Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

You're not really protecting women. You're just using that as an excuse for some internal need to hold on to this prejudice.

And that's misogyny 102... dismissing women and their concerns as unimportant!

You're not a woman. You're arguing that they know the individuals are male. You're arguing that this is some significant aspect of their lives. I don't buy it.

Misogyny 103.... belittling women by saying they aren't really women

 

[Hercules56]

Quoted for jaw-drop value.

Women not wanting men in women's single-sex spaces is not prejudice.

"Why do Christians not want their church filled with Muslims praying to Muhammed??? Bigots!!!!"

 

[Hercules56]

And that's misogyny 102... dismissing women and their concerns as unimportant!

I've now heard it all. "Women who only want women in their changing rooms and bathrooms are bigots."

Yep, definitely now heard it all.

 

[theprestige]

Sometimes I wish the mods would let us branch out a bit, and seek a reset based on what we all agree on.

Right now, it seems like there's broad agreement across the forum, on the following points:

• Nobody should be discriminated against, in employment, housing and other things, on the basis of their gender expression.
• Nobody should be harassed or persecuted or ostracized because of their gender expression.
• Yes, biological sex is real, and makes a difference to some things.
• Yes, sex segregation in certain areas makes sense.
• No, overriding sex segregation by self-ID is not a good idea.
• Yes, real science and medicine have some catching up to do.
• No, we shouldn't prescribe trans-affirming treatment without a better understanding of what good medicine looks like, in this area.

I think there's broad agreement on these points, even among people who superficially dissent from one or more of them. I think that when pressed, or when they feel they're in a safe space to float heterodox opinions, they are actually finding themselves in agreement with the points they thought they dissented from.

I think a lot of the people knee-jerk avoiding this thread would be happy to debate any of these issues rationally, if they thought that was on the table. The problem is, everyone's gotten the impression that such debate is not on the table. At least, not in this thread, and the mods won't allow a reset or a different approach in a different thread.

 

[acbytesla]

And that's misogyny 102... dismissing women and their concerns as unimportant!



Misogyny 103.... belittling women by saying they aren't really women

You clearly aren't reading my posts. I'm not dismissing women. I'm dismissing men that think they know women and what is best for them.

 

[Rolfe]

Why are you dismissing me, then?

 

[Hercules56]

Women are a protected class. If they dont want men who look like women in their bathrooms or changing rooms, we should not force such a thing upon them. Its like forcing a church to allow dozens of Muslims come in and start praying to Allah. We would never do that, so why should we force women to have men in their changing rooms?

 

[Thermal]

Ah, thanks for explaining! That makes sense.

I am aware that I often spit out posts too quickly and don't make myself clear enough. I appreciate your patience and ensuring clear communication when I drop the ball.

Personally, I come at it from the other direction. Once you concede sports, you've conceded the entire question of overriding sex segregaton:

1. Athletic data makes it abundantly and incontrovertibly clear that there are two biological sexes, with substantially disparate physical statistics.
2. Therefore, athletic data makes abundantly and incontrovertibly clear that sex segregation in some areas is desirable to civil society and should be upheld.
3. No medical justification has been given for overriding sex segregation as a treatment for anything at all.

Once you've made a policy against overriding sex segregation in sports by self-ID, the precedent extrapolates itself automatically and immediately to the entire category of sex-segregated things - including public restrooms.

Ok, I agree that once our precedent-setter is established, we work from there. You want to start from sports. That might work, but I think sports might be viewed as a special case, balancing physical advantages that taking a pee doesn't worry about.

I thought I was clear on this, and it addresses a lot of your questions: first and foremost, we need to clarify the sex and gender definitions. If gender is clearly defined as in your head, and sex in your pants, a lot of the problems solve themselves. There is no more transgender surgery. It's transsexual surgery, or a sex change. Then we have to lobby that our sex segregated sports were always intended to be based on sex, not gender. That clears up who can cross that line, or not, decisively.

Thanks for the correction. I'll adjust my thinking on this.

Not really a correction. We'd have to balance out all the sports to see which groupings prevail. You might be right, but I suspect there are more M/W than W/Open.

In the meantime, consider whether transwomen - who want to be seen and treated as women by society, are interested in competing in Open divisions against a bunch of men, rather than in women's divisions where all the other women are.

Fair point. It gets resolved by that bio distinction I keep harping on. If it's made clear that this is the XX division, not the 'how you see youself' division, all the Lia Thomas tears in the world can be shed, and it doesn't matter. She has an XY body, and the women's league ain't for that.

I know what the problem is. I'm hoping you'll address it, rather than continue to restate it or allude to it. Here's the specific points I was hoping you'd address on this last go-round:

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.​

​

Again, for avoidance of doubt, I know what the whole idea is. I'm asking for your response to that idea, and how you think it should guide our personal and policy preferences on the subject.

Fair enough. The broad point: gender dysphoria is not the condition of thinking you are the other sex. It's the distress caused by it (per DSM-5 and elsewhere). No distress, no GD. That's another one of those definitional thingys that ◊◊◊◊ up a lot of our thinking on this.

But my solution, again, is simply clearing up the definitions, and more importantly, don't use them incorrectly. If gender is in your head, it doesn't matter if you are diagnosed with actual GD. You can't swim on the ladies team or hit the showers with them.

Basically, we don't need to transcend sex segregation at all, ever. Gendered courtesies as they apply (miss, ms, pronouns), and sex hard lines as they apply ('can't help but notice you have a cock, there, ma'am. This is the women's team. No-go'.)

I'll get back to this in a subsequent post.

Peer-reviewed research using sound scientific methodology, leading to a consensus of the medical community on sound diagnosis and ethical courses of treatment. You know, the same thing we have for literally every other physical and mental health condition we take seriously in western medicine.

We are not nearly as clear as we think we are in defining mental conditions. Relying on self reporting alone is a virtual deal breaker for objective diagnoses.

I don't know what this means.

I don't know what this means. From my perspective, "The Problem" is that there's a strong push to single out gender dysphoria for special pleading, and a unique freedom to self-ID and claim personalized "treatment" that has no basis in medicine. You don't need to tell me that's the problem. I'm hoping you'll give your thoughts on how to address it.

Actual GD is one thing, and as I said in an earlier post, the distress experienced shouldn't be measured by societal resistance.

I don't think GD needs to be some kind of special case. It's not much more different than say, extreme anxiety. You treat it for what it is to the sufferer. If their suffering is alleviated by social acceptance, they didn't really have GD to start with, if that makes sense? IMO, anyway.

Deluded costumes are still costumes.

Meh. I think their presentation can be as authentic as yours or mine. I don't think of grabbing a t-shirt and boardshorts as a costume. 'Costume', like 'womanface', smacks of deception and mockery. I really don't think a transwoman is presenting as anything more insincere than we are.

Our laws demand no such thing. The legitimacy of giving women leagues of their own, spaces and recognition of their own, is well established.

Not really. That sex/gender blurring is there in how those legues were set up, never really specifying XX, because it was all the same back then. A woman was a bio female, and the gender equivocation kind of slipped in there, and it remains the root problem.

And appealing to the law is a cop-out anyway. If you agree with the law, then you advocate for what the law advocates. You don't just stop thinking for yourself once you find out what the law says. What if you disagreed with the law?

I do, and don't know how to be clearer on that. But that's where we are at. Gender discrimination, for all intents and purposes, is sex discrimination. That's the four corners of the playing field. We can't even talk about 'trangressing sex segregated spaces' if the damned things don't legally exist.

Male vs female is a very solid standard, and already well nailed down.

Casually, yes. Legally, and to some extent even medically, not so much.

Here's a resolution that meets everyone's needs fairly:

• Uphold the current conventions and policies on sex segregation. This meets the needs of women, and does so fairly.
• Research and provide the most humane, ethical, and effective medicine we can, to people suffering from mental health conditions relating to gender dysphoria. This meets the needs of people who suffer from such conditions, and need real relief. It does so fairly.
• Do not persecute or discriminate against anyone for their gender expression, regardless of whether it stems from delusion or playfulness, without taking their expression as a license to override sex segregation. This meets the needs of people who like to self-express as transgender or genderqueer, whether as a personal preference, a self-identification, or even a sociopolitical statement. It does so fairly.

All the points in this resolution are based on the very solid, well nailed down standard of male vs female.

Ok. I still feel there is some wiggle room on 'sex segregated spaces'. Like, a person having undergone the slice and dice I think should be afforded full recognition of a sex change. Sports, as you rely on, would remain pure XX v XY (that's why I didn't want to start with sports; I think it has restrictions beyond everyday experience, much like going to the sex appropriate doctor).

Good luck! It's a tough one.

It's been going strong for a few years now. I think the only sensible exception so far was provided by @d4m10n: Identifying as a woman in the US military entitles (requires?) you to wear women's uniforms, regardless of your actual sex. Literally the only practical application of gender without sex is the kind of hat you get to wear, and whether a skirt is allowed, in your dress uniform. And the president just put a stop to that.

The military also had lesser physical fitness requirements for females, didn't they? That hearkens back to the sports qualifiers. It matters in physical performance, not so much to take a pee.

The points I raised in this post, specifying that I'd like you to address them (at your convenience, of course), are a good start.

I think i got them all? If I didn't, I'm not evading, please call me out if I missed any.

And once again, you're a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ gentleman. Much appreciated given how nasty a lot of this has gotten

 

[d4m10n]

"Why do Christians not want their church filled with Muslims praying to Muhammed???

What's weird about this analogy is that the Muslims literally could self-i.d. themselves into the Xn safe spaces merely by changing their minds about Jesus.

(Not that it's easy to actually change your mind, but it's significantly easier than actually changing your sex.)

 

[acbytesla]

Why are you dismissing me, then?

Sorry, Rolfe seemed to be a man's name to me.

 

[smartcooky]

You clearly aren't reading my posts. I'm not dismissing women. I'm dismissing men that think they know women and what is best for them.

Men like me you mean, who support women because we have women and girls in our lives that we care about?

How about @Rolfe then?

 

[Thermal]

Sorry, Rolfe seemed to be a man's name to me.

(Her custom title, visible under her avatar/ handle, says "Adult Human Female").

 

[Thermal]

I still.keep wrestling with why we even have sex segregated spaces. Does it all boil down to puritanical hangups? Like, my wife and I have to change in seperate areas. I mean, really? We're changing clothes for a workout or whatever, not having a nudist therapy session with a bunch of strangers. I mean I get the basic modesty angle, but are we taking it too Victorian-Era far, in the 21st century?

And using the bathroom according to strict sex lines has been something I've always experienced as a very +/- thing. Women come into the men's room. Kids of the 'wrong sex', with and without parents of the 'wrong sex'. Transwomen in both.

Is it really hard lined in the UK? Here, it doesn't seem so strict.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry, Rolfe seemed to be a man's name to me.

For crying out loud. Back in 2003 when I first joined the forum I took the name of my late cat, and had a bit of fun seeing if anyone would figure out which sex I was. That ship sailed a long time ago though, almost certainly before you even joined the forum, and long before the "gender wars" started. I've had the custom title "Adult Human Female" for several years. The discussion in this thread has made it plain that I'm a woman time and time again.

I have presented the woman's point of view repeatedly here. I've described in literally intimate detail how women use our single-sex spaces and why these uses are torpedoed by having men in there. I've referred to women as "we" and "us" in many, many posts. Emily's Cat has included me in her periodic lists of women in this thread who have made particular arguments. I've had the dictionary definition of "woman" as my custom title for OVER THREE YEARS.

 

[Hercules56]

I still.keep wrestling with why we even have sex segregated spaces.....

Cuz not everyone lives in a happy safe utopia, where all people have benevolent intentions and can be trusted to respect other people.

And also, well, you're a guy.

 

[Rolfe]

The majority of guys seem to get it. As we say, good men stay out, so we can throw out the bad ones.

 

[Rolfe]

(Her custom title, visible under her avatar/ handle, says "Adult Human Female").

I actually posted a screen-shot of that in reply to him, when it first began to dawn on me that "you're not a woman" wasn't just another random insult from him. No response.

 

[smartcooky]

I still.keep wrestling with why we even have sex segregated spaces. Does it all boil down to puritanical hangups?

This has been explained to you so many times now that I wonder whether you are now just trolling for effect. Rolfe has explained this over, and over, and over again, and yet still you pretend like she has not said anything.

Like, my wife and I have to change in seperate areas. I mean, really?

Surely you understand this is to accomodate others who are not your wife. You might be comfortable changing in a room of strange women, but I am most certainly not. My best friend is actually a woman, one I used to work with. She was my work-bestie. She is not a girlfriend, not a lover, its not a situationship, not a case of FWB, and nor would I ever want that to change. I would not be at all comfortable getting my clothes off in front of her, and I am sure she would feel the same way.

 

[Thermal]

I actually posted a screen-shot of that in reply to him, when it first began to dawn on me that "you're not a woman" wasn't just another random insult from him. No response.

Acbytesla is a good guy. He wants what I and some others want. Just for everyone to be happy and respected.

And for as much as you and I have locked horns, I respect your viewpoints. I'm just not sure that they work on this side of the pond, without some pretty radical changes.

 

[Thermal]

This has been explained to you so many times now that I wonder whether you are now just trolling for effect. Rolfe has explained this over, and over, and over again, and yet still you pretend like she has not said anything.

You might want to consider listening to my replies, then, which have taken her opinions into consideration.

{Eta: Rolfe's personal opinions are not the be-all and end-all of discussion, either. Much like mine aren't, or anyone else's. I'm surprised that would have to be spelled out for you. Rolfe might be the one who has to reasonably give a little, in a workable solution, or someone else's stance might}

Surely you understand this is to accomodate others who are not your wife. You might be comfortable changing in a room of strange women, but I am most certainly not. My best friend is actually a woman, one I used to work with. She was my work-bestie. She is not a girlfriend, not a lover, its not a situationship, not a case of FWB, and nor would I ever want that to change. I would not be at all comfortable getting my clothes off in front of her, and I am sure she would feel the same way.

Ok, that's what im.getting at: why would you be so uptight about incidental nudity? I think it was a Swede or something that had mentioned it on one of these discussions, that getting changed together was a fairly normal thing, as was a bit of skin shown on occasion. It really shouldn't be that big of a deal. I live in a beach town, where a lot of skin gets shown, intentionally and sometimes more than intended. It's just not that big a deal, even with the teens. People are not the pervs some here assume.

In a changing area with some cheap plastic privacy screening, would you still feel weird with your friend? I wouldn't be craning my neck to get a peek.

I get changed literally on the public street when surfing, with young ladies nearby. Yeah, towels slip a little sometimes, but generally no one is a pervy freak getting their jollies. Bottom line is I'm wondering if we are taking incidental exposure a little too seriously?