Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Hercules56]

You continue to lie. I pointed out that us "normies" comply with law when it is reasonable. Do you dispute that normal people do so?

Lying is not a good look, man.

Normal people also defy immoral laws, such as people who participated in the Underground Railroad. And folks who defied Segregation. Do you also call them "weirdos"?

 

[Thermal]

Normal people also defy immoral laws, such as people who participated in the Underground Railroad. And folks who defied Segregation. Do you also call them "weirdos"?

I said "reasonable", not "immoral". Shall I break out the crayons to explain the difference to you?

And for at least the third time, I said "weirdos might" deny a person's right to privacy via a plastic partition. Your attempts to generalize that to suit your rhetorical needs is transparently dishonest.

 

[Hercules56]

I said "reasonable", not "immoral". Shall I break out the crayons to explain the difference to you?

And for at least the third time, I said "weirdos might" deny a person's right to privacy via a plastic partition. Your attempts to generalize that to suit your rhetorical needs is transparently dishonest.

There is no right to privacy in public places or where people gather.

 

[Thermal]

There is no right to privacy in public places or where people gather.

Your argument for seperate changing areas is then...?

And I assume there are no stalls around toilets, either?

Strange world you claim to live in.

Eta: I think I'll do "The Herc" here, and every time privacy (and sex segregation) is brought up, I'll remind you that you said you have absolutely no right to it. Cats and dogs, getting changed together, using toilets out in the open.

Your words.

 

[theprestige]

I wanted to come back to this.

Agreed, which is why the resolution will be precedent-setting, and thought out to that end. I think mine accomplishes this.

I'd suggest leaning on that defined sex line as a justification, not their sense of self-worth.

I don't know what this means.

Open the men's division, have a women's only division.

That's the way it already is. There's a reason women don't want to play in the open divisions. It's the same as the reason transwomen don't want to play in the open divisions: The open divisions are full of men.

My problem with that is that the optics of a women's only category is it sounds like a handicapped (in the golf sense) sub-division, not taken as seriously. So maybe we'd need to lean hard on the strictly sex based classifying, citing testosterone levels, etc for fair competition?

You're solving a problem nobody has. Athletes, fans, owners, and promoters are all happy with the current arrangement. Nobody complains about US Women's Soccer or the WNBA being handicap leagues, or sees them as "less than". On the contrary; these things are seen by and large as advances in representation and equality for women.

Because trans people are #NotAllSociopaths. Some just want to fit in and feel normal, like you and I take for granted. We have to balance the legit desires for inclusivity against the WI spa guy, who I believe was opportunistically exploiting it.

You're begging the question that the desire of person suffering from gender dysphoria has a legitimate desire - an entitlement - override sex segregation.

And/or you're begging the question that a man who has not been diagnosed with dysphoria, and has not been prescribed any kind of sound medicine for anything, has a legitimate desire - an entitlement - to override sex segregation.

Either way, I'd like to see you establish some sort of rational basis for us to agree on, that either of these things represents a legitimate desire to transcend sex segregation.

Maybe start with your argument for what legitimizes such a desire, to override sex segregation. If I understand you so far, simply declaring a self-identified desire doesn't legitimize it for you. On the other hand, you've been silent on the question of medical or mental health legitimacy.

Like so many things, it's likely not a binary y/n mental health condition, but a spectrum.

Is it, though? What's the spectrum? Is one end of the spectrum a diagnosed condition of gender dysphoria, with an accompanying prescription of social transition to treat it? Is the other end "because I wanna"?

There's a range of mental and physical disabilities nowadays where, on the one hand, you have people who actually suffer from those disabilities, and on the other hand you have people that want to play make-believe about having those abilities, and want everyone else to either play along or keep their mouth shut. Dissociative Identity Disorder and Autism are really popular right now.

In none of these cases would I say that people who actually suffer from the condition and people who are playing make-believe with self-diagnosis are on the same spectrum of graduated legitimacy. In all those cases, I think it makes much more sense to treat the two groups as binary: the Haves, who need actual treatment and accommodation for the condition they have... and the Have Nots, who probably also need treatment and accommodation, just not for the condition they illegitimately identify as having.

You're backsliding. There are no actual transwomen in your view? They're either mentally ill or faking?

Backsliding how?

I think that "transwoman" is a meaningless term, in all cases where biological sex is not a factor. And I think that where biological sex is a factor: If you are claiming an entitlement to override sex segregation because you believe you're really the opposite of your biological sex, then either you're mentally ill, or you're faking mental illness to gain an entitlement reserved for the mentally ill.

And in those cases, whether mentally ill or not, no such entitlement should be established or reserved. Mentally ill people don't get to have it their way in society, when their way is them being crazy.

I might revisit this question, once we have good science supporting the hypothesis that certain mental health conditions are best treated by social transition and overriding sex segregation.

Anyway, all this to say you completely ignored my questions to you.

 

[Hercules56]

Your argument for seperate changing areas is then...?....

To protect women from sexual assault and harassment. Societal norms going back centuries.

 

[Thermal]

I wanted to come back to this.

I don't know what this means.

You said bathroom access was the thin edge of a toxic wedge. I agree, and say that is exactly why how it is resolved must be thought out in how it will be extrapolated as a precedent.

That's the way it already is. There's a reason women don't want to play in the open divisions. It's the same as the reason transwomen don't want to play in the open divisions: The open divisions are full of men.

You're solving a problem nobody has. Athletes, fans, owners, and promoters are all happy with the current arrangement. Nobody complains about US Women's Soccer or the WNBA being handicap leagues, or sees them as "less than". On the contrary; these things are seen by and large as advances in representation and equality for women.

You say the existing setup is Open and Women's. In some sports, maybe. But in the Olympics (arguably the world's most prestigious sporting games), men's and women's divisions are clearly defined, and a few sports are actually Open. The same applies right down to a high school or college gym where records are hung on the walls. Men's and women's clearly separated, no Open.

While it may be true for the NFL and chess, it is by no means the rule.

You're begging the question that the desire of person suffering from gender dysphoria has a legitimate desire - an entitlement - override sex segregation.

And/or you're begging the question that a man who has not been diagnosed with dysphoria, and has not been prescribed any kind of sound medicine for anything, has a legitimate desire - an entitlement - to override sex segregation.

Either way, I'd like to see you establish some sort of rational basis for us to agree on, that either of these things represents a legitimate desire to transcend sex segregation.

The whole idea is challenging sex segregation on the grounds that it is equivalent to gender discrimination. That's literally the whole problem.

Maybe start with your argument for what legitimizes such a desire, to override sex segregation. If I understand you so far, simply declaring a self-identified desire doesn't legitimize it for you. On the other hand, you've been silent on the question of medical or mental health legitimacy.

Cart before the horse. Self ID doesn't provide an all-access pass, yet at the same time, self ID is sufficient to take their claim seriously.

If you have some more exhaustive way to define medical or mental health legitimacy, I'm all ears. It's still a problem area for me.

Is it, though? What's the spectrum? Is one end of the spectrum a diagnosed condition of gender dysphoria, with an accompanying prescription of social transition to treat it? Is the other end "because I wanna"?

More or less. A doctor can kind of thumbnail assess if the patient ticks the required boxes, but we don't have a reliable standard once we move away from the extremes.

There's a range of mental and physical disabilities nowadays where, on the one hand, you have people who actually suffer from those disabilities, and on the other hand you have people that want to play make-believe about having those abilities, and want everyone else to either play along or keep their mouth shut. Dissociative Identity Disorder and Autism are really popular right now.

In none of these cases would I say that people who actually suffer from the condition and people who are playing make-believe with self-diagnosis are on the same spectrum of graduated legitimacy. In all those cases, I think it makes much more sense to treat the two groups as binary: the Haves, who need actual treatment and accommodation for the condition they have... and the Have Nots, who probably also need treatment and accommodation, just not for the condition they illegitimately identify as having.

Yeah. Welcome to The Problem.

Backsliding how?

Your use of "womanface" suggests insincerity. I still maintain that trans people are likely perfectly sincere as a whole.

I think that "transwoman" is a meaningless term, in all cases where biological sex is not a factor. And I think that where biological sex is a factor: If you are claiming an entitlement to override sex segregation because you believe you're really the opposite of your biological sex, then either you're mentally ill, or you're faking mental illness to gain an entitlement reserved for the mentally ill.

And in those cases, whether mentally ill or not, no such entitlement should be established or reserved. Mentally ill people don't get to have it their way in society, when their way is them being crazy.

You keep saying i advocate an entitlement to override sex segregation. That is flatly untrue. Our laws against gender discrimination demand it. I think at times, it's reasonable, but a solid standard is too slippery to nail down, so I am arguing for a resolution that meets everyone's needs fairly, if not exactly what they each want.

{Eta: and I'm still wrestling mightily with your assertion that transwoman is meaningless unless relating to bio sex}

I might revisit this question, once we have good science supporting the hypothesis that certain mental health conditions are best treated by social transition and overriding sex segregation.

Anyway, all this to say you completely ignored my questions to you.

Ok, I just went back a couple replies to see what questions you say I ignored, and all I see is a rhetorical question about "why should we coddle sociopaths?" or something to that effect (which I addressed directly). Last I heard, we were roundly in agreement. What questions specifically do you think I ignored?

 

[Ron Obvious]

Your argument for seperate changing areas is then...?

Why are sports segregated by sex in the first place? The fact that some men believe themselves to be women doesn't change any of that.

 

[Thermal]

Why are sports segregated by sex in the first place? The fact that some men believe themselves to be women doesn't change any of that.

I agree, and have said so repeatedly. What does that have to do with Herc's insistence that you have no right to privacy?

 

[Thermal]

@Emily's Cat : hope you enjoyed your weekend, assuming you have returned. As you can see, I was unable to hide my bag of Troll Chow, and suffered the predictable consequences. Happy to pick up where we left off, if you please.

 

[smartcooky]

Your ID is your core identity, and it is not variable. It's essential. It's already pushing the limits to accept that the wrong ID is valid in the first place, but the idea of a crossed wire up there is palatable enough. But to say your core essence flits around willy nilly (gender fluid) means you seem.to have a problem.identifying what a core essence is, and that needs to be straightened out.

If you are biologically male, but this "core ID" of yours is telling you that your sex is anything other than male, then you have a mental illness... or as you put it, "a crossed wire up there"!

 

[theprestige]

Cart before the horse. Self ID doesn't provide an all-access pass, yet at the same time, self ID is sufficient to take their claim seriously.

"Take their claim seriously" means what, exactly? If someone comes to me and says they're a targeted individual and a subject of gangstalking, I'd say that sounds a lot like paranoid schizophrenia, and they should seek psychiatric help as soon as possible. That's me taking their claim seriously, without a priori enabling their delusion.

So. What, IN YOUR OPINION, distinguishes the dysphoric's grasp on reality from the schizophrenic's grasp on reality?

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited to make quoted text visible.
Please ensure the text is not obscured in future.

 

[Thermal]

"Take their claim seriously" means what, exactly? If someone comes to me and says they're a targeted individual and a subject of gangstalking, I'd say that sounds a lot like paranoid schizophrenia, and they should seek psychiatric help as soon as possible. That's me taking their claim seriously, without a priori enabling their delusion.

Partially. You are taking their symptom seriously, a priori assuming they are factually wrong. Had you checked first to see if they are in fact being gangstalked, and were simply reporting an objective fact?

So. What, IN YOUR OPINION, distinguishes the dysphoric's grasp on reality from the schizophrenic's grasp on reality?

IMO, whether it causes them distress. And by that, I mean in and of itself, not brought about by hostile bystanders. If we use the hostile bystanders standard (or society or whatever you want to call it), being black is a mental illness.

 

[Thermal]

If you are biologically male, but this "core ID" of yours is telling you that your sex is anything other than male, then you have a mental illness... or as you put it, "a crossed wire up there"!

Homosexuality is a crossed wire, too, from the POV that the attraction is to the wrong sex, from the procreative standpoint. But a gay man is not mentally ill by any standard.

Eta: also, it's not "my core ID" any more than your sense of being a man is to you.

 

[theprestige]

Homosexuality is a crossed wire, too, from the POV that the attraction is to the wrong sex, from the procreative standpoint. But a gay man is not mentally ill by any standard.

A gay man is also not demanding that anyone else go out of their way to enable him. All he wants is to be left alone. Easy enough.

Trans rights activitism pursues another outcome entirely. An outcome where everyone else is required to play along with a delusion at their own expense, with the threat of government sanction if they do not.

 

[Thermal]

A gay man is also not demanding that anyone else go out of their way to enable him. All he wants is to be left alone. Easy enough.

Trans rights activitism pursues another outcome entirely. An outcome where everyone else is required to play along with a delusion at their own expense, with the threat of government sanction if they do not.

Correct, because there is an active social interplay between the transperson and the world. A gay man can just be anonymously themselves, although I'd argue that they fought long and hard against society and demanded accommodation just to be married.

 

[acbytesla]

It staggers me just how hateful people can be. None of this really affects any of you. No one is saying you have to suck a dick. Or wear women's clothing. How hard is it to treat others as they want to be treated? Is basic humanity and kindness to others too difficult?

My bet is almost none of you actually personally know anyone who is Trans. Yet the same people repeat the same prejudiced remarks day after day, week after week, month after month. As if the tiny few Trans people out there makes any of your lives worse.

 

[Rolfe]

You just lost your bet.

How hard is it for men to treat women as they want to be treated? Oh yes, basic humanity and kindness to women is something men have failed at over centuries. They just found a new way.

 

[angrysoba]

. But to say your core essence flits around
willy nilly (gender fluid) means you seem.to have a problem.

never heard a transgender surgery being referred to as a “willy nilly” before.

 

[acbytesla]

You just lost your bet.

How hard is it for men to treat women as they want to be treated? Oh yes, basic humanity and kindness to women is something men have failed at over centuries. They just found a new way.

What the hell does that mean?