Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

Just want to briefly touch on the cherry-picking thing, since it gets brought up so much:

There are millions of transpeople in the world. You guys are dicking around in the couple dozen range of providing worst actor examples. Your examples are not only not the 'dominant fruit', but are still drizzling around in the noise range.

Rolfe once put up a long list of trans people claimed to be sex offenders that attacked women in intimate spaces. No links, of course. I spot searched a bunch at random, and each and every time, the author was blatantly lying about what these people were even accused of. The tweet she posted was deleted quickly. Can you hazard a guess as to why that might have been so?

So to be the 'dominant fruit, how many would you expect to be able to provide daily? A thousand? Couple hundred? Instead, you've got something in the dozens, worldwide, spanning decades.

To dismiss the charge of the textbook cherry-picking that y'all are doing, you need exponentially more credible examples. Like, more every single day than you have collectively come up with in many years. Till then, you aren't even demonstrating a higher rate than the general population.

One stat was repeatedly brought up earlier: 79 trans sex offenders in a nation of 69 million, and it was acknowledged by your side that they were not even known to be actually trans, but may have well been faking it to get into the women's prison. Either way, vanishingly insignificant to a skeptic.

So. We are skeptics, that ridicule fallacious reasoning, right? Yet y'all gleefully employ it with every tweet. What is the data? Remember, please, that you are saying this is the dominant fruit. Your words. Anyone is welcome to pick up on the evidentiary challenge, of course, but let's lay your collective fallacious assumption to rest, shall we?

You have some misunderstandings in here.

First, I don't think any of us have claimed (or even believe) that cherries are the dominant fruit. Perhaps as hyperbole, but not seriously.

That said, it's still enough cherries that it's a problem. I very small minority of males commit rape, but it's still enough males that females as a whole have very good reasons to be concerned about a random male when we're in an isolated or vulnerable position. A very small minority of males spike drinks at clubs, but it's enough that females as a whole are extremely leery of leaving their drink unsupervised for any length of time.

The overall point that you continue to somehow dodge understanding is that some males will exploit goodwill toward transgender identified males in order to do harm to females. The point is that the cost of goodwill is too high for females to be expected to pay. It doesn't matter if you think those males are "true trans" or if they're "pretending" - there's literally no way to tell the difference, none at all.

 

[angrysoba]

Well I'm glad it's happening, and I don't begrudge them a cautious approach in today's climate, but I think "intellectual honesty prevailed, as it must" is a bit of a stretch. If intellectual honesty must prevail, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

The NYT hasn't been immune to ideological capture this whole time. The NYT has done its fair share of gaslighting people with anti-science and post-truth narratives, on this issue. Whatever is going on here, it's not the inevitable rise of intellectual honesty. Except maybe in the sense that these particular reporters and editors had some intellectual honesty in them, ready to be taken up if and when they so chose. Good on them for choosing to lay hold of it.

Well, in the fourth episode the reporters revisit a story they wrote back in 2022 when they interviewed a whistle blower from a clinic in Missouri.

I dimly recall that the interview was pilloried by trans rights groups and they drove a truck outside the NYT offices denouncing them for giving a platform for a witness in a case that eventually resulted in gender-affirming treatment bans.

Apparently this is the episode that has riled up partisans on both sides of the issue.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That would be fine if they all got comparable attention. To your traveler example, I am given the same treatment as my wife or kids. But here, you want to treat a very specific demographic as more dangerous.Do you apply the same standard to the cishet population? If you did, this thread would not exist.

What's the difference between a transgender identified male and a "cishet" male? How is a random person supposed to tell the difference?

 

[angrysoba]

Fifth part is on the Cass Review. I think most of that is well covered in the thread for that specifically. It’s probably worth repeating that the Cass Review specifically concluded that high quality evidence for youth gender medicine is remarkably weak, but doesn’t rule out it could be useful for some.

The sixth episode has a montage of interviews with trans individuals and parents. Mostly covering what they are going to do in the current political environment.

I think the through line of the NYT is suggesting that both sides in this have their extremes.

It seems they are arguing for what might be called the “genuine trans” have been hijacked by activists which then led to an intolerant backlash.

I expect that many here will have plenty of criticisms of it. Either because it seems too little too late, or concedes too much to gender ideology. That said, I think it is a useful history of how a certain condition which was initially treated with caution and with the realization from the start that much gender dysphoria resolves itself, or that is often accompanied with other mental health issues, or homosexuality, or sexual abuse in the family, was eventually made something of a celebrated condition in which all the safeguards were denounced as “gate-keeping”.

I think it will be thought-provoking to people who haven’t really got any firm opinions on the topic but might have an interest. If you are “gender critical” and think you might scare off your liberal friends by showing them “What is a Woman?” then you might prefer this series as an alternative.

 

[smartcooky]

Couple of points here... If AGP was limited to males getting sexual arousal and gratification from dressing in female-typical clothing, maybe... maybe... that would be minimally problematic. But that's not the end of it.

When an AGP male is out in public dressed in female-typical clothing that provides sexual arousal to them, they are acting out their sexual fantasies real time, in public. Think about that for a few moments - this means that they're in the act of self-arousal in public, without the consent of anyone else.

And to make matters worse, a great number of AGPs find even more sexual arousal by being in the presence of females, in female-specific single-sex spaces. They are actively using non-consenting females as live props in their sexual role play.

Indeed!
There is a very good reason why this lot were not arrested...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931408710686876142

... they were males - AGP males at that - their behaviour tells you everything you need to know. If they were biological females, they would certainly have been arrested for indecent exposure.

 

[angrysoba]

Couple of points here... If AGP was limited to males getting sexual arousal and gratification from dressing in female-typical clothing, maybe... maybe... that would be minimally problematic. But that's not the end of it.

When an AGP male is out in public dressed in female-typical clothing that provides sexual arousal to them, they are acting out their sexual fantasies real time, in public. Think about that for a few moments - this means that they're in the act of self-arousal in public, without the consent of anyone else.

And to make matters worse, a great number of AGPs find even more sexual arousal by being in the presence of females, in female-specific single-sex spaces. They are actively using non-consenting females as live props in their sexual role play.

I've already accepted that they should not be in female single-sex spaces.

But how do we set up a society where people cannot be aroused in public?

I know that some people argue that maybe we shouldn't have skantily clad models on billboards, maybe put women in burkas to stop impure thoughts from leading to non-consensual arousal?

 

[angrysoba]

Indeed!
There is a very good reason why this lot were not arrested...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931408710686876142

... they were males - AGP males at that - their behaviour tells you everything you need to know. If they were biological females, they would certainly have been arrested for indecent exposure.

Okay, but help me out here, smartcooky, because I don't think you have thought through the argument you appear to be making.

I presume you are saying that topless women would or even should be arrested for indecent exposure.

But these guys are males, so there are not...

Do you mean men should be arrested for being topless?

Presumably if the laws are based on sex, not gender, it makes no sense to say that they should be arrested for having female-gendered chests while being men.

 

[smartcooky]

That would be fine if they all got comparable attention. To your traveler example, I am given the same treatment as my wife or kids. But here, you want to treat a very specific demographic as more dangerous.

Yup. The "very specific demographic" is human males, who are more dangerous than human females.

We don't allow human males the right to enter female only spaces, and since transgender self-indentified men are also human males, we should also not allow them the right to enter female spaces.

This is known as fairness - having all human males operating under the same criteria - following the same rules.

Do you apply the same standard to the cishet population?

Yes we do, as I just explained.

YOU on the other hand, want to have special rights for males who claim girly feels (who only want to pee ), i.e. transgender self-indentified men.... males who women have no way of distinguishing from the cishet males you are on about.

If you did, this thread would not exist.

Far more importantly, and of far more relevance, is that this thread would not exist if TRAs had not pushed to grant special, but unreasonable extra rights (over and above their already legally mandated rights) for a tiny demographic with a proven track record of physical and verbal abuse, attempted cancellation, deplaforming, threats of violence, and actual violence towards anyone (and the families of anyone) who opposes their view..... and all completely over the objections of women, and at the expense of those women's own rights.

A miniscule percentage of men sexually abuse little boys. Be honest and stay consistent with your above argument: are you lobbying that all adult men not be allowed in a public rest room because there might be a young boy alone in there?

Well now that you mention it, I don't know how things work in your country, but here (and I am pretty sure that in the UK) you may not be allowed to work with children without a CWSC (Children's Worker Safety Check). In UK its called a DBS check (formerly known as a CRB check) to make sure you don't have any skeletons lurking in your past.

 

[Ziggurat]

You agree that terrorists are a miniscule threat

Again, NO. That is NOT what I said. Read more carefully. The fraction of air travelers who are terrorists is minuscule. The threat they pose is not. The distinction is important, and for you to repeat the error after I already corrected you is disappointing.

Now how many men abuse young boys? More than the incidence of wannabe terrorists? Certainly. Exponentially. And do more men abuse boys than transwomen abuse women? That's why it's not a strawman.

You have the wrong comparison. Fewer males abuse boys than males abuse women. You want to restrict the category to transwomen, but as we have seen time and time again, that isn’t actually possible in the real world.

 

[theprestige]

Fifth part is on the Cass Review. I think most of that is well covered in the thread for that specifically. It’s probably worth repeating that the Cass Review specifically concluded that high quality evidence for youth gender medicine is remarkably weak, but doesn’t rule out it could be useful for some.

The sixth episode has a montage of interviews with trans individuals and parents. Mostly covering what they are going to do in the current political environment.

I think the through line of the NYT is suggesting that both sides in this have their extremes.

It seems they are arguing for what might be called the “genuine trans” have been hijacked by activists which then led to an intolerant backlash.

I expect that many here will have plenty of criticisms of it. Either because it seems too little too late, or concedes too much to gender ideology. That said, I think it is a useful history of how a certain condition which was initially treated with caution and with the realization from the start that much gender dysphoria resolves itself, or that is often accompanied with other mental health issues, or homosexuality, or sexual abuse in the family, was eventually made something of a celebrated condition in which all the safeguards were denounced as “gate-keeping”.

I think it will be thought-provoking to people who haven’t really got any firm opinions on the topic but might have an interest. If you are “gender critical” and think you might scare off your liberal friends by showing them “What is a Woman?” then you might prefer this series as an alternative.

Thank you for bringing it up. I'm adding it to my queue.

 

[d4m10n]

You know why the military is the only employment scenario where transgender status is under debate?

Because the military is under fairly direct control of the Commander in Chief, who issued an executive order specifically targeting servicemembers who have served honorably in uniform for years. My current signature notwithstanding, sometimes policy really is directly driven from the top of the executive branch.

They've already won, and society is OK with that victory.

I would like you to be correct on this point, but remain highly skeptical of the proposition that banning transgender servicemembers is actually the political endgame at the intersection of transgender status and employment protection.

It boggles the mind that you learned such medical details about "countless" fellow soldiers.

Airmen, not soldiers. We were living together in close quarters for several years and there wasn't any significant taboo on discussion of pills we were buying over the counter to treat allergies and whatnot. We spent several weeks tromping around Pike-San Isabel National Forest every summer, so it was worthwhile to compare notes on that sort of thing.

People were a bit more reluctant to discuss their prescriptions, but not everyone was all that reluctant and most of the young women were on some form of birth control (rather than practicing either celibacy or lesbianism) and weren't noticeably embarrassed about it. Coming up from the Bible Belt, I remember being truly surprised at the lack of embarrassment on that point, actually.

Personal recollections aside, my point remains that the military has no problem prescribing pills such as hormonal birth control, despite assertions that taking a pill every day might somehow make someone undeployable. If you want to make the case that the U.S. Air Force is better off without Hunter Marquez you will have to come up with a better argument than the notion that the pills are the real problem.

 

[Thermal]

Again, NO. That is NOT what I said. Read more carefully. The fraction of air travelers who are terrorists is minuscule. The threat they pose is not. The distinction is important, and for you to repeat the error after I already corrected you is disappointing.

Ya I literally made that distinction in the post you quoted. You might not have noticed while you were taking the extra time to snip it out, so you could claim I hadn't said exactly that.

You have the wrong comparison. Fewer males abuse boys than males abuse women. You want to restrict the category to transwomen, but as we have seen time and time again, that isn’t actually possible in the real world.

Why not? I don't have a problem with it, nor does anyone else. Pretty pedestrian, come to that. It's trivially easy to identify the behavior of a subset of males within the larger group of males. In fact if we couldn't, phrases like 'gay men', 'young men', and 'conservative men' wouldn't exist. They might be faking, right? Your side insists it isn't possible, of course, because it is crucial to your misrepresentations.

eta: and I PMed you about this, but it should be said out loud, too: I was out of line with you yesterday, and I apologize.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because the military is under fairly direct control of the Commander in Chief

So? That makes it easier to make changes. That's got nothing to do with what changes people demand. Most bathrooms aren't under the direct control of the Commander in Chief. Most sports aren't under the direct control of the Commander in Chief. Yet the TRAs are getting a lot of pushback on these fronts.

They aren't getting pushback on general employment. Why not? Because the vast majority of people are OK with having employment protections for trans people. That's not about to change.

I would like you to be correct on this point, but remain highly skeptical of the proposition that banning transgender servicemembers is actually the political endgame at the intersection of transgender status and employment protection.

The political endgame for who?

It's the political endgame for Trump, at least in regards to trans employment. He'll take the win and consider it a victory. He will feel no need to push the trans employment issue further than he's already pushed it. Same as he did with abortion: he's not pushing for a federal ban, overturning RvW was enough for him. He's not an ideologue, getting a victory he can declare is enough for him. Hell, even with the sports thing, I'm not sure he really cares about the issue itself so much as it's an easy political win since public opinion is so strongly in favor of not permitting men to compete against women. It forces Democrats to either concede or adopt a losing position. But fighting over general employment rights wouldn't be an easy victory, so there's absolutely no reason for him to engage in that fight. He won't.

Hard core religious conservatives might in principle like to allow for employment discrimination, but the truth is, they don't seem very interested in that fight. The most they're likely to do is fight for carveouts for explicitly religious organizations to be able to discriminate, but that's not new, and it's really not a big deal. Their main fight seems to be in education, not employment. And with good reason, because it's harder to retreat from the public space on education issues. That's not likely to change any time soon. The hard core religious conservatives are and will remain a minority for quite some time, so they only really gain traction when their interests align with the normies. They do on some trans issues (like sports, bathrooms, and early education), but they wouldn't on general employment discrimination.

And as for the gender critical folks, why would they care? Their entire point is that sex matters and gender doesn't. So treating transgender people according to their sex and NOT their gender is the end goal. There's no conflict with that in terms of prohibiting gender expression discrimination, so long as that doesn't interfere with proper sex segregation. And we already don't allow sex discrimination in employment, so it's no skin off their nose to add on prohibiting gender expression discrimination.

If there is another group that wants to permit gender expression discrimination in employment, they're too fringe to even notice.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ya I literally made that distinction in the post you quoted.

But you still misrepresented about what *I* said. Restating what I said as your own claim while misrepresenting what *I* said still isn't OK with me, and my correction was completely justified.

Why not? I don't have a problem with it, nor does anyone else.

You have never done so. You have never stated how we actually distinguish between transwomen and other males. And I have explicitly asked you to do so before.

Pretty pedestrian, come to that. It's trivially easy to identify the behavior of a subset of males within the larger group of males. In fact if we couldn't, phrases like 'gay men', 'young men', and 'conservative men' wouldn't exist. They might be faking, right?

I don't know why you included "young men", since in cases where we do discriminate based on age (for example, purchasing alcohol), we do in fact use legal documentation to establish objective age. So that one is an obvious outlier.

As for the others, yes, men could easily fake that. If someone wanted to fake that, they absolutely could, and they could get away with it too. But so what? We don't care that they might be faking it, because really, what are the consequences of them faking that? Nothing that society as a whole really cares about. So go ahead and fake being conservative. Go ahead and fake being gay. If you fool anyone, oh well.

Your side insists it isn't possible, of course, because it is crucial to your misrepresentations.

If you think it's possible, then tell me how. This isn't like a math class where you can prove that a solution exists even without finding it.

 

[d4m10n]

Because the vast majority of people are OK with having employment protections for trans people.

The majority of Americans were okay with the Roe/Casey legal framework which allowed for the legal possibility of abortion services in every state, but they were thwarted by a determined and cohesive conservative minority.

It's the political endgame for Trump, at least in regards to trans employment. He'll take the win and consider it a victory.

I suspect you are correct, but have no way to prove it since he's not exactly known for announcing policy in advance and then sticking to the plan.

Same as he did with abortion: he's not pushing for a federal ban, overturning RvW was enough for him.

Again, I suspect you are correct and have no way to demonstrate it.

In both of these areas, however, there are activist groups with the stated goal of rolling back protections well past the point where Trump is comfortable declaring victory, and these groups are perfectly happy to extend the logic used to get to that point in the first place. It would take very few tweaks to Executive Order 14183^WP to have it apply to federal civil servants or contractors, for example.

 

[Thermal]

Yup. The "very specific demographic" is human males, who are more dangerous than human females.

We don't allow human males the right to enter female only spaces, and since transgender self-indentified men are also human males, we should also not allow them the right to enter female spaces.

This is known as fairness - having all human males operating under the same criteria - following the same rules.


Yes we do, as I just explained.

YOU on the other hand, want to have special rights for males who claim girly feels (who only want to pee ), i.e. transgender self-indentified men.... males who women have no way of distinguishing from the cishet males you are on about.

That doesn't address anything. You say men are too dangerous to be left in the presence of women. In your famed consistency and fairness, do you have the same exclusionary standard for all those dangerous men being left with young boys? Why are you such a staunch advocate of men being allowed the opportunity to victimize boys?

Your arguments collapse under the slightest scrutiny.

Far more importantly, and of far more relevance, is that this thread would not exist if TRAs had not pushed to grant special, but unreasonable extra rights (over and above their already legally mandated rights) for a tiny demographic with a proven track record of physical and verbal abuse, attempted cancellation, deplaforming, threats of violence, and actual violence towards anyone (and the families of anyone) who opposes their view..... and all completely over the objections of women, and at the expense of those women's own rights.

There are no TRA posters currently in the discussion. This is a discussion among skeptics, who have an interest in the topic beyond the extreme views. You are arguing with imaginary opponents and positions. Not helpful.

Well now that you mention it, I don't know how things work in your country, but here (and I am pretty sure that in the UK) you may not be allowed to work with children without a CWSC (Children's Worker Safety Check). In UK its called a DBS check (formerly known as a CRB check) to make sure you don't have any skeletons lurking in your past.

We are not talking about background checks for specific employment. We are talking about unfettered access by the general public to potential victims, based on their sex, and your insistence that any male cannot be trusted, due to their prevalence of violence. Why aren't you concerned about these men gaining access to young boys? I mean, if there is an ounce of sincerity to your argument.

 

[p0lka]

Buddy, this is physics. Thomas is 1) taller and 2) stronger. Thomas can launch materially further before their parabolic arc starts the downward turn. That's not the case for the shorts, weaker females whose arc is necessarily smaller.

I was initially judging it on the angle they hit the water. 3 of them weren't great, 1 was great and 1 was yet to hit the water so i couldn't judge on skill.
As you mentioned the physics aspect and if it's that what concerns you, how would you feel if a female in the race was taller and stronger than all the rest with a wider parabolic arc? or if it was a male that was shorter with a shorter parabolic arc?

My opinion is that males shouldn't be in female sports as on average there's an unfair advantage in most of them.
I wish all womans and mans public spaces would be changed to male and female instead as that solves a lot of the legal conundrums.. they should change every instance of 'woman' and 'man' to male and female, would solve so much.

I will however treat everyone as the gender they want to be, as I think gender is a social construct and as long you don't start arguing against reality I'm happy for you. Though I don't know why people let society dictate who they want to be in first place.

 

[Ziggurat]

The majority of Americans were okay with the Roe/Casey legal framework which allowed for the legal possibility of abortion services in every state, but they were thwarted by a determined and cohesive conservative minority.

After literally decades of fighting for it, quite publicly, and making it a central focus of a lot of political action.

In both of these areas, however, there are activist groups with the stated goal of rolling back protections well past the point where Trump is comfortable declaring victory

I cannot say that there are no activist groups with such stated goals, but I've never even heard any activist group calling for the removal of trans employment protections. If they exist at all (and you haven't cited any), their influence is nothing like that of abortion opponents.

It would take very few tweaks to Executive Order 14183^WP to have it apply to federal civil servants or contractors, for example.

That's really not true. As I have pointed out before, the courts have consistently indicated that the military (not civilian DOD) is exempt from non-discrimination laws that apply not only to private sector jobs, but even civilian federal jobs. Overcoming that would require a lot more than a few tweaks, and there is no indication the courts have any interest in supporting such a move. If trans employment protections ever do get removed, that's going to have to go through Congress, and I don't see any indication that Republicans in Congress are interested in having that fight. Because again, there isn't even a significant constituency asking for it. But there sure as hell would be a significant "determined and cohesive" Democrat constituency pushing back against it.

 

[Ziggurat]

My opinion is that males shouldn't be in female sports as on average there's an unfair advantage in most of them.

And the picture is actually a demonstration of that advantage, for physics reasons that have already been explained. So I'm not sure why you object to the picture being used to correctly demonstrate an advantage that you agree males have.

I wish all womans and mans public spaces would be changed to male and female instead as that solves a lot of the legal conundrums.

It wouldn't. All it would do is change the TRA claim from "transwomen are women" to "transwomen are female".

 

[theprestige]

I wish all womans and mans public spaces would be changed to male and female instead as that solves a lot of the legal conundrums.. they should change every instance of 'woman' and 'man' to male and female, would solve so much.

Law is downstream from politics. Politics is downstream from culture. Changing the law won't change the culture.