Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

The man/male in your example would be a homemaker, whilst his wife takes on the role of breadwinner. If someone else asked them about not conforming to typical sex roles, how would they explain what they are doing?

I don't think *all* roles and actions set the bar. I mean, taking sex roles at their most traditionally foundational: men are pitching, and women catching, if you take my meaning. Not much is going to change that, in your hypothetical couple's domestic arrangement, so maybe the more objective public displays are the standard for gender?

My wife and I were talking about that recently. In her friends and family circles, over 3/4 of the women were primary breadwinners. Roles change so slowly you hardly notice sometimes.

 

[Thermal]

Ah. I'm using it as a boundary-setting question. Some broad area of common ground between us, that we already agree on.

My view is that "men are entitled to override sex segregation whenever they want" is an accurate and complete description of the TRA policy proposal that we're discussing, and which has already been implemented as a "hard policy" in some places.

Disagreed. Their policy is specifically restricted to transpeople using the rest room that aligns with their sense of self. At no point do they ever extend that to all men, "whenever they want". In fact, I'd challenge you to produce a single TRA who applies access to all males without restriction.

What you, and others here, are doing is applying the Slippery Slope, and theorizing how it would inevitably be misused and abused. Well, I live in a state under just such a public policy. Surprisingly (and I mean that), it seems not to happen.

If you and I agree that this is a bad idea, that we should avoid it as a society, and that we should push back against it wherever we find it being put into practice, that's good. We agree on something.

Yup.

We can move forward with figuring out what else we agree on and where we still differ. Like whether restrooms should be strictly sex segregated.

Tough one. I still honestly am not sure.

I'll follow up on the rest of your reply in a bit.

At your leisure.

 

[Thermal]

What safeguards against dishonesty or misunderstanding do you see coming from California?

Update your gender marker or sex identifier on your identity documents | California Courts | Self Help Guide

California Birth Certificate Update (amend) your California Birth Certificate through the California Department of Public Health. If you have more questions, contact Vital Records at the Department of Public Health.

selfhelp.courts.ca.gov

In Cali, a person can go to the DMV on a whim and change the sex marker on their IDs. There's absolutely no verification or even questioning involved as to whether they're "really trans" or not. They said so, and therefore they are. That's it.

And that's if they even bother to change their IDs. Because in Cali, no ID is required to be able to use opposite-sex bathrooms, showers, spas, or any other single-sex space or service. Not just not required, but businesses are prohibited from requesting documentation.

And under Cali law, it's illegal in all cases to discriminate against someone on the basis of their gender identity - and that includes disallowing them from using single-sex spaces and services set aside for the opposite sex.

So let me summarize this for you. In California...

• Gender identity is a protected characteristic
• Business and employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, which includes refusing access to single-sex spaces if that person says that their gender identity is of the opposite sex
• Business and employers are not allowed to require ID supporting gender identity in order for someone who says they're trans to use opposite sex spaces and services
• A trans person can change their sex-markers on their IDs with no supporting documentation or verification of any sort

Yes, that is my understanding. One state, with extreme policy, is not the rule.

Tell us again how we're wrong about self-id?

I'll tell you again how Ziggurat was wrong in that particular context. Of course, it wasn't directed at you, so I don't know where you are pulling this "we" ◊◊◊◊ from, Frenchie.

Oh, by the way, the thing you insist isn't how it works is how it works in NJ. Perhaps you might consider educating yourself?

No idea what you are talking about. I have said my state has been under that very policy, and said so several times.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Society insists on labeling public and sports or anything with gender labels instead of sex labels, then moans about it when people argue about gender definitions.
Should have just sex labelled them in the first place.

Look, I get what you're saying - I understand it. I disagree with your take on it, as well as your proposed solution.

Trans Advocates & Activists (TRAs) have engaged in a LOT of retconning over the last several years. They've reframed historical events, language, and all sorts of things. They've substituted their preferred interpretation and then insisted that their modern preferred interpretation not only is the only usage in place today, but that it has always been that way. Some of this retconning you seem to have uncritically accepted - specifically with respect to the word "woman". You repeat the TRA talking point that "Woman" is a gender word, not a sex word... and you seem to have accepted their insistence that it has always been that way. That's not true. The vast majority of people currently use "woman" as synonymous with female human being. That's what it means to almost everyone in actual every day usage. And that's DEFINITELY what it mean a decade ago. When the sign on the shower door of the gym down the road went up 15 years ago, "woman" literally meant "female humans".

For more information on retconning... look up what TRAs have insisted with respect to Joan of Arc, Emily Bronte, and a host of other females who made significant historical contributions. And look at the rhetoric around Malcolm Michaels, Jr.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And you continue to ignore that i have no interest in discussing their preferred policy.

If you have no interest in discussing the policies that are the topic of this thread... why do you continue to post here? More specifically, why do you continue to argue AGAINST those of us who are tackling the policy question?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, I'm well aware and in full agreement! There are few things I hate more than a Socratic JAQ-off. I'm convinced that the Socratic method only ever actually works in fables, never in real classrooms, and especially never in debates.

I've seen it work in practice, but it's extremely rare. Most people aren't willing to take the time to break their beliefs down into step-by-step pieces and investigate which of those steps contains a logical fallacy. Most people have gestalt beliefs, and they frequently rest upon assertions that cannot be defended when they're really challenged.

But yeah, it's rarely effective, and it requires that both parties in the process be engaging in good faith, open to altering their positions.

 

[Thermal]

If you have no interest in discussing the policies that are the topic of this thread... why do you continue to post here? More specifically, why do you continue to argue AGAINST those of us who are tackling the policy question?

IIUC, we are unanimous in being against that policy. There are still other elements that skeptics could discuss. I take it you disagree? It would seem you have done so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not familiar with these tra people at all, and I don't really care what they say? as they must be in the minority of t's as they are the radical activist version of the t's.

To be fair, I'm not entirely convinced that the TRA brigade contains more than a tiny sampling of actual T. It's largely comprised of white, middle-aged, middle-to-upper class heterosexual people.

Just look around and who here on ISF is doing the arguing in support of the right of males with a transgender identity being allowed to override sex-barriers. It's not transgender members who are most vocal about it. And yes, we do have at least two transgender members here. One of them hasn't posted in a long time and has probably left, but the other posts in other threads with some regularity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't quite get your point here? if you were talking to a group of females and males, and you only referred to them as women then yeah, don't do that..you're rudely ignoring the people that don't' define themselves as "women".

So it would be rude for anyone to refer to me as "short" then, and something I shouldn't have to tolerate?

Says who?
Who says you can't call it breastfeeding when it is actually breastfeeding?

A ton of style guides for doctors and medical literature that have come out in the last decade.

https://www.meacschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-Gender-Inclusive-Language-Guide-Final.pdf

https://www.transcarebc.ca/sites/default/files/2024-03/Gender_Inclusive_Language_Clinical.pdf

https://lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Forms-and-Policy-Brief.pdf

 

[Emily's Cat]

The man/male in your example would be a homemaker, whilst his wife takes on the role of breadwinner. If someone else asked them about not conforming to typical sex roles, how would they explain what they are doing?

They'd probably say they were a stay-at-home dad or husband, a house-husband, or a homemaker.
Do you think they would say "I'm a woman"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Disagreed. Their policy is specifically restricted to transpeople using the rest room that aligns with their sense of self. At no point do they ever extend that to all men, "whenever they want". In fact, I'd challenge you to produce a single TRA who applies access to all males without restriction.

Of course their policy is framed as being relevant only to transgender identified people.

The effect, however, is NOT limited. That's the problem.

How do you determine what someone else's sense of self is? Can you read their minds to discern whether they're genuine or not?

Look, I get that you seem to think that males with a transgender identity aren't "real men", and that somehow "not real men" are indistinguishable from female humans. But you're just not thinking this through, Thermal. When the only thing required to gain unfettered access to female single-sex spaces is to say words out loud... there is no way to exclude ANY male who utters the magic phrase.

If there is no way to exclude any male at all, and policy grants legal right of entry to any male who says magic words... then the result is that the policy grants legal right of entry to any male who wants to be there.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, that is my understanding. One state, with extreme policy, is not the rule.
...
No idea what you are talking about. I have said my state has been under that very policy, and said so several times.

At least two states with extreme policy then. Plus WA, OR, ME, and at least a few others that I can't bring to mind right now.

That "extreme policy" is in place in IIRC around 20 US states that allow people to change their legal sex without any medical documentation, waiting periods, or verification of any sort whatsoever. Do you still think we're all overreacting to oppose those extreme policies, to fight against them and try to get them removed?

 

[Emily's Cat]

IIUC, we are unanimous in being against that policy. There are still other elements that skeptics could discuss. I take it you disagree? It would seem you have done so.

Then be against the damned policy, and stop telling the rest of us that we're overreacting, making things up, and that they never ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ happen.

 

[Thermal]

Of course their policy is framed as being relevant only to transgender identified people.

The effect, however, is NOT limited. That's the problem.

How do you determine what someone else's sense of self is? Can you read their minds to discern whether they're genuine or not?

Look, I get that you seem to think that males with a transgender identity aren't "real men", and that somehow "not real men" are indistinguishable from female humans. But you're just not thinking this through, Thermal. When the only thing required to gain unfettered access to female single-sex spaces is to say words out loud... there is no way to exclude ANY male who utters the magic phrase.

If there is no way to exclude any male at all, and policy grants legal right of entry to any male who says magic words... then the result is that the policy grants legal right of entry to any male who wants to be there.

I understand your point completely, and understood it the first dozen times it was stated. Totally get it.

"How can you tell?" Well, I live in such a state. You don't have to, because nothing much changed under policy adoption. It was observed (with actual data in Massachusetts) that the Slippery Slope isn't there. Nothing much changed.

And I hear you: I am just as surprised as anyone. Finding out that any middle schooler ot high school boy can waltz into the girls locker room in my own state was a shocker. More shocking is that there has been no reported abuses. Beavis and Butthead played it cool, possibly because the rest of the boys would beat them into next week if they did (the other boys had their girfriends in that locker room, right?). Its really counterintuitive, but it seems to be the case.

Eta: also, the hilited: that's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ LIE, EC. Please don't lie about me.

 

[Thermal]

Then be against the damned policy, and stop telling the rest of us that we're overreacting, making things up, and that they never ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ happen.

How many times do I have to repeat that I am against the goddamned policy, yet just as strongly against the arguments presented in this thread? Why is this such a massively hard idea for you to absorb? You can be right, but for the wrong reasons.

As far as making things up goes, it's funny you brought that up. You made up some bull ◊◊◊◊ about me before the weekend that I see you have not addressed, even though I asked you to directly.

 

[p0lka]

So it would be rude for anyone to refer to me as "short" then, and something I shouldn't have to tolerate?

Are you comparing 'woman' to 'short'? I thought your point was that 'woman' wasn't comparable to a word like 'short' which is completely relative and can be used to describe anything?

A ton of style guides for doctors and medical literature that have come out in the last decade.

https://www.meacschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2021-Gender-Inclusive-Language-Guide-Final.pdf

https://www.transcarebc.ca/sites/default/files/2024-03/Gender_Inclusive_Language_Clinical.pdf

https://lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Forms-and-Policy-Brief.pdf

The first link was interesting because right at the beginning it said

The objective is not to replace the commonly used terms noted (mother, woman, breast) but, whenever reasonable, to
encourage the use of multiple and conjoined anatomy identifiers, such as breast/chest, breastfeeding/chestfeeding, etc.
and to identify inclusive general anatomy terminology that can be used in place of terms that have been identified as
microaggressions by the transgender and gender non-conforming community, for students, faculty, and staff at MCU
(change the use of female anatomy to reproductive anatomy, as an example).

Which, while not backing up your claim that you cannot say those words, does show that these tra's are indeed having an impact on policy making, wow.
The other 2 links have bias in their titles so i'm not sure they are independent sources.

 

[Thermal]

Are you comparing 'woman' to 'short'? I thought your point was that 'woman' wasn't comparable to a word like 'short' which is completely relative and can be used to describe anything?


The first link was interesting because right at the beginning it said


Which, while not backing up your claim that you cannot say those words, does show that these tra's are indeed having an impact on policy making, wow.
The other 2 links have bias in their titles so i'm not sure they are independent sources.

Not sure the TRAs are making that impact:

We have long-standing laws that say you can't discriminate based on gender. So a transwoman says she is being discriminated against by being kicked out of the women's restroom. "No, no!" the anti trans brigade shouts. "We are not discriminating based on gender, we are discriminating based on sex!"

*everyone looks at the longer-standing laws against sex discrimination*

"Why didn't one of you mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ codify sex segregation sooner? Now look at the corner we are backed into".

Eta: the TRAs didn't cause this. Legislators did. No one is trying to appease TRAs; they are trying to duck the consequences of violating long established (yet poorly conceived) law. They kinda don't have much choice.

 

[Ziggurat]

We have long-standing laws that say you can't discriminate based on gender.

No we don't. We have long-standing laws that say you can't discriminate based on sex. That has been re-interpreted to mean gender as well, but that's a recent innovation.

*everyone looks at the longer-standing laws against sex discrimination*

"Why didn't one of you mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ codify sex segregation sooner? Now look at the corner we are backed into".

Those laws never prohibited sex segregation in contexts like bathrooms. This was always permitted. The problem was never that the old laws were too vague. The problem is the substitution of gender for sex in interpretation of old laws plus the inclusion of new laws.

 

[smartcooky]

...I'm trying to understand exactly what your position is....

... and good luck with that. I've given up trying. His position seems to change from flounce to flounce and even more frequently.

At some point you have to just stop trying to make sense of senseless, continually changing positions, if for no other reason that to preserve your own mental health.

 

[theprestige]

The man/male in your example would be a homemaker, whilst his wife takes on the role of breadwinner. If someone else asked them about not conforming to typical sex roles, how would they explain what they are doing?

"We're not conforming to typical sex roles."