Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Matthew Best]

Are you Irish?

 

[Thermal]

The point of the whole goddamned thread is that we would not agree on what Irish is, sooooo....

 

[theprestige]

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

It's the standard Mycroft proposed: Access to trans privileges being conditioned on degree of conformance to some sexist stereotype or superficial emulation of phenotypes. I.e., denying a person's identity if they don't jump through hoops.

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 impostant, and certainly not 'meaner' than denying someone's core identity.

You're missing the context: We're talking about granting trans recognition as a matter of policy, but only to people who sufficiently conform to certain sexist stereotypes.

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'.

If you said you identified as a woman, and therefore should enjoy the entitlements of being a woman in our society, and I told you that you didn't look enough like a woman to qualify, that would be denying your identity.

On the other hand, if I told you you're entitled to do everything women do in our society, but you're still male for the purposes of sex segregation, that is not denying your identity.

Unless, of course, you're saying you identify as female. If that's the case, we're at an impasse. It's usually not a good idea to enable delusions. We don't treat schizophrenics by telling them they really are being gangstalked. We don't treat people with factitious disorder by telling them they really are getting sick. We shouldn't presume to treat gender dysphoria by telling people they really are female when they're not.

 

[theprestige]

The point of the whole goddamned thread is that we would not agree on what Irish is, sooooo....

The thread has nothing to do with the question of Irish identity.

The point of the whole goddamned thread is, males are not females no matter how trans they are, and what this means for trans rights in public policy.

 

[Thermal]

The thread has nothing to do with the question of Irish identity.

The point of the whole goddamned thread is, males are not females no matter how trans they are, and what this means for trans rights in public policy.

Male/Female is not the problem. Man/Woman is. That shade made this thread That Thread.

 

[theprestige]

Male/Female is not the problem. Man/Woman is.

LOL No. Man/woman is totally meaningless when decoupled from sex.

To the extent that man/woman matters at all, it's a solved problem: It's already illegal to discriminate against people because of their gender expression, whether in housing, employment, or any other area where equal rights legislation applies.

Every single point of contention about trans rights in public policy today is a contention about whether transgender identification entitles someone to transcend sex segregation.

And this thread became That Thread because far too many people on this forum thought trans privilege was a done deal, and then discovered to their horror that trans privilege is not supported by science, sociology, or public sentiment. And also then discovered that a lot of really anti-social and anti-humanitarian things were being done under the guise of trans rights and trans rights activism. Rather than grapple with these discoveries and refine their assumptions, most of these people decided to ignore the thread and reflexively hate anyone who didn't put their head in the sand alongside them.

 

[Thermal]

LOL No. Man/woman is totally meaningless when decoupled from sex.

Again with 'decoupled'. Nothing is 'decoupled'. They are just not mirror-image synonymous.

To the extent that man/woman matters at all, it's a solved problem: It's already illegal to discriminate against people because of their gender expression, whether in housing, employment, or any other area where equal rights legislation applies.

Agreed...

Every single point of contention about trans rights in public policy today is a contention about whether transgender identification entitles someone to transcend sex segregation.

No, no, a thousand times no. The argument is that there is no actual sex segregation, it's all gender based. As I said, I don't agree, but it doesn't change what the argument is.

And this thread became That Thread because far too many people on this forum thought trans privilege was a done deal, and then discovered to their horror that trans privilege is not supported by science, sociology, or public sentiment. And also then discovered that a lot of really anti-social and anti-humanitarian things were being done under the guise of trans rights and trans rights activism. Rather than grapple with these discoveries and refine their assumptions, most of these people decided to ignore the thread and reflexively hate anyone who didn't put their head in the sand alongside them.

That's another angle. In fairness, there are multiple angles which terminated in this thread becoming That Thread.

Right now, I'm resolved on sex segregation and the practical need for it. What got me arguing here is the assertion that the simple forms of address were even too much to expect.

 

[theprestige]

Again with 'decoupled'. Nothing is 'decoupled'. They are just not mirror-image synonymous.

I'm not saying they're mirror-image synonymous. I'm saying that gender gets its meaning from sex. Take sex out of the conversation, and what's left of gender is functionally meaningless.

Agreed...

No, no, a thousand times no. The argument is that there is no actual sex segregation, it's all gender based. As I said, I don't agree, but it doesn't change what the argument is.

The debate is between two opposing camps: One that holds that sex is not essential, but gender is, and one that holds the opposite.

I'm telling you, every outstanding question of trans rights in public policy is a question about sex segregation. Men in women's sports? Sex, not gender. Men in women's prisons? Sex, not gender. Etc.

The opposing camp may say things like women's sports are gender, not sex, and since gender is changeable by fiat self-ID, transwomen should be allowed to compete as women. By contrast, I'll say things like what they're actually talking about is sex, not gender, and things like, what actually matters to these issues is sex, not gender.

Also, I've been participating in this debate for years. I know what the arguments are. I've had to deal with them more than once.

That's another angle. In fairness, there are multiple angles which terminated in this thread becoming That Thread.

I won't argue the point.

Right now, I'm resolved on sex segregation and the practical need for it. What got me arguing here is the assertion that the simple forms of address were even too much to expect.

Yeah, you're kind of late to the party on that one. A lot of us started out assuming that respecting preferred pronouns were a reasonable courtesy (if not a moral obligation), and that the only real challenge was how to let transwomen into women's restrooms without resorting to "papers please" or fiat self-ID.

That was all years ago. Since then, as we've dived deeper into the issues, a lot of us have come to the conclusion that preferred pronouns are the orwellian tip of an insidious and anti-social iceberg. Preferred pronouns are also manifestly sex-denialist.

Anyway, if you're still wading out to us from the shallows, the sink or swim treatment you're getting probably comes as a bit of a shock.

I have a number of pointed questions that I'm irrationally convinced would help you get up to speed, even though they only ever seem to slow newcomers down. Look how quickly and completely Mycroft stalled out, when asked what rights he thinks transwomen should have in public policy, and how he would identify transwomen for policy purposes.

ETA: Also I tend to stand with Ziggurat when it comes to preferred pronouns. Tolerable as a courtesy, unacceptable as a right.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again with 'decoupled'. Nothing is 'decoupled'. They are just not mirror-image synonymous.

Somewhere upthread, can't find it at the moment, was a video titled something like "listening to transwomen". And it consisted entirely of reading quotes from transwomen, all with a rather consistent theme along the lines of "suck my lady dick". Granted these were cherry picked, but the people saying that stuff were absolutely trying to decouple "woman" from sex.

Right now, I'm resolved on sex segregation and the practical need for it. What got me arguing here is the assertion that the simple forms of address were even too much to expect.

There's a distinction here between what you can ask for as a courtesy and what you can demand as a right. The TRA's are trying to demand pronoun usage as a right. They have achieved that on this forum, they have achieved that in other contexts. I will absolutely push back against that, even though I'm usually willing to do so as a matter of courtesy.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not saying they're mirror-image synonymous. I'm saying that gender gets its meaning from sex. Take sex out of the conversation, and what's left of gender is functionally meaningless.

The debate is between two opposing camps: One that holds that sex is not essential, but gender is, and one that holds the opposite.

I'm telling you, every outstanding question of trans rights in public policy is a question about sex segregation. Men in women's sports? Sex, not gender. Men in women's prisons? Sex, not gender. Etc.

People being fired because they refused to use the preferred pronouns or "deadnaming"? Seems a live issue.

The opposing camp may say things like women's sports are gender, not sex, and since gender is changeable by fiat self-ID, transwomen should be allowed to compete as women. By contrast, I'll say things like what they're actually talking about is sex, not gender, and things like, what actually matters to these issues is sex, not gender.

Also, I've been participating in this debate for years. I know what the arguments are. I've had to deal with them more than once.

I won't argue the point.

Yeah, you're kind of late to the party on that one. A lot of us started out assuming that respecting preferred pronouns were a reasonable courtesy (if not a moral obligation), and that the only real challenge was how to let transwomen into women's restrooms without resorting to "papers please" or fiat self-ID.

That was all years ago. Since then, as we've dived deeper into the issues, a lot of us have come to the conclusion that preferred pronouns are the orwellian tip of an insidious and anti-social iceberg. Preferred pronouns are also manifestly sex-denialist.

I see you've come around to that. I've been arguing with others here, and note that they appear to have gone *checks notes* bat ◊◊◊◊ insane, and respond randomly with crazy ◊◊◊◊, and back off and retreat when called on it.

Anyway, if you're still wading out to us from the shallows, the sink or swim treatment you're getting probably comes as a bit of a shock.

What's shocking is that I ask a question about X and am responded to with some kind of zanty extrapolation that means nothing. The topic of AGP was recently brought up, which some are relying rather heavily on. A cursory fact check showed the thread's infatuation with this idea is wholesale bull ◊◊◊◊. It's entire reliance seems to hinge on Professor ◊◊◊◊ Saw's ever so measured acumen, which kind of no one else shares.

I have a number of pointed questions that I'm irrationally convinced would help you get up to speed, even though they only ever seem to slow newcomers down. Look how quickly and completely Mycroft stalled out, when asked what rights he thinks transwomen should have in public policy, and how he would identify transwomen for policy purposes.

ETA: Also I tend to stand with Ziggurat when it comes to preferred pronouns. Tolerable as a courtesy, unacceptable as a right.

'Tolerable'. You guys use that word a lot, and it had gotten so pointed I was going to bring it up a while back.Trans people are spoke of as having been tolerated, etc. I don't hear the term 'accepted' used by your team. Sometimes word choice conveys a lot.

 

[Thermal]

Somewhere upthread, can't find it at the moment, was a video titled something like "listening to transwomen". And it consisted entirely of reading quotes from transwomen, all with a rather consistent theme along the lines of "suck my lady dick". Granted these were cherry picked, but the people saying that stuff were absolutely trying to decouple "woman" from sex.

I commented on that too. Mary Kate Delvy. We both know we can pull tweets from flat earthers and moon landing deniers, too. How representative they are packs some punch. Judging by the whole by the most whacky handful you can find, well...

There's a distinction here between what you can ask for as a courtesy and what you can demand as a right. The TRA's are trying to demand pronoun usage as a right. They have achieved that on this forum, they have achieved that in other contexts. I will absolutely push back against that, even though I'm usually willing to do so as a matter of courtesy.

OK, agreed. No one has a right to being treated with a specific courtesy, per se. But surely being fired for being willfully discourteous, to the point where it creates a hostile workplace environment, is fair game for termination?

 

[theprestige]

People being fired because they refused to use the preferred pronouns or "deadnaming"? Seems a live issue.

Discriminating against someone because of their gender expression is illegal. That's why people get fired for doing it.

I see you've come around to that. I've been arguing with others here, and note that they appear to have gone *checks notes* bat ◊◊◊◊ insane, and respond randomly with crazy ◊◊◊◊, and back off and retreat when called on it.

What's shocking is that I ask a question about X and am responded to with some kind of zanty extrapolation that means nothing. The topic of AGP was recently brought up, which some are relying rather heavily on. A cursory fact check showed the thread's infatuation with this idea is wholesale bull ◊◊◊◊. It's entire reliance seems to hinge on Professor ◊◊◊◊ Saw's ever so measured acumen, which kind of no one else shares.

I have no opinion about any of that.

'Tolerable'. You guys use that word a lot, and it had gotten so pointed I was going to bring it up a while back.Trans people are spoke of as having been tolerated, etc. I don't hear the term 'accepted' used by your team. Sometimes word choice conveys a lot.

Hate the sin, not the sinner. I have no problem accepting trans people as individuals. I find the current slate of demands from trans rights activists, from preferred pronouns as a right to transcending sex segregation as a right, to be largely intolerable.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for trans folks. It seems like a lot of them don't even realize how much they've internalized the toxic narratives of trans rights activism. I don't hold it against my trans co-worker for insisting on preferred pronouns.

Sometimes word choice conveys nothing at all to someone who's already decided what people are talking about and what they really mean by it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I commented on that too. Mary Kate Delvy. We both know we can pull tweets from flat earthers and moon landing deniers, too. How representative they are packs some punch. Judging by the whole by the most whacky handful you can find, well...

We've had one participant in this thread who declared themself to be trans. They took the same position. I don't think it's as fringe as you seem to think it is.

OK, agreed. No one has a right to being treated with a specific courtesy, per se. But surely being fired for being willfully discourteous, to the point where it creates a hostile workplace environment, is fair game for termination?

That very much depends on the details.

 

[Hercules56]

I have a good compromise on a lot of these issues. Only men who have undergone reconstructive surgery to remove their testicles and penis, and hormone therapy to remove facial hair and grow boobs, aka transsexuals, should be allowed in women's bathrooms and locker rooms. But they cannot compete in women's sports because they still have the muscle and skeletal structure of a man.

If you still have a penis and testicles you do not belong in the women's locker room or shower or bathroom.

 

[Thermal]

We've had one participant in this thread who declared themself to be trans. They took the same position. I don't think it's as fringe as you seem to think it is.

Possible, of course. In meatspace I'm not hearing them, but surely possible. But like the impact of AGP, I think some hard data is better relied on.

That very much depends on the details.

Fair.

 

[Thermal]

I have a good compromise on a lot of these issues. Only men who have undergone reconstructive surgery to remove their testicles and penis, and hormone therapy to remove facial hair and grow boobs, aka transsexuals, should be allowed in women's bathrooms and locker rooms. But they cannot compete in women's sports because they still have the muscle and skeletal structure of a man.

If you still have a penis and testicles you do not belong in the women's locker room or shower or bathroom.

I thought this too, but it disadvantages the poor, who may not be able to afford the surgeries. Rights shouldn't only be for the wealthy.

 

[Ziggurat]

hormone therapy to remove facial hair and grow boobs

Hormone therapy doesn't remove facial hair. Once those hair follicles form, they don't disappear with the absence of testosterone or the presence of estrogen. You need laser hair removal to actually kill the follicles, and that's expensive.

This is an issue for females who go on hormone therapy but then try to detransition. They pick up facial hair from the testosterone, and then it doesn't go away when they stop.

 

[theprestige]

I have a good compromise on a lot of these issues. Only men who have undergone reconstructive surgery to remove their testicles and penis, and hormone therapy to remove facial hair and grow boobs, aka transsexuals, should be allowed in women's bathrooms and locker rooms.

Why? What is it about surgical womanface that transforms a male into a female, thus entitling them to transcend sex segregation?

But they cannot compete in women's sports because they still have the muscle and skeletal structure of a man.

Right, because they're still male.

And incidentally, the things that make it a bad idea for males to compete against females in sports, also make it a bad idea to admit males into safe spaces for females.

Not only that, but you're denying the gender identity of everyone who can't afford the drastic medical procedures necessary to achieve this level of womanface.

If you still have a penis and testicles you do not belong in the women's locker room or shower or bathroom.

By the time you get to chopping off the twigs and berries, you're already dealing with a male, and males don't belong in safe spaces for females, no matter how much they mutilate themselves.

 

[Hercules56]

I thought this too, but it disadvantages the poor, who may not be able to afford the surgeries. Rights shouldn't only be for the wealthy.

A man doesn't have a "right" to declare they have changed their sex and will now use the ladies bathroom/locker room/shower. Such a thing is a privilege. And society has the authority to make rules regarding this. Yes, sometimes life is not fair.

 

[Hercules56]

Why? What is it about surgical womanface that transforms a male into a female, thus entitling them to transcend sex segregation?

Right, because they're still male.

And incidentally, the things that make it a bad idea for males to compete against females in sports, also make it a bad idea to admit males into safe spaces for females.

Not only that, but you're denying the gender identity of everyone who can't afford the drastic medical procedures necessary to achieve this level of womanface.

By the time you get to chopping off the twigs and berries, you're already dealing with a male, and males don't belong in safe spaces for females, no matter how much they mutilate themselves.

Dont have to worry about rape if they have cut off the banana.