Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Clutch Cargo said:
Rooms with a bath are bathrooms. Women who are men are not women. You can poop in a urinal but it's still a urinal (not a commode) and you can put a bow tie on a pig bit's still a pig (not an accountant).
Click to expand...
I'm not actually disagreeing; I just don't think that's a good argument. Transwomen can be women in the same way bathrooms can be rooms. It's simply a descriptive subset.
 
Emily's Cat said:
It's the unspoken part that drives the difference.
Click to expand...
Sure, but a lot of people will deny the unspoken part even if you ask it explicitly. They aren't just being polite by not saying it, there really is an effort to enforce a fiction.

Ever seen that podcast "whatever"? I don't recommend watching a lot of it, but watching some of it can be quite educational. They usually have young women on as guests (usually several at a time), not usually celebrities, and ask them all sorts of stuff about relationships, dating, etc. The reason I don't recommend watching a lot is that most of them are stupid, and don't have anything intelligent to say. (Note: these women are not a representative sample of women in general, but they ARE a sample of a type that exists out there. And I'm sure you could do something similar with stupid young men, so don't misinterpret this as an attack on women). But seeing the sorts of justifications they come up with for their opinions and behavior is illuminating. The host will often ask the guests to rate themselves on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of physical attractiveness. And so often, they'll rate themselves a 10 when there's just no way that any honest assessment could possibly put them that high. Now SOME of that may be self-delusion, but I don't think all of it is. I think a large part of it is trying to enforce a fiction of solidarity. In one case I remember, a bunch of them rated themselves as 10s, and one of them rated herself as a 7, and she was one of the more attractive ones in the group. And the other girls got pissed at her for saying that. In terms of how I would respond in similar circumstances this is odd, because I'm more likely to react negatively to someone boasting than to someone being humble, which suggests a very different group dynamic than I'm used to. It was like her modesty threatened their fiction, and they turned on her to try to coerce her to play along with their fiction.

Saying trans women aren't women threatens a fiction of solidarity as well.
Emily's Cat said:
So when you tell someone they look like Lizzo... they will 100% assume you mean that they're fat.
Click to expand...
What's more, they will assume (probably correctly) that you aren't going to play along with their fiction.
 
Thermal said:
Rest rooms, locker rooms, competitive athletics and prisons were never meant to be segregated by your gender expression. They were always intended to be segregated by sex. That, for me, ends the issue of trans women and self ID access.
Click to expand...
What the actual ◊◊◊◊? Is your head in the sand? The issue might “end” for you but it hardly ends for the countless women who are harmed and harassed by self ID transwomen who demand their “rights” as real women. “Rights” that extend well beyond sport and prisons, but still include these things because of the success of TRAs in many jurisdictions.

I don’t think you are acting in good faith in this thread.
 
Thermal said:
Transwomen can be women in the same way bathrooms can be rooms. It's simply a descriptive subset.
Click to expand...
Just now tuning back in (so I may well have missed the answer on a previous page) but what's the superset?

Put another way, what characteristics have cisgender women and transgender women in common which put them in the same set of people, beyond how they self-identify on certain forms?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
The problem is not specifically transgender identified males. The problem is 1) autogynephiles and 2) self id.
Click to expand...
The problem kinda is trans identified males. Because how the UK identifies who is transgender, and what it allows for them, basically incentivizes sexual predators to identify that way. So no one should be surprised that, when given an incentive to identify as trans, sexual predators start identifying as trans. No one should be surprised when the statistics get skewed as a result.
 
Emily's Cat said:
To be fair... I think a lot of males don't have any idea what males are really like.
Click to expand...
I know what most males are like. I don't really know what the predators are like, that's absolutely true.
Emily's Cat said:
No male that I know is aware of any male that they know who would ever do such a thing.

That doesn't mean that they don't know someone who has - it just means that they don't tell each other about it, they keep it hidden.
Click to expand...
They have to keep it hidden, because most males wouldn't tolerate that ◊◊◊◊ if they witnessed it.
 
Ziggurat said:
Transwomen can also be women the same way that ringworm is a worm: not at all.
Click to expand...
d4m10n said:
Just now tuning back in (so I may well have missed the answer on a previous page) but what's the superset?

Put another way, what characteristics have cisgender women and transgender women in common which put them in the same set of people, beyond how they self-identify on certain forms?
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating the point. I'm saying his argument was begging the question. I actually agree: transwomen are definitionally not women.
 
lionking said:
What the actual ◊◊◊◊? Is your head in the sand? The issue might “end” for you but it hardly ends for the countless women who are harmed and harassed by self ID transwomen who demand their “rights” as real women. “Rights” that extend well beyond sport and prisons, but still include these things because of the success of TRAs in many jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
We are talking about our relative positions and reasoning. I'm saying that IMV, self ID and transwomen in women's intimate spaces is a no-go by definition, and that argumentative line ends for me there.
lionking said:
I don’t think you are acting in good faith in this thread.
Click to expand...
I think you are not bothering to read posts, and are being pissy by carrying grudges from other threads where you also played dumb (I hope it was only playing) and misconstrued my positions there, too.
 
theprestige said:
Bro. You just got finished proposing that transwomen are definitionally (a subset of) women.
Click to expand...
I did not. I pointed out that CC's specific argument was not sound. Try it this way:

CC: Transwomen are not women. If they were, they wouldn't be called trans women.

T: While I am not disagreeing, that is not a persuasive argument, because if one's starting assumption is that transwomen are a subset of women (much like bathrooms are a subset of rooms), then there is no inherent invalidation of womanhood by including the descriptor "trans".

I simply preferred the short version.
 
Rolfe said:
No, It's "I'm fed up providing the statistics for trans-identifying male sexual offending, the thousand or so examples of these cases, and the psychology/psychiatry references that explain autogynaephilia," only to have everything dismissed as "you can't keep trans-identifying men from having everything they want just because of a few bad apples."
Click to expand...
It's funny because when I watched that White Lotus scene I couldn't help but wonder whether anybody was "getting" what that guy was saying. Judging from the comments of the reviewers at that article, the answer is no. They seem to think it was just a bit of a gross-out, like the cock and balls scene from the first season. Note that some people (like Tranna Wintour, heh) did hear it loud and clear.
 
Brainster said:
It's funny because when I watched that White Lotus scene I couldn't help but wonder whether anybody was "getting" what that guy was saying. Judging from the comments of the reviewers at that article, the answer is no. They seem to think it was just a bit of a gross-out, like the cock and balls scene from the first season. Note that some people (like Tranna Wintour, heh) did hear it loud and clear.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen White Lotus, so the references and article were a little lost on me. Is the character speaking a transwoman? I read his speech to his buddy thing, and he doesn't seem to be trans, except as a kink in his sex play.
 
That's how what starts? We shape public policy about transpeople assuming that kink shaming imaginary characters in a fictional tv show relying on shock value gives us the right to be twats to all transgenders? This is absurd.
 
Ziggurat said:
Transitioning. Not for everyone, but for a subset of transwomen, it doesn't start with dysphoria, it starts with a kink.
Click to expand...
I'm sure. Or the transitioning had started, and it was mistaken for the kink. I don't see any reason for this to be a factor in anything. Whatever.

What percentage of transgenders are we talking about here? How many start the transitioning road this way? More to the point, who the hell cares what their consensual kinks are, and what do they have to do with public policy or social forms of address?
 
Thermal said:
I'm sure. Or the transitioning had started, and it was mistaken for the kink. I don't see any reason for this to be a factor in anything. Whatever.
Click to expand...
Why not?

The primary justification for allowing trans women into women's spaces is that they experience distress from their dysphoria when not treated as women. Kind people who want to alleviate distress in others are often willing to make accommodations on this basis. But why should anyone go out of their way to accommodate someone else's sexual kinks? That's a very different prospect, and there would be a lot less public support for trans accommodations if autogynophiles were honest about their motivations.
Thermal said:
What percentage of transgenders are we talking about here?
Click to expand...
Estimates vary, but likely a significant fraction.
Thermal said:
More to the point, who the hell cares what their consensual kinks are, and what do they have to do with public policy or social forms of address?
Click to expand...
Their kinks aren't consensual. That's the whole point. If it were merely private consensual conduct, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it's not. This has to do with public policy and public behavior because they play out their kinks in public, and demand public accommodation for those kinks.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why not?

The primary justification for allowing trans women into women's spaces...
Click to expand...

..which. since I and I believe everyone else in the current discussion is against, I don't see the relevance of?
Ziggurat said:
is that they experience distress from their dysphoria when not treated as women. Kind people who want to alleviate distress in others are often willing to make accommodations on this basis. But why should anyone go out of their way to accommodate someone else's sexual kinks? That's a very different prospect, and there would be a lot less public support for trans accommodations if autogynophiles were honest about their motivations.

Estimates vary, but likely a significant fraction.
Click to expand...
Ok. So no idea whatsoever? So we are talking about establishing a broad public policy and social courtesies around the knowledge that there is some unknown fraction that will likely abuse them?

Honest question: do you think there might be gay men who get themselves a little jolly on checking out guys in a locker room? Lesbians? Are you advocating for restricting their access wholesale too? Or is that different? If so, exactly how?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom