Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

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,

Pump the brakes. Are you saying transwomen don't get raped? Gonna call bull ◊◊◊◊ on that, and your master plan above specifically DENIES them access to a woman's shelter.

This is an area where, unlike you, I would make an exception for a transwoman to cross over traditionally sex segregated space. And this is a core difference (possibly irreconcilable) between our positions. And really what the thread is about.

 

[Mycroft]

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

Well, first remember that if a rule turns out to be unworkable, it can be changed. We act as though any law made today will be permanent, but we change imperfect laws all the time.

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.

Also remember whatever rule or law is made, nobody will be standing outside a bathroom door enforcing it. The trans-gender person who passes for their gender will be able to use the bathroom of their choice regardless.

 

[Thermal]

This is sheer misrepresentation.

FACT: Biological males are not allowed or welcome in women's toilets

Only according to the bigots. I can personally introduce you to women who don't mind a biologically male transwoman in their rest rooms at all.

FIRST FACT: FACTUAL FAIL

FACT: Transwomen are biologically male.

True, but irrelevant, especially if transitioned.

SECOND FACT: IRRELEVANT

FACT: Transwomen demand the right to enter women's toilets

THIRD FACT: DUH ITS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

THEREFORE: Transwomen are demanding additional rights over an above those of biological males

End of - no argument!

THEREFORE: LOGICAL CHAIN FRACTURED, SO GLOBAL FAIL.

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

Some facts are relevant. Others are fig leaves.

 

[Elaedith]

A rape crisis centre in Brighton UK that receives government funding and is the only such support group in the area, refused to provide a single female-only support group in addition to existing support groups that include transwomen and a support group that is exclusively for trans and non-binary people.

 

[Mycroft]

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!


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

I very clearly remember when it was argued gay marriage was a "special right", and gays already had all the same rights as heterosexuals because they could marry to opposite gender too.

FACT: Biological males are not allowed or welcome in women's toilets.

This particular "fact" seems like what we're arguing about and not an established fact at all.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

I dunno, I've seen some trans-women where the "fact" of their maleness is not observable at all. Vice-versa too. These people are inconvenient to your narrative.

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!!

Add even more exclamation marks. They make your argument stronger.

 

[smartcooky]

I very clearly remember when it was argued gay marriage was a "special right", and gays already had all the same rights as heterosexuals because they could marry to opposite gender too.

Nope, that has never been the case. Homosexuals were discriminated against only on religious and moral grounds, at a time when those held sway (when interracial relationships and marriages were also banned, and when religion held sway.... and it worth noting that it is still the case in some places. Transgenders are also discriminated against on those very same grounds when it comes to housing, benefits, marriage, employment, schooling, medical care and insurance - these are the very things that people like @Rolfe, @Elaedith, @Matthew Best and myself oppose.

 

[Thermal]

Well, first remember that if a rule turns out to be unworkable, it can be changed. We act as though any law made today will be permanent, but we change imperfect laws all the time.

Agreed, but that's a lot of the debate here. See my current argument with smartcooky. He wants absolutes, and "◊◊◊◊ dem trannys". I can see valid exceptions made.

Also remember whatever rule or law is made, nobody will be standing outside a bathroom door enforcing it. The trans-gender person who passes for their gender will be able to use the bathroom of their choice regardless.

True, which I mentioned long ago here. There's no gender cops around, or anyone, at a public rest room, say, at night. Like so much of our time above ground, ya on yo own, and the "FY Tranny" laws aren't helping you. Laws affect the law abiding.

 

[smartcooky]

I dunno, I've seen some trans-women where the "fact" of their maleness is not observable at all. Vice-versa too. These people are inconvenient to your narrative.

And even if they can reasonably pass (which I personally doubt) it does not change the fact that allowing biological males right of access to female spaces increases the potential for danger and harm to women.

But I get it, I really do. You don't give a fat rat's arse about the rights of women, fought for by generations of our mothers, and grandmothers, just so long as cosplaying men get to pee where they want to.

 

[Mycroft]

Nope, that has never been the case. Homosexuals were discriminated against only on religious and moral grounds, at a time when those held sway (when interracial relationships and marriages were also banned, and when religion held sway.... and it worth noting that it is still the case in some places...

Yet I remember it clearly. Is my memory wrong?

 

[Elaedith]

I very clearly remember when it was argued gay marriage was a "special right", and gays already had all the same rights as heterosexuals because they could marry to opposite gender too.

Gay marriage is not a 'special right' because anyone can marry somebody of either sex. You don't have to prove or even claim to be gay to be allowed to marry somebody of the same sex.

This is essentially what you are demanding - that anyone can use sex segregated spaces of the opposite sex. You seem to be pretending that only males who identify as women will do so, but you can't offer any coherent explanation of how this happens. If you bothered giving it a moment's thought, you must know that women being able to object to males in women's spaces makes it impossible to base segregation on gender identity, and women being unable to object means they are not women-only spaces.

There are multiple reasons the gay marriage analogy is stupid aside from that, but no point in going into it when you can't even give a straight answer to my question about whether women should have the right to object to obviously male people entering female spaces.

 

[Rolfe]

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.

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 }

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.

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.

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

Agreed.

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.

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?

And to join the classic argumentum ad hominem we have a classic petitio principii.

Well done.

 

[Mycroft]

And even if they can reasonably pass (which I personally doubt) it does not change the fact that allowing biological males right of access to female spaces increases the potential for danger and harm to women.

Spend some time on google images and you will find plenty of examples of trans-people who could pass for cis.

But I get it, I really do. You don't give a fat rat's arse about the rights of women, fought for by generations of our mothers, and grandmothers, just so long as cosplaying men get to pee where they want to.

Ooh, that straw-man is really packed with straw. Feel free to tear it apart without my help.

Also, dismissing trans-women as cosplaying men doesn't help your argument that this is about science and not bigotry.

 

[Mycroft]

Gay marriage is not a 'special right' because anyone can marry somebody of either sex. You don't have to prove or even claim to be gay to be allowed to marry somebody of the same sex.

That's what society mostly agrees today, but just a few decades ago that was not the case and people did argue that gay marriage was a "special right".

Check out this link for a history lesson:

The Journey to Marriage Equality in the United States

The road to nationwide marriage equality was a long one, spanning decades of United States history and culminating in victory in June 2015. Throughout the…

www.hrc.org

This is essentially what you are demanding - that anyone can use sex segregated spaces of the opposite sex.

Please don't misrepresent me. I'm for counting trans-women as a subset of women and trans-men as a subset of men. If I don't mention trans-men as often as I mention trans-women, it's just to make it easier and not because I'm forgetting about them.

There are multiple reasons the gay marriage analogy is stupid aside from that, but no point in going into it when you can't even give a straight answer to my question about whether women should have the right to object to obviously male people entering female spaces.

It's been discussed previously. If you're imagining Danny Trejo in lipstick, that's just fear-mongering.

 

[Elaedith]

That's what society mostly agrees today, but just a few decades ago that was not the case and people did argue that gay marriage was a "special right".

Check out this link for a history lesson:

The Journey to Marriage Equality in the United States

The road to nationwide marriage equality was a long one, spanning decades of United States history and culminating in victory in June 2015. Throughout the…

www.hrc.org

So what? Gay marriage is not a special right because everyone has the same right to marry somebody of either sex. That is not analogous to some people having the right to enter spaces of the opposite sex while other people are not supposed to. What people said 50 years ago is completely irrelevant.

Please don't misrepresent me. I'm for counting trans-women as a subset of women and trans-men as a subset of men. If I don't mention trans-men as often as I mention trans-women, it's just to make it easier and not because I'm forgetting about them.

I didn't say anything about transmen and I find it hard to believe you genuinely interpreted my post that way, especially when you have cut out the main section. Basing segregation on gender identity means any male can enter a female space unchallenged. That is what you are advocating if you support replacing sex with gender identity.

It's been discussed previously. If you're imagining Danny Trejo in lipstick, that's just fear-mongering.

I don't care how many times it's been discussed previously, you have never answered. Why can't you give a straight answer to the question - should women be allowed to object when males enter female spaces, or not? It's a simple yes or no.

 

[Mycroft]

So what? Gay marriage is not a special right because everyone has the same right to marry somebody of either sex. That is not analogous to some people having the right to enter spaces of the opposite sex while other people are not supposed to. What people said 50 years ago is completely irrelevant.

2008 is not 50 years ago.

I didn't say anything about transmen and I find it hard to believe you genuinely interpreted my post that way, especially when you have cut out the main section. Basing segregation on gender identity means any male can enter a female space unchallenged. That is what you are advocating if you support replacing sex with gender identity.

I may have responded to what someone else said. My apologies.

I don't care how many times it's been discussed previously, you have never answered. Why can't you give a straight answer to the question - should women be allowed to object when males enter female spaces, or not? It's a simple yes or no.

The issue is if transwomen should be considered as a subset of women or not. If you agree they should be, then trans-women using the women's bathroom is not an issue of women being able to object when males enter the bathroom.

If you don't understand that, then further communication with you is futile.

 

[Rolfe]

"Transwomen" are men. If you don't understand that, I don't really know what you're doing on a web site generally thought of as supporting the scientific view of reality.

 

[Elaedith]

The issue is if transwomen should be considered as a subset of women or not. If you agree they should be, then trans-women using the women's bathroom is not an issue of women being able to object when males enter the bathroom.

If you don't understand that, then further communication with you is futile.

What an utterly stupid response. Even if you consider transwomen a subset of women, there is no way to distinguish transwomen from males who do not identify as women. Therefore, allowing transwomen to use women's spaces requires the removal of the right of women to object when males enter female spaces. I have pointed this out multiple times, but you deflect every time and cannot give a straight answer.

 

[Mycroft]

"Transwomen" are men. If you don't understand that, I don't really know what you're doing on a web site generally thought of as supporting the scientific view of reality.

Science isn't a point of view, it's a process. Just like with homosexuality 20 years ago, the jury is not decided on this topic.

 

[Mycroft]

Even if you consider transwomen a subset of women, there is no way to distinguish transwomen from males who do not identify as women.

This seems like the stupid statement to me. The males who do not identify as women are clearly not transwomen.