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

[Trausti]

Yes this thing about lesbians being non-men, does smell of misogyny.

Why the double standard with regards to gay men?

Oh, it's against both gay men and lesbians. Most trans-identified people are hetrosexual. So they try to gaslight others by saying that attaction is based on gender, i.e., whatever I say I am, and not biology. Lesbians gotta learn to enjoy lady dick.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Saying "every non-man gender that's sexually attracted to women is a lesbian gender" muddies the waters so thoroughly it can only have come from a muddied brain.

It's fascinating but also kind of creepy how the more you look at trans-inclusionary concepts and rhetoric, the more it looks like the most regressively patriarchal thing since Vladimir Putin took over the Russian Federation.

Like... there's men, and then there's everyone else. Female-attracted non-binary? Lesbian. Never mind that up until this very moment, "lesbian" has been a clearly woman-gendered term. Never mind that you don't identify as a woman. Johns Hopkins has declared that linguistically, you're now a lesbian. Because? Reasons.

And of course Turkey's Ghost gives us the traditional TRA "shut up, he explained" retort.

Kinda seems like you're reading a lot into this rather than perhaps just assuming a misunderstanding is happening.

I'm guessing the strained definition is a result of trying to figure out how non-binary or otherwise gender non-conforming people fit into the traditional definition of lesbian. It strikes me as probably a fool's errand, but it's not really something to get bent out of shape about considering the non-existent stakes.

It's also entirely possible whoever wrote this is quite a silly person with silly ideas. Likewise going to have to file this under "who cares" considering it's a non-binding document.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm guessing the strained definition is a result of trying to figure out how non-binary or otherwise gender non-conforming people fit into the traditional definition of lesbian.

Males don't fit into the traditional definition of lesbian.

This reality upsets some people, and so they want to change the definition in the hopes that it will change reality. It won't.

It's also entirely possible whoever wrote this is quite a silly person with silly ideas.

That's not simply possible, it's basically guaranteed.

The problem is, they're not alone. This isn't a one-off. This is what universities are teaching. It isn't an aberration.

Likewise going to have to file this under "who cares" considering it's a non-binding document.

You don't care that the canary died because it's just a stupid bird. I care that it died because I care about what killed it. The fact that it's just a stupid bird is quite beside the point.

 

[mumblethrax]

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

There's nothing at all in the story to suggest that either girl is a lesbian.

It's a man harassing a nine-year-old girl for having short hair.

And it seems a bit peculiar to me that you're all to happy to treat this as a stand alone phenomenon, disconnected from anything else. I mean, the accusations of pedophilia, grooming, and genital mutilation...they seem a bit familiar to me.

 

[Darat]

Males don't fit into the traditional definition of lesbian.



This reality upsets some people, and so they want to change the definition in the hopes that it will change reality. It won't.







That's not simply possible, it's basically guaranteed.



The problem is, they're not alone. This isn't a one-off. This is what universities are teaching. It isn't an aberration.







You don't care that the canary died because it's just a stupid bird. I care that it died because I care about what killed it. The fact that it's just a stupid bird is quite beside the point.

Universities are teaching this? How would that fit in with say a physics degree?

 

[Ziggurat]

There's nothing at all in the story to suggest that either girl is a lesbian.

It's not the girl. It's the moms (she has two). The dude harassed the moms too.

And it seems a bit peculiar to me that you're all to happy to treat this as stand alone phenomenon, disconnected from anything else. I mean, the accusations of pedophilia, grooming, and genital mutilation...they seem a bit familiar to me.

If someone has a bad take on a good argument, does that invalidate the good argument? No, it doesn't. So what exactly is your point?

And again, this is in BC, Canada. The public policy there is trans inclusion. Yet that policy didn't prevent this. It won't prevent this.

 

[Ziggurat]

Universities are teaching this? How would that fit in with say a physics degree?

Are you under the impression that a physics student doesn't have to take any classes outside of physics and math in order to get a degree? And would it be OK for the university to teach this as long as it wasn't to every student?

 

[mumblethrax]

It's not the girl. It's the moms (she has two). The dude harassed the moms too.

But it had nothing to do with why he was harassing any of them. Characterizing this as "another case of males harassing lesbians" in light of that is silly.

If someone has a bad take on a good argument, does that invalidate the good argument? No, it doesn't. So what exactly is your point?

My point is that you're asserting a "canary in a coal mine" when it comes to, at worst, poorly chosen verbiage that harms no one, but are completely ignoring the fact that the current anti-trans moral panic (which, in my view, some people on this forum are contributing to) is resulting in real people (who aren't even necessarily trans) being harassed.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And again, this is in BC, Canada. The public policy there is trans inclusion. Yet that policy didn't prevent this. It won't prevent this.

Yes, the problem of reactionaries feeling emboldened to express their bigotry in public and inflict themselves on their neighbors is one that is largely independent of any policy or law and more a result of the moral panic that is occurring in certain segments of society. It's an entirely different social problem that will need to be dealt with, and likely will increasingly be a menace as transphobes become increasingly obsessed.

Grown adults harassing 9 year olds about their sex are predators and should be dealt with severely. Seems like the kind of thing that could easily result in losing some teeth if the an ill-tempered parent that doesn't react well to weirdos bothering little kids is nearby.

 

[Trausti]

Grown adults harassing 9 year olds about their sex are predators and should be dealt with severely. Seems like the kind of thing that could easily result in losing some teeth if the an ill-tempered parent that doesn't react well to weirdos bothering little kids is nearby.

This is so true. Parents really don't like it when adults try to sexualize their children; whether in school or at a park.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is so true. Parents really don't like it when adults try to sexualize their children; whether in school or at a park.

It's truly impossible to distinguish between age appropriate sex education and a freak running out to stop a track & field event to scream about groomers. Damn these both sides, so equivalent in all ways!

 

[Trausti]

It's truly impossible to distinguish between age appropriate sex education and a freak running out to stop a track & field event to scream about groomers. Damn these both sides, so equivalent in all ways!

Not really. There is no need for a teacher to know a child's sexuality. None.

 

[Ziggurat]

But it had nothing to do with why he was harassing any of them.

We don't know that. Yeah, I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but seriously, we don't actually know what set him off. Maybe he assumed that lesbian parents would have a trans kid.

My point is that you're asserting a "canary in a coal mine" when it comes to, at worst, poorly chosen verbiage that harms no one

It's not poorly chosen verbiage. It's deliberately and carefully chosen verbiage, completely consistent with a coherent movement. Coherent in the sense that they're acting together in concert on unified goals - the intellectual underpinnings are completely incoherent. Which is a big part of the problem. And sure, that page harms no one. That's not the point. The dead canary harms no one too. That's not why the dead canary concerns people.

but are completely ignoring the fact that the current anti-trans moral panic (which, in my view, some people on this forum are contributing to) is resulting in real people (who aren't even necessarily trans) being harassed.

You say that like the trans activists aren't harassing people, but we know that happens too. So what's your point? Do you expect me to change my views about trans policy because someone who didn't want males competing against females was also a complete *******?

That's not how it works. Seriously, what are you expecting? What is it you want here? Do you want me to agree that he acted unacceptably? Sure, absolutely. The school is right to kick him out and never let him back, and depending on how far he took it (can't really tell from the article) even legal sanctions might be justified. But his ****** behavior doesn't tell us anything about what sort of policies we should implement regarding trans people.

 

[Hercules56]

Just to point out this latest one is not even about how you should address anyone; it is their definitions for words people may come across, and as we know people often have different meanings for words. Personally, I can't see why the definition of "lesbian" had to be changed, but if it did then the same type of change should be made to the "gay man" definition, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Also, I find their re-definition of "queer" to be offensive and an example of mainstream cultural appropriation, but that's just me but I’m not going to be writing to them to complain.

What is offensive about it?

 

[mumblethrax]

We don't know that. Yeah, I was being a bit tongue in cheek, but seriously, we don't actually know what set him off. Maybe he assumed that lesbian parents would have a trans kid.

Were both parents even present? Yeah, I don't know that, but nothing in the story even suggests it, and much suggests that he went off on the kid because he thought short hair meant she was a boy.

The dead canary harms no one too. That's not why the dead canary concerns people.

Pretty sure it harms the canary, which is how we infer a harmful environment to humans.

So what's your point?

I already told you--you aren't dealing with this subject coherently. You're playing Chicken Little about what LGBT students say, while ignoring what the "groomers and pedophiles" rhetoric is doing.

Do you expect me to change my views about trans policy because someone who didn't want males competing against females was also a complete *******?

I'm not arguing against your policy views.

 

[theprestige]

One thing that grates on me is the TRA approach to negative side effects of trans-inclusionary policies.

"That's not happening."
If it were happening, that would be bad.

"That's only happening a very small negligible amount we can safely ignore."
If it were happening enough to matter, that would be bad.

"It's only happening to unimportant people or institutions."
If were happening to anyone or anything important, that would be bad.

"It's only happening because society as a whole is less than ideal."
If we're expected to craft policies that mitigate harm in an imperfect society, that would be bad.

"You're only bringing it up because you're a monster."
If I have to admit you're a rational person with a valid point, that would be bad.

People don't downplay or dismiss stuff they think is good. They know it's bad, what's happening to women in spas and shelters and prisons and sports. They know they don't have an acceptable justification for it. And they know they don't want to consider rolling back some of the recent trans-inclusionary policies. So they end up having to gaslight the rest of us about the real problems that even they recognize.

---

[Metaphor]

Collateral damage happens in warfare. But only an idiot or a monster denies it or downplays it. What is actually called for, what ethical and humane commanders actually conduct, is a sober analysis of the military need, the available means to meet that need, and the risk of collateral damage when trying to meet that need.

And that's what's lacking from the TRA side. Any serious attempt to say, "yes, some women lose some safety and peace of mind, but this is necessary to accomplish a greater good." They just want to avoid that whole debate. Again, gaslighting us that there isn't a problem, because they have no solution for it that doesn't require shifting their whole incoherent paradigm.

[/Metaphor]

 

[mumblethrax]

Because you are, in fact, measuring two distinct phenomenon (spermatozoa, ova) under the same name (gametes). I was hoping to take mumblethrax along for this ride here, but they declined the price of admission, which is to commit to labeling one's axes before making any inferences about the hypothetical results of the graph.

This just isn't true. I told you what the x-axis would be--statistical confidence. Given that we're talking about a system of classification with two classes, confidence in membership of one class will decrease as confidence in membership in the other increases. So, take your pick. Either graph confidence of femaleness or confidence of maleness.

This is not the difficulty that people make it out to be.

 

[Ziggurat]

Were both parents even present?

Yes.

Pretty sure it harms the canary, which is how we infer a harmful environment to humans.

And lazy thinking and indoctrination are bad for humans too.

I already told you--you aren't dealing with this subject coherently. You're playing Chicken Little about what LGBT students say, while ignoring what the "groomers and pedophiles" rhetoric is doing.

Because that's not the subject of this thread. This thread isn't about groomers and pedophiles or accusations of such. It's about whether or not transwomen are women. There's some thread drift into adjacent topics such as whether or not to treat transwomen as women, and in what context or to what degree, but it still connects to that central question. If you want to argue that calling trans people groomers and pedophiles leads to bad behavior like this, I'm sympathetic to that claim, but I'm not interested in discussing it here. No conclusion on that topic is going to enlighten us about whether or not transwomen are women.

 

[Nessie]

Went for a meal and the restaurant had toilets marked "non-binary, cubicals only" and "non-binary urinals and cubicals". I thought that clever, but it still does not get round the issue of biological women who for very good reason, do not want to share intimate spaces with anyone other than biological women.

 

[Ziggurat]

This just isn't true. I told you what the x-axis would be--statistical confidence. Given that we're talking about a system of classification with two classes, confidence in membership of one class will decrease as confidence in membership in the other increases. So, take your pick. Either graph confidence of femaleness or confidence of maleness.

This is not the difficulty that people make it out to be.

Confidence isn't a property of the subject being measured, it's a property of the measurement process.

But far more damning to your position is the fact that your measurement itself presupposes the sex binary, as you even admit. If there are options other than male or female, then decreasing confidence in female doesn't have to increase confidence in male. They are only automatically inverses of each other if there are no other options, that you must be one or the other.