow student athletes to compete according to gender and not sex. And inclusive policy didn't stop this from happening. Furthermore, even if this guy's transdar had been operating correctly and the child was trans, it wouldn't have made a difference, he couldn't get her kicked out of the competition. Which means he's just an ass, because his protest served no purpose other than harassment. Nobody here is in favor of that.

Yeah, there are some anti-trans ********. I don't think anyone has denied that. But it says basically nothing about the merits of basing sports participation on sex vs gender.