Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

Why do you think trans identified men shouldn't be entitled to transcend sex segregation boundaries?

We already know you reject AGP as a justification. What rational justification do you adhere to?

Sorry man, I'm not in a position to discuss unaggressively right now, and am primed to say things I shouldn't. Gonna take a cool down.

 

[smartcooky]

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

Nor do I. His more recent postings have been all over the place like a madman's feces!

I can't decide whether his shtick is bothsidesism, whataboutism, playing some perverted form of devil's advocate, or some combination of all three.

 

[Elaedith]

I have already criticized it. Don't tell me: you didn't understand? Allow me to repeat: it contains no information that is externally supported (beyond a few tangential links to other studies) and makes factually wrong statements about AGP. One that I recall was the authors saying they didn't know how many trans people were affected by it, but they kinda thought it was 75% (no citation, of course). All the other research indicates 1-3%.

This is complete nonsense. The model of autogynephlia developed by Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence postulates that all transwomen who are gynephilic are autogynephlic. Estimates of transwomen who are attracted to females in countries like the US and UK are generally around at least 70-75%. You can disagree with the theory, but you have not shown any evidence that it is factually incorrect. The claim you made about prevalence being 1-3% accompanies a link to a paper by Lawrence who supports Blanchard's model. The paper does not support your claim.
"How many of these MtF transsexuals are nonhomosexual and thus putatively autogynephilic? Currently, well over half of MtF transsexuals in Western countries are nonhomosexual [37], but the percentage varies from country to country. In one recent study [38], about 83% of MtF transsexuals in Belgium and 62% in the Netherlands were nonhomosexual. Comparable percentages in the UK and USA are about 80 and 90%, respectively [37]." (p145)

Lawrence, A. A. (2011). Autogynephilia: An underappreciated paraphilia. Advances in psychosomatic medicine, 31, 135-148.

 

[smartcooky]

Four ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pages ago:





Because the highlighted word was a typo, it obviously should have been "females."

Which no one noticed or corrected, instead going on for literal pages of mutual accusations of deliberate obfuscation or incomprehension.

Bartender, another round of poor communication, for the house!

My bad. Thanks for picking that up... I hadn't noticed the mistake.

 

[smartcooky]

No no no no! That's one way it might have made sense. Or it might have been the intended word, and another word or two might have been the wrong ones. Only the author can clarify. He refused.

No one noticed or corrected? Really? I noticed, and called specific attention to it twice, and the knucklehead still couldn't figure it out, instead blaming me for copping out instead of reading his own "facts".

I feel like I communicated as clearly as could be. I isolated the meaningless "facts", and pointed out it made no sense. The response given was snottiness, by the guy that can't read.

You didn't highlight my error, so I thought you were referring to the whole post. You were critical of Rolfe earlier for not being able to master the quote function, perhaps you need learn how to use the hilite fuction or at least the bold text function so that people understand what the ◊◊◊◊ you are talking about.

Oh, and stop calling people liars and rude names!

 

[zooterkin]

Can we tone down the bickering, please, and concentrate on the issues. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Thermal]

Nvm, needlessly confrontational

 

[Thermal]

You didn't highlight my error, so I thought you were referring to the whole post. You were critical of Rolfe earlier for not being able to master the quote function, perhaps you need learn how to use the hilite fuction or at least the bold text function so that people understand what the ◊◊◊◊ you are talking about.

Liar. I isolated the nonsensical postings for you. Need yet another reminder? Here ya go:

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

Go ahead, click the arrow. I isolated the nonsense "facts" right in the post

 

[Thermal]

Sorry to mods and the thread. I'll back off and keep my promise to theprestige and chill for a bit. Can't speak for others, of course.

 

[Rolfe]

You didn't highlight my error, so I thought you were referring to the whole post. You were critical of Rolfe earlier for not being able to master the quote function, perhaps you need learn how to use the hilite fuction or at least the bold text function so that people understand what the ◊◊◊◊ you are talking about.

Oh, and stop calling people liars and rude names!

I'm perfectly fine with the quote function, thanks.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm perfectly fine with the quote function, thanks.

Yup, I know that.

 

[smartcooky]

Liar. I isolated the nonsensical postings for you. Need yet another reminder? Here ya go:

Go ahead, click the arrow. I isolated the nonsense "facts" right in the post

Not enough. This new forum only shows the first part of any quoted post, not the whole post like the old forom did. I thought you were criticizing the whole post. My mistake.

Also, you could have PM'd me and told me you thought I made a mistake.

 

[Rolfe]

Interesting discrepancy in that Bailey/Blanchard article. They state that AGP first manifests at or after puberty and tends to be gradual in onset, but may be perceived by the family to be sudden as the young man often hides it (presumably due to embarrassment and shame). I've heard this quite a lot. If a little boy is gender nonconforming and goes on to form a trans identity he's HSTS, whereas a normal boyish boy who comes out as trans after puberty is AGP. The accounts by AGP men of having a fetish for their mother's stockings or whatever from a young age are usually dismissed as retconning and lying, to justify their transness as going back to childhood and therefore not being a sexual fetish.

However, I just heard another one on Twitter, two middle-aged AGP men reminiscing about sneaking to put on their mothers' underwear or their sisters' bathing costume when they were very little.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1908282492504703273

This is quite common, and Anne Lawrence himself is one of the most vocal about it, talking about covertly wearing his mother's clothes almost as long as he remembers. (Where that train of thought goes is not pleasant, and vividly illustrates just why so many of these men have such an active interest in promoting the concept of the "trans child" and the use of puberty blockers.)

I don't think it's reasonable simply to dismiss all this as lying. (Although I'm not aware of any reports of little boys being caught in their mum's underwear, so I keep an open mind. Maybe they're really good at not getting caught.) I think it's possible these men's fetish may really go back to childhood in some cases, rather than first manifesting at puberty.

The really striking difference between the accounts of the presumed HSTS little boys and these claimed AGP manifestations in childhood is the behaviour. The classic gender nonconforming little boy isn't trying to hide anything. He wants the sparkly bathing costume and the princess costume and the pink shoes. He lets everyone know, and gets upset if his parents try to tell him that these things are for girls, not for boys. He wants to go to school in the Disney princess outfit. These AGP men are describing something quite different. Rather than age-appropriate girly clothes worn in public, these boys know instinctively that their compulsion is shameful and they're embarrassed by it, in a way the HSTS boys are not. They home in on adolescent or adult women's clothing, often tights or underwear. (Richard Wagner was doing it with his sisters' theatrical costumes, though I'm not quite sure just how little he was at that point, and look how that developed.)

It can't be that the AGP boys have been shamed into feeling that their compulsion is shameful; nobody has seen them or commented on it. Whereas people do see the HSTS boys and scold them to get them to stop, but that doesn't faze them. This is all consistent with the observation that boys who come out as AGP trans in later life were normal boyish boys in childhood. The fetish compulsion is always hidden. It's not a part of their normal life of football and climbing trees and building meccano sets.

So I suspect that as more work is done on this it won't so much be the actual age of onset that's the distinguishing factor as the different behaviour. Open insistence on wearing sparkly little-girl princess dresses with no sense of shame, or covert dressing in older women's underwear, with a very pronounced sense of shame. (Although I couldn't discount the lying theory, obviously.) If this is true, what is it that drives that fetish behaviour (or pre-fetish) in such young boys?

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Your problem is with self-ID? Then they must commit to the gender change and not just declare it.

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.

If they’re males or not is what the fundamental argument it. I think trans-women should be considered to be women. You don’t.

The typical man is not a s

exual predator. And yet, we don’t allow men into women’s bathrooms. Why not?

I often wonder at the sex segregation in single toilet bathrooms. Why bother? Doctor’s offices, coffee shops, restaurants...all should reconsider.

In places with larger bathrooms, Costcos and such, there is enough traffic to not worry about sex predators.

Because not everyone is typical.

We don’t treat people as criminals just because they belong to a group.

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.

I disagree with your assessment. You put too much weight on your ability to see all the different possibilities.

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

I think making trans-women use men's bathrooms is more about making trans-people feel uncomfortable being out in public than protecting anyone’s safety.

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.

Like fixing rape in prisons. If safety is the concern, that’s what we should do.

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?

Because the women in my life don’t feel unsafe sharing bathrooms with trans-women. I’ve asked. Maybe it’s because the women in my life tend to be more liberal.

...Knock that ◊◊◊◊ off right now.

Lol!

I will continue to represent my point of view. I don’t need your approval.

 

[angrysoba]

I have a feeling that the conversation is about to take on a certain Groundhog-Day vibe.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

My interlocutors?

 

[Mycroft]

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

I copied the phrasing from Emilie's Cat, so ask them.

 

[angrysoba]

At this point we have two very dug-in groups that have both become more radical than they started with and an idea that compromise is capitulation.

For me, I have seen enough persuasive evidence that youth gender medicine is not evidence-based medicine. That’s thanks to the Cass Report. I also agree that sport should largely be sex-segregated although it is less important with some sports or certain levels of sports so a blanket ban by governments is wrong. These should be determined by the governing bodies of the sports in question.

I think some of the explanations for transgenderism such as trauma sound a bit wacky. Especially when attached to a Freudian theory. I did recently hear an episode of Blocked and Reported where they were talking about a “trans youth” who was wearing a towel on his head to say it was long hair and Jesse Singal remarked that that was a “classic sign”. I was wondering what that means here, whether children actually do this as part of insisting they were the opposite sex. I know that a lot of people have opinions about this being a kind of “vegan cat” thing but with the vegan cat, the cat will eat meat if offered. And much of the issues causing problems here come from children who act trans away from their parents.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

I don't remember proposing that. Maybe you extrapolated from something I said?

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.

I believe the awkwardness of that is why trans-advocates prefer self-dentification. You object to self-identification, so what would you propose?

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.

It seems like it is to me.

 

[Mycroft]

You don't understand why we have sex segregation. You have no business calling for it to be dismantled.

If you consider trans-women to be women, then you're not dismantling sex segregation by allowing them into women's spaces.