Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

As I've said repeatedly, I am not asking what extremists want.

You would have to. And indeed, this is the mainstream trans position, not an extremist one. No matter how small, how modest, a women-only space or category is, and no matter how generous the provision is for trans-identiftying men, they want into the women's space. If only that were not so, we wouldn't even have this problem.

 

[Pixel42]

You would have to. And indeed, this is the mainstream trans position, not an extremist one. No matter how small, how modest, a women-only space or category is, and no matter how generous the provision is for trans-identiftying men, they want into the women's space. If only that were not so, we wouldn't even have this problem.

In a society in which everyone can dress however they want, present themselves however they want, do whatever job they want etc etc, it's the only way in which they can get their validation. Without it, what changes for them when they identify as women instead of men? Pronouns is the only other thing I can think of, and it's clear that's not enough for them.

 

[Thermal]

Guys who don't like it should not have to "suck it up". They have modesty and dignity to be considered too.

Suddenly you are concerned with what men want, after screaming page after page that you literally DGAF? Transwomen are males, you know. Did you suddenly forget about that? But you are happy to dismiss them, despite your new claim that 'men shouldn't have to suck it up'. Your position is literally and unapologetically '◊◊◊◊ dem trannys'. This is getting truly absurd.

Also, since we have already observed, time and time again, and it has been explained to you time and time again, trans-identifying men don't want any sort of "gender-neutral space". When these are provided they nevertheless insist that it is discriminatory for them to be required to use them, and transphobic not to allow them to join the "other women" in the female space. There's you forgetting to read again.

That's the point. Nobody is getting their ideal, but we are sticking to our principles. Oh, except my solution is radically slanted to give you what you want, which as I keep saying, has been my objective from the start.

The forum turns out to be right. This discussion is a freaking cesspool where skepticism went to die.

 

[Rolfe]

In a society in which everyone can dress however they want, present themselves however they want, do whatever job they want etc etc, it's the only way in which they can get their validation. Without it, what changes for them when they identify as women instead of men? Pronouns is the only other thing I can think of, and it's clear that's not enough for them.

It's no coincidence that the AGP campaign to be considered and treated as women in every possible way started just a few years after women had succeeded in achieving legal parity with men in financial and employment matters. It's not that long since a girl was the property of her father, and then became the property of her husband. That every penny a woman earned belonged to her husband, as did her children. That men actually put their wives up for sale.

It was a long haul, and didn't finally get there till the early 1990s. Then, of course, the TWAW mantra began to be heard. Not a whisper of these demands when being a woman was enough cause to deny a person financial independence and reduce her to the status of property. Or indeed in countries where that is still the case. Not many men demanding to be treated in every way as women in Afghanistan or Iran, as far as I know.

 

[Clutch Cargo]

In a society in which everyone can dress however they want, present themselves however they want, do whatever job they want etc etc,

That is not really true. I don't understand if you are joking or skipping over the details. You cannot "do whatever job you want" if you "dress however you want" and "present yourself however you want". Is that not obvious?

it's the only way in which they can get their validation.

Again I don't think that makes complete sense. "Validation" (as I see it) is not dressing and presenting anyway you want. Actually (tell me if I am wrong) Validation is "being whoever you want" but following the rules as everyone else plus being accepted as everyone else. They don't deserve anything special as far as I am concerned.

Without it, what changes for them when they identify as women instead of men?

If that is a problem then it must be a personal one. It's not my problem. I (as everyone else) have my own problems to overcome.

Pronouns is the only other thing I can think of, and it's clear that's not enough for them.

What is "enough for them"? Nothing is apparently.

 

[Rolfe]

Suddenly you are concerned with what men want, after screaming page after page that you literally DGAF? Transwomen are males, you know. Did you suddenly forget about that? But you are happy to dismiss them, despite your new claim that 'men shouldn't have to suck it up'. Your position is literally and unapologetically '◊◊◊◊ dem trannys'. This is getting truly absurd.

That's the point. Nobody is getting their ideal, but we are sticking to our principles. Oh, except my solution is radically slanted to give you what you want, which as I keep saying, has been my objective from the start.

The forum turns out to be right. This discussion is a freaking cesspool where skepticism went to die.

You can have what principles you like. However, I am beginning to resent the way you keep putting a paraphrase of my position into extremely pejorative language, as a form of mockery.

My position is that both men and women are entitled to dignity and modesty in their single-sex spaces, free from any unwanted incursion by the opposite sex. My position is literally that "transwomen" are men and "transmen" are women, and that any accommodation in law to address their situation should not compromise existing single-sex spaces and categories. (And I certainly never said "dem trannys" in my entire life.)

 

[theprestige]

Easy, and already dealt with. I don't care what extremists want. I care about what is safe, practical, reasonable, and legal. Extremists, by definition, do not share those concerns, so ◊◊◊◊ them.

That's not how public policy activism works. Extremists push for extreme policies. The rest of us have to care about this, because this is our society and we are supposed to have a voice in the policies that make our society function (or not, as the case may be).

Extremists are already getting and exploiting extreme policies. We already have men who are overriding sex segregation whenever they want, supported by public policy. You can't just say, "I don't care about that." It's happening. It's happening to your society. It's happening to your policies.

You care about what is safe, practical, reasonable, and legal? Then why do you not also care about policies being proposed and enacted and exploited, that are not not safe, not practical, not reasonable? Why do you not also care about such unsafe, impractical, unreasonable policies being made legal?

Again, easy. No minors being subjected to any such surgeries. I'd set the line for irreversible surgeries in their mid-twenties somewhere, when alolescence is complete and they are adults. We know enough about the brain and hormonal swings during adolescence to codify that in law, much like we have tobacco and alcohol restrictions on young adults.

Is that it, or were you just kidding and have many other problems with my positions that you forgot till just now?

I wasn't aware that you'd already dealt with the policy question about overriding sex segregation by fiat self-ID. My impression was that you'd like to modify sex segregation policy to better accommodate the more extreme TRA demands. If you're against overriding sex segregation by fiat self-ID, then we're probably all settled up.

Unless you have other policy proposals or social responses to trans rights demands, that you would like to bring up for discussion?

 

[lionking]

Yeah, but who dismissed them?

People who know they are invalid comparisons.

 

[Clutch Cargo]

Guys who don't like it should not have to "suck it up". They have modesty and dignity to be considered too. .....

Suddenly you are concerned with what men want .....

Rolf didn't say "men have modesty and dignity to be considered". Rolf said "men have modesty and dignity to be considered too."

 

[Emily's Cat]

Note that you just said above that woman means adult human female. That would mean minors aren't welcome, and it's an adult-only space. See, you're just as imprecise with the terminology.

This is where I get frustrated, because it feels like a disingenuous game. I know that's perhaps not your intent, but that's how it ends up coming across.

Sure, technically, "woman" doesn't include prepubescent females. But in general use out in the world with real people, it's well understood that the "women's room" is for female human beings. It's also fairly well understood by normal humans that the majority of the users will be adult females. There will be some females between the ages of about 10 and 13 who might use the room too. And we all understand that there may also be children of either sex under the age of 10 who are usually expected to be accompanied by an adult female.

And absolutely none of that fuzziness suggests, implies, or is understood by cognitively functional humans to include sexually mature males.

There's fuzzy edges, and then there's cliffs. We might use the term red to encompass a fairly broad range of colors that can reasonably be considered red or reddish, including some oranges, some purples, maybe even some browns. But what it doesn't include is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ green. So please don't play heap fallacy games with me.

Why do you suppose the federal government and practically every state has defined gender along my definitions then? Why has virtually every court ruling said "hey ISF anti-trans crowd: you're wrong by legal standards"?

The federal government has not defined it in that way. Some states have, but not all. And no, not every court ruling has come out the way you seem to think they have. Luckily there are still some judges that understand that magical brain feelings don't supercede the reality of sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because I respect the courts and their findings, to some degree, and I'm not a fan of ostracizing minorities. On that point, we obviously disagree.

Do you understand that the result of you not wanting to ostracize a minority of males results in you ostracizing a majority of females? And given that females represent 51% of the population, whereas transgender identified males represent no more than 2% of the population... you're really ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ over females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So what do we do in the brave new world? Changing rooms and showers are easy. They are entirely optional, so if you don't like "those people" being let in, don't go.

Woohoo! Hooray for bringing back the urinary leash! It's fantastic to create situations where female get excluded from full participation in social life, what a brave new world this is!

Seriously, you seem content to tell 51% of the population "if you don't like it, don't go, who cares if that means you don't have spaces to use?" All so that you can make sure that less than 2% of the population are NOT told "if you don't like it, don't go".

 

[Thermal]

That's not how public policy activism works. Extremists push for extreme policies. The rest of us have to care about this, because this is our society and we are supposed to have a voice in the policies that make our society function (or not, as the case may be).

Extremists are already getting and exploiting extreme policies. We already have men who are overriding sex segregation whenever they want, supported by public policy. You can't just say, "I don't care about that." It's happening. It's happening to your society. It's happening to your policies.

You care about what is safe, practical, reasonable, and legal? Then why do you not also care about policies being proposed and enacted and exploited, that are not not safe, not practical, not reasonable? Why do you not also care about such unsafe, impractical, unreasonable policies being made legal?

I do, and that's why I am somewhat charmed with my proposal. It would revert some of the more extreme positions getting legal protections.The extreme demands are actually met, if not in the way they wanted. And think about it: in practice, it would still be a mens room and womens room, even though it says gender neutral and womens. The gals who don't want to wait in line to pee can do so in the GN room with freedom and protection. The males who try to enter the room designated female only (nominally citing menstrual issues as justification for female only) could theoretically be charged with sex offenses for attempting to enter.

I wasn't aware that you'd already dealt with the policy question about overriding sex segregation by fiat self-ID.

I have flatly refused the concept of pure self ID from the start. I think there is wiggle room to deny our intrepid Wi spa perv by requiring more than 'I say so', while at the same time respecting the rights of legit trans people.

My impression was that you'd like to modify sex segregation policy to better accommodate the more extreme TRA demands.

No. I've been looking for a workaround, specifically to do the opposite: maintain sex segregation while at least nominally complying with discrimination laws and principles.

If you're against overriding sex segregation by fiat self-ID, then we're probably all settled up.

Unless you have other policy proposals or social responses to trans rights demands, that you would like to bring up for discussion?

I have a bunch, of course. There's a lot of detail area to suss out. But come on... there's a couple purely toxic posters here that seem to have minimal command of the written word, yet lots of blatant insults to hurl around (you ant the Cat excepted, IMO, even when in disagreement). There's no forward motion going on here.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, but who dismissed them?

So here's the deal: Gay rights are mostly "laissez-faire" rights. They are essentially the right to be left alone, to not be persecuted for being gay. There is no demand or burden placed on anyone else in society, from recognizing these rights. Rights such as, the right to not be discriminated against in housing and employment. Or the right to not be harassed on the street, for being openly gay. The right to be left alone to do whatever they want with consenting adults in the privacy of their bedrooms (or playrooms, or whatever private rooms).

The major exception being the right to have their marriages recognized in law as such, which even then is not unduly burdensome on others.

I will note here that transwomen also enjoy all those same rights. The right to not be discriminated against in housing and employment. The right to not be persecuted for their gender expression. The right to do whatever they want with consenting adults in private. The right to marry whoever they want, and have that marriage recognized by the state.

What trans rights activism demands now goes far beyond anything analogous to gay rights. What trans rights activism demands now are intrusive rights. Rights to impose their values on desires on other people, without their consent. In sum, the right to override sex segregation whenever they want. The right to demand preferred pronouns, and to have the state impose sanctions on people who don't comply with that demand. The right to trans-affirming treatment at taxpayer expense.

Now, I have no problem with intrusive rights in principle. What I object to here, is that there has been demonstrated no good basis for granting these intrusive rights. Nothing in medicine tells us that overriding sex segregation whenever you want is an effective or ethical treatment for gender dysphoria. Nothing in sociology tells us that overriding sex segregation whenever you want, without even claiming a medical condition to justify it is good for society.

As far as the analogy to gay rights goes, transwomen already enjoy all the same rights as gay people. The objections arise when trans rights activists insist on going much further, into the right to make unreasonable demands on everyone else. And I see no basis for justifying such rights.

Do you?

 

[theprestige]

I do, and that's why I am somewhat charmed with my proposal. It would revert some of the more extreme positions getting legal protections.The extreme demands are actually met, if not in the way they wanted. And think about it: in practice, it would still be a mens room and womens room, even though it says gender neutral and womens. The gals who don't want to wait in line to pee can do so in the GN room with freedom and protection. The males who try to enter the room designated female only (nominally citing menstrual issues as justification for female only) could theoretically be charged with sex offenses for attempting to enter.

I have flatly refused the concept of pure self ID from the start. I think there is wiggle room to deny our intrepid Wi spa perv by requiring more than 'I say so', while at the same time respecting the rights of legit trans people.

Fair enough. How do you propose to identify legit trans people? And what rights would you recognize for those that prove their legitimacy to your satisfaction?

 

[Thermal]

Do you understand that the result of you not wanting to ostracize a minority of males results in you ostracizing a majority of females? And given that females represent 51% of the population, whereas transgender identified males represent no more than 2% of the population... you're really ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ over females.

Have you caught up to my current proposal? I luv ya, but this firehosing replies that are 1-3 days behind the thread makes things difficult.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Makes some women unhappy. Not every woman agrees with you.

Consent isn't transferable. Some other female can't consent to ME being seen naked by males.

 

[Hercules56]

I wrote it in English. I suggest you read it in English

So which rights do you think should be taken away from them?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Gawd, I still don't agree transwomen are males, so you're framing the question incorrectly. As I told you earlier, I don't accept your paradigm.

Yes, you've provided your baseless belief. You haven not, however, supported why you think they're not males.

 

[Hercules56]

Fair enough. How do you propose to identify legit trans people? And what rights would you recognize for those that prove their legitimacy to your satisfaction?

Thermal says you are legit trans if you think you are legit trans.