Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

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.

No, that's literally what I just said, Captain Contrarian. We have laws against gender discrimination. Do you think this is in dispute?

We also have older laws about sex discrimination, which you are linking (and exactly what I had in mind).

You.literally repeated back what I just said, with a "nuh-UHH".

Those laws never prohibited sex segregation in contexts like bathrooms.

Didn't explicitly allow or criminalize anything about them either, which is what we are talking about.

This was always permitted.

It was never expressly permitted nor restricted. That's the problem.

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.

That's what you keep saying, except when you expressly deny saying so. What you want to do is to criminalize certain transgender behavior that has been commonplace for generations. What I prefer is to remove the ability to prosecute people for both "overriding sex segregation" and for criminalizing objecting to males in a private area. Just keep Big Brother out of our lives whenever practical. This doesn't seem to be one of the issues where I'm just dying for the Feds to step into our lives and cuff more people.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, that's literally what I just said, Captain Contrarian. We have laws against gender discrimination. Do you think this is in dispute?

We also have older laws about sex discrimination, which you are linking (and exactly what I had in mind).

That is not what you said. Let me remind you:

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

We do not. We have some recent laws prohibiting gender discrimination. We have long-standing laws prohibiting sex discrimination. We do not have long-standing laws prohibiting gender discrimination. That was your claim, and that's false.

 

[Thermal]

That is not what you said. Let me remind you:

We do not. We have some recent laws prohibiting gender discrimination. We have long-standing laws prohibiting sex discrimination. We do not have long-standing laws prohibiting gender discrimination. That was your claim, and that's false.

You are literally down to being contrarian over the use of "long standing" to declare falsehood? Come on, man.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are literally down to being contrarian over the use of "long standing" to declare falsehood? Come on, man.

You put that in there for a reason. The meaning changes if you take it out. And you are far from the right person to be accusing anyone else of being contrarian, mister "I can't accept 'self ID' as meaning what everyone else in the conversation takes it to mean". Come on, man.

 

[Thermal]

You put that in there for a reason. The meaning changes if you take it out.

No, it doesnt. Try it: change the "long standing gender law"reference to "contemporary gender law", or hell, just "law". It reads exactly the same.

 

[d4m10n]

Are you under the impression that social conditioning alters sex?

Of course not, why?

What does it mean to be raised as a female?

That depends on the society someone is raised in, of course.

In traditional Sunni countries, there are loads of social norms which are only applied to females, as no doubt you are already aware.

Does it include the onset of menses?

I'd put such things in the category of nature rather than nurture, unless we're talking about the application of social norms around that event.

If you're (perhaps too subtly) pointing out that someone like Khelif or Semenya would start having an atypical experience of girlhood once the other girls reached menarche, I would agree.

 

[Thermal]

Point of order. Ziggurat isn't adopting their lingo. He's adopting *my* lingo. I'm the one who coined and popularized "fiat self-ID" in this thread.

Ok, maybe I'm wrong here, but Ziggurat wasn't using "fiat self ID", or do you mean he was using it in spirit?

If I'm wrong, he will surely correct me, as he has been chanelling his inner cranky scholmarm lately and its totally his jam.

 

[theprestige]

Ok, maybe I'm wrong here, but Ziggurat wasn't using "fiat self ID", or do you mean he was using it in spirit?

I mean we've recently taken to dropping the "fiat" for the sake of brevity, now that we all understand the term in context.

Not that it matters. If "self ID" the term TRAs use to denote their policy proposal based on the principle of self ID, I'm happy to use the same term. It's a good term. What's your problem with it?

 

[Thermal]

I mean we've recently taken to dropping the "fiat" for the sake of brevity, now that we all understand the term in context.

Not that it matters. If "self ID" the term TRAs use to denote their policy proposal based on the principle of self ID, I'm happy to use the same term. It's a good term. What's your problem with it?

I wasn't talking about TRAs, their policies, or their lingo. Just rocking plain old English. My problem with it was trying to drag me into a defending a position I don't support and have little interest in.

 

[theprestige]

I wasn't talking about TRAs, their policies, or their lingo. Just rocking plain old English. My problem with it was trying to drag me into a defending a position I don't support and have little interest in.

See, the problem I'm having is that you say you don't support fiat self-ID, which is a fundamentally a criteria-free standard. But when we press you for a description of what criteria you would like to see applied, your answers consistently end up being functionally identical to fiat self-ID.

For example, you say, "not all men", but when we ask you how you would propose to distinguish between valid self-ID and invalid self-ID, your answer tends to be somewhat lacking.

Since we're here anyway, let's try again: When a man says he identifies as a woman, and therefore are entitled to enter a sex-segregated space for women, what additional criteria do you think they should have to meet, in order to actually qualify for that entitlement?

 

[Thermal]

See, the problem I'm having is that you say you don't support fiat self-ID, which is a fundamentally a criteria-free standard. But when we press you for a description of what criteria you would like to see applied, your answers consistently end up being functionally identical to fiat self-ID.

For example, you say, "not all men", but when we ask you how you would propose to distinguish between valid self-ID and invalid self-ID, your answer tends to be somewhat lacking.

Because the question makes no sense, unless you are the Penis Police.

Please, explain to me the situation where you would need to "tell the difference". What are you doing? What are you going to do? Do you do this now? Seriously, do you run a schlong inspection in the men's room? I don't even look at the other guys except to keep in mind where they are in terms of threat (one at urinal to my left, pair of feet in adjacent stall, one at my 8 washing his hands, etc).

Since we're here anyway, let's try again: When a man says he identifies as a woman, and therefore are entitled to enter a sex-segregated space for women, what additional criteria do you think they should have to meet, in order to actually qualify for that entitlement?

I don't think such an entitlement exists, nor am I sure about sex segregated spaces. We might have gone over that recently. A dozen times.

Eta: I'm considering adding your question to examples of "Socratically leading questions" on the Wiki page for it, considering how many times I said I don't accept those premises and thus can't answer.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Self exclusion is a thing, Thermal.

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

Oh... am I mistaken, and you believe that transwomen are men?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It's hard idea because you keep arguing out of both sides of your mouth, Thermal. You're not arguing against the logic or the reasons, you keep arguing against the conclusions reached.

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.

I don't know what you're talking about. Give me a link.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

No, my point was that self-perception doesn't override objective reality. Even if you completely accept that my description of how I feel about my height is 100% genuine and true... that still doesn't mean I get to tell clothiers to change their language to appease my feelings, nor does it mean I get to ride the rollercoaster that I'm objectively too short for.

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.

I wish I could find the image. The Lancet put out two articles the same week (same day?) about 1) the importance of annual exams for people with cervixes and 2) the importance of prostate exams for men.

Literally two articles covering very similar topics, but the one focused on a female health issue was stripped of all sexed terminology and presented in "collection of body parts" language... the one focused on a male health issue continued to refer to males as "men".

 

[Emily's Cat]

That is not what you said. Let me remind you:

We do not. We have some recent laws prohibiting gender discrimination. We have long-standing laws prohibiting sex discrimination. We do not have long-standing laws prohibiting gender discrimination. That was your claim, and that's false.

In this case... Thermal wins out on context. They referenced laws regarding gender discrimination, and immediately followed that by referencing longer-standing laws about sex discrimination. If you read the whole post, I think it was clear enough.

I bristle at terming them "long standing laws against gender discrimination" because they're not long-standing, they're pretty darned new. Gender identity was added as an interpretation for sex within the last decade. It only trickled down into the interpretation for medical care and sports within less than the last five years.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Please, explain to me the situation where you would need to "tell the difference".

In communal showers where there's a reasonable expectation that people will be nude and visible. In locker rooms and changing rooms where there's a high expectation that people will be partially or completely unclothed. In nude spas and saunas where nudity is an expectation. In prisons. In athletics.

In rape counseling support groups where the obvious male is obvious and females shouldn't be required to disclose details of their rapes to males.

 

[smartcooky]

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

Britain's NHS for a start

"Chest feeding" is to be used instead of breastfeeding
"Birthing parent" is to be used instead of mother
"Second biological parent" is to be used instead of father

Failure to use the "correct" terminology when speaking to patients is grounds for disciplinary action.

Women working in NHS have been suspended for complaining about TIMs in their changing rooms.

Please, explain to me the situation where you would need to "tell the difference".

Maybe this is a question you need to be asking Monika Burzynska, Paula Scanlan, Riley Gaines and other members of the UPenn women's swim team.

 

[Aber]

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

Brighton NHS Trust

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-56007728

 

[Aber]

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?

To simplify:

Traditional sex roles "women do the washing up"
Gender roles "those who do the washing up are women"

Alternative "anyone can do the washing up"

 

[Pixel42]

In communal showers where there's a reasonable expectation that people will be nude and visible. In locker rooms and changing rooms where there's a high expectation that people will be partially or completely unclothed. In nude spas and saunas where nudity is an expectation. In prisons. In athletics.

In rape counseling support groups where the obvious male is obvious and females shouldn't be required to disclose details of their rapes to males.

Some posters seem to keep forgeting that (a) we're not just talking about toilets and (b) granting trans identifying males the right to not have to pee/change/shower etc in the presence of males automatically removes that exact same right from actual females.