Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

HAve you ever considered that most males find clothing from the "Mens" section more comfortable simply because it was designed to fit a male body type?

To some extent. But mostly I just like the style of pants and t-shirts and stuff that I find in men's wear, moreso than fit. I just don't rock a cocktail dress and heels well.

Males and females are shaped differently. Female jeans are cut shorter in the rise because we don't have balls. Male jeans are cut straighter through the thighs and hips, because your waistline is in a different location and you don't have to worry about that baby-making apparatus. Seriously, you should give this a go. It's pretty entertaining - go find a pair of female jeans in your size and try them on... then report back on the fit and comfort of them

Honest answer: I put on a pair of my wife's stretchy yoga pants once, and while there was an uncomfortable tourniquet effect going on, my ass looked amazing.

 

[Thermal]

Okay, let's talk social setting and preferences and being nice.

Let's say you're at a holiday party, and one of the people present is a catholic priest. Generally speaking, it's polite and respectful to refer to them as "Father O'Brien". We all get that, we know that.

But you're not catholic.

If you were told that it was a horrific sin to refer to "Father O'Brien" as "Jim" or "Mr. O'Brien"... and that you are a horrible bigot if you refuse to use the religious honorific that Jim prefers, would you be okay with that? Would you be okay with being obligated to make the sign of the cross and give religious responses when interacting with Jim?

In all honesty: I'm not catholic, and when my wife and I did that pre-Cana thingy to get married in her church, I called the priest Reverend and explained that I was agnostic and didnt do that stuff. He was cool with it, and married us in his church (ceremony, not full mass).

So the answer might be that it's on both parties to be reasonable and be willing to meet halfway.

Now let's take it a step closer to the reality here. Let's say you're at a party with Alex Smith, who is an electrician... but they think of themselves as a medical doctor, they identify as a medical doctor. You know damned good and well that they are NOT a medical doctor. You know they're an electrician, they fixed your outlet last week! But they identify as a doctor.

Are you okay with being told that you MUST refer to them as "Dr. Smith" because failure to do so is bigoted and offensive?

While I get your point, your sex ID is more a hardwired thing that you have no control over, as opposed to your belief that you completed schooling and defended a thesis and were awarded degrees that did not in fact happen. That would be a long term hallucination.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok, but in terms of the sincere transwoman, who just wants to live their lives like other women, and who feels as vulnerable and uncomfortable in a men's room as a bio woman: what do we say to her? She will not be accepted because we believe the slippery slope will have bearded rapists "allowed" to stalk in the ladies room?

I get where you're coming from, Thermal, I really do.

Can you get where I'm coming from? There end up being a few questions that come out of your good intentions:

• How do you tell that this person here is a "sincere transwoman" and how do you tell that that one over there is not?
• What about the females in the female restroom who are made uncomfortable by having an obvious male in our space? What do you say to us?
• What about the fact that opportunistic males DO EXIST who have already exploited this generosity of spirit that you exhibit in order to stalk the female rooms? What about the surprisingly large number of males who identify as trans, and who make a point of videoing themselves masturbating in female restrooms and changing rooms and posting it all over the internet?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm going to try to steel-man a trans-favorable position regarding aping a stereotype.

First, we stipulate that males and females are different beyond anatomy. This includes psychological differences. We are not blank slates with regard to sex, even psychologically.

Some/most/?? trans people have some significant aspect of the opposite sex within their psychology because they were born that way, because they are not just a blank slate.

But they also live within a society and culture with sex stereotypes. They perceive/filter/express their trans-ness through the lens of social sex stereotypes. There is some sort of interplay between the trans nature and the social reality they find themselves in that does not deny either.

I'd encourage everyone to first improve this steel-manning, followed by critique.

I like where you're coming from... but I confess that I don't think I can do it. I'll try to give it some thought.

I end up hung up because there are secondary ramifications to the assumptions underlying your steel man position.

First off, I concede that there are behavioral tendencies that differ by sex. I don't think this is necessarily a stipulation, I think it's a reality. We know there are behavioral differences by sex among most species, and that those behaviors tend to be more differentiated among species that have higher degrees of physical dimorphism. At a minimum, there are behaviors that are associated with the necessary differences of gestation and care of offspring.

Where I end up circling and unable to progress is that your steel man requires not just that those differences exist as tendencies, but that they be prescriptive in nature.

For example... males tend to be more aggressive than females. Males tend to be more inclined to fight where females are more inclined to flight. This is generally true. But the next step that is unstated in your steel man is that if a male is more inclined to flight... that suggests that they're "less male" and "more female". It suggests that inclination toward flight means that they must be female in some fashion.

The result of that then ends up being that any male who is more inclined to flight than to fight must therefore be "female-ish", and not a "real man" - regardless of how they feel about it. Similarly, it would mean that any female who is more inclined toward fight must somehow be a male in terms of their behavior... whether they think of themselves as female or not.

What makes this even more challenging for me, is that it's all based on self-perception... and humans suck at this. It creates a situation where a male may perceive themselves to be less aggressive than what they believe most males to be, and therefore their perception relative to other males means that they must be trans. But this subjectivity doesn't take into consideration whether they're within the standard deviation of aggression for females or not... nor whether females in general perceive them to be meaningfully less aggressive than males in general.

One of the things these past several years has shown me is that behavioral differences absolutely do exist, and that they're not all socialized learned behaviors. I've lost track of how many times I've observed a transgender identified male acting aggressively, demandingly, taking up a lot of space, being intimidating (even if unintentionally), and dominating the interaction... and all I can think is "actual females don't behave that way". I'm far, far more confident and unabashedly in-charge than the average female is, I'm very much not a "stereotypical" female in terms of behavior... but the difference is striking to me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have a similar problem at work (construction). A new customer may feel uncomfortable with me as a scruffy stranger having access to their home. After they get to know me, they know they are safer and more secure with me being there than not. I earn that trust.

This is an interesting analogy, and it provides a really good opportunity to highlight the issue.

Your new customer has consented to allow you into their home. They may be uncomfortable at the start, but they have actively engaged your services, and they have agreed to let you enter their home - that gives you the chance to demonstrate that you're trustworthy.

Can your new customer consent to let you enter their neighbor's home?
If your customer gives you permission to enter their neighbor's home without ever having asked that neighbor... do you think there's any chance in hell that those neighbors will feel that you're safe and it's all fine?

Because that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about you, Thermal, giving a trans identified Pat access to your bathroom, and becoming comfortable with Pat yourself. We're talking about you, Thermal, giving Pat permission to enter MY HOME and expecting that I will be comfortable with Pat because you said I should be.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A sincere transwoman poses no harm to themselves or others just by virtue of being trans, so it's not something that needs to be "cured" for anyone's protection.

A transgender identified male, no matter how sincere, poses harm to female rape victims in a female-only rape shelter when they enter that space. Even if they intend no harm, the fact that they are male - and usually perceptibly male - causes harm and insecurity.

A transgender identified male, no matter how sincere, poses a risk to female athletes by virtue of being male and competing against females in a sport or league that is supposed to be female only.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am not suggesting self ID as acceptable, and have said so fairly repeatedly. I'm asking, in the context of open discussion, if there might be a middle ground that could work, and what that might be, because I value the legit trans folk as well as vehemently wanting to protect safe places.

The reasonable middle ground is that nobody gives a ◊◊◊◊ how anyone dresses, and we be polite with respect to presentation... but that males use male single-sex spaces.

Seriously, if Jason Momoa comes out as trans and everyone including me and Rolfe are somehow convinced that they are 100% genuine in their belief and their feelings... I still don't consent to let them use the female shower next to me, because there is no possibility of them being perceived as female in any way whatsoever. That might suck for the sincerely genuinely trans-feeling Momoa... but females should not be obligated to let males into our intimate spaces on their say-so that they're sincere, and we sure as hell can't consent on behalf of other females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, and I've been about as adamant as possible about refusing self ID.

I'm reminded now of why I don't regularly follow this thread. Literally no one is hearing anyone else, and projects whatever crazy ◊◊◊◊ springs to mind onto any discussion raised.

Dude, this is BS. I gave you several very genuine responses yesterday, asked some genuine questions, and tried to interact with you on your terms.

You have not replied to any of my posts.

ETA - you replied to a couple today, so I'll say it's only half BS

 

[Emily's Cat]

Honest answer: I put on a pair of my wife's stretchy yoga pants once, and while there was an uncomfortable tourniquet effect going on, my ass looked amazing.

FWIW they make yoga pants for males as well. They will accommodate your family jewels while still making your ass look great.

 

[Emily's Cat]

While I get your point, your sex ID is more a hardwired thing that you have no control over

How do you know this to be true?

I'm not being oppositional here - I'm trying to point out that in all likelihood, you've been told by someone else that it's hardwired, and it seemed reasonable to you so you've accepted it as true. In reality, there is no science whatsoever to support that assumption.

On the other hand, there have been numerous studies done on the brains of homosexuals, as well as measurable physical responses. Those indicate that in many cases (not all, btw) those responses are genuine and we can see the activity in the part of the brain responsible for sexual attraction. We have actual evidence that in many cases, homesexuality is actuall hardwired.

 

[Paul2]

I like where you're coming from... but I confess that I don't think I can do it. I'll try to give it some thought.

I end up hung up because there are secondary ramifications to the assumptions underlying your steel man position.

First off, I concede that there are behavioral tendencies that differ by sex. I don't think this is necessarily a stipulation, I think it's a reality. We know there are behavioral differences by sex among most species, and that those behaviors tend to be more differentiated among species that have higher degrees of physical dimorphism. At a minimum, there are behaviors that are associated with the necessary differences of gestation and care of offspring.

Where I end up circling and unable to progress is that your steel man requires not just that those differences exist as tendencies, but that they be prescriptive in nature.

For example... males tend to be more aggressive than females. Males tend to be more inclined to fight where females are more inclined to flight. This is generally true. But the next step that is unstated in your steel man is that if a male is more inclined to flight... that suggests that they're "less male" and "more female". It suggests that inclination toward flight means that they must be female in some fashion.

First of all, I appreciate your reply, as I have (nearly?) all of your posts here.

I don't see where the prescriptive, less male or more female is necessitated by the steel-man I offered. Can you explain why that less male etc. prescription is necessitated by my steel-man?

The result of that then ends up being that any male who is more inclined to flight than to fight must therefore be "female-ish", and not a "real man" - regardless of how they feel about it. Similarly, it would mean that any female who is more inclined toward fight must somehow be a male in terms of their behavior... whether they think of themselves as female or not.

What makes this even more challenging for me, is that it's all based on self-perception... and humans suck at this. It creates a situation where a male may perceive themselves to be less aggressive than what they believe most males to be, and therefore their perception relative to other males means that they must be trans. But this subjectivity doesn't take into consideration whether they're within the standard deviation of aggression for females or not... nor whether females in general perceive them to be meaningfully less aggressive than males in general.

It's certainly true that someone could incorrectly estimate how aggressive they are compared to other males. But that means that others may well correctly estimate that, so my steel-man would hold for them at least.

Whether some trans person has correctly estimated things or not, the point of my steel-man was to offer a rationale for trans to be not just aping a stereotype (even while not needing to reject that stereotype). It's an interplay between the biological starting point and then how things are expressed or stereotyped within the culture.

One of the things these past several years has shown me is that behavioral differences absolutely do exist, and that they're not all socialized learned behaviors. I've lost track of how many times I've observed a transgender identified male acting aggressively, demandingly, taking up a lot of space, being intimidating (even if unintentionally), and dominating the interaction... and all I can think is "actual females don't behave that way". I'm far, far more confident and unabashedly in-charge than the average female is, I'm very much not a "stereotypical" female in terms of behavior... but the difference is striking to me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't see where the prescriptive, less male or more female is necessitated by the steel-man I offered. Can you explain why that less male etc. prescription is necessitated by my steel-man?

If we assume that variance from the behavioral norm for each sex is evidence of being transgender....

... then variance from the behavioral norm for each sex is evidence of being transgender

To oversimplify...

Alex: My male-bodied child is transgender.

Pat: Why do you think they're transgender?

Alex: They don't like to play sports, and they like dolls.

Pat: That seems a stretch.

Alex: Well, it's evidence that they're genuinely transgender, because behavior is sexually dimorphic.
(legitimately - females of several primate species including humans have an exhibited preference to mimic child-caring behaviors, whereas males have a preference to exhibit competitive physical behaviors in their choice of juvenile play)

Pat: Hmm... well my male sex-fruit doesn't like sports and isn't any good at them, and they like playing with action figures and anime figurines and stuff... maybe they're trans too!

Alex: Yeah, most likely they're trans.

Also, the "I'm not like other girls/boy so I'm non-binary or trans" thing is widespread and common among teens. Like it's actually the most common reported reasoning when it comes to recent identifying as trans among youth right now - they didn't like the toys or clothing associated with their sex, they didn't like the same hobbies or pasttimes associated with their sex. In many cases they'll claim dysphoria as well - but the dysphoria follows the behavioral association.

 

[Thermal]

Dude, this is BS. I gave you several very genuine responses yesterday, asked some genuine questions, and tried to interact with you on your terms.

You have not replied to any of my posts.

ETA - you replied to a couple today, so I'll say it's only half BS

Apologies. You often drop a bunch of replies at once on multiple threads and tbh, I sometimes think I responded to you when I hadn't, or confused with responding to you on another thread. My paperwork and returning phone calls responses are similarly disorganized. Also, "literally everyone" was meant as the kids use it today, meaning "not at all literally everyone but at least a couple". I try to stay relatable to the kids.

 

[Thermal]

How do you know this to be true?

I'm not being oppositional here - I'm trying to point out that in all likelihood, you've been told by someone else that it's hardwired, and it seemed reasonable to you so you've accepted it as true. In reality, there is no science whatsoever to support that assumption.

On the other hand, there have been numerous studies done on the brains of homosexuals, as well as measurable physical responses. Those indicate that in many cases (not all, btw) those responses are genuine and we can see the activity in the part of the brain responsible for sexual attraction. We have actual evidence that in many cases, homesexuality is actuall hardwired.

I was told this by the only trans person I know personally (that I'm aware of). She said when she was younger, she thought she was a gay boy, because she hadn't wrapped her head around the idea of being a gal in a guys body, but she did understand what gay meant. Later she understood that trans was what she actually was.

Also, I've read similar accounts from interviews with trans people who said basically the same thing. Not proof positive, but I see no reason to doubt it.

 

[Thermal]

The reasonable middle ground is that nobody gives a ◊◊◊◊ how anyone dresses, and we be polite with respect to presentation... but that males use male single-sex spaces.

Seriously, if Jason Momoa comes out as trans and everyone including me and Rolfe are somehow convinced that they are 100% genuine in their belief and their feelings... I still don't consent to let them use the female shower next to me, because there is no possibility of them being perceived as female in any way whatsoever. That might suck for the sincerely genuinely trans-feeling Momoa... but females should not be obligated to let males into our intimate spaces on their say-so that they're sincere, and we sure as hell can't consent on behalf of other females.

Honestly, female posters here seem to spend an awful lot of time in gang public showers with each other. I have never as an adult taken a group shower with guys for any reason. I dont know which one of us has the unusual lifestyle, here, from the "commonly showering with strangers" approach.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well that's the whole dilemma, right? How do you let the trans woman just live her life, while keeping Chad from getting his cheap jollies, or otherwise assaulting women?

Isn't that the same dilemma as whether you let Alice, who's a perfect driver without a licence drive, while keeping Bob, Candy, Delilah, Eugene and Fanny from causing 6 times more fatalities than other drivers? The answer turns out to be that it's safer to not allow any of those to drive without a license. The good of the many vs the good of the few, and all that ethics philosophy?

None of that requires your previous or current BS dilemmas of allowing every X to do Y, just because you don't know if ALL X are dangerous if they do Y.

I mean, equally I don't expect any, or even most, of my neighbour to be burglars, but I still lock my doors. If any of them feel offended or unwelcome by my locking my door in front of them, they can piss right off.

 

[lionking]

If it was "covered" like the last link I was referred to, it wasn't covered at all. The response wasn't even loosely related to the question.

No one gets "badly hurt" by being allowed in a rest room with private stalls. An attack is an attack, and can happen anywhere, no matter what the sign on the door says.

The scenario related to a boxer.

 

[HansMustermann]

I was told this by the only trans person I know personally (that I'm aware of). She said when she was younger, she thought she was a gay boy, because she hadn't wrapped her head around the idea of being a gal in a guys body, but she did understand what gay meant. Later she understood that trans was what she actually was.

No, gay is not the same thing as trans. There are plenty of gay trans and straight trans. I myself was a bit of a lesbian femboy. I liked getting more attention as a girl, but I still got turned on by girls.

 

[HansMustermann]

I was told this by the only trans person I know personally (that I'm aware of).

They say that "evidence" is not the plural of "anecdote". ONE anecdote is even less evidence. I mean, I equally know ONE taxi driver who went trans, but I don't think it means all taxi drivers are trans. Or I knew ONE (very twitchy) taxi driver who admitted to me to using cocaine, but that's not evidence that taxi drivers use cocaine.

 

[Thermal]

The scenario related to a boxer.

You hadn't mentioned a boxer, nor had I.