Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Hercules56]

Why are you trying to change the subject? Female sex offenders are not equivalent to male sex offenders, so there's no reason to assume that we need to treat them the same way....

Please explain.

 

[Hercules56]

The reason to keep them out of female prisons is that THEY ARE MALE. How they identify is irrelevant.

And yet now we are taking about sex offenders. If they are not sex offenders, what's the reason related to safety that we need to keep out transchix from womens prison?

 

[theprestige]

And yet now we are taking about sex offenders. If they are not sex offenders, what's the reason related to safety that we need to keep out transchix from womens prison?

What's the reason we usually keep men out of women's prisons?

What's the reason related to anything reasonable at all, to put a man in a women's prison to begin with? It's up to the TRAs to explain why it's necessary to supersede sex segregation in prisons via self-ID. Don't let them beg the question.

 

[angrysoba]

You attacked someone for attacking TRAss. I'm not sure what distinction you think exists here, but basically everyone else took that as a defense of TRAs. If everyone interpreted it that way but you didn't intend it that way, perhaps you didn't communicate properly.

My understanding is that Damion disagreed with someone who insisted that any quarter given to any claim by any TRA is tantamount to being a vile TRA and meant that that person should be treated the same. Damion pointed out that such rhetoric was unhelpful and attempted to find out where such a line should be drawn.

So no, not “everybody else” took that as a defence of TRAs.

 

[Ziggurat]

Please explain.

Seriously?

For one, female sexual predators cannot impregnate their victims. For another, STD transmission rates are much higher male-to-female (or male-to-male) than female-to-male or female-to-female.

And just generally, female sexual predator behavior follows fundamentally different patterns. Female sexual predators rarely attack strangers. Its mostly ◊◊◊◊ like school teachers preying on adolescents, or females who abuse their partners, of occasionally females who assist male sexual predators. The solitary stranger attack? Almost never happens.

The biological basis for these differences should be obvious.

 

[d4m10n]

Has anyone here mentioned Texas v. Becerra yet? Americans who follow this thread might want to pay attention to this one in the near term; briefly summarized below:

In September, Nebraska joined Texas v. Becerra, a 17-state lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s inclusion of gender dysphoria under federal protections for individuals with disabilities known as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.​

​

In a court filing, the states argue that the inclusion of gender dysphoria under section 504 contradicts language in the original law, and should therefore be found unlawful. Nebraska specifically argues that it would conflict with state laws and policies, forcing the state to either change those laws and policies or risk losing federal funding.​

​

“By including gender dysphoria within the definition of disability in the employment context, Nebraska’s agencies, as employers, must expend time, money, and resources to provide what Defendants believe are reasonable accommodations to those diagnosed with gender dysphoria ,” the legal filing reads.​

​

Nebraska's participation in the lawsuit has recently sparked concerns that the entirety of Section 504 could be struck down, eliminating protections for all individuals with disabilities, not just those with gender dysphoria.​

More here from a local news angle. Full docket here.

If you happen to come across this story summarized by a news source which isn't obviously doing advocacy (for or against) I'd be interested to see it.

 

[theprestige]

Forcing TRAs to take a stand in court over whether fiat self-ID is a disability or an affectation seems like a strategic power move.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, for one thing, you're going after entirely the wrong group. Progressivism is about economic policy, not identity groups. It's not "progressives" that harp on identity politics. They might pay it lip service now and again by talking about which groups have it the worst, but that's not what progressivism is about.

Progressivism is mostly about having a minimum wage that covers the minimal cost of living and finding a way to end what "investment income" fads are currently doing to rent prices. It's not about creating racial and sexual tensions, and then profiting from it (politically) through their nonprofits. That's something else entirely, although I'll admit that the latter is also popular on the left.

You can get all down in the weeds on technical definitions from a historical perspective all you want... but if you actually just look around at the people who call themselves progressives, well, your technical definition needs updating

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am politically centre-left. In New Zealand, that makes me a lifelong "Labour" voter. If I were an American, I would be voting Democrat (which puts me politically at odds with a LOT of posters on this forum whom I agree with on this topic - @Ziggurat , @theprestige, @Emily's Cat are some examples...there are others.

It doesn't put you at odds with me on nearly as many topics as you might imagine. I am (and have always been) a classical liberal. I've largely voted Democrat, but 3rd party has taken a good chunk for a wide variety of reasons. Looking back, I only voted Republican once, and that was GWB's second term.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As an Hispanic non-progressive, it occurs to me every time I hear "Latinx" on NPR.

Not sure why you think this matters, though. No one is forcing us to team up with the rainbow people.

Do you feel that it is reasonable and appropriate that hispanic people are routinely lumped in as part of the rainbow people? Do you feel that the rainbow people represent your view - as well as that of other hispanic people - sufficiently that being referenced as part of that same group makes sense?

Did you actually voluntarily team up with the rainbow people?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think it is just fine to go by self-i.d. when it comes to political labels.

The reason why most visible LGBTQ Americans are progressive is not just about actual politics of Democrats and Republicans on queer issues, but partly is a self-fulfilling prophecy: After a gay, bi, or a trans* a young person became estranged to their conservative family, this person allied themselves with the mainstream LGBTQ community, who could reject him if it didn’t share their ideas.

That's from an article about why it's hard to be queer and non-progressive, which could have easily been about any other identity which is actively marginalized by social conservatives, e.g. atheists & agnostics.

Do you have a link to the article?

FWIW, I speculate that 1) most of these individuals adopted progressive talking points prior to becoming estranged from their families and 2) most of their families aren't actually conservative, they're just not progressive.

I say this, because there is a shocking amount of trans-related social media that targets youth and that pushes "no contact" if the family doesn't 100% support everything the young person says.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In both directions, or just one way?

Eta: in fairness, I agree that a male shouldn't be competing with females, no matter what they identify as. But Trump is virtue signaling just as hard as anyone else. He never indicated that he thinks of women as anything more than... let's say receptacles, so any pretense of fairness and good will is some bull ◊◊◊◊, right there. He's doing it to be an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

A bit off topic... but what exactly do you need Trump to do to convince you that they're not a raging sexist? Clearly appointing several females to key cabinet positions doesn't suffice, nor does passing legislation to protect female spaces and sports. What would?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay. Keep the earplugs in and keep shouting at phantoms. None of my business, really. I'll just see my way out. If we can't agree on what language we're using, a meaningful conversation is impossible.

Well see... the rest of us all agree on what language we're using and what it means. You seem to be demanding that we all abandon out shared understanding and embrace your definition.

 

[theprestige]

I think it is just fine to go by self-i.d. when it comes to political labels.

Political labels become political policy.

Self ID is nonsense. Nobody self IDs as goth, as a political label. Nobody self IDs as influencer, as a political label. Why should anyone self ID as dude in a dress, as a political label?

They should because politicians are offering entitlements.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I apply the same philosophy to TRAs. They get ZERO credit from me for the good things they support becasue the bad things they demand such as right to self-ID, forcing biological women, against their will, to accept biological males into sex segregated spaces, are so bad, they obliterate the good.

I'd say they also get zero credit because the good things they support are already widely accepted, and the only things they actively make issues of are the bad things.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just a quick clarification for myself and others who may have missed it: is the thread acknowledging a difference between being in favor of trans acceptance and "TRA"s? Because anyone who has "radical" in their name is not likely to be reasonable. Actual TRAs would be a fairly small, if loud, minority view?

The "R" isn't radical. TRA stands for Trans Rights Activist.

Yes, there is a difference between those two things. All of the regular participants in this thread are already as accepting of trans people as is reasonable - we all support equal opportunity in employment, housing, treatment by the justice system, etc. We all support their right to dress and present however they please without being subjected to harassment or persecution.

Where we almost all draw the line is when activists take positions that require the replacement of sex with gender identity, or when the policies they advocate for result in females being dispossessed or placed in danger. And that includes the arena of cross-sex medicalization for youth, because it is replacing their naturally developing sex with gender identity in ways that are harmful.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's a slur now but I don't think the OG radfems like Jane Clare Jones would have a problem with admitting that radical materialist feminism excludes males by design, because "male people as a class benefit from exploitation of the bodies and labour of female people as a class."

Yes, but that makes it MALE exclusive radical feminism.

Also, worth noting that the overwhelming majority of people to whom the slur gets applied are not radical feminists at all, and almost never wish to exclude transgender identified females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And yet now we are taking about sex offenders. If they are not sex offenders, what's the reason related to safety that we need to keep out transchix from womens prison?

Because they are MALE.

 

[Thermal]

A bit off topic... but what exactly do you need Trump to do to convince you that they're not a raging sexist? Clearly appointing several females to key cabinet positions doesn't suffice, nor does passing legislation to protect female spaces and sports. What would?

Changing his public and private statements and behavior going back decades.

And I don't think he is a "raging" anything. Except "loon", sometimes. See pets, immigrants eating the for a great example of that. I think he is a very weak and passive sexist, despite his documented sexual abuses.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Has anyone here mentioned Texas v. Becerra yet? Americans who follow this thread might want to pay attention to this one in the near term; briefly summarized below:

In September, Nebraska joined Texas v. Becerra, a 17-state lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s inclusion of gender dysphoria under federal protections for individuals with disabilities known as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.​

​

In a court filing, the states argue that the inclusion of gender dysphoria under section 504 contradicts language in the original law, and should therefore be found unlawful. Nebraska specifically argues that it would conflict with state laws and policies, forcing the state to either change those laws and policies or risk losing federal funding.​

​

“By including gender dysphoria within the definition of disability in the employment context, Nebraska’s agencies, as employers, must expend time, money, and resources to provide what Defendants believe are reasonable accommodations to those diagnosed with gender dysphoria ,” the legal filing reads.​

​

Nebraska's participation in the lawsuit has recently sparked concerns that the entirety of Section 504 could be struck down, eliminating protections for all individuals with disabilities, not just those with gender dysphoria.​

More here from a local news angle. Full docket here.

If you happen to come across this story summarized by a news source which isn't obviously doing advocacy (for or against) I'd be interested to see it.

Oh FFS. Let's not strike down the entirety of S. 504. It includes things like requiring that text-to-voice versions of contract language and important information be available to people with visual impairments, as well as providing subtitles on videos for those with hearing impairments.

Gender dysphoria isn't a disability, so just remove that one stupid thing and leave the rest alone.