Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, they are.



That's not actually mutually exclusive with being extremist.

I'd say they're mainstream organizations that have taken an extremist position on this topic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Which puts me in a weird spot because (vastly over simplifying a complicated issue) I see sex segregation as, at best, a necessary evil instead of anything inherently good and noble and I have broader issues with which have already been beaten to death in this discourse.

I think pretty much all of us who are active in this thread agree with you. I don't think it's a weird spot at all - I think it's a perfectly reasonable and objective spot to be in.

The weird bit is that there's nobody here to discuss it with you.

We all know that the other side exists - we see them out there in abundance in any place where either they're not expected to support their arguments or where argument against their views is prohibited. But they do not take part when their views can be challenged. They just don't.

 

[Hercules56]

No one ever doubts that there are male and female cats, dogs, sheep, horses, birds, whales, etc etc.

Yet for some reason, gender (sex) is fluid in humans?

I call BS.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm sorry to say that my experience trying to express my misgivings about TRA demands to a bunch of transwomen on another forum didn't bear that out. As far as they were concerned transwomen are women, period. They wouldn't listen to any argument or read any link that didn't accept that as a given, and they refused to recognise there could be any down sides at all for women in that being universally accepted. I gave up when it became clear that they wouldn't even acknowledge that biological males being bigger, stronger and with larger hearts and lungs gave them advantages over biological females in most sports. I'm talking flat-earther levels of denial. And these were people I'd had perfectly reasonable discussions with on other topics.

I've had this same experience. People that I've been interacting with for about 20 years, in a venue based on skepticism and science, have become zealots. To a point where they won't even consent to read the summary of the Cass report put out by the UK government, because some reddit comic maker has already told them that Cass cherry picked bigoted stuff and wants trans kids to die. It's nutty.

I've ended up in discussion with people that I have long respected... but now they hold the view that a person's subjective gender identity is what defines their sex, and that our physical bodies are arbitrarily assembled, and what we call a penis is unrelated to sex at all, as are any other reproductive organs, and it all exists on a spectrum full of ambiguities and spectruminess.

 

[Hercules56]

Man tells you "I am a woman born in a man's body. I cannot feel whole, unless I cut off my penis and balls, add a fake vagina, take estrogen to stop by facial hair and grow boobs".

Why should our response be anything but therapy and help with his extreme stress over being a man? Why should we instead assist him in doing permanent damage to his body?

If a man tells us he cannot be whole unless he cuts off his left leg, left arm, gouges out his right eye, should we enable such needs?

 

[Emily's Cat]

At this point anyone who will listen.

But we all pretty much agree with you... so... ?

It ends up feeling like you're trying to argue with *us*.

 

[Hercules56]

Should we let a 13 year cut off his penis cuz he wants to be a girl?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Man tells you "I am a woman born in a man's body. I cannot feel whole, unless I cut off my penis and balls, add a fake vagina, take estrogen to stop by facial hair and grow boobs".

Akchooalleeeee... *If* it were males who actually had penectomies, orchiectomies, and vaginoplasties in addition to the estrogen... there'd be a bit less argument about this topic.

In reality, however, around 80% of the males who identify as transgender still have a penis and have no intention of removing it.

So in essence, it ends up being "I am a woman born in a woman's body that just happens to have a penis because some women have penises and testicles, and if you don't let me strip down in front of the women who happen to have vaginas, then you're a bigot and you're oppressing me!"

Which is an entirely different situation.

The first situation, what you started with, that's been a thing for a long time. And with the exception of a handful of people out there, it's been accepted in developed society. Transsexuals were largely accommodated on a case by case basis, with very little problems. We females knew they were males, but we they were few, they were considerate, and we believed they were genuine. As long as they were respectful, we pretended we didn't notice and we treated them with dignity.

Our views changed when were started being told that we had no choice in the matter, and that we were obligated to be exposed to their fully intact penises.

 

[Hercules56]

Akchooalleeeee... *If* it were males who actually had penectomies, orchiectomies, and vaginoplasties in addition to the estrogen... there'd be a bit less argument about this topic.

In reality, however, around 80% of the males who identify as transgender still have a penis and have no intention of removing it....

Then their commitment to being a true female, is highly suspicious.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Then their commitment to being a true female, is highly suspicious.

Ya think?

 

[p0lka]

No one ever doubts that there are male and female cats, dogs, sheep, horses, birds, whales, etc etc.

Yet for some reason, gender (sex) is fluid in humans?

I call BS.

I think sex and gender are separate, one easily defined and the other a social construct.

We are obviously unable to question male and female cats, dogs, sheep, horses, birds, whales, etc etc as to what they feel society-wise, so I think the whole premise of the quoted statement is BS.

 

[theprestige]

I kinda respect Hercules56 for attempting to speedrun the entire course of this thread so far.

 

[d4m10n]

It's not a question of who the authorities are. It's a question of who the advocates are, what they're advocating, and how influential their advocacy is.

Precisely this, but I'd also go a bit further. We need to understand the ideas underlying what the ACLU and Stonewall are pushing for precisely because they have proven themselves historically "very influential and effective advocates" who are likely to get their ideas encoded into public policy at various levels.

Oftentimes this thread focuses on one-off events which make the news or merely go viral, such as Laurel Hubbard taking a spot on their nation's Olympic weightlifting squad, or someone exposing their male genitals to the females on the all nude floor of a traditional Korean spa (jjimjilbang) in Los Angeles, or hundreds of British and American children being shunted on to the endocrine pathway with minimal diagnostic screening and almost no long-term follow-up. It seems to me that we often fail to ask what all these incidents all have in common, that is, a specific set of ideas which progressive activists sincerely believe ought to be transformed into public policy at all levels, from international sporting bodies to national and state level anti-discrimination laws. I'm not all that picky about where we pull a summary of these ideas from, but I think for the sake of accuracy and charity and honesty it needs to be from advocates rather than critics.

...this is why you probably need to indicate that you're taking a Devil's Advocate position. Unless you're clear about it, nobody can tell that's what you're doing, it ends up sounding like you're arguing that position.

You're not wrong about my position, but I'm not sure why that should matter, really. So long as some set of ideas being quoted by any given poster are sincerely held by influential activists on either side of these issues, they are worthy of discussion as such.

 

[Elaedith]

I've had this same experience. People that I've been interacting with for about 20 years, in a venue based on skepticism and science, have become zealots. To a point where they won't even consent to read the summary of the Cass report put out by the UK government, because some reddit comic maker has already told them that Cass cherry picked bigoted stuff and wants trans kids to die. It's nutty.

I've ended up in discussion with people that I have long respected... but now they hold the view that a person's subjective gender identity is what defines their sex, and that our physical bodies are arbitrarily assembled, and what we call a penis is unrelated to sex at all, as are any other reproductive organs, and it all exists on a spectrum full of ambiguities and spectruminess.

There is a thread on the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe forum where all the lies about the Cass report are being posted and accepted uncritically. These are demonstrably false statements (such as the review discarded >90% of the research, that studies were discarded for not being double-blinded, that the review aims to deny transition until age 25, etc). I actually think that they don't even care that these are demonstrably false. They are like religious fundamentalists who think they are justified in 'lying for Jesus'.

Last year I tried posting on the Science-based Medicine comments section about the reviews in Scandinavian countries finding weak evidence for youth gender medicine, citing an article in the Lancet. The majority of posters refused to look at the article at all and accused me of lying about the contents. They were like a bunch of religious fundamentalists refusing to look at a blasphemous text.

 

[Elaedith]

You're not wrong about my position, but I'm not sure why that should matter, really. So long as some set of ideas being quoted by any given poster are sincerely held by influential activists on either side of these issues, they are worthy of discussion as such.

I agree. I really don't understand why people are objecting to your posts. We should be debating ideas and it is irrelevant whether the person who puts up an idea for critical evaluation agrees with it or not.

 

[Samson]

Surely this story must be true... it was on Twitter!!

X!!
I took at face value because of the effort to place quote marks. An example of the virulence of the virus.

 

[d4m10n]

If males with gendery feels are allowed to continue competing against females, then it is the natural result that females will be forced out of the sport. Females cannot effectively compete against even mediocre males. Over time, as it continues and is allowed, will will naturally see an increase in the number of mediocre males identifying as transgender in sports. And due to the natural advantages of the male physique, we'll see more and more of them in those sports.

I just don't think the number of males with "gendery feels" is anywhere even remotely close to the number of females without them. Yes, there will occasionally be an all-male podium in a world with lax sex-segregation enforcement, but that isn't nearly the same thing as the literal end of women's sport.

 

[Matthew Best]

There is a thread on the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe forum where all the lies about the Cass report are being posted and accepted uncritically. These are demonstrably false statements (such as the review discarded >90% of the research, that studies were discarded for not being double-blinded, that the review aims to deny transition until age 25, etc). I actually think that they don't even care that these are demonstrably false. They are like religious fundamentalists who think they are justified in 'lying for Jesus'.

That's interesting. I was not previously aware of that forum so I went to have a look. One of the people posting demonstrably false statements there (a Moderator, no less!) has the same username as one of our posters here, but on this forum he's noticeably avoided posting in this thread. I wonder why?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I kinda respect Hercules56 for attempting to speedrun the entire course of this thread so far.

It's like five years of discussion condensed to cliffs notes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're not wrong about my position, but I'm not sure why that should matter, really. So long as some set of ideas being quoted by any given poster are sincerely held by influential activists on either side of these issues, they are worthy of discussion as such.

It matters to the nature of the discussion.

If you're being clear about DA-ing the position, and representing their view while not holding it yourself, then you *might* get a discussion of those views.

If you're not being clear, then you get people arguing *with you* about *your* position, which then leads to a ton of back and forth with many of us pointing out that *your* position is fundamentally flawed, and you trying to argue that *the argument* is somehow sound and that we're wrong for addressing the premise at all. You know, like the last five pages of this thread or so?