Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

We didn't used to *need* to make a law about it. It was social convention, and it was respected by all and sundry without someone having to get all parental about it. Now, however, some people can't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ behave themselves, so now we need a law.

That's all great, and I agree, but it's not what theprestige and I were talking about.

theprestige likes to frame the dilemma as "all men want the ability to transgress sex segregated spaces any time they want". There's quite a bit of question begging baked in there. Most obviously, the "trans exemption" doesn't apply to all males. Like, it has nothing to do with me, and over 99.5% of other males. But secondarily, it bakes in the idea that a rest room was and always has been a sex segregated space. If it was, we wouldn't be having this debate. It's always been a little wishy washy, with routine casual transgressions and no legal enforcement for "violating" it.

Anecdote: My BFF had a 4yo child whose room persistently smelled like pee. They cleaned everything thoroughly, over and over, but the smell just kept coming back. They asked the kid several times if they'd had an accident, and the kid kept saying no, they hadn't had an accident or peed the bed or anything. After about a month, the smell was really bad and started getting ammoniacal. They finally traced it to the heat register on the floor. After much discussion, they finally figured out the the kid had been peeing in the register at night because they didn't want to cross the hall to the bathroom. The end result of this was my BFF saying "I never thought I'd have to make a rule about not peeing in the heat register, but here we are. Now we have that rule."

With my kids, such a dilemma never arose. "Pee and poop only go in the potty", and we never had to keep.making up supplementary rules. It's literally that simple, and it's what I've been arguing for here. Clarify the definitions (necessary for law and policy issues in any case), then set about codifying sex segregated spaces. A changing/showering area should definitely be sex segregated, and/or private. An open public restroom, as I've said, I'm not as sure about (I was confident before entering this discussion but now I'm not).

 

[theprestige]

If anyone thinks that there is or ever was strict sex segregation, especially with force of law in these Great United States, they are very deeply confused.

If you run across anyone who thinks that, let me know, and I'll happily correct them. Until then, though, it's a moot point. I don't think that way. You don't think that way. It's kind of weird that you even brought it up.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's all great, and I agree, but it's not what theprestige and I were talking about.

theprestige likes to frame the dilemma as "all men want the ability to transgress sex segregated spaces any time they want". There's quite a bit of question begging baked in there.

There's some straw manning in your own post. theprestige did not say that. He said that SOME men want that, absolutely. That's not question begging, that's an observed reality. Do you deny that?

Most obviously, the "trans exemption" doesn't apply to all males.

Under self-ID, it absolutely does. Under self-ID, all men get to transgress sex segregated spaces any time they want. They may not want to (your claim above), but they still get to. That's what self-ID means.

Like, it has nothing to do with me, and over 99.5% of other males.

Under self-ID, that's only because you don't choose to take advantage of it. But it's still available to you, regardless of whether you want that ability or choose to exercise that ability.

 

[zooterkin]

If only there were some way of finding stuff out by searching for it.

I'm fully aware there is. But is 'heat register' a term that's known outside the US? Having looked it up, it seems to be peculiar to the US, something of which Americans may be unaware. It's a very idiosyncratic use of the term 'register'. Warm air heating systems are not common in the UK (they were in vogue in the 70s, before oil prices rocketed, I think), and where they are installed they don't typically have floor vents.

 

[theprestige]

theprestige likes to frame the dilemma as "all men want the ability to transgress sex segregated spaces any time they want". There's quite a bit of question begging baked in there.

No. The fact that you see it as such a bad framing should tell you it's probably not what I'm actually saying.

Zig does a good job of rebutting your weird-ass invention.

 

[theprestige]

I'm fully aware there is. But is 'heat register' a term that's known outside the US? Having looked it up, it seems to be peculiar to the US, something of which Americans may be unaware. It's a very idiosyncratic use of the term 'register'. Warm air heating systems are not common in the UK (they were in vogue in the 70s, before oil prices rocketed, I think), and where they are installed they don't typically have floor vents.

What is the relevance of this nitpicking derail?

 

[Thermal]

There's some straw manning in your own post. theprestige did not say that.

Ahem...

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.

He said that SOME men want that, absolutely.

No, he tends to say "any man" or just "men", not often qualifying with "some".

That's not question begging, that's an observed reality. Do you deny that?

Sort of. I dont think men advocate that much at all. I think transwomen do, and their supporters, NONE OF WHICH refer to them as "men". Do you understand the difference?

Under self-ID, it absolutely does. Under self-ID, all men get to transgress sex segregated spaces any time they want. They may not want to (your claim above), but they still get to. That's what self-ID means.

Under self-ID, that's only because you don't choose to take advantage of it. But it's still available to you, regardless of whether you want that ability or choose to exercise that ability.

I cannot self ID as a woman, because I don't identify as a woman. What you are proposing is fraudulent. We don't normally define terms based on their fraudulent abuses.

 

[Thermal]

I'm fully aware there is. But is 'heat register' a term that's known outside the US? Having looked it up, it seems to be peculiar to the US, something of which Americans may be unaware. It's a very idiosyncratic use of the term 'register'. Warm air heating systems are not common in the UK (they were in vogue in the 70s, before oil prices rocketed, I think), and where they are installed they don't typically have floor vents.

OT: as an American, I rarely hear "heat registers" used outside of professional jargon. Most laypeople just call them vents or heat vents, even when they also provide air conditioning in a combined central system. Sometimes you will hear "grilles" too.

 

[theprestige]

Ahem...




No, he tends to say "any man" or just "men", not often qualifying with "some".

"Any" is not all.

Fiat self-ID, as public policy, would entitle any man to override sex segregation whenever they want. Nothing about this means that all or even most men want to do this.

Sort of. I dont think men advocate that much at all. I think transwomen do, and their supporters, NONE OF WHICH refer to them as "men". Do you understand the difference?

There is no difference. Transwomen are men. A policy of fiat self-ID for access to sex-segregated things for women is a policy that necessarily and only affects men. And, as articulated, it affects all men.

I cannot self ID as a woman, because I don't identify as a woman. What you are proposing is fraudulent. We don't normally define terms based on their fraudulent abuses.

Nobody is this confused.

 

[theprestige]

OT: as an American, I rarely hear "heat registers" used outside of professional jargon. Most laypeople just call them vents or heat vents, even when they also provide air conditioning in a combined central system. Sometimes you will hear "grilles" too.

You'll only hear "grilles" if they're speaking with an English accent. Otherwise, you'll hear "grills".

 

[Thermal]

"Any" is not all.

'Any' directly includes 'all' of the group, just individually referred to. Who is excluded from "all males" if it allies to "any male"?

Fiat self-ID, as public policy, would entitle any man to override sex segregation whenever they want. Nothing about this means that all or even most men want to do this.

Disagreed. Even in my very gender wide open US State, prisons routinely deny the sincerity of a fraudulent selfID.

There is no difference. Transwomen are men. A policy of fiat self-ID for access to sex-segregated things for women is a policy that necessarily and only affects men. And, as articulated, it affects all men.

Funny. Doesn't affect me, even living under such rules. Actual law in my state. Because unless I commit willful fraud, I can't selfID as a woman. Much like if I presented a fake driver's license to a cop, he is not obliged to accept its authenticity on my say so. I think you guys kinda gloss over that.

Nobody is this confused.

I express no confusion. You, however, seem supremely confused about what applies to whom.

Transwoman access to wonens restrooms doesn't apply to my cis ass. Because I am not a transwoman. I acknowledge that transwomen are a unique category that falls outside of the everyday classifications (not strictly men, not strictly women). You, and others here, don't. And so the thread rolls along, repeating itself in catchphrases, "No one is this confused" being the latest.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ahem...

You know what word doesn't appear in your quote from theprestige? It's the one I previously hilighted from your own post: "want". Your quote from theprestige says nothing about want, which was the part of your post I objected to. You haven't proven me wrong, you've proven me right.

No, he tends to say "any man" or just "men", not often qualifying with "some".

Yes. Under self ID, any man CAN. Not want. Can. And they can. Because that is indeed what self-ID means.

Sort of. I dont think men advocate that much at all. I think transwomen do, and their supporters, NONE OF WHICH refer to them as "men".

Male supporters of transwomen are men, are they not? And they want self-ID, do they not? That means that those men (not all men) want all men to be able to enter women's spaces. So yes, some men advocate exactly that. And that's not even getting into whether or not transwomen are still men (I think they are, regardless of what they call themselves).

I cannot self ID as a woman, because I don't identify as a woman.

No. You do not self ID as a woman because you don't want to. But under self-ID, you absolutely can. Choosing not to is completely different than not being able to. What exactly do you think it even means to identify as a woman? It means nothing beyond saying it. Which, I assure you, you are actually capable of doing, even if you are unwilling to.

What you are proposing is fraudulent.

Is it?

Huh. One would have thought that such a realization would enlighten you to the fundamental and irreconcilable problem with self ID, and why it should never, ever be adopted. And yet....

 

[Thermal]

You'll only hear "grilles" if they're speaking with an English accent. Otherwise, you'll hear "grills".

The Home Depot, spokesperson for the everyman using the terms clumsily, disagrees:

Registers & Grilles - The Home Depot

Get free shipping on qualified Registers & Grilles products or Buy Online Pick Up in Store today in the Heating, Venting & Cooling Department.

www.homedepot.com

 

[Thermal]

You know what word doesn't appear in your quote from theprestige? It's the one I previously hilighted from your own post: "want". Your quote from theprestige says nothing about want, which was the part of your post I objected to. You haven't proven me wrong, you've proven me right.

Just the first couple hits (its nice to have search back)

Thats one way to let men override sex segregation whenever they want.

Why not? It all stems from the same irrational ideology: Men should be entitled to override sex segregation whenever they want.

What is it with you playing these ridiculous pedantic games lately? I'm 110% done with it.

Yes. Under self ID, any man CAN. Not want. Can. And they can. Because that is indeed what self-ID means.

More dickhead pedantic games. No, self ID isnt an all access pass. As i already pointed out, in my very gender open state, the state can say "yeah, no, we dont believe you". It is not the absolute you guys keep preteding it is.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just the first couple hits (its nice to have search back)

Thats one way to let men override sex segregation whenever they want.

Yes, whenever they want. That rather obviously DOES NOT mean that they all want to.

This is what you get when you search for words but ignore meaning and context.

What is it with you playing these ridiculous pedantic games lately? I'm 110% done with it.

What is it with your continued reading comprehension failures?

More dickhead pedantic games. No, self ID isnt an all access pass.

Yes, it absolutely is.

As i already pointed out, in my very gender open state, the state can say "yeah, no, we dont believe you".

No, they cannot. If they can, then it's not self-ID.

Do you not understand what "self ID" means? Apparently not. That's not pedantry on my part, that's a fundamental definitional failure on yours.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, whenever they want. That rather obviously DOES NOT mean that they all want to.

I didn't say they *all* did. He says point blank that he believes the ideology to be that men can override sex segregation anytime they want. He says so repeatedly, in many different words, as do many arguing on your side. But the ideology never applies to all men, all wanting it, or in all sex segregated spaces. It applies solely to transwomen definitionally (not men), only when it legally relates to discriminating based on their gender identity (not whenever men want) and we can't even get a round consensus on whether or not a space is sex segregated, or gender segregated.

This is what you get when you search for words but ignore meaning and context.

Pot, kettle and I'm 110% done with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't say they *all* did.

You said that theprestige said that they all did. Here, let me remind you:

theprestige likes to frame the dilemma as "all men want the ability to transgress sex segregated spaces any time they want".

You quite explicitly said that theprestige made a claim about what all men want. theprestige never made any such claim.

Note that there's a second use of the word "want" in your claim, the last word in the above quote. And further note that this second use is not equivalent to the first one (for example, note that it's conditional whereas the first is not), and neither I nor theprestige is disputing this second use. More in a moment.

He says point blank that he believes the ideology to be that men can override sex segregation anytime they want.

Yes, any time they want, IF they want. He never claimed (as you said he did) that they all want to. See, that's the distinction between your first and second use of "want" in the above claim.

But the ideology never applies to all men, all wanting it, or in all sex segregated spaces. It applies solely to transwomen definitionally (not men)

Under self-ID, what is the definition of transwoman? It's any man who says he's a transwoman. Which any man can do. So any man who wants it (conditional) can have it. So yes, his claim is absolutely true, and you're in denial.

 

[p0lka]

They can, I suppose, but they don't have to be. Insisting they must be distinct just seems to muddy the waters more, in my opinion.

Gender roles seem to be a thing that people learn after birth I think. You grow up in a society that molds you to think a certain way of how to behave, some people say 'no, don't tell me how to behave' but lots of people just go along with how society says you should behave, hence the gender roles most of the time conforming to the sex

I can be a tomboy and eschew traditional female gender roles while still referring to myself as a woman, and very very few people will be confused as to my biological sex. A female horse is a filly. A female human is a woman, regardless of how she acts or what she wears.

Disagree with the last part, a female human can take on any gender roles they want. The default would be woman though as that's how society works

Frankly, I'd much rather get rid of the concept of gender roles entirely.

Yes yes I agree, would have solved quite a lot of problems.

A biological male who wears a dress is still a man. A biological female who works in construction is still a woman. I want to break down walls instead of reinforcing them. I want to break people out of those annoying little categorical boxes that has society determining what is appropriate for men and what's appropriate for women. (I get that gender stereotypes will never go away completely, and some of them exist for good reason, but that's probably a different conversation.)

Oh, you're still mixing up gender and sex.

What's an example of a gender role that would deny reality? Genuinely curious. A biological male wearing a dress and insisting that it makes him either female OR a woman is, in my opinion, denying reality, but the reality it's denying is biological sex, not a gender role.

Well, a male wearing a dress and insisting they are female is denying reality. A male wearing a dress and insisting they are a woman is not denying reality, as gender labels are a societal wishywashy construct that shouldn't exist, but do.

Equally with females, saying that they are male is denying reality, but they can be a man as much as they want.

Using the gender role that you have taken on, to then jump to arguing about sex is denying reality.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, you're still mixing up gender and sex.

No. He's using a definition of "man" as "adult human male". There's no confusion involved.

A male wearing a dress and insisting they are a woman is not denying reality

Depends on what definition of "woman" they are using. Which can be hard to determine, as so many of them refuse to provide that definition.

 

[p0lka]

You can't be this naive!


Your position is wrong, and as long as you continue to argue it, I will continue to respond.


Nope, they aren't.


As @theprestige keeps correctly saying... "when gender labels are distinct from sex labels, they become functionally meaningless". This is especially the case in debates about public policy - and ultimately, that is what the debate in THIS THREAD is about.

1. Label sex segregated spaces (such as toilets, bathrooms, rape crisis centres and domestic violence shelters) with the gender label "Women Only" and trans-identified males will demand access to them.

2. Label those sex segregated spaces with the sex label "Females Only" and trans-identified males will still demand access to them.

3. Create a third space for transgender people, and label it "Transwomen Only" and trans-identified males will spurn them, and still demand access to the ones labelled "Women Only" or "Females Only"

We know all of the above is true because this has always been the stated position taken by TRAs....this is who and what they are, something they show us every . single . day!!


I look around and I see no women who are anything other than female
I look around and I see no men who are anything other than male
I look around and I see no transwomen who are anything other than men (males) cosplaying as women (females) while under the self-delusion that they are female.



I have. My position on that stands as posted!


The taking on of so called "gender roles" is irrelevant to the debate over sex segregation in public policy.


I can't even parse this.

EDIT2 I missed an opportunity to state premise incorrect, conclusion ignorable dammit, did it now though.

What it means is that if someone starts with an incorrect premise, then the conclusions are irrelevant as they are based on an incorrect premise. Some greek guy said it or something.
Your premise is incorrect, so......