Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

I don't think that's what anyone wants.

That is explicitly what the TRAs want. What do you think self-ID means?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think there's a lot of truth in this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1912956889597431955

There is, and it's frustrating. It makes it nearly impossible to have a reasonable, rational, compassionate discussion on damn near any topic. I've lost track of the number of moderate liberals and classical liberals who have been called far-right bigoted nazis over the past several years.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If this applies to judges being required to consider misgendering in custody cases, I don't think this is unreasonable. If a teen allocated female at birth wishes to change their name and stop wearing dresses and have a girlfriend, but the father insists on making the teen wear dresses and can't go to the prom with a girl, and this is causing distress then it should be considered.

This doesn't mean that I am against women only spaces, or want to promote the trans option. I had gender dysphoria as a teen, I grew out of it, I do think for most young women with gender dysphoria psychological support is needed not just pharmacological. My father just seemed happy that he could do with his daughter all the things that he would have done with his son had he had one. Whilst I learned to keep a straight bat, my sister learned to cook, in retrospect a more useful skill than being able to score a cricket match. Historically it seems being a tomboy was an accepted option for a teen girl, now it seems to have been changed into an indication of a need to transition. But even historically sympathy doesn't seem to have favoured forced feminisation of tomboys.

It's entirely possible to allow a young person to express themselves outside of some forced sex-stereotype box, without allowing them to change their name and demand pronouns that are in contradiction to reality.

I was a tomboy as a child, and I'm arguably still one. But I'm incontrovertibly female in objective reality. If I desired my nickname to be Pat or Alex or whatever, fine, but I think it would be unreasonable of me to expect that everyone I interact with use male pronouns in reference to me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hobson's choice here. From the owner of a livery stable who insisted that customers take the next horse on the rota, the one that had rested longest, rather than letting them choose.

Google says US uses Hobson's choice too. I just grew up without fanciness, so it's always been "false choice". Not giving false choices was a cornerstone for how I was raised - if I had an actual choice, I was presented with choices; if I didn't have an actual choice, I was given a directive.

 

[Thermal]

That is explicitly what the TRAs want. What do you think self-ID means?

It doesn't mean "males overriding sex segregation whenever they want".

 

[Emily's Cat]

And how will a biological woman in that toilet know that the masculine appearing person is a biological man and not a trans man?

Well, if they do a double take and look at more than just facial hair, they're likely to make the reasonable inference that the 5'4" narrow-shouldered, high-waisted, wide-hipped person with female facial bone structure is a female, whereas the 5'11" broad-shouldered, low-waisted, narrow-hipped person with male facial bone structure is a male. Some people are going to have a rough time of it, some are going to successfully sneak past.

But at least now when we see an OBVIOUS male we can take action to evict them and have the authorities on our side.

 

[Thermal]

Well, if they do a double take and look at more than just facial hair, they're likely to make the reasonable inference that the 5'4" narrow-shouldered, high-waisted, wide-hipped person with female facial bone structure is a female, whereas the 5'11" broad-shouldered, low-waisted, narrow-hipped person with male facial bone structure is a male. Some people are going to have a rough time of it, some are going to successfully sneak past.

But at least now when we see an OBVIOUS male we can take action to evict them and have the authorities on our side.

(If you are in the UK)

 

[theprestige]

It doesn't mean "males overriding sex segregation whenever they want".

That's exactly what it means: Any man, any time, saying "I identify as a woman" and being entitled to override sex segregation on that basis alone, no questions asked. That's the policy that's being advocated.

But fine. Whatever. You don't think men should be allowed to override sex segregation just because they want to.

What hoops do you think they should jump through, to earn that privilege?

 

[d4m10n]

The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different, if it were really about establishing unisex restrooms for the comfort of gender dysphorics.

There's no unitary debate about trans rights (in policy or in theory) but rather a thousand different debates, based on the laws and norms of different nations, states, provinces, and sometimes even municipalities.

One of the many ongoing debates is whether adding unisex third spaces (e.g. private lockable family restrooms or changing rooms) for gender non-comforming customers or service users should be seen as enough of an accommodation given the relatively small number of people who wish they could be the opposite sex along with the even smaller number of people who wish to avoid being sexed altogether.

 

[Thermal]

That's exactly what it means: Any man, any time, saying "I identify as a woman" and being entitled to override sex segregation on that basis alone, no questions asked. That's the policy that's being advocated.

Right, you are bluntly saying "if they lie". The trans rights people aren't advocating for anyone but that trivial half percent who actually, honestly identify as trans.

But fine. Whatever. You don't think men should be allowed to override sex segregation just because they want to.

Agreed.

What hoops do you think they should jump through, to earn that privilege?

I don't think they should, as I keep saying. I think we need to nail down sex segregated spaces (remove all reference to gender) and legally clarify what gender is, with all its limits. Then nobody is overriding anything.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok, I have been assured that analogizing to black people is a no-go, but:

Black people do not put on blackface.

Females don't put on womanface either.

It's something that was done by white people purely to mock, and for no other reason. Transgenders are dressing how it feels right to them, not to mock. So a white dude wearing blackface, no matter what he believes himself to be, is adopting an irredeemably tainted mockery. A black observer has every reason to be insulted. Not so with a guy who sports long hair and makeup.

Why does it not matter what the white person believes about themselves, but it *does* matter what the male person believes about themself? Why is personal belief in contradiction to observable reality an acceptable excuse in one case, but not in the other?

It's why I object to the term 'womanface'. Blackface is and always was mockery. That's not how transgenders are rocking it, and shows that the user of the term believes the transwoman to be insincere.

No, ir shows that the user of the term believes the transwoman to be a man. Whether or not they're sincere in their belief that they're something they objectively are not is irrelevant.

To your point though, people don't identify as trans racial in any known way.

Transracial (identity) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Transracial Identity and the Effect on the Life Circumstances A Pilot Study in 14 Participants

Discover the impact of "transracial identity" on individuals' lives. Explore parallels with transgender and body integrity dysphoria. Study sample of 14 subjects. Findings reveal potential mental health implications and dissatisfaction with appearance. Uncover the desire for a new identity.

www.scirp.org

Some white boys will certainly adopt black manners of speech and dress, but as near as I can tell, they don't think they are actually of Sub-Saharan descent. So it becomes the 'I identify as an attack helicopter' argument, which has value only so far as saying 'a lotta people are trolls at heart'.

Rachel Dolezal
Martina Big
Jessica Krug
Korla Pandit
Arguably... Oli London, although I give it even odds their whole thing was a publicity stunt.

You're making the mistake of assuming that because something seems unreasonable and outlandish to you, it must not actually happen. Just because you haven't heard of it, or you don't believe it ought to be true, doesn't make it false.

 

[theprestige]

There's no unitary debate about trans rights (in policy or in theory) but rather a thousand different debates, based on the laws and norms of different nations, states, provinces, and sometimes even municipalities.

No. There is a clear through line in trans rights activism. That line does not pass through "unisex bathrooms for gender dysphorics". If it did, we would know.

 

[theprestige]

Right, you are bluntly saying "if they lie". The trans rights people aren't advocating for anyone but that trivial half percent who actually, honestly identify as trans.

No. They're advocating for anyone who says they identify as trans. That's the whole point.

Agreed.

I don't think they should, as I keep saying. I think we need to nail down sex segregated spaces (remove all reference to gender) and legally clarify what gender is, with all its limits. Then nobody is overriding anything.

We've already nailed down sex segregated spaces. You're trying to force confusion where none exists.

Transwomen aren't pushing for access to women's spaces because they're confused about sex vs gender. Rather the opposite.

Nobody's saying, "it says women on the door, I guess that means me.". They're saying "it doesn't mean me, but it should", and then sowing confusion to manufacture consensus through misunderstanding.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. It applies to transwomen, not 'any old guy'.

How exactly are we supposed to tell the difference?

That you think that means 'any male' shows that your starting assumptions is that a significant amount of men will lie and misrepresent themselves. Statistically, we are not seeing that. Anywhere. The ones that are inclined to lie in order to abuse have been doing so anyway.

What? No, of course not. I think it's a little societal cruelty rubbed in their faces. Making it clear that they are not accepted for what they feel they are. And that's what I'm trying to sidestep.

They're NOT accepted for what they feel they are. Realistically, I don't think you actually for realsies accept them for what they feel they are.

Look - you might know a few very well-passing transsexuals, so do I. And you might even think "yeah, they're pretty hot" if they pass well. But I'm about 98% sure that if they have a schlong, no matter how well they mimic the external appearance of a female, you wouldn't consider them as a potential sexual partner. I give you 2% because you might be more heteroflexible than I assume .

For instance, the ideal for restrooms might be gender neutral multi occupant, and individual privacy rooms for the red tent issues and other privacy concerns. Does that tick all the ideological accommodations without favoring any one group? It's what the Portland schools settled on, and appears to work.

Dude, again, you're looking at this from the perspective of how males use restrooms, how males interact in restrooms - and you're assuming that males use restrooms the right way, and that everyone should use restrooms the same way that males do. You think this is a great solution from a purely male perspective.

Your solution takes away something that females value, and it forces females to change how we interact with each other, how we behave when we're not in the presence of males. You're forcing female social norms to change to mirror male social norms, because you think it's more convenient and reasonable... but you're only looking at it from a male point of view.

 

[Ziggurat]

It doesn't mean "males overriding sex segregation whenever they want".

Yes. It absolutely does.

Do you understand anything about self ID? Do you even know what the term means?

 

[smartcooky]

Right. Only as it applies to the EA. In other applications, the definitions are outside the scope of the ruling.

You understand that the EA is overarching, right? It will apply in any and all situations where sex-based rights rights are in conflict.

 

[smartcooky]

It doesn't mean "males overriding sex segregation whenever they want".

It does when that is explicitly what TRAs want.

 

[theprestige]

It doesn't mean "males overriding sex segregation whenever they want".

The idea that trans identifying individuals should not be required to establish their bona fides is a core tenet of trans rights activism.

 

[Thermal]

Females don't put on womanface either.

Right. Womanface, like blackface, would be something to mock. Beyond a Benny Hill sketch, it isn't a thing.

Why does it not matter what the white person believes about themselves, but it *does* matter what the male person believes about themself? Why is personal belief in contradiction to observable reality an acceptable excuse in one case, but not in the other?

? Because sincerity, yo. Because empathy. If someone says they are gay, I'm not going to accuse them of faking it for my rhetorical convenience, because that's a really off the wall take. It matters if someone is sincere. I don't even get what you could possibly be asking here.

No, ir shows that the user of the term believes the transwoman to be a man. Whether or not they're sincere in their belief that they're something they objectively are not is irrelevant.

Transracial (identity) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Transracial Identity and the Effect on the Life Circumstances A Pilot Study in 14 Participants

Discover the impact of "transracial identity" on individuals' lives. Explore parallels with transgender and body integrity dysphoria. Study sample of 14 subjects. Findings reveal potential mental health implications and dissatisfaction with appearance. Uncover the desire for a new identity.

www.scirp.org

Rachel Dolezal
Martina Big
Jessica Krug
Korla Pandit
Arguably... Oli London, although I give it even odds their whole thing was a publicity stunt.

You're making the mistake of assuming that because something seems unreasonable and outlandish to you, it must not actually happen. Just because you haven't heard of it, or you don't believe it ought to be true, doesn't make it false.

Even the wiki page didn't present stats, because it really doesn't even statistically exist. Rachel Dozeal is the lead example, and she never for a minute even suggested she thought she was actually black. The very short list of 'sufferers' of this all appear to be insincere, or at least not claiming to actually believe this so much as strongly identify with this other race, without actively believing they are so. That's not the case with trans people.

 

[theprestige]

Rachel Dozeal is the lead example, and she never for a minute even suggested she thought she was actually black.

She very much suggested exactly this. Because she was delusional. But suddenly this analogy isn't working for you any more.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to make quoted text visible