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

[lobosrul5]

Here's the thing about Musk. I'll be surprised if anyone gets suspended or banned from twitter for using the term "cis" in a non-harassing and non-insulting way.

That said... I note that you didn't actually provide any responses to the questions I asked about race. Why is that?

Probably because sex/gender/race/ethnicity are not the same things. So, its not a particular meaningful comparison or analogy.

We've almost completely abandoned affirmative action where race is concerned within the USA, so there are pretty much no legal distinctions between races except to keep statistical records, which BTW we can still keep statistical records between female/male for things like crime and employment compensation stats. Someone saying cisgender on twitter does not effect this.

We have women's sports that legally only women are supposed to play (Title 9). And as established I agree, Lia Thomas shouldn't have been allowed to compete in the NCAA tournament, FINA has already rectified that BTW. We do not have black and white sports in America, except perhaps some Neo-Nazi group doing their thing.

We have mens and womens prisons in America. I agree, transwomen should not be housed with ciswomen. Probably a good and ethical thing not to house transwomen in the genpop mens prison too.
We do not have black and white prisons within American anymore, AFAIK.

 

[LondonJohn]

You can asterisk all you want - it remains a concept invented by you, that you've foisted onto a collection of unnamed and unreferenced "world's leading experts" and "every developed country" over and over again.

You've basically invented your bespoke version of the wizard of oz... and even though there isn't even a curtain at all, you just keep insisting that we can't see that short dude pulling the levers.

Why on earth do you think that all of us are complete ninnies and idiots?

Righto, yes. Anything you say.

And all those tens of thousands of medics around the world providing affirmation therapies to transgender people - they're acting in flagrant disregard of (and breach of) current mainstream medical thinking about trans identity, are they? They're helping people affirm a condition that mainstream medicine considers a mental health disorder, are they?

And all those enlightened legislatures that are recognising transgender people and enshrining laws/enforcement to protect their rights - they're also acting in flagrant opposition to current mainstream medical thinking about trans identity, are they? They're actively enabling people whom mainstream medicine considers to be mentally ill, are they?

Talking of ninnies and idiots, were you?

 

[LondonJohn]

Lol, it's YOUR deliberate wording, that you REPEATELY use and that you CONTINUE to assert that all the "experts" agree with you!



So might you. It brings up a bunch of stuff about gender dysphoria as a mental health condition that affects many transgender people.

Reminder: Gender dysphoria remains a mental health condition in DSM-5.

Erm yes. I know it does.

I was clearly talking about transgender identity. The post thread made that abundantly obvious. But hey - any excuse for a straw man, huh?

 

[d4m10n]

I've already had to add in an asterisked footnote to address this situation.

And others have already pointed out that your footnote fails to make a crucial distinction between the sort of condition which requires medical intervention such as hormones and surgery (and thus has a diagnostic category) and the other sort of valid lived condition* which requires no medical intervention.

 

[LondonJohn]

And others have already pointed out that your footnote fails to make a crucial distinction between the sort of condition which requires medical intervention such as hormones and surgery (and thus has a diagnostic category) and the other sort of valid lived condition* which requires no medical intervention.

If it pleases your sensibilities.... whenever you see me writing "valid condition" wrt transgender identity, imagine that I've written "something which is considered by modern mainstream medical science not to be a mental health disorder in itself".

Excuse me in advance for not writing the second phrase in favour of the first, much shorter one. And anyone in this thread knows exactly what I mean - the rest is studied fake naivety. Plus, as my google search showed you, in fact many respected media and science publications are indeed using "valid condition" in regard to transgender identity.

But again, thanks for this important interjection. Well received.

 

[lobosrul5]

Here is a civilized demand to not go to some sort of ghetto

https://youtu.be/um1RMBNcDoA

See what they are doing? Admittedly near entry level in ECs narrative.

Are you implying that theres some sort of new world trans order that is going to force (non-trans)women into a walled in area of their city of residence.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Valid lived in condition" is just another in a long line of weasel words/phrases that doesn't mean anything.

"You're not REALLY trans until you live as the other sex/gender/gender identity/gender soul/gender horoscope sign/I flipping don't care anymore" is just another way of putting "rules" on what men and women are supposed to act like.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here is a civilized demand to not go to some sort of ghetto

https://youtu.be/um1RMBNcDoA

See what they are doing? Admittedly near entry level in ECs narrative.

I watched that recently. It was fairly respectful, but the things that stood out to me were both comments from Robin Moira White.

First, as you allude to, is White's insistence that they don't want to use a unisex space. They don't want to have to share space with people they see as male. But that's exactly the situation that they wish to force onto females - they want to force females to share space with people those females see as male. White is placing their personal desires above the desires of all females.

The second was White's comment that there have been no problems in the NHS related to transgender people and single-sex services. I guess that's no problems except for the female that was raped on a single-sex ward. And when they female reported the incident to the police, the hospital lied and said it was not possible for the female to have been raped because there were no males on the ward. The hospital kept up this claim for a year before CCTV footage was released showing the incident. The hospital dismissed the female's claim of rape because the rapist was transgender and identified as a woman. So yeah, clearly there are no problems at all as long as you don't count a female on a female-only ward being raped by a male and the hospital lying about it for a year.

Also... White is not somatically female. White can never be somatically female. I'm pretty sure that White doesn't know what the word somatic actually means.

 

[Lithrael]

The fact that you're just fine with strange males ogling you when you're naked does not imply that all females ought to be fine with it.

And that's the sense that you bring to this discussion when you wander in twice a year to drop your "I don't see what the fuss is, it's no big deal" takes. You end up implying that because YOU think it's great for male-bodied male prisoners to share cells with females against the consent of the females, that EVERYBODY should be okay with it, and that the people who oppose it are simply wrong and not worth consideration.

That's not a very accurate rendition.

In all seriousness, there was a time when I tried to participate more meaningfully, but since that's the quality of paraphrase I get whether I'm in the debate or just driving by, yes.. I mostly just lurk.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Righto, yes. Anything you say.

And all those tens of thousands of medics around the world providing affirmation therapies to transgender people - they're acting in flagrant disregard of (and breach of) current mainstream medical thinking about trans identity, are they? They're helping people affirm a condition that mainstream medicine considers a mental health disorder, are they?

And all those enlightened legislatures that are recognising transgender people and enshrining laws/enforcement to protect their rights - they're also acting in flagrant opposition to current mainstream medical thinking about trans identity, are they? They're actively enabling people whom mainstream medicine considers to be mentally ill, are they?

Talking of ninnies and idiots, were you?

And all of those enlightened legislatures that are walking back their support for self-id, and the ones that are now either banning, or reducing access to medical interventions for minors with alternative gender identities, and taking steps to give serious consideration on whether those interventions should be used for adults since there is no evidence that they provide long term improvement in mental health and some evidence that they produce increased depression and suicidality over long periods of time?

At this point, can you even be specific about which legislatures you think count as "enlightened"? because I think you're down to about a dozen US States, Ireland, Canada, Iran, Bolivia, and Thailand.

 

[lionking]

QUOTE=Chanakya;14100877]Both of you seem very sure that the inclusion argument is a disingenuous facade, and no more than an easy route for transwomen to play on easy mode and grab money and fame that would otherwise not have come their way as easily, and maybe not come their way at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if that were so, human nature generally being what it is; but I don’t think it is quite …right? fair? heh, properly skeptical? to directly rush to that conclusion absent any kind of evidence..[/QUOTE]

The motive of transwomen wanting to compete in women’s sports doesn’t matter to me. Their participation disadvantages women, and in contact sports, hurts them. It’s pretty clear to me that transwomen should not compete at elite and sub elite levels in women’s sport.

 

[d4m10n]

If it pleases your sensibilities.... whenever you see me writing "valid condition" wrt transgender identity, imagine that I've written "something which is considered by modern mainstream medical science not to be a mental health disorder in itself".

If it pleases your sensibilities I'm going to ask once again for a specific example of what it looks like for someone to experience the "valid lived condition" of transgender identity without suffering any dysphoria. I am genuinely and intensely curious for at least one case study here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"You're not REALLY trans until you live as the other sex/gender/gender identity/gender soul/gender horoscope sign/I flipping don't care anymore" is just another way of putting "rules" on what men and women are supposed to act like.

You know, even though the language is squirrely, the intent of "living as your acquired gender" was decent. It was largely intended to give the person time to make absolutely sure that this was really truly how they viewed themself, and was not an expression of some other underlying problem. The individual was usually required to take part in ongoing counseling during that time - and that counseling included how to behave around females in female spaces, reinforced that they remained male and that it was a privilege and an accommodation for them to use any female spaces, and that they should always be respectful of the females there. It taught them the kind of behavior that was expected of a female toward other females. Not some sexist claptrap about doing the dishes, but how to interact with females in a non-threatening, non-intimidating fashion that included acknowledgement of our social mores in restrooms and changing rooms and such. And it made clear that under no circumstances whatsoever should the individual expose their penis to females in a female-only space, nor should they ogle the females there.

The other thing it did was to exclude those with less-than-noble intentions. It excluded males with certain paraphilias that would be exacerbated by being in female spaces, and which might present an increased risk to females.

It was the medical equivalent of a parent telling their 16 year old kid that if they still wanted a Megadeath forehead tattoo in two years time, they could get one. Because, you know, they might change their mind. Or they might realize that their desire for a tattoo was really a manifestation of their dislike of school. Or whatever else might be going on. It presented a "cooling off period" before someone underwent a permanent change that couldn't be undone.

Of course, that process also assumed that everyone who went through the two year waiting period intended to get complete genital reconfiguration surgery... even though that turned out to not be an accurate assumptions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If it pleases your sensibilities I'm going to ask once again for a specific example of what it looks like for someone to experience the valid lived condition of transgender identity without suffering any dysphoria.

I'll ask you again what "lived in" even flippin' means.

Again there is no context in which "transgender" makes any sense if you remove "We expect men and women to act a certain way."

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's not a very accurate rendition.

In all seriousness, there was a time when I tried to participate more meaningfully, but since that's the quality of paraphrase I get whether I'm in the debate or just driving by, yes.. I mostly just lurk.

Perhaps that's fair. I haven't had the pleasure of meaningful participation from you - I've only gotten drive bys. And as far as the drive by posts go... I don't think my paraphrase is far off.

If you would like to correct my impression by providing something more meaty, please do so.

ETA, I take that back. You have contributed more involved posts at some points. You also haven't always been met with snark. I think I'm putting more emphasis on a post by you a few years back that was pretty much what I said - you made a drive=by post to tell us all that not all females share the same view, then ducked out without further comment. And I found that really annoying, so it stuck in my brain. But you're right - many of your posts contain a lot more than that. I apologize.

 

[mumblethrax]

It gets used to obscure the material reality that transwomen are MALE and thus, in the most commonly used sense of the term, are not any kind of woman at all - they are not female.

But nobody seems to take offense to the word transwoman. They take offense to the word ciswoman.

Which is why I find it odd.

It gets used to relegate human females as a subset of our own sex class.

I don't think 'relegated' is the word I would use to describe going from 100% to 99%. And women already were a subset of women. And also a subset of their sex.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But nobody seems to take offense to the word transwoman. They take offense to the word ciswoman.

//Gut feeling//

I think that's gonna break down largely along the lines how common people think transgenderism actually is.

I think for some the "offense" is being expected to clarify something that is (in their view, I'm not saying it's right) a statistical anomaly.

It's like someone getting mad at you at a coin toss because you only accounted for heads and tails and not "lands perfectly balanced on the edge."

(Insert "Is sexuality a coin toss or a d20?" metaphor here as needed)

 

[Samson]

That's not a very accurate rendition.

In all seriousness, there was a time when I tried to participate more meaningfully, but since that's the quality of paraphrase I get whether I'm in the debate or just driving by, yes.. I mostly just lurk.

Well try this idea.
If Austin Killips winning $35000 cycling in a small prize pool women trained hard to honestly scoop is in some way not right, why not search the whole damn thing to find something that is inarguably right and work from there.
My point is that there will be some sort of continuum starting from that daylight robbery, and ending with something that might be okay.
I consider nothing is okay now.

 

[d4m10n]

I'll ask you again what "lived in" even flippin' means.

No idea. Don't recall using that phrase here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'll ask you again what "lived in" even flippin' means.

Again there is no context in which "transgender" makes any sense if you remove "We expect men and women to act a certain way."

The reality is that we do expect men and women to act certain ways.

Some of them are artificial - like expecting females to enjoy cooking and cleaning, and expecting females to be demure and quiet and accommodating. And like expecting males to be into sports and guns and cars and power tools, and expecting males to take charge and be in control, and never show any vulnerable emotions.

Others are more natural, and are probably a result of evolutionary pressures and the fact that we're a dimorphic species. Like expecting females to be more invested in child care, and to be more nurturing. And expecting males to be more protective and more sexually motivated.

Then there are some of the in-betweens. Things that are a result of our evolutionary paths, and the trappings that come with them. Like expecting males to be more aggressive, and expecting females to be more emotional. It's a stereotype... but it's also a directly observable effect of our sex hormones. Give a male estrogen, and they will cry more. Give a female testosterone, and they will fight more. It's the nature of the hormones.

In the context of "living as" one's acquired gender, it was less about the artificial behavioral stereotypes, and more about presentation. And at least some of that served a real purpose of making sure that males understood that a whole lot of people would always perceive them as males. It gave them time to practice putting on make-up, wearing dresses and heels, doing their hair... and also time to become reconciled to the fact that they were always going to get second glances, and they were always going to get some side-eyes. Very few males successfully pass as female, and that is something that the waiting period addressed.