• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
lionking said:
I should add that for all the transphobe, TERF and bigot labels thrown around this thread, I do not believe that there is one person who opposes anyone’s right to adopt any gender identity they wish. And have protection from discrimination in employment, education, housing and so on. It is only where the desires of some (mainly) transwomen and their activists compromise the welfare, safety and livelihood of women that the line should be drawn in my view.
Click to expand...

100%
 
The ACLU is a wonderful organization, but their whole shtick of being haughtily "above" things has never sat well with me.

I get it, I get what point they THINK they are making, that our rights are not dependent on how good of people we are and that's not wrong but at a certain point it gets unreasonable to demand everyone pretend to just not notice they have a habit of picking the worst possible examples of humanity to defend just to make a point.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
Ok, on the other "pronoun" thread there are posters who object to the courtesy of addressing other adults as their preferred gender.
Click to expand...

This is false. Nobody rejects to it as a courtesy to that person in a general sense. Posters object to being OBLIGATED to ALWAYS do so, even when the person in question is not present.
 
lionking said:
I should add that for all the transphobe, TERF and bigot labels thrown around this thread, I do not believe that there is one person who opposes anyone’s right to adopt any gender identity they wish. And have protection from discrimination in employment, education, housing and so on. It is only where the desires of some (mainly) transwomen and their activists compromise the welfare, safety and livelihood of women that the line should be drawn in my view.
Click to expand...

Not even one? I mean, there's more than one person currently in prison right now for hate crimes against trans people.

:rolleyes:
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is false. Nobody rejects to it as a courtesy to that person in a general sense. Posters object to being OBLIGATED to ALWAYS do so, even when the person in question is not present.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. I meant exactly this.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Not even one? I mean, there's more than one person currently in prison right now for hate crimes against trans people.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Either the standard is "on this board" or it isn't. You've played that card one way not a full page ago, you don't get to play it the opposite way now.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The ACLU is a wonderful organization, but their whole shtick of being haughtily "above" things has never sat well with me.

I get it, I get what point they THINK they are making, that our rights are not dependent on how good of people we are and that's not wrong but at a certain point it gets unreasonable to demand everyone notice they have a habit of picking the worst possible examples of humanity to defend.
Click to expand...

Charismatic and popular people rarely need advocates. If you're a legal advocacy organization, it kinda goes with the territory that you're in the muck most of the time.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Either the standard is "on this board" or it isn't. You've played that card one way not a full page ago, you don't get to play it the opposite way now.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll accept either scenario because both are obviously on my side. Dealer's choice!
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Charismatic and popular people rarely need advocates. If you're a legal advocacy organization, it kinda goes with the territory that you're in the muck most of the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah and that puts them in the same category as our "I love free speech but only when we're talking about a Nazi" people.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah and that puts them in the same category as our "I love free speech but only when we're talking about a Nazi" people.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, the ACLU is not my favorite organization and there's frequent debate even within their own org on how exactly they should operate. Not seeing how this case is the worst of their sins though.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Adult women in the US have to pull teeth in order to get sterilized. I can't imagine it's super common for our hypothetical 14 year old.
Click to expand...

Did you know it's easier for a male to get a prescription for estrogen due to being transgender than it is for a female to get a prescription for estrogen to combat the deleterious health impacts of menopause?

It's easier for a young female to get a hysterectomy in the name of gender affirmation than it is for a female with endometriosis or fibroids to get a hysterectomy in order to save them pain and negative health outcomes. The young female is automatically affirmed... but we older females are told we can't get a hysterectomy because we might change our minds and want kids. That's what I was told at 34, after a uterine fibroid hemorrhaged and nearly killed me. When I talked to my doc recently about a hysterectomy because the fibroid is growing back and I'm also 49 and not ever going to have kids... I was told we'd have to give it some thought and see if it's in my best interests and whether insurance will authorize it... but my 18 year old relative is going in for a complete hysterectomy and removal of their ovaries in about a month because it's "gender affirming necessary care".
 
Chanakya said:
As far as I'm concerned, my vote goes for have two categories, just two, for any and every sport. One, which is a complete free-for-all. Where you can see excellence excel --- excellence in training, excellence in performance, excellence in discipline, but also excellence in happenstance in the form of genetics. ([eta]: like, have Bruce Lee up against Mike Tyson in a cage, to force a cross-discipline example, or the Mountain against that guy whose eyes ended up exploding? Hardcore, no holds barred, as far as the categories. So that when someone says, I'm the #1 in that thing, then that means they actually are the #1 in that thing, at that point in time. [/eta])

And have another category where hot girls/women compete with each other.

Two categories: One to appreciate true excellence. And the other to appreciate true excellence.
Click to expand...


I suspect you're trying to be funny... but I can't help but notice that you've reduced females down to being nothing more than eye candy for male enjoyment.
 
Trausti said:
The whole point of incarceration is to deny liberty. Being able to indulge in "gender affirming care" is something that free people get to do.
Click to expand...

While I question the whole premise of gender affirming care on the basis of fiat self-ID, I have to disagree with you here.

Withholding medical care is not a part of any humane or just system of crime and punishment, in my opinion. If Owen had been diagnosed with a condition for which "gender affirming care" is a generally-accepted medical treatment, then he should have received that treatment if prescribed.

I mean, this whole debate would be a lot different if it were actually about people who have been diagnosed with a medical condition, for which some form of "gender affirming care" were widely agreed upon by the mental health community as an effective treatment.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Did you know it's easier for a male to get a prescription for estrogen due to being transgender than it is for a female to get a prescription for estrogen to combat the deleterious health impacts of menopause?

It's easier for a young female to get a hysterectomy in the name of gender affirmation than it is for a female with endometriosis or fibroids to get a hysterectomy in order to save them pain and negative health outcomes. The young female is automatically affirmed... but we older females are told we can't get a hysterectomy because we might change our minds and want kids. That's what I was told at 34, after a uterine fibroid hemorrhaged and nearly killed me. When I talked to my doc recently about a hysterectomy because the fibroid is growing back and I'm also 49 and not ever going to have kids... I was told we'd have to give it some thought and see if it's in my best interests and whether insurance will authorize it... but my 18 year old relative is going in for a complete hysterectomy and removal of their ovaries in about a month because it's "gender affirming necessary care".
Click to expand...

You realize your problem is patronizing doctors and not trans people here, right? Every trans person could evaporate off the planet and this problem would still exist. I'm not sure what you're expressing here besides sour grapes that some trans people are actually managing to get decent care, which is absolutely a lot harder than you're implying.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
I suspect you're trying to be funny... but I can't help but notice that you've reduced females down to being nothing more than eye candy for male enjoyment.
Click to expand...


Yep, "trying"! *rueful half-smile*

(Ignore this entire post of mine, if you're looking for serious content! My other post though, immediately preceding the one you've quoted, and that actually bears on the sports thing in response to lionking's comment, about the nuanced nature of sports categories, that's only very simplistically and very approximately addressed by dividing into two broad categories for men and women, that I did mean seriously.)
 
theprestige said:
If Owen had been diagnosed with a condition for which "gender affirming care" is a generally-accepted medical treatment, then he should have received that treatment if prescribed.
Click to expand...

He would not die if he didn't get the "treatment." This is not like cancer or diabetes. It's purely elective.
 
Chanakya said:
I don't know. Yes and no?

While at one level I agree; but at another level there's this as well, lionking: How is it fair for a super-short five-foot-three almost-dwarf to box or wrestle or MMA it out against a six-foot-seven massively build almost-giant? It doesn't, right? Which is why we have different categories in some sports?

Well then, what this argument actually does is show up the far more nuanced nature of this question. Sure, to divide the sporting world into men and women makes for fairness, or a kind, but only by simplifying the question. I guess a five-foot-three man and five-foot-three woman boxing with each other is probably not all that unfair, and certainly far MORE fair than a five-foot-three man boxing with a six-foot-seven man.
Click to expand...

Pound for pound, male athletes are stronger, faster, and more enduring than their female counterparts. Putting male and female athletes in the same weight class doesn't solve the fairness and safety issues inherent in co-ed sports.

ETA:
And even if you did manage to tear down the entire institution of sports, and build in its place some absurdly baroque system of nuanced biometrics and multi-axial handicapping, you'd still have to deal with the man who wants to get into a women's shelter simply because he claims he feels like a woman at the door. And you'd still have to deal with the man who wants to be housed in a woman's prison simply because he claims he's a woman. What kind of biometrics and handicaps should the staff of these facilities apply to these men?

These are not questions that can be answered by making silly posts that everyone should ignore because they add nothing to the debate. They might be questions that can be answered if you acknowledge the shortcomings of your serious proposals, and trying to address them in a serious way.
I have yet to see a scenario in which transmen are sufficiently like women to justify transcending sex segregation on the basis of fiat self-ID.

Rather than trying to deconstruct the entire concept and institution of competitive sports, I think it makes more sense - it is much more direct and meaningful - to try to deconstruct the premise that fiat gender self-ID should or even could justify transcending sex segregation.

There can be no justice for women, in trans-inclusionist public policy, until people acknowledge the good reasons why some things are sex-segregated, and seriously question whether fiat self-ID is the right way forward for anyone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom