Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Louden Wilde]

I am not. What I have been saying from the very beginning is that I am trying to find a way to reasonably accommodate everyone, because I kind of like people and sympathize with the little guy/gal getting bullied for being different. The problem arises when the anti-trans side goes to extremes in order to represent the everyday, and it's true, the extremes have to be dealt with, which is the interesting and difficult part of this discussion. But the anti-trans side doesn't want to deal with the 99+% part, which is fairly benign and mostly the status quo anyway. They want to pretend Bryson is the norm, and start/end argumentation from there. Would it not make more sense to figure out how to maintain the staus quo, and focus on closing the loopholes for predators? I don't think that's as impossible as the anti-transers make it out to be.

I get that concern. But It's notable that when we (society) tried to end gay-bashing, we didn't try to use women as a shield - rather we tried to increase acceptance. 30 + years ago, of course, what we thought of as trans pretty much were gay men (some of whom have been retroactively "transed" - e.g. Marsha P. Johnson). I think there's a fair amount of folks who still think that way - not realizing that the heterosexual males who cross-dressed for sexual excitement now fall under the "trans-umbrella" (which d4m10n linked to upthread). It does seem that the recent increase in TW (at least among males >30) seem to be of the latter variety. Several years ago the Biden admin had a White House roundtable for Lesbian Visibility Day - at least 2 of the limited number of participants were male (Charles/Charlotte Clymer & Rachel Levine).

When it comes to acceptance - it's going to be quite different (from gay men), particularly due to the trans-activists claims. As I mentioned a couple pages ago, TW are never going to be accepted as a subset of women - that's not feasible (nor is there good support for the "born in the wrong body" hypothesis) There are plenty of folks who are anti-trans as a movement, but not as people.

 

[Thermal]

I get that concern. But It's notable that when we (society) tried to end gay-bashing, we didn't try to use women as a shield - rather we tried to increase acceptance. 30 + years ago, of course, what we thought of as trans pretty much were gay men (some of whom have been retroactively "transed" - e.g. Marsha P. Johnson). I think there's a fair amount of folks who still think that way - not realizing that the heterosexual males who cross-dressed for sexual excitement now fall under the "trans-umbrella" (which d4m10n linked to upthread). It does seem that the recent increase in TW (at least among males >30) seem to be of the latter variety. Several years ago the Biden admin had a White House roundtable for Lesbian Visibility Day - at least 2 of the limited number of participants were male (Charles/Charlotte Clymer & Rachel Levine).

When it comes to acceptance - it's going to be quite different, particularly due to the trans-activists claims. As I mentioned a couple pages ago, TW are never going to be accepted as a subset of women - that's not feasible (nor is there good support for the "born in the wrong body" hypothesis) There are plenty of folks who are anti-trans as a movement, but not as people.

I'm not even expecting transwomen to be accepted as women (I used 'women with an asterisk' as a descriptor earlier in the thread). They are not female, after all. But someone's biological sex is not something we deal with day-to-day much beyond our SOs, so I'm very inclined to treat them as what they say they are, because their DNA doesn't impact our interactions.

My argument here isn't for acceptance of transwomen as females, with all the female space passes that come with it. It's to not give women the right to say 'beat it you cross dressing perv' to a transwoman that is really not bothering anyone. That's not protecting women. That's protecting bigotry.

 

[Ziggurat]

No I haven't. You read words like 'Self ID is sufficient to be acknowledged as transgender, but that doesn't grant bathroom access', and interpret that in whatever goofball way is rhetorically convenient. Bored out of my skull with it.

That is not the basis on which I say that you have supported self ID, this is:

ETA: I'll repeat this answer again to you: the women's room is for those who believe they are women.

The only reasonable way to read these words is self-ID. The fact that you are inconsistent is not my fault.

You want Potter Stewart invoked yet again?

I want you to say, in your own words, what YOU mean by "presents". "I'll know it when I see it" does not suffice, because different people's standards on this are not even remotely similar.

And even in regards to its original use, Stewart came to regret those words. This standard unsurprisingly did not last long (since it's unworkable), being supplanted by the Miller test. Stewart was essentially trying to dodge the issue, and your repetition of his words here is basically a confession that you are doing the same.

 

[Thermal]

That is not the basis on which I say that you have supported self ID, this is:

The only reasonable way to read these words is self-ID. The fact that you are inconsistent is not my fault.

It's not inconsistent. You're just changing meanings to suit your arguments. As you say, we have been over this before. Rinse and repeat.

I want you to say, in your own words, what YOU mean by "presents". "I'll know it when I see it" does not suffice, because different people's standards on this are not even remotely similar.

Correct. We sometimes refer to such precise line drawing as a sea of gray issue. I'll explain it to you later.

And even in regards to its original use, Stewart came to regret those words. This standard unsurprisingly did not last long (since it's unworkable), being supplanted by the Miller test. Stewart was essentially trying to dodge the issue, and your repetition of his words here is basically a confession that you are doing the same.

Gray, Sea of. There are no possible lines to draw and you know it. That you rely so heavily on a precise paper bag test speaks volumes.

ETA: btw, the fact that it is impossible to objectively state a passing/sincerity line for a transwoman doesn't demand full acceptance of the bigotry line. That doesn't follow. At all.

 

[Brainster]

My argument here isn't for acceptance of transwomen as females, with all the female space passes that come with it. It's to not give women the right to say 'beat it you cross dressing perv' to a transwoman that is really not bothering anyone. That's not protecting women. That's protecting bigotry.

There are female spaces but transwomen are allowed to use them, provided they aren't "bothering" anybody, but presumably if a woman is saying beat it, she is bothered. A lot of work here is being done by your assumption that not accepting transwomen in female spaces is motivated by bigotry. Maybe if the woman said, "Beat it, ma'am," it would be acceptable?

 

[Thermal]

There are female spaces but transwomen are allowed to use them, provided they aren't "bothering" anybody, but presumably if a woman is saying beat it, she is bothered. A lot of work here is being done by your assumption that not accepting transwomen in female spaces is motivated by bigotry. Maybe if the woman said, "Beat it, ma'am," it would be acceptable?

Rolfe has specifically argued that if you are a male, or ever were one (surgically transitioned), she still wants to give them the bum's rush because she feels it's proper. Nuff said.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not inconsistent. You're just changing meanings to suit your arguments.

I have done nothing of the sort. You just don't like being called on your inconsistencies and incoherence. And for you to accuse me of changing meanings when you refuse to even say what you mean is rich.

There are no possible lines to draw and you know it.

There are no possible lines to draw to achieve what YOU want. Which is why your approach is doomed to failure. There are very easy lines to draw in my approach.

 

[Thermal]

I have done nothing of the sort. You just don't like being called on your inconsistencies and incoherence. And for you to accuse me of changing meanings when you refuse to even say what you mean is rich.

You have, and still do.

There are no possible lines to draw to achieve what YOU want. Which is why your approach is doomed to failure. There are very easy lines to draw in my approach.

Yes, blatant bigotry is simple to define and self-consistent to enforce. No argument there.

 

[Pixel42]

The mere presence of someone like Bryson is menacing in and of itself. Do you not understand that? And many WILL NOT leave if they are granted the legal right to be there. We have seen that already.

I'm reminded of the trans NHS doctor who refused to leave the women's changing room when a nurse came in who was dealing with a menstrual emergency and asked to be given privacy. Something any actual woman would have granted without even needing to be asked.

 

[Brainster]

Rolfe has specifically argued that if you are a male, or ever were one (surgically transitioned), she still wants to give them the bum's rush because she feels it's proper. Nuff said.

So what's the dividing line for you? Surgically transitioned and you get the right to use the ladies' room? Or are we back to "not bothering anybody" being sufficient?

 

[Thermal]

So what's the dividing line for you? Surgically transitioned and you get the right to use the ladies' room? Or are we back to "not bothering anybody" being sufficient?

I think if you have an actual sex change, then yes, access. It shouldn't even be an issue.

Still not sure on where the reasonable line should be for a transgender, especially given that one can't be objectively drawn. That's what is making me lean towards not codifying sex and gender (my earlier position that others here are aggressively talking me out of), but leaving them vague and continue with mob rule. I'd only want to insure that mob rule neither legally allows any woman to eject anyone she pleases for no reason, and that a woman is not charged with a hate crime for ejecting Bryson.

 

[lionking]

I think if you have an actual sex change, then yes, access. It shouldn't even be an issue.

If you do not know that a sex change is impossible you should not be posting here.

 

[smartcooky]

You don'rt seem to understand the concept of "I'm out". See, if you pose a question, comment, or challenge to a poster that pings on their alerts, a reasonably polite poster will feel obligated to respond.

I don't. Well that was time well spent.

Because it is an ignorant, bigoted question that ignores the many pages of discussion, and indicates that you are so steeped in your willful ignorance that you do not understand anything that has been discussed, apparently for years, and probably won't understand if repeated yet again.

You say no one has provided a 'satisfactory answer'. That's because you are not satisfied with anything but a parroting of your own view. Again, that's your shortcoming, no one else's.

As I said.. Dodged.

 

[theprestige]

Because we realized we were being total douchebags to a very small minority gtoup.

I disagree with the premise, but it's nothing you haven't heard before. So instead, I'm going to try something different: a good faith attempt to understand what you're talking about, and reach some kind of mutually acceptable compromise.

So.

What is the scumbaggery, total or otherwise, that you see in saying males should use the male restrooms, regardless of their gender presentation or gender identity?

Ya they want to feel normal, like you and I do when we use a restroom. Real ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, right?

You're begging the questions that (a) this particular desire to feel normal is healthy and should be enabled, (b) that this particular approach, of of overriding sex segregation in restrooms whenever they want, is an effective solution, and (c) that the trade-off for women is worth it.

These are the three questions that most concern me, and for which you have no answers, only invective.

I'm willing to try to work out a solution, or at least what would be fair, even if it has little chance of happening.

What would a fair solution look like, to you?

To me, a fair solution would be to enforce sex segregation in public policy, and let women decide whether to make a fuss about transwomen who are attempting to pass and aren't being obnoxious to them. This was the status quo ante, and I think it served society well for many years.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have, and still do.

Yes, blatant bigotry is simple to define and self-consistent to enforce. No argument there.

I note that you still make no attempt to define what you mean by "presents". You say you are attempting dialogue, but in fact you are refusing. What you really want is just to lecture the rest of us about how terrible we are.

 

[theprestige]

I think if you have an actual sex change, then yes, access. It shouldn't even be an issue.

There's no such thing as an actual sex change. This side of the Singularity, sex is immutable. There is no plastic modifcation of the phenotype, no artificially induced hormonal imbalance, that turns a male into a female.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think if you have an actual sex change, then yes, access. It shouldn't even be an issue.

Still not sure on where the reasonable line should be for a transgender, especially given that one can't be objectively drawn. That's what is making me lean towards not codifying sex and gender (my earlier position that others here are aggressively talking me out of), but leaving them vague and continue with mob rule. I'd only want to insure that mob rule neither legally allows any woman to eject anyone she pleases for no reason, and that a woman is not charged with a hate crime for ejecting Bryson.

You want to split the baby.

That cannot be done.

 

[Thermal]

As I said.. Dodged.

It was a stupid question. I don't think there are any fantasies being indulged. Did you have a brighter question that you really meant?

 

[Thermal]

I disagree with the premise, but it's nothing you haven't heard before. So instead, I'm going to try something different: a good faith attempt to understand what you're talking about, and reach some kind of mutually acceptable compromise.

So.

What is the scumbaggery, total or otherwise, that you see in saying males should use the male restrooms, regardless of their gender presentation or gender identity?

Pretty much the same ones I've been saying. Rather than restating and rinsing and repeating, could you clarify exactly what you don't understand?

You're begging the questions that (a) this particular desire to feel normal is healthy and should be enabled,

I see no reason that it's not.

(b) that this particular approach, of of overriding sex segregation in restrooms whenever they want, is an effective solution

I don't know that we have unequivocal sex segregation (certainly don't in my state, codified in law)

, and (c) that the trade-off for women is worth it.

Women would be largely unaffected by it, insomuch as they have literally been doing it already for generations, just like the men have.

Unless you are assuming words that you are subtlety shoving in my mouth? What is the "trade-off" who's worth is being weighed, since you know I don't advocate pure selfID?

These are the three questions that most concern me, and for which you have no answers, only invective.

Ya for the thousandth time, I come to a discussion to discuss things I'm not entirely sure about, not to plant my flag and be belligerent.

I can't imagine why that simple concept is so far beyond the ken of posters here.

What would a fair solution look like, to you?

For everybody to STFU and take your piss and wash your hands without involving the Penis Police. I know, I'm a dreamer.

To me, a fair solution would be to enforce sex segregation in public policy, and let women decide whether to make a fuss about transwomen who are attempting to pass and aren't being obnoxious to them. This was the status quo ante, and I think it served society well for many years.

Agreed (as I keep saying) in all but the very first line. I don't think sex segregation is as crystal clear as we often assume. For restrooms, it has turned out to be about as clear as mud.

 

[Ziggurat]

For everybody to STFU and take your piss and wash your hands without involving the Penis Police. I know, I'm a dreamer.

Dreams, hallucinations....

I'm afraid the Penis Police (also know just as the police) are going to be necessary if you want to keep Bryson out of women's bathrooms and changing rooms.

I don't think sex segregation is as crystal clear as we often assume. For restrooms, it has turned out to be about as clear as mud.

No, sex segregation has been and remains perfectly clear. What has been muddy is the attempt to substitute gender segregation in place of sex segregation.