Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Except we’re only talking about males in your imagination where they’re bulked up, bearded dudes who just claim to be trans.

Men don’t need to be bulked up to overpower women, and whether or not they shave is irrelevant. You seem to be in denial that male sexual predators, who are actually convicted of sexual crimes, are claiming to be trans and being put in women’s prisons. This isn’t my imagination, this is documented. And your casual dismissal of that reality and refusal to address it while insulting me is, frankly, pathetic. I expected more from you, but you’re really disappointing here.

That’s right, I don’t know how to solve the problem of prison rape except to abolish private for-profit prisons, and hire more people to supervise the prisoners. Maybe redesigning the prison itself too.

Good luck with that. In the meantime, stop ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ putting male rapists in women’s prisons. I don’t know why you have a problem with that.

I think the presence of adult females would be enough.

Why on earth would you think that?

If you’re imagining Arnold Schwarzenegger in a wig, he could overpower most male adults too

I’m not. I’m imagining a typical adult male.

I can see hysteria for what it is.

No, you cannot. You cannot even recognize what’s actually happening. You think actual events are merely imaginary.

Trans people need bathrooms and lockers too. If you want to exclude all trans people from bathrooms and locker rooms because some trans people are criminals, that is punishment and bigotry.

See, THIS is actual hysteria. If a transwoman has to use the bathroom corresponding to his sex, he hasn’t been excluded from any bathroom, nor has he been punished. He is treated just like any other male.

No one here has a problem with transwomen using male bathrooms. Hell, I’m not even opposed to all transwomen using female bathrooms. But not as a matter of right. Only as a courtesy that women can choose to extend to those transwomen who behave appropriately. But when you make it a matter of rights on the basis of self ID, you WILL get predators taking advantage of that. This isn’t hypothetical, we’ve seen it plenty of times.

If someone is going to enter a bathroom or locker room to sexually assault someone, they won’t need to claim to be trans to do it.

Again, you haven’t actually thought about this in any depth, and you keep proving that. Yes, it’s possible for any predator to simply enter a women’s bathroom. But a lot of sexual assaults are opportunistic. If a male entering a women’s bathroom raises alarms, there is much less opportunity than if they can just enter whenever they want with zero repercussions, waiting for the appropriate opportunity.

Seriously, do you not understand the concept of risk?

I can see the hysteria and bigotry this topic is steeped in.

No, you cannot. You cannot see that predators taking advantage of self ID is an actual, not a hypothetical, problem. None of your arguments will matter as long as you keep ignoring that reality.

 

[Mycroft]

Men don’t need to be bulked up to overpower women, and whether or not they shave is irrelevant. You seem to be in denial that male sexual predators, who are actually convicted of sexual crimes, are claiming to be trans and being put in women’s prisons. This isn’t my imagination, this is documented. And your casual dismissal of that reality and refusal to address it while insulting me is, frankly, pathetic. I expected more from you, but you’re really disappointing here.

And it’s just impossible to figure out who is faking it so all trans-people need to be treated as criminals.

Good luck with that. In the meantime, stop ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ putting male rapists in women’s prisons. I don’t know why you have a problem with that.

The whole argument boils down to if you regard trans-women as women or not. That’s our fundamental disagreement.

Why on earth would you think that?

Because my daughter has never needed more than the presence of myself or her mother to be safe in a public bathroom.

I’m not. I’m imagining a typical adult male.

You should be imagining a typical trans-woman who should not be presumed to be a criminal.

No, you cannot. You cannot even recognize what’s actually happening. You think actual events are merely imaginary.

The issue isn’t if crimes happen or not, they do. The issue is if trans-people should be presumed to be criminal.

See, THIS is actual hysteria. If a transwoman has to use the bathroom corresponding to his sex, he hasn’t been excluded from any bathroom, nor has he been punished. He is treated just like any other male.

You think a woman should use a men’s bathroom. And if she doesn’t feel safe doing so?

No one here has a problem with transwomen using male bathrooms. Hell, I’m not even opposed to all transwomen using female bathrooms. But not as a matter of right. Only as a courtesy that women can choose to extend to those transwomen who behave appropriately. But when you make it a matter of rights on the basis of self ID, you WILL get predators taking advantage of that. This isn’t hypothetical, we’ve seen it plenty of times.

Criminals will commit crimes, but trans-people should not be presumed to be criminal just because they are trans.

Again, you haven’t actually thought about this in any depth, and you keep proving that. Yes, it’s possible for any predator to simply enter a women’s bathroom. But a lot of sexual assaults are opportunistic. If a male entering a women’s bathroom raises alarms, there is much less opportunity than if they can just enter whenever they want with zero repercussions, waiting for the appropriate opportunity.

Seriously, do you not understand the concept of risk?

This risk is exaggerated. That’s why I call it hysteria.

No, you cannot. You cannot see that predators taking advantage of self ID is an actual, not a hypothetical, problem. None of your arguments will matter as long as you keep ignoring that reality.

And nobody can figure out a way to deal with the problem other than treating all trans-people as criminals.

 

[Ziggurat]

And it’s just impossible to figure out who is faking it so all trans-people need to be treated as criminals.

Under self ID, yes, it is indeed impossible to tell who is faking it. That’s the whole point. Do you think you have a way to tell? You don’t, not one that’s consistent with self ID.

And what’s with the constant dishonesty about punishment and treating them like criminals? No. That’s not what’s being demanded. What’s being demanded is that they be treated like males. Because, get this, they are.

The whole argument boils down to if you regard trans-women as women or not. That’s our fundamental disagreement.

Oh, that’s just the start. Because even if you want to treat transwomen as women, you still have to determine who is a transwoman. And if you accept self ID (which you seem to, or at least haven’t rejected), then all men are women, or can be whenever they want.

You should be imagining a typical trans-woman who should not be presumed to be a criminal.

The typical man is not a sexual predator. And yet, we don’t allow men into women’s bathrooms. Why not?

Because not everyone is typical.

Every single argument you have put forth so far is an argument to do away with sex segregation entirely. Either you don’t understand this about your own position because you haven’t thought it through, or you know it already but just don’t have the honesty to admit it.

The issue isn’t if crimes happen or not, they do. The issue is if trans-people should be presumed to be criminal.

Transwomen should be presumed male. Because they are.

You think a woman should use a men’s bathroom.

I think males should use the men’s bathroom. Transmen are welcome too, they don’t pose a threat.

And if she doesn’t feel safe doing so?

Using your own logic, the problem isn’t that transwomen are excluded from women’s bathrooms, it’s that they don’t feel safe in men’s bathrooms, so that’s the problem we should fix.

More seriously, why do you consider the feelings of transwomen (not women) feeling unsafe in the men’s room and not the feelings of women who don’t feel safe with an obvious male in the women’s bathroom?

Criminals will commit crimes, but trans-people should not be presumed to be criminal just because they are trans.

Again, every argument you make is an argument for abolishing sex segregation entirely, but you don’t have the understanding or the honesty to make it directly.

This risk is exaggerated. That’s why I call it hysteria.

The risk to transwomen is exaggerated. It IS a hysteria.

And nobody can figure out a way to deal with the problem other than treating all trans-people as criminals.

Once again, no. Treating transwomen as males IS NOT treating them as criminals. Knock that ◊◊◊◊ off right now.

 

[Ziggurat]

I doubt we have a hundred years of statistics comparing trans-women to women in sports, but if we do then the issue is settled, right?

We have more than sufficient data showing significant advantages for males over females, regardless of whether they are trans or not. Being trans doesn’t eliminate those advantages, even with hormone treatments. This is well studied, it’s not a mystery. So it SHOULD be settled. It isn’t, because some people don’t care if transwomen have an unfair advantage over women.

And note, nobody here has a problem with transmen competing against men. Have you stopped for even a moment to consider why?

 

[smartcooky]

You should be imagining a typical trans-woman who should not be presumed to be a criminal.

Literally NO-ONE here is presuming all transwomen to be criminals.
What we are doing is observing an irrefutable biological and scientific fact... that ALL transwomen, without exception, are biologically male.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent​

official count of transgender prisoners):​

76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%​

125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%​

13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%​

Fact: Cisgender biological males are 5 times more likely to be sex offenders than biological females.
Fact: Transgender biological males (i.e. Transwomen) are 3.5 times more likely to be sex offenders than cisgender biological males
Fact: Transgender biological males (i.e. Transwomen) are 18 times more likely to be sex offenders than biological males

But you think its OK to just go ahead, risk the safety and welfare of women in general, and allow a group of people who have a record of being 18 times more likely to commit sexual assault against women and children, be to allowed automatically, as of right, enter spaces where those very same women will be.

Let me put this to you.

According to the Williams Institute, there are approximately 515,200 (0.16% of the population) in the US who are transgender women. You are happy to allow them unfettered, right of access to women's toilets and changing rooms, rape crisis shelters, and domestic abuse shelters? Right?

Well, according to US DoJ statistics, there are approximately 657,600 (0.2% of the population) who are male registered sex offenders. Would you also be happy to give them unfettered, right of access to women's toilets, rape crisis shelters, and domestic abuse shelters?

 

[Thermal]

Fact: Transgender biological males (i.e. Transwomen) are 3.5 times more likely to be sex offenders than cisgender biological males
Fact: Transgender biological males (i.e. Transwomen) are 18 times more likely to be sex offenders than biological males

This is the kind of thing I mean. You guys say things over and over that make no sense.

 

[theprestige]

There is nothing ambiguous or obfuscating about the answer I have given.

It still elides the question of trans rights in public policy that I was hoping you'd answer.

By not disagreeing with them.

Do you mean self-ID? Any man who says he's trans qualifies for whatever rights, privileges, or entitlements we're prepared to grant to trans people in public policy? Is that what you mean?

I doubt we have a hundred years of statistics comparing trans-women to women in sports, but if we do then the issue is settled, right?

We have a hundred years of stats comparing men (which is what transwomen are) to women, and yes, the issue is very much settled. The data is clear.

Incidentally, the same stats that tell us it's a bad idea for men to compete with women in tests of strength and endurance, also tell us it's a bad idea to house men in women's prisons, allow them into women's shelters, and give them access to the other places our society has wisely segregated by sex.

I would? The world is huge and complex. I'm not an expert on everything and I don't claim to be.

Sports statistics are not hard to find. Anyone with a passing interest in this topic can find half a dozen sports for comparison on Wikipedia in ten minutes. You could be on top of this conversation, instead of lagging behind.

Because nobody formulates policy single-handedly. We are social animals, policy is generally arrived at by consensus.

Can't have consensus without something to consider. What do you propose, as far as distinguishing men from transwomen? Is it self-ID? Or would you like to see additional or different criteria instead?

Because right now, my proposal is no transcending sex segregation in public policy. That takes care of the problem of trying to figure out if a man is trans enough to be entitled to a cell in a women's prison. But I doubt you'll find this rule agreeable. So. What rule(s) would you find agreeable?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've clarified this enough and will not address it with you again.

No debate!!!!!111

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because in this debate I fall on the side that would categorize transwomen as women.

I understand where you fall. My question is: Why?

What makes you believe that transgender identified males are the equivalent of females, and in what scenarios?
You seem to give quite a bit of weight to the desires and wishes of transgender identified males; why do you not give consideration to the safety and needs of females?
What do transgender identified males share in common with females that they do NOT share in common with males?

 

[Emily's Cat]

My understanding is cross-dressers are different from trans-people.

Advocates for transgender identified male access to all female-only spaces and services include cross-dressers, drag queens, and anyone who declares that they have gendery-feels to be transgender. They make no distinction between them.

And the always overlooked question is: When faced with a person with an entirely male physique how exactly is anyone supposed to be able to determine whether the individual in question is a "real transperson", a cross dresser, a drag queen, or an ill-intentioned male exploiting loopholes that give them easy access to females against our will?

How do you determine who is who with any degree of accuracy or reliability?

 

[Thermal]

They're not representative of the whole. But they are overrepresented in that population, by a fairly significant portion. And that overrepresentation presents a *risk* to females and to children. The fact that they are only a small portion of the whole gets used to not only disregard any proposal for reasonable safeguards, but to directly impugn us as bigots for even daring to want safeguards in the first place.

Yes, but the frequently restated statistic here, thrown up a half dozen times in the last few pages, is that there were 79 transgender sex offenders out of a population of over a quarter million transgender people in a country of several tens of millions. In any other context, we would say such a small number is vanishingly insignificant and noise range, falling below the margin of error range in statistics.

Compare with anything else: a dramatically higher percentage of people abuse alcohol. Do you lobby for prohibition, or do you acknowledge that abuses are going to happen and deal with them the best you can?

This fearsome AGP effects about 3% of the population. In any given school system, there are usually 35 male staff members, so statistically there will be one with AGP. Do you demand all males be removed from the school system? I mean, if they are left there unchecked with the vast majority of males who are fine, you are virtually guaranteeing an abuse will occur. There is ample opportunity for a male to get a student alone. Think about it; it's exactly, precisely what you are saying here.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I get that you want to walk the line between being respectful and polite toward individual expression and retaining female single-sex spaces and services, and I appreciate that. Despite my frustration, I really do appreciate it. And even though it's not all that apparent, I know from around a decade of experience in this thread, that others appreciate it too.

Where we (including me) end up pushing back is that the respectful politeness that seems like it should be entirely reasonable has turned out to be unreasonable in application.

OK, first off, I also appreciate what you are saying, and thank you. It's good to know some messages are getting across. You left over a dozen different posts for me to reply to, and frankly it's dizzying, and I think causes a lot of confusion to the flow of the discussion. But I'd like to mention one, because it's some other mindless twitterer:

You posted a tweety from a woman named Mary Kate Delvy. You told me to check her out. She purports to read off what transpeople say in their own words. Ok. Honest question: do you think she was giving a representative sample? I don't. In fact, I'd crawl way out on a limb and say she quote mined those posts and presented them Gish gallop/firehose style. Do you think that is an honest representation?

Any skeptic would be insulted by her tweet. It's way beneath our evidentiary and argumentative standards. Yet here she is, along side of dozens of other mindless tweeters y'all keep throwing up. On a goddamned skeptics discussion thread. I remain shocked that you guys have gone blind to this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What if they don't have a penis and testicles, full beard, and male physique?

1) Any male who has gone through puberty will have a male physique; Even those who end up having their natural puberty artificially blocked will still develop male-typical hand and foot sizes, male pelvic bones, male musculature attachment points, and a male body type.

2) How exactly are we supposed to tell that they don't have a penis and testicles?

3) Why do you believe that females should not have a say in whether strange males have access to us when we're naked or vulnerable?

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you think any women get aroused when they dress up with full make-up, hair done, fancy and expensive dress with nice shoes?

It is very abnormal for women to get aroused by simply dressing up. Do some? Maybe. But some people have fetishes, so not exactly an argument against it being a fetish.

When they get all that attention and validation?

Getting aroused by attention and validation is fundamentally different than getting aroused by dressing up, even if dressing up is how one gets attention and validation.

Furthermore, while lots of women like attention and validation, that doesn't mean they get sexually aroused by it. Sexual arousal from attention sounds a lot like exhibitionism, and exhibitionism absolutely can be a fetish. Which, yes, some women have.

 

[Ziggurat]

What if they don't have a penis and testicles, full beard, and male physique?

I'm not sure why shaving makes males less of a potential threat to females.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not sure why shaving makes males less of a potential threat to females.

I think @Mycroft is still trying to figure out whether self-ID should be sufficient, or whether he should have transwomen jump through additional hoops to prove their sincerity and thus eligibility. And I think he's also trying to figure out if there are hoops that his interlocutors will deem acceptable, for judging sincerity.

---

Ironically, I think that telling a transwoman to cater to my feminine stereotypes - you don't dress/look/act feminine enough to count as a woman, try harder - is much more degrading than telling a transwoman they're still a man in every way that matters, and they should put more effort into learning to live with that fact. The latter seems much more honest and compassionate, to me.

ETA: There's just something gross to me about "cut off your dick and then we'll see".

 

[Thermal]

Ironically, I think that telling a transwoman to cater to my feminine stereotypes - you don't dress/look/act feminine enough to count as a woman, try harder - is much more degrading than telling a transwoman they're still a man in every way that matters, and they should put more effort into learning to live with that fact. The latter seems much more honest and compassionate, to me.

The former is judging your looks. That happens all the time by people of any proclivities. My wife tells me I look lousy in purple or red. it's no big deal.

The latter is devaluing their identity. My wife does not tell me that my core essence is factually wrong. That's always a more cutting thing to say.

ETA: There's just something gross to me about "cut off your dick and then we'll see".

Kind of a meta point on this thread, oddly.

 

[theprestige]

The former is judging your looks. That happens all the time by people of any proclivities. My wife tells me I look lousy in purple or red. it's no big deal.

The former is telling someone their identity doesn't count unless they conform to certain stereotypes, often through onerous and expensive processes that they cannot presently afford.

And telling someone they don't conform to a sexist stereotype is very different, and much ruder, than telling someone they don't look good in a particular color.

The latter is devaluing their identity. My wife does not tell me that my core essence is factually wrong. That's always a more cutting thing to say.

The latter is acknowledging the truth that regardless of their identity, they're still male, and will always be male. That may not be a truth they want to hear. However, I think it's possible to acknowledge and respect their identity, while also acknowledging and respecting their essential maleness, where essential maleness actually matters.

The former actually denies their identity, unless they perform certain tasks to your satisfaction.

Kind of a meta point on this thread, oddly.

Meta how? It's something Mycroft literally proposed today.

 

[Thermal]

The former is telling someone their identity doesn't count unless they conform to certain stereotypes, often through onerous and expensive processes that they cannot presently afford.

And telling someone they don't conform to a sexist stereotype is very different, and much ruder, than telling someone they don't look good in a particular color.

That's not how I'm reading it. If someone told me a shirt looked girly or wharever on me, I might say 'really?' and look at it again. If it was coming from someone who's opinion I cared about, anyway. From someone who's opinion I didn't care about, I really pay no mind to what they think about my looks, or if it conforms to 'what they think looks right'. It's very superficial.

The latter is acknowledging the truth that regardless of their identity, they're still male, and will always be male. That may not be a truth they want to hear. However, I think it's possible to acknowledge and respect their identity, while also acknowledging and respecting their essential maleness, where essential maleness actually matters.

Exactly. Their core identity, who and what they are. Not superficial.

The former actually denies their identity, unless they perform certain tasks to your satisfaction.

'You don't look manly like that" is worlds away from 'you are not a man at all'.

Meta how? It's something Mycroft literally proposed today.

He did. And this thread has expressed an obsession with men's dicks that is a bit unnerving. I've gone my whole life with never a thought about men's dicks. Every guy I met could be a eunuch for all I know. Their Johnson means dead zero to me in how we interact or relate to each other. Everything significant about being a man (to me, anyway) has nothing to do with their cocks.

 

[theprestige]

That's not how I'm reading it.

It's how you should read it, though. I know it's how you should read it, because that's the concept I'm trying to get across to you. Now that you've grasped the concept, it makes no sense to tell me that's not what I meant.

If someone told me a shirt looked girly or wharever on me, I might say 'really?' and look at it again. If it was coming from someone who's opinion I cared about, anyway. From someone who's opinion I didn't care about, I really pay no mind to what they think about my looks, or if it conforms to 'what they think looks right'. It's very superficial.

I'm not talking about telling someone their shirt looks girly. I'm talking about telling someone they don't look/dress/act "girly" enough to qualify as a transwoman for the purpose of receiving the benefits of transwomanhood. If trans identity is what's supposed to get men into women's prisons, then it absolutely denies their identity to tell them they can't be treated as women until they jump through certain hoops.

Exactly. Their core identity, who and what they are. Not superficial.

I agree. Nothing about my position assumes that their core identity is superficial.

'You don't look manly like that" is worlds away from 'you are not a man at all'.

True, but irrelevant.

 

[Thermal]

It's how you should read it, though. I know it's how you should read it, because that's the concept I'm trying to get across to you. Now that you've grasped the concept, it makes no sense to tell me that's not what I meant.

I'm not telling you what you meant. I'm telling you that the standard you are describing makes no sense to me.

Appearances are on a subjective spectrum. Whether you think someone looks like a man or a woman is a 'you' thing. I can't picture a way that superficial presentation is that important, and certainly not 'meaner' than denying someone's core identity.

Like, If I said I was Irish, and you opined that I don't look Irish to you, 'try harder', your words would equally not make sense. It would not be how I 'read them'. Certainly saying 'you are not Irish, and will never be. Get used to it' is far more cutting to the bone.