Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Elaedith]

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

Obviously, yes. If policy and law say that any male who identifies as a woman can enter a female space, the policy is saying that I have to assume that any male coming into a female space is actually a woman. Therefore I cannot object to any male coming into a female space without risking being accused of discrimination and possibly a hate crime.

 

[Elaedith]

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.

Feel free to declare a policy for using spaces to validate 72 different gender identities. For some reason, only getting transwomen into female spaces actually seems to matter.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

It seems clear to me that trans-people are born trans, just like gay people.

Why on earth is that clear to you? It shouldn't be, because it's not true in general even if it's true in some cases. For plenty of transpeople, there is zero indication (even to themselves) of any trans identity from birth.

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.

I don't know about "choice", but I do know that detransitioning is a real thing, and I don't think you've come to terms with that reality. Yes, people used to think you could stop being gay, and experience has shown that doesn't work. Sexual orientation really does seem to be fixed. But some people really do stop being trans. For at least a subset of transpeople, their trans identity isn't fixed at all. If you can't account for the transpeople who detransition, then you don't actually have a handle on the issue.

 

[theprestige]

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

I think maybe you do. Or would, if you thought about it a bit more.

It seems clear to me that trans-people are born trans, just like gay people.

It's not clear to me that people are born with gender dysphoria, but I'll stipulate it for the sake of argument.

Normalizing homosexuality as a healthy behavior in humans didn't lead us to normalize schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or factitious disorder. Nothing I've learned about the subject in the past five years leads me to believe it should normalize gender dysphoria, let alone normalizing the delusion that you're biologically female when you're not.

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.

What rights do transwomen currently lack, that are enjoyed by other people?

The right to not be discriminated against because of gender expression is already enshrined in law. The right to have sex with any consenting adult is already well-established.

But we've reached the point where you need to be more clear about what you're trying to talk about. Are you talking about "trans" as in gender expression (attire, behavior, etc.)? Or are you talking about "trans" as in biological sex identity?

 

[Aber]

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


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

This is where the thread started, with some arguing that transgender was the next battle for civil rights with transgender people as an oppressed minority, and a reliance on "experts" who wrote the medical definitions. This still seems to be the position of a large part of the Democratic party.

The debate on here has clarified that the civils rights argument by analogy does not work when considering real circumstances, and that "experts" were relying on opinion, not evidence.

 

[Mycroft]

Feel free to declare a policy for using spaces to validate 72 different gender identities. For some reason, only getting transwomen into female spaces actually seems to matter.

Why would I need to do that? It's a straw-man you put forth. If you want to argue for or against it, go for it.

Obviously, yes. If policy and law say that any male who identifies as a woman can enter a female space, the policy is saying that I have to assume that any male coming into a female space is actually a woman. Therefore I cannot object to any male coming into a female space without risking being accused of discrimination and possibly a hate crime.

I would have expected you to have stronger feelings about it, but if all it takes is a policy to quell you, then I wonder why your feelings are strong enough to argue at all.

 

[Elaedith]

Why would I need to do that? It's a straw-man you put forth. If you want to argue for or against it, go for it.

It's not a straw man. You are arguing that spaces traditionally segregated based on sex should be segregated by gender identity instead, and that failing to do so is analogous to saying gay people have to marry somebody of the opposite sex. But you apparently don't care at all about people who don't identify as men or women. Therefore, I think you are engaging in lazy thinking because it makes you feel satisfied and morally superior.

I would have expected you to have stronger feelings about it, but if all it takes is a policy to quell you, then I wonder why your feelings are strong enough to argue at all.

Are you saying that if somebody passes a policy saying that males who identify as women can enter female spaces, I should just ignore it and object if a male enters a space? If I object I'm a bigot, but if I don't object then it's my fault for not having strong enough feelings?

 

[Mycroft]

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.

That's true for cis-people.

Why on earth is that clear to you?

It stems from my preferences for individual freedom.

It shouldn't be, because it's not true in general even if it's true in some cases. For plenty of transpeople, there is zero indication (even to themselves) of any trans identity from birth.

And this matters why?

You admit some people feel this way at birth, but what difference should it make if the feelings don't come along until their 50's?

I don't know about "choice", but I do know that detransitioning is a real thing, and I don't think you've come to terms with that reality. Yes, people used to think you could stop being gay, and experience has shown that doesn't work. Sexual orientation really does seem to be fixed. But some people really do stop being trans. For at least a subset of transpeople, their trans identity isn't fixed at all. If you can't account for the transpeople who detransition, then you don't actually have a handle on the issue.

What about the reality of detransitioning do I need to come to terms with?

People who are gay may not stop being gay (yet some report they do) but sudden onset gayness in someone who is middle-aged or older is a real thing. It doesn't really change anything, does it?

 

[Mycroft]

I think maybe you do. Or would, if you thought about it a bit more.

Or you might come over to my opinion if you were to think about it more. Stop being arrogant and either make your case or don't.

It's not clear to me that people are born with gender dysphoria, but I'll stipulate it for the sake of argument.

It's not really your call, is it? It's more a consensus of the medical profession.

Normalizing homosexuality as a healthy behavior in humans didn't lead us to normalize schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or factitious disorder. Nothing I've learned about the subject in the past five years leads me to believe it should normalize gender dysphoria, let alone normalizing the delusion that you're biologically female when you're not.

Trans-people exist. I think trans should be normalized for that reason alone.

What rights do transwomen currently lack, that are enjoyed by other people?

The right to use the public bathroom that matches their gender identity.

But we've reached the point where you need to be more clear about what you're trying to talk about. Are you talking about "trans" as in gender expression (attire, behavior, etc.)? Or are you talking about "trans" as in biological sex identity?

Why is the distinction important to you?

 

[smartcooky]

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.

 

[Mycroft]

You don't like self-identification.

There is an infinite number of possibilities between self-identification and treating transwomen as men. Just because you think one extreme is unworkable doesn't mean we have to default to the other extreme.

 

[Thermal]

---

You don't like self-identification.

There is an infinite number of possibilities between self-identification and treating transwomen as men. Just because you think one extreme is unworkable doesn't mean we have to default to the other extreme.

Yeah baby. That's where I keep wrestling around. How though?

I want a trans person to feel normal and included and all, just like me or you or anyone else. But there's legit pervs out there that will abuse this as a loophole. That's a real threat has to be taken seriously. We know, factually, that it happens. It's not a speculation.

 

[smartcooky]

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?

The solution is simple.... (and posters like Mycroft and Thermal will probably object)

Firstly, as a matter of public policy, in interactions with government

- Government legally defines that Biological Sex ≠ Gender.
- Government legally defines that "man/men/male" means biological males, and "woman/women/female" means biological females.
- Collection of information on biological sex is compulsory, while collection of gender information is optional. For example, a driver's licence, passport, ID card etc must show the holder's biological sex, but the holder may also opt to have a line that shows their gender.

Then, we do exactly what we have done for the last several hundred years... segregate spaces on the basis of biological sex alone.

- Return to the situation in which facilities for biological males are physically separate from facilities for biological females.
- When females declare a space, a club, an organization to be for females only, males cannot enter without invitation (and vice versa).
- Special safe spaces such as rape crisis centres, and domestic abuse shelters are separate for each biological sex.


As for sports organizations, they should be allowed make their own decisions regarding participation of males and females in combined sports, but...
- Must have available, segregated changing facilites and bathrooms.
- Must face no legal repercussions if they decide to segregate their competitions.
- Must not sanction, disadvantage, intimidate or punish in any way those who refuse to compete against opponents whose biological sex is not the same as theirs.

 

[smartcooky]

You don't like self-identification.

There is an infinite number of possibilities between self-identification and treating transwomen as men. Just because you think one extreme is unworkable doesn't mean we have to default to the other extreme.

Its not just a matter of "treating transwomen as men"... they ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ well ARE men - they are biologically male. This is objective, observable reality. Its a provable, scientific fact... and facts are stubborn things... they won't just go away if you find them inconvenient to your narrative, and they don't care about your feelings.

Whether they are self ID or have undergone the full gamut of gender assignment surgery or anything in between, transwomen are transgender identified males, they are biologically male - always have been, and always will be. There are absolutley NO criteria by which a transwoman can become biologically female. None whatsoever!!

 

[Thermal]

The solution is simple.... (and posters like Mycroft and Thermal will probably object)

Firstly, as a matter of public policy, in interactions with government

- Government legally defines that Biological Sex ≠ Gender.
- Government legally defines that "man/men/male" means biological males, and "woman/women/female" means biological females.
- Collection of information on biological sex is compulsory, while collection of gender information is optional. For example, a driver's licence, passport, ID card etc must show the holder's biological sex, but the holder may also opt to have a line that shows their gender.

Then, we do exactly what we have done for the last several hundred years... segregate spaces on the basis of biological sex alone.

- Return to the situation in which facilities for biological males are physically separate from facilities for biological females.
- When females declare a space, a club, an organization to be for females only, males cannot enter without invitation (and vice versa).
- Special safe spaces such as rape crisis centres, and domestic abuse shelters are separate for each biological sex.


As for sports organizations, they should be allowed make their own decisions regarding participation of males and females in combined sports, but...
- Must have available, segregated changing facilites and bathrooms.
- Must face no legal repercussions if they decide to segregate their competitions.
- Must not sanction, disadvantage, intimidate or punish in any way those who refuse to compete against opponents whose biological sex is not the same as theirs.

It would save a lot of typing to just say "◊◊◊◊ off tranny".

Your proposed solutions do nothing for trans people other than legally codify that they are not accepted. Who cares if they have a check box for gender on a driver's license? It does nothing meaningful, when in practice its a resounding "FY, you dont belong". Really not helpful. We are trying to find a way to thread that needle a little less one-sidedly.

 

[smartcooky]

It would save a lot of typing to just say "◊◊◊◊ off tranny".

Your proposed solutions do nothing for trans people other than legally codify that they are not accepted. Who cares if they have a check box fot gender on a driverrs license? It does nothing meaningful, when in practice its a resounding "FY, you dont belong". Really not helpful. We are trying to find a way to thread that needle a little less one-sidedly.

No, that doesn't mean they are not entitled to exist. They should be entitled to housing, benefits, to love who they choose to love, to suffer no discrimination in employment just like any other people. They should be entitled to be who they are, but what they should not be entitled to is have additional benefits and privileges over and above others, at the expense of others.

For example, we don't grant males the rights to enter a rape crisis centres, or a women refuge because of the risk of re-traumatizing the victims within. Correct? That being the case, why should we grant a transwoman (who is also a male) the right to enter? If you think they should, then I suggest you look up Mridul Wadhwa and the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre to find out why you are wrong.

 

[Thermal]

No, that doesn't mean they are not entitled to exist. They should be entitled to housing, benefits, to love who they choose to love, to suffer no discriminations in employment. They should be entitled to be who they are, What they should not be entitled to is to have additional benefits and privileges over and above others, at the expense of others.

They are not asking for additional privileges. Just like you and I can go to a bathroom that feels right to us (without being subjected to a genital inspection), they would like to have that same right/privilege.

I'm not even disagreeing that that has to be the endgame solution; it more or less does. But I'm saying it with regret and resignation, not your unbridled glee and arrogance about it being "scientific fact".

 

[Thermal]

No, that doesn't mean they are not entitled to exist. They should be entitled to housing, benefits, to love who they choose to love, to suffer no discrimination in employment just like any other people. They should be entitled to be who they are, but what they should not be entitled to is have additional benefits and privileges over and above others, at the expense of others.

For example, we don't grant males the rights to enter a rape crisis centres, or a women refuge because of the risk of re-traumatizing the victims within. Correct? That being the case, why should we grant a transwoman (who is also a male) the right to enter? If you think they should, then I suggest you look up Mridul Wadhwa and the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre to find out why you are wrong.

And a raped transwoman who is passably feminine, and looks to all the world as a woman: she has to be surrounded by men in a safe shelter? Kinda doubt it would feel safe to her. But "◊◊◊◊ off tranny"?

Eta: despite this thread's preferred narrative, I'm sure you are aware that transwomen are sexually abused at very high rates. But you would force them to be surrounded by males after being raped themselves?

 

[smartcooky]

And a raped transwoman who is passably feminine, and looks to all the world as a woman: she has to be surrounded by men in a safe shelter?

I've yet to see a rape crisis centre for men. Do they exist? There are a lot of helplines, but I don't know of a single one where a male rape victim would be "surrounded by men"

Back to reality now, there have been numerous other cases in the UK, where rape victims were declined help because they refused to accept being intimately, physically examined by a transwomen. There are transwomen in the UK police forces who have who have "gender recognition certificates" This means when a female detainee has to undergo a strip search or body cavity search, that officer can be assigned to do the job, and the detainee is not allowed to refuse. And in answer to your next question, YES this is already happening - in fact, it is police policy...

JK Rowling attacks British Transport Police for letting trans officers strip-search women

JK Rowling has criticised British Transport Police (BTP) for rules that allow transgender officers to strip-search women.

www.yahoo.com

The LAST thing any woman, let alone a rape victim, needs or wants is to have a biological male examining her anatomically private parts.

 

[smartcooky]

They are not asking for additional privileges. Just like you and I can go to a bathroom that feels right to us (without being subjected to a genital inspection), they would like to have that same right/privilege.

This is sheer misrepresentation.

FACT: Biological males are not allowed or welcome in women's toilets.
FACT: Transwomen are biologically male.
FACT: Transwomen demand the right to enter women's toilets
THEREFORE: Transwomen are demanding additional rights over an above those of biological males

End of - no argument!

I'm not even disagreeing that that has to be the endgame solution; it more or less does. But I'm saying it with regret and resignation, not your unbridled glee and arrogance about it being "scientific fact".

Its not arrogance, its truth. Facts don't care about my feelings either.