Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[lionking]

Although, sadly, a significant, or at least vocal, proportion of the UK skeptical community are taking a less than skeptical viewpoint, and labelling anyone who doesn't agree with their hardline TWAW stance as transphobes, TERFs, etc.

I’ve learnt to wear these pathetic labels with pride.

 

[d4m10n]

The law is clear that you can't attach actionable meaning in employment, to gender identity or expression.

Which flatly contradicts the bit about how gender "shouldn't mean anything in law" from #5,331.

There are at least a few areas where gender status (rather than sex) still matters under the GRA 2004.

 

[acbytesla]

Bathroom access.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's a reason for that, Many of you are.

No, nearly all of us are not hateful at all.

You think you are beyond hate. I assure you, few of us are.

These individuals make up a very tiny number of individuals. Most of who's biological sex you would be unsure of unless you were face to face with their genitals.

False. The majority are fairly easily identifiable as males. That *you* are so easily fooled by lipstick is your own issue. The majority of males do not pass as females even if they get some bolt-on-boobs.

I for the most part stay out of this forum because I see far too many people I usually respect making posts that I don't.

What probably bothers me the most is just how often this thread is commented on. As if the trans issue was of great importance.

It's not.

It's not of importance to you, because you are a male and it has no impact on you.
It has a LOT of very NEGATIVE impact on females across the board. Who the ◊◊◊◊ do you think you are to declare that we have no right to acknowledge and discuss that impact, simply because it doesn't bother YOU?

 

[Emily's Cat]

How many children do you know of who have had gender surgery?

What number of forced sterilization of minors do you think is the "acceptable" number?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The post after post about this. How many women have been raped in Women's bathrooms by a transgender individual?

Are you arguing that there isn't *enough* rape of females by males in female-only spaces, so we really need to make it easier for males to access those spaces so they can do more rape?

How many females being raped by males in female-only spaces do you think is an acceptable number?

 

[theprestige]

Which flatly contradicts the bit about how gender "shouldn't mean anything in law" from #5,331.

I think it's less a matter of a perfect system of formal logic, and more a matter of preferred framing.

Functionally, I think the law in the US tends to align with idea that gender expression should not matter. Anyone who believes it matters, and acts on that belief, is on the wrong side of the law.

Get as gratuitously doctrinaire as you like, I'll continue to hew to my framing until I see a better one.

 

[Hercules56]

Are you arguing that there isn't *enough* rape of females by males in female-only spaces, so we really need to make it easier for males to access those spaces so they can do more rape?

How many females being raped by males in female-only spaces do you think is an acceptable number?

Is there any data on rape of women by transwomen?

 

[Rolfe]

And I say it isn't the victory (based on my current understanding of what the judgement will say) some people think it is as what will now have to happen is for other cases to work their way through the system. For example a trans person wanting to use the toilet in line with their gender reassignment so a trans man wanting to use the male toilets, the courts will have to decide whether that is unlawful discrimination based on gender reassignment. The matter is far from settled law.

This is what I think I wasn't as clear on earlier as I should have been. It is absolutely the victory that women think it is. Completely, totally, Waterloo-level victory.

The judges came out with some soothing words at the beginning, I think partly as a sop to the trans lobby, but quite legitimately to point out that in other areas, areas not covering single-sex provisions that are a proportional means to a legitimate aim, the protected category of gender reassignment still exists. Harrassment of and discrimination against trans-identified individuals remains unlawful. The judgement however makes it crystal clear that keeping trans-identified individuals out of the sex-segregated spaces that do not correspond to their biological sex is not discriminatory. That is the take-home message.

The judgement actually reads pretty much like the FWS submission to the court, now codified into law, with a liberal garnishing of reasons why the Scottish government and its supporters' submissions were "incoherent". I think stronger words than incoherent were used on occasion.

There will be no court cases to decide just how pretty a frock a trans-identified man has to wear to entitle him to go into the women's bathroom, or just how hirsute a trans-identified woman's beard has to be to entitle her to go into the men's. If it is proportionate to exclude men (or women) from a particular facility, then it is proportionate to exclude trans-identifying men (or women). It is now absolutely settled law, and trans advocates are just going to have to stop crying about it.

 

[Rolfe]

Is there any data on rape of women by transwomen?

There are certainly numerous accounts of it happening. How many do you want? What sort of "data" would satisfy you?

 

[zooterkin]

The supreme court didn’t rule on the definition of ‘a woman’ – this is what its judgment does mean | Sam Fowles

The judges had to interpret the law as set down by parliament. But it must be remembered this is not an abstract debate; it concerns real people, says barrister Sam Fowles

www.theguardian.com

 

[acbytesla]

No, nearly all of us are not hateful at all.

Yes, many of you are. 6ou don't mean to be. But that is the nature of humanity. People are afraid of people that are different. And hating what is different is natural.

False. The majority are fairly easily identifiable as males.
That *you* are so easily fooled by lipstick is your own issue. The majority of males do not pass as females even if they get some bolt-on-boobs.

Nope. You can declare that all you want. It is not true. Some, yes. But I have spent a lot of time around trans people. I know differently

It's not of importance to you, because you are a male and it has no impact on you.
It has a LOT of very NEGATIVE impact on females across the board. Who the ◊◊◊◊ do you think you are to declare that we have no right to acknowledge and discuss that impact, simply because it doesn't bother YOU?

No, it almost none.

 

[Rolfe]

Talking of the rape of women by transwomen, the accounts I find most upsetting for some reason are two or three posts that have been made on social media by young lesbian women who have been gaslighted to believe that TWAW and that it is transphobic to refuse to "date" a transwoman. They have been too young and naive to work out how to protect themselves. They have agreed to "date" a transwoman and to take that relationship to a sexual level.

The accounts, and as I said I have only seen two or three, all take much the same course. The young woman is repulsed by the transwoman's male body, and especially by his penis. She's being told it's a "lady dick", or even that it's just a clitoris. She's reluctant, but terrified of being transphobic. She lets the encounter continue, and the man insists on penetrative sex. The young lesbian is left distraught, feeling (and actually being) violated, but also feeling overwhelming feelings of guilt for her transphobia, and for the possibility that her revulsion has upset the transwoman.

If that isn't rape, it ought to be. But at least with the possibility of forming male-excluding lesbian groups and dating pools, it will be a lot easier for young lesbians not to get caught up in such situations.

 

[Rolfe]

The supreme court didn’t rule on the definition of ‘a woman’ – this is what its judgment does mean | Sam Fowles

The judges had to interpret the law as set down by parliament. But it must be remembered this is not an abstract debate; it concerns real people, says barrister Sam Fowles

www.theguardian.com

What a heap of mince. But then it's the Guardian, what would we expect? There are a number of trans-activist lawyers trying to spin this in their favour at the moment, by misrepresenting the de facto situation as it was until this morning, and by dragging in situations which aren't covered by the judgement. But it's a done deal. Mene, mene tekel upharsin.

 

[d4m10n]

I think it's less a matter of a perfect system of formal logic, and more a matter of preferred framing.

I think it's fair to say the court's decision in this case leans towards the former approach more than the latter, going so far as to determine key meanings based on whether using them would violate the rules of logic.

160. If the EA 2010 can only be read coherently to mean biological sex, the same result must follow. The question that must therefore be answered is whether there are provisions in the EA 2010 that indicate that the biological meaning of sex is plainly intended and/or that a “certificated sex” meaning renders these provisions incoherent or as giving rise to absurdity. An interpretation that produces unworkable, impractical, anomalous or illogical results is unlikely to have been intended by the legislature.​

As to whether your framing makes more sense in U.S. law, I suppose we shall see.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, blunter than intended: bull ◊◊◊◊. If you can exert 20 lbs of pressure (and unless crippled, you can), you can put a much larger male in the hospital. It's a question of will, and I don't accept this 'oh we're just widdle womenfolk' absolute bull ◊◊◊◊.

My daughters are all much smaller than me, and god help the sorry son of a bitch that attacks any one of them. They'll put the bitch in ICU before they are victimized. Because they will not utter the words you have been typing. They will not be docile victims and give up before the fight.

I think this is wishful thinking on your part. I sincerely support your daughters fighting back... but if you think that your female children could put you in the ICU if you tried to immobilize them, you're wrong.

When I was in college, there were a few areas of campus where sexual assaults and attempted rapes had happened more than once. Lots of trees, dark, not on a main walkway, etc. But also very popular areas for morning jogs, and a definite shortcut if you're coming back to the dorm from the other side of campus. Our brother floor set up a "walk home" program, so that any females taking night classes could arrange for one of them to meet them outside of class and walk them home. There were several very athletic, strong females who insisted they didn't need protection, they could take care of themselves. So some of the average sized males challenged them. The basic objective was that the males would grab and pin down the females one-on-one... and all the females had to do was get away. The males weren't trying to cause any injury or even pain, and the females were allowed to hit, kick, scratch as much as they wanted. And these weren't the big athletic males, they were entirely average sized engineering and math students.

Not a single female got away.

Violence of action can turn the tables on someone who isn't expecting it, and can definitely drive off an uncommitted opportunistic predator - same as having a locked door or a car alarm will drive off opportunistic uncommitted thieves. But violence of action can't overcome a significant physical difference when the opponent is intent on causing harm.

 

[smartcooky]

And I say it isn't the victory (based on my current understanding of what the judgement will say) some people think it is as what will now have to happen is for other cases to work their way through the system. For example a trans person wanting to use the toilet in line with their gender reassignment so a trans man wanting to use the male toilets, the courts will have to decide whether that is unlawful discrimination based on gender reassignment. The matter is far from settled law.

Nope... its a slam dunk for the central issue.... sex-segregated safe spaces

(xiv) There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others (paras 210-228).​

​

(xv) Similar incoherence and impracticability arise in the operations of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces (paras 229-246).​

​

We therefore conclude that the provisions of the EA 2010 which we have discussed are provisions to which section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 applies.​

The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex.​

Any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate (para 264).​

This is definitive. Transwomen are not women, they are men.. this is now the law (and the way Supreme Court jurisprudence works, it is deemed to have always been the law).

- Sex-segregated women's toilets, bathrooms and changing facilities: Females only - Transwomen are males, and are excluded
- Women's Sports: Females only - Transwomen are males, and are therefore excluded
- Women's refuges: Females only - Transwomen are males, and are therefore excluded
- Women's rape crisis centres: Females only - Transwomen are males, and are therefore excluded
- Women's prisons: Females only - Transwomen are males, and are excluded

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes. My own theory from the woman's perspective is that we're hard-wired not to allow males to see us in intimate situations or when partially dressed. There's an undertone of immodesty about it, as if we're consenting to make ourselves sexually available to a man if we consent to his seeing us in these situations. We want to control who we will accept as a sexual partner, and we can't do that if we're not allowed to maintain our boundaries.

That's just speculation, but it's something very deep-seated. I even recall my mother trying to persuade me that I didn't have to be so particular about covering myself with a towel when changing on the beach. She said, it really doesn't matter when you're only five. I replied in all seriousness, it only matters when you're six? She certainly didn't teach me this. Even the women who had been intimately examined by the doctor flurried to wrap shawls round themselves when he came into the organ loft where we were changing before a concert.

Agreed. There's a bit of an exception when the situations are collective nudity such as nude beaches or some mixed-sex sweat lodges. But in those situations there's pretty much no tolerance for sexual behavior of any sort. And in many of those situations there are a lot of people around who will enforce acceptable behavior.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No idea, but as I said, I acknowledge that female specific need for both privacy from the general public, and a maybe a little help from other women who might be more compassionate, having been there themselves.

Then why are you arguing so vehemently against all of the reasons that I've provided for why we desire and need male-free spaces?

 

[theprestige]

OK, this is going to sound sharper than intended, but I want to cut to the chase: men think about you sexually? So what? Welcome to planet earth. Men have that caveman thing you talked about going on. So what if they think about you sexually? Men think about avacados sexually.

Again, blunter than intended: bull ◊◊◊◊. If you can exert 20 lbs of pressure (and unless crippled, you can), you can put a much larger male in the hospital. It's a question of will, and I don't accept this 'oh we're just widdle womenfolk' absolute bull ◊◊◊◊.

My daughters are all much smaller than me, and god help the sorry son of a bitch that attacks any one of them. They'll put the bitch in ICU before they are victimized. Because they will not utter the words you have been typing. They will not be docile victims and give up before the fight.

So what? I mean in the big picture, so what? Does it make you uncomfortable? Do you want me to list off the things that make me uncomfortable? It's a rather long list.

I'm in the 20%! And in a lot of these surveys, I've seen what they call 'sexual harrassment'. By the milquetoast definitions, I have been sexually harressed since childhood. So I'm in the 80% too.

No it doesn't. It might increase unwarranted paranoia, but that's a very different thing. We talked about that earlier, on guard versus threatened. There is a difference, and you are glossing over it.

Although I am being very intentionally blunt (sorry but it moves things along faster): no, those aren't reasonable unless you don't set foot on a dark street alone, ever. Never stop for a cop pulling you over, never work alone in an office with a man, that kind of thing. If you can do those things, or even walk with your spouse on a street (unless you think he is bulletproof of stun gun resistant), you're not as in as much global fear of men as you claim. You can't just declare global fear of men and demand imaginary 'safe spaces' from them, that are no safer than an unlocked door with a sign.

Fear of men in general is a mental illness, as you are framing it. You should be no more afraid of that 1 in 200 transwoman than I am of the males I run across in a men's room, who are often together and outnumber me.

Again, I'm being blunt to cut to the chase, not to be insensitive.

You should probably show your daughters the hundred years of statistics gathered on the disparity between the sexes, in any contest of strength, speed, or endurance. Or just show them a chart of male vs female testosterone ranges.

They might be better off practicing situational awareness and acceleration off the block, rather than fighting arts.