Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[lionking]

They have made it ABUNDANTLY clear that they want to do this ".....everywhere. At schools, in NHS settings, at festivals, in shops."

In case it didn't occur to you, "at schools" means they will be peddling this inappropriate crap to children.

Why do you keep missing this? Are you just pretending the person, who describes themselves as “black, queer, transmasculine, non-binary” (whatever the ◊◊◊◊ that means - and NO, PLEASE don't try to explain it - I neither care nor wish to know), hasn't actually said this?

Someone is denying the undeniable.

 

[smartcooky]

Send me or post a link @Rolfe and I'll do likewise.

Done:
"The purpose of this fundraiser has serious implications for child safeguarding. It proposes to inappropriately distribute politically controversial gender ideology materials into schools."

 

[smartcooky]

Someone is denying the undeniable.

Its called gaslighting,

I despise gaslighting - I refuse to accept statements from any poster that blatantly deny something I read with my own eyes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Did you read the twitter post?

In case you didn't: "...This is breathtakingly inappropriate. Children shouldn't be groomed into thinking it's their job to accompany adult strangers into toilets..."

That is not happening, at least not by the campaign that is mentioned.

Who do you think these badges will be given to at schools? Just teachers and other adults? If course not. It will be given to children. Nothing about this indicates that it's supposed to be for adults only. Given the track record of TRAs pushing everything else onto kids, why would this be any different?

And the campaign explicitly calls for people with badges to escort trans people into bathrooms. That will mean kids escort trans people into bathrooms.

It looks to me exactly like the Twitter post described.

 

[Elaedith]

While so many are busy getting very worked up about the culture wars they're not noticing our children and grandchildren will be toileting with the bears the way we're going. This thread (part 94) will still be going then with people raging about Trans people wanting to pee behind the female tree.

"I may not be willing to do much about my enormous environmental footprint, but I can get very angry about Trans people using the toilet!"

There's probably enough material in these threads for at least a few Psychology PhDs.

I've never encountered anybody 'angry about trans people using the toilet'. I have seen people angry about removing the right of women to object to males in female spaces, but never anybody 'angry about trans people using the toilet'. I suspect you have fallen for some culture war moral panic about a problem that doesn't actually exist.

 

[d4m10n]

When they transcend sex segregation and no one can tell, then there is no problem.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but in the United States we have made efforts to go back to official policies requiring full sex segregation; I've linked the relevant Executive Order upthread. In those new polices, there are no exceptions made for people who "transcend sex segregation" when "no one can tell." Whatever sanctions are meted out against those who brazenly violate the new policies without passing will apply to passing people as well, just as soon as someone takes the trouble to dig up the information linking them back to their birth certificates.

And wouldn’t you know it, people aren’t really up in arms about the FtMs, are they?

Nothing in the new policies grants them an exception, either. If we are going to talk about changes to public policy, we have to bear in mind that policies are enforced by authorities with the power to sanction violators, and those sorts of folks are trained to follow regulations without taking commonsense exceptions into account.

Why do you persist in this misunderstanding?

Why do you persist in pretending there is only one problem to address? Right now, the problem I am talking about is the problem of (re)implementing strict segregation by sex via official policy. Proposed solutions to this problem do not include carveouts for people who pass, or FtMs, or intersex people, at least not in any of the actual policies we've seen committed to paper so far. Every individual has sex at birth (or conception) and they are expected to behave accordingly throughout their lives.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure if you are aware, but in the United States we have made efforts to go back to official policies requiring full sex segregation; I've linked the relevant Executive Order upthread. In those new polices, there are no exceptions made for people who "transcend sex segregation" when "no one can tell." Whatever sanctions are meted out against those who brazenly violate the new policies without passing will apply to passing people as well, just as soon as someone takes the trouble to dig up the information linking them back to their birth certificates.

That has never happened. You are imagining a possible future hypothetical problem (and a rather far fetched one) that does not currently exist, and ignoring the actual one that currently does exist.

Why do you persist in pretending there is only one problem to address?

Because only one of these problems actually exists right now. And it’s not the one you are hung up on.

 

[d4m10n]

That has never happened.

One major problem with writing executive orders and legislation is that you have to plan for things which have never happened before. French colonial authorities had never encountered the problem of rat farming before they implemented policies which (quite inadvertently) incentivized their subjects to create rat farms.

You are imagining a possible future hypothetical problem (and a rather far fetched one) that does not currently exist, and ignoring the actual one that currently does exist.

It is not remotely far-fetched, so far as I can tell. It is increasingly common to come across people who pass as the opposite sex—especially FtM folks—and it is increasingly easy to trace someone's digital trail back to the gender reveal party which their parents posted on social media. It strikes me as inevitable that someone will be outed who was living completely as the opposite sex and then subjected to sanctions based on our new policies which make no accommodations or exceptions for them.

Because only one of these problems actually exists right now. And it’s not the one you are hung up on.

I'm happy to talk about the problems you are hung up on as well, but I'll not be persuaded to stop talking about the difficulties in reimplementing strict sex segregation via law and policy after creating a sizable class of people who are already living convincingly as the opposite sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm happy to talk about the problems you are hung up on as well,

No you aren’t. You have continually tried to shift the conversation away from actual current problems to your hypothetical future problem.

 

[d4m10n]

You have continually tried to shift the conversation away from actual current problems to your hypothetical future problem.

All I've been doing is defending one particular argument that I made in response to one particular post.

The question I was addressing was essentially "Why is it so hard to sort people by sex nowadays, given that previous generations had no problem doing so?" and my answer was "Because we've technologically (and culturally) empowered people to pass as the opposite sex, in significant numbers, and that's going to be tricky to roll back now."

You & EC have been striving to bring me into line—to get me to stop talking about that particular question—but all you really had to do is state a different question instead of pretending that we only get to address one.

 

[Aber]

The question I was addressing was essentially "Why is it so hard to sort people by sex nowadays, given that previous generations had no problem doing so?" and my answer was "Because we've technologically (and culturally) empowered them to pass as the opposite sex, in significant numbers, and that's going to be tricky to roll back now."

You're arguing a generalised point, but using evidence that transmen are better as passing (beards are good cover, and most males are not worried about about females in their spaces) as the core of your argument, while ignoring the reverse is not true for transwomen in female spaces.

 

[d4m10n]

You're arguing a generalised point, but using evidence that transmen are better as passing (beards are good cover, and most males are not worried about about females in their spaces) as the core of your argument, while ignoring the reverse is not true for transwomen in female spaces.

None of the official policies designed to reimplement strict sex segregation have drafted one set of rules for FtM and another for MtF (and another for enbies, maybe?) so that sort of forces me to talk about the generalized case.

 

[Ziggurat]

All I've been doing is defending one particular argument that I made in response to one particular post.

Yeah, no. That isn't the sum total of what you've been doing. Not by a long shot.

The question I was addressing was essentially "Why is it so hard to sort people by sex nowadays, given that previous generations had no problem doing so?" and my answer was "Because we've technologically (and culturally) empowered people to pass as the opposite sex, in significant numbers, and that's going to be tricky to roll back now."

Leaving aside why this answer is wrong (for reasons already given, and which you never really addressed), Trump's executive order has absolutely nothing to do with the original question you were responding to. Even if you're right about the future problems it might create, it is obviously not responsible for any of the problems we have been having over the past 10+ years. To the extend that technological progress might make Trump's EO more problematic, that still has nothing to do with why sex segregation became a problem well before the executive order even existed. That executive order is a response to the problem, not the cause of it. Even if it's the wrong response, it's still only a response, not a source. So Trump's EO cannot be part of any defense of your answer here. And it's one example of how you have not in fact confined yourself to defending your argument about the cause of the problems we are having with sex segregation.

You & EC have been striving to bring me into line—to get me to stop talking about that particular question—but all you really had to do is state a different question instead of pretending that we only get to address one.

You can talk about whatever problem you want to. What you cannot do is treat the problem you seem to care about (Trump's executive order) as if it's part of the problems we care about, or a substitution for it, or more important than it. It isn't any of these things.

 

[Darat]

Who do you think these badges will be given to at schools? Just teachers and other adults? If course not. It will be given to children. Nothing about this indicates that it's supposed to be for adults only. Given the track record of TRAs pushing everything else onto kids, why would this be any different?

And the campaign explicitly calls for people with badges to escort trans people into bathrooms. That will mean kids escort trans people into bathrooms.

It looks to me exactly like the Twitter post described.

Children do not use the same toilets as adults in UK schools. In many UK schools there will be kids aged 16 to 18. We consider such kids to be able to consent to stuff like sex, and soon to vote.

The tweet I referred to is making stuff up.

 

[d4m10n]

Trump's executive order has absolutely nothing to do with the original question you were responding to.

What problems do you think that EO was designed to address, if not the problem of how to reimplement sex segregation in the face of its relatively recent collapse?

Even if you're right about the future problems it might create, it is obviously not responsible for any of the problems we have been having over the past 10+ years.

Clearly not.

That executive order is a response to the problem, not the cause of it.

Did I at some point imply otherwise?

Trump's EO cannot be part of any defense of your answer here.

Well, now that doesn't follow at all. As an attempt to solve the problem I described, it makes sense to ask whether it will do what its proponents hope to do or whether it will create new unforeseen problems, as did the French rat bounties. To the extent that I've been arguing that the problem of reimplementing sex segregation is actually somewhat complex and difficult, it makes perfect sense to point out the ways in which simplistic solutions (such as ignoring the possibility of intersexed people) will fail.

And it's one example of how you have not in fact confined yourself to defending your argument about the cause of the problems we are having with sex segregation.

When discussing the problem of keeping sex segregation in place (or re-establishing it where it has given way to self-i.d.) it makes sense to discuss proposed solutions to the problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

Prior to your post, I would have said that most heterosexual males find females at the beach to be attractive and often sexy, that they appreciate the bodies on display. I would NOT have said that most of them were getting sexually aroused at the beach. JFC, are you actually at the beach with a constant running mental sex fantasy playing about every female you see?

"Sexually aroused" is a pretty ambiguous term. Does it mean having sexual thoughts, or does it only mean getting an erection in response to sexual thoughts? It's not difficult for a male to go to the beach, see beautiful women they find sexually attractive, and not get an erection. If a male briefly imagines what this woman might look like naked, does that count as being sexually aroused? Depends what you mean by the term.

 

[Ziggurat]

Children do not use the same toilets as adults in UK schools.

Do you think the badges that they give to kids at school will be confiscated before they leave school property?

In many UK schools there will be kids aged 16 to 18

Are there many schools in the UK where 16 is the minimum age?

 

[Ziggurat]

What problems do you think that EO was designed to address

The question wasn't how we should address the problem in the future. The question was why sex segregation became a problem when it hadn't been before.

And you have fundamentally misunderstood what that problem even is.

 

[Manger Douse]

Children do not use the same toilets as adults in UK schools. In many UK schools there will be kids aged 16 to 18. We consider such kids to be able to consent to stuff like sex, and soon to vote.

The tweet I referred to is making stuff up.

If its the case that this scheme only refers to school toilets, can you explain the following two quotes from your link please:

"signalling to trans+ individuals that they are safe to approach, especially when using
public toilets or navigating other gendered spaces."

and

“I want this to be everywhere At schools, in NHS settings, at festivals, in shops"

The only person that's mentioning school toilets seems to be you

 

[d4m10n]

The question wasn't how we should address the problem in the future.

I'm pretty sure we've discussed how to address the problem throughout every iteration of this thread. It actually strikes me as counterintuitive to discuss any problem without also discussing proposed solutions.

The question was why sex segregation became a problem when it hadn't been before.

My answer, once again, is that maintaining strict segregation by sex became a problem because modern western culture has technologically and culturally empowered people to become much more like the opposite sex than they would have without all the medical and psychosocial interventions developed since John Money stood up the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic^WP in 1966.