Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

If you consider trans-women to be women,

"If."

Let's put this in terms that have concrete, practical meaning:

In your opinion, why should I consider biological males to be biological females?

 

[theprestige]

It's hard and messy, so we have no choice but to treat trans-women as men and trans-men as women.

Aside from matters relating to sex segregation, what does it mean to treat a trans-woman as a woman?

 

[Rolfe]

It's hard and messy, so we have no choice but to treat trans-women as men and trans-men as women.

It's not that hard and messy. You are the sex you are. You can handle that however you like, but when it comes to sex-segregated situations, you do NOT get a pass into the other sex's space. That's it.

 

[theprestige]

A lot of civil rights issues are an attempt to change culture.

Women's rights? The cultural value is for women to stay home, keep the house have have and take care of children. Normalizing women having careers was hard and took generations.

Gay rights? Being gay is disgusting! But over time perceptions were changed and it's not so disgusting anymore. That took a lot of hard work.

Being trans doesn't make a person a dangerous predator, but it will take time to change these perceptions.

Being trans is no more like being a woman or being gay than being schizophrenic or bipolar is like being a woman or being gay.

And while being trans doesn't make a person a dangerous predator, it's clear that the public policies currently advocated by trans rights activists are ripe for exploitation by predators, and have been so exploited, repeatedly. It's also clear that this increased risk comes at no real benefit to transwomen or women, and has no real basis in medicine or sociology.

So if you're going to make the argument that trans rights are human rights, you have to do better than analogy to women and homosexuals. You have to be specific about which trans right you're talking about exactly, and clear about why it is a right we should uphold in public policy.

 

[Elaedith]

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

You are dismantling sex segregation by allowing males into female spaces. There is no way to distinguish self-identified transwomen from any other males. Allowing self-identified transwomen into female spaces mean allowing any males into female spaces, and removing the right of women to object to any males in female spaces.

 

[Rolfe]

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of forum rules

I said right up front that I was unfamiliar with this and asked posters here about it. Their answers were so off the wall that I breezed over the available literature, and found that no one supports our esteemed fellow members views on AGP, save a handful of literal ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ nazis using their "hunches" (the justification used in Rolfes letter) to saddle mild and benign AGP as a paraphila alongside necrophilia and bestiality . Imagine my surprise. So yeah, congrats on getting up to speed that I acknowledged upfront that I am not familiar with this, and was asking. What I was not asking for is a hard core bigoted interpretation that is not shared with the larger community.

Jesus ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ christ, you are openly and unapologetically defending the literal nazis. Gotta sign off.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of forum rules

You are getting spectacularly worked up and emotional about this. One might wonder why.

AGP is a paraphilia, as these things are defined. It's up there with a shoe fetish if you like. (Maybe a shoe fetish is a form of AGP, it always seems to be women's shoes after all.) What is "mild and benign" AGP? I'm sure it exists, but it's arguable that this is more a function of the affected man being capable of handling it without screwing up either his life or other people's. There are plenty of cases where lives are definitely screwed up, you might google "trans widows".

This reminds me of the people going screaming bananas when (male) circumcision is correctly described as a mutilation. It is a mutilation. So is having your ears pierced. The term is descriptive, not judgmental.

Blanchard seems keen on reclassifying AGP as a sexual orientation. Personally, I think he can shove that idea where the sun don't shine; these people are being given quite enough leeway as it is, mainly through trying to piggyback on the rights won by LGB people, and that sounds like a way to turbo-charge that. But Blanchard has always been all about molly-coddling his patients, and to hell with any damage that does to women as a whole.

What does make me a bit uncomfortable about some of the rhetoric surrounding this is the tendency to accuse anyone with AGP of being a pervert. It seems harsh to pillory someone for something they can't help. If they can deal with it without harming themselves or anyone else, why stigmatise them? Although it's true that people do instinctively recognise that a man dressing in women's clothes is in itself inherently shameful in some way. Even the young boys who are pinching their mum's knickers know it's shameful, even though nobody will have told them that, and nobody even knows what they're doing.

So buy your own female clothing, don't steal, and keep your cross-dressing between consenting adults in private, and I personally won't condemn anyone for that. (It's exactly what Wagner did though, with the other consenting adult apparently being one of his servants, and people still snigger and point and laugh.) Unfortunately lots of men aren't prepared to confine themselves to that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Aside from matters relating to sex segregation, what does it mean to treat a trans-woman as a woman?

I don't think I've heard him define transwoman either. That's not a trivial question. It makes a difference whether we're going by self-ID, some sort of professional diagnosis, or actual surgery. He seems to want self-ID, but I don't recall him stating explicitly.

 

[Thermal]

You are getting spectacularly worked up and emotional about this. One might wonder why.

Honest answer (although I have been saying I need to bail from this for quite a while now):

I'm an American. We have a little problem going on in the States regarding how long we have let our nazis go unchecked. You might have heard about it. The cowardly pieces of ◊◊◊◊ don't get any more Paradox of Tolerance goodwill. They are the enemy. Zero tolerance.

Also, 'spectaculartly worked up and emotional'? This is as docile as I get, Baba Louis. You and the good Mr Best are confusing having a steady pulse with crash cart level cardiac arrest.

AGP is a paraphilia, as these things are defined.

Only by your letter authors and Lawrence, though. The rest of the relevant communities do not agree. As noted upthread, AGP is considered a mild trait, not a papaphilia or fetish or anything else.

{ETA: since I don't feel like arguing about it, here is the APA definition for paraphilia and a listing. AGP and any of its pseudonyms do not appear.

https://dictionary.apa.org/paraphilia }

It's up there with a shoe fetish if you like. (Maybe a shoe fetish is a form of AGP, it always seems to be women's shoes after all.) What is "mild and benign" AGP? I'm sure it exists, but it's arguable that this is more a function of the affected man being capable of handling it without screwing up either his life or other people's. There are plenty of cases where lives are definitely screwed up, you might google "trans widows".

AGP is a thought or self image of ones self as a woman that is sexually arousing. That's it, in the relevant literature. It's nothing, but is obviously something that someone with an actual disorder (transvestic , specifically) would have as a precouser, which follows pretty naturally.

This reminds me of the people going screaming bananas when (male) circumcision is correctly described as a mutilation. It is a mutilation. So is having your ears pierced. The term is descriptive, not judgmental.

Yes, obviously. Mutilation is to mutilate, even if you wouldn't normally think of it that way because of the negative associations with the word.

Blanchard seems keen on reclassifying AGP as a sexual orientation. Personally, I think he can shove that idea where the sun don't shine; these people are being given quite enough leeway as it is, mainly through trying to piggyback on the rights won by LGB people, and that sounds like a way to turbo-charge that. But Blanchard has always been all about molly-coddling his patients, and to hell with any damage that does to women as a whole.

Both Blanchard and Bailey have in fact been blasted and investigated for poor treatment of their subjects.

What does make me a bit uncomfortable about some of the rhetoric surrounding this is the tendency to accuse anyone with AGP of being a pervert. It seems harsh to pillory someone for something they can't help. If they can deal with it without harming themselves or anyone else, why stigmatise them?

Agreed.

Although it's true that people do instinctively recognise that a man dressing in women's clothes is in itself inherently shameful in some way. Even the young boys who are pinching their mum's knickers know it's shameful, even though nobody will have told them that, and nobody even knows what they're doing.

Again, agreed. With all the various role playing that is accepted society wide, I don't get the shaming for such a harmless play either.

So buy your own female clothing, don't steal, and keep your cross-dressing between consenting adults in private, and I personally won't condemn anyone for that. (It's exactly what Wagner did though, with the other consenting adult apparently being one of his servants, and people still snigger and point and laugh.) Unfortunately lots of men aren't prepared to confine themselves to that.

Agreed. Back to AGP: the bulk of the literature is composed by the three musketeers mentioned. Why do you suppose no one else is finding similar patterns? Their work has been around for decades, yet doesn't gain traction. They have little evidence themselves (in the article posted upthread, they freely admit they are working with little to no data, and rely strongly on "hunches" to borrow their descriptor).

Why should their postulates be accepted at all?

 

[Mycroft]

You are dismantling sex segregation by allowing males into female spaces. ...

This thread is just too long and moves to fast to deal with the same statements made over and over again.

If you consider trans-women to be women then allowing them into women's bathrooms is not sex segregation.

 

[Mycroft]

Being trans is no more like being a woman or being gay than being schizophrenic or bipolar is like being a woman or being gay.

That's your opinion. I don't share it.

It seems clear to me that trans-people are born trans, just like gay people. And just like gay people, it wasn't that long ago that gay people were told being gay was a choice and they had the same rights as hetero people because they could participate in hetero marriages.

 

[Elaedith]

This thread is just too long and moves to fast to deal with the same statements made over and over again.

If you consider trans-women to be women then allowing them into women's bathrooms is not sex segregation.

I assume you meant to say 'is not dismantling sex segregation'. And you have never dealt with this; you have no answer. You cannot allow some males who are indistinguishable from other males into female spaces without allowing any and all males into female spaces.

 

[Mycroft]

It's not that hard and messy. You are the sex you are. You can handle that however you like, but when it comes to sex-segregated situations, you do NOT get a pass into the other sex's space. That's it.

I suppose it isn't hard or messy for you to have it your way. It would be hard and messy for the trans-person who needs to use a public bathroom.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't think I've heard him define transwoman either. That's not a trivial question. It makes a difference whether we're going by self-ID, some sort of professional diagnosis, or actual surgery. He seems to want self-ID, but I don't recall him stating explicitly.

I can see how self-ID can be problematic. It's weird that nobody else who doesn't like it can come up with an acceptable alternative other than treating trans-women as men and vice-versa.

 

[Mycroft]

I assume you meant to say 'is not dismantling sex segregation'. And you have never dealt with this; you have no answer. You cannot allow some males who are indistinguishable from other males into female spaces without allowing any and all males into female spaces.

I think a male who presents as a cis-male would have the same problems entering a female space either way.

 

[Elaedith]

I can see how self-ID can be problematic. It's weird that nobody else who doesn't like it can come up with an acceptable alternative other than treating trans-women as men and vice-versa.

It's weird how people who think we have to segregate spaces by gender identity rather than sex and that not doing so is like saying gay people can't marry somebody of the same sex, seem totally unconcerned about the fact that there are now apparently 72 or more 'valid gender identities'. How do we accommodate people who identify as moon gender, let alone non-binary?

 

[Elaedith]

I think a male who presents as a cis-male would have the same problems entering a female space either way.

I don't understand. Are you saying that if a male who 'presents as a cis male' enters a female changing room, women who are undressing there should be allowed to object to this, or should they not be allowed to?

 

[Mycroft]

I don't understand. Are you saying that if a male who 'presents as a cis male' enters a female changing room, women who are undressing there should be allowed to object to this, or should they not be allowed to?

I don't think it's a matter of being allowed to or not. Would you be stopped by some policy or law?

 

[Mycroft]

It's weird how people who think we have to segregate spaces by gender identity rather than sex and that not doing so is like saying gay people can't marry somebody of the same sex, seem totally unconcerned about the fact that there are now apparently 72 or more 'valid gender identities'. How do we accommodate people who identify as moon gender, let alone non-binary?

Just because an individual's sex identity can be complex and messy and some people have tried to categorize that messiness, doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and declare a policy can't be made.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can see how self-ID can be problematic.

That's an understatement. How about, self ID is completely unworkable, and should never even be considered.

It's weird that nobody else who doesn't like it can come up with an acceptable alternative other than treating trans-women as men and vice-versa.

Most of the time, I don't need to treat anyone as male or female, only as a person. It's only under a set of specific circumstances does the difference even matter. So how would I handle those situations if it were up to me?

For sports, all transwomen are male, all transmen are female. Sex segregation should generally be handles with a female-only category (no transwomen allowed, transmen allowed if they aren't disqualified for testosterone use), and with an open category (anyone of any sex can enter) which will end up being primarily male.

For access to female-only spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms, transwomen should only ever attempt to enter female spaces if they can reasonably pass at a distance. Moreover, the females in those spaces should be allowed to gatekeep as they see fit. This is how it used to be. Transmen are welcome in male spaces, they don't seem to cause problems.

For prisons, no male with a penis should ever be housed with females, even with hormone treatment. No male with any criminal sexual misconduct history should ever be housed with females either, regardless of surgical status. I'm OK with case-by-case evaluations of transwomen who have fully medically transitioned being housed with females, provided they don't share a room with a female prisoner. But the best solution would just be to make a third category of housing.

What would you do differently, and why?

 

[Ziggurat]

Just because an individual's sex identity can be complex and messy

Sex identity is almost never messy, not even in most "intersex" cases. Gender identity can be, but I don't really care about anyone's gender identity.