Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

The power of words.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1952416625694589230

This is why so many of us have completely stopped using the word "transwomen", even without the space. Applying the word "women" to them in any form bends the brain to perceive them as women, which is what they want. Obviously they're going to object and shout "slur" when they don't get what they want. Trans-identifying men, I mean.

 

[p0lka]

Nobody disagrees with doing that. They disagree that it will make a blind bit of different to the way the troons behave.

Argh another acronym.

The problem with your position has never been that labelling things male/female is bad. It's this delusion you have that doing so would fix anything. It would not fix anything. And the reason it would not is not because Rolfe or I have a problem with male/female labels. This has been explained to you multiple times. Why do you continue to act like we're objecting to the labels themselves, rather than your delusion about what they will accomplish?

You do understand that your position is ...'doing A will never work!'.........'because I said so!'... yeah?

I'm waiting for a facility or sport anywhere that uses sex labels instead of gender labels just to actually get some info.

 

[p0lka]

You might as well save your typing fingers. This has been explained to him a hundred times, and he doesn't pay any attention. (Would that keeping these men out of women's spaces were as simple as just changing the label on the door!)

Oh no I'm paying attention, I just disagree with your ability to predict the future and dismiss something with belief.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm waiting for a facility or sport anywhere that uses sex labels instead of gender labels just to actually get some info.

I'm waiting for the campaign by TRAs to force McDonald's to stop labelling their toilets Male and Female, because that's preventing the darling trans flowers from peeing where they want to pee.

 

[Ziggurat]

You do understand that your position is ...'doing A will never work!'.........'because I said so!'... yeah?

We have already seen it fail. Do you not remember the Park Run discussion?

And your contention that it will work consists of nothing but "because I said so", so your complaint is rather ironic.

I'm waiting for a facility or sport anywhere that uses sex labels instead of gender labels just to actually get some info.

Park Run. We've already gone over this.

 

[p0lka]

We have already seen it fail. Do you not remember the Park Run discussion?

And your contention that it will work consists of nothing but "because I said so", so your complaint is rather ironic.

Park Run. We've already gone over this.

I suggest you go back in this thread and find the parkrun discussion, where after all everyone getting a tizzy, I posted the actual parkrun rules which clearly showed that you were all talking bollocks.

EDIT: demonstrably so.

 

[Ziggurat]

I suggest you go back in this thread and find the parkrun discussion, where after all everyone getting a tizzy I posted the actual parkrun rules which clearly showed that you were all talking bollocks.

You prove yet again your cluelessness. How many times have I already told you that the label is not the rules? How many times have I told you that the rules matter and the labels don't? For you to appeal to the rules as proof of the power of labels is just mind-numbingly stupid. The example proves you wrong and proves me right. The rules matter, the labels don't. I have been saying that from the start. And you keep ignoring it. How can you be so consistently wrong about everything?

 

[Rolfe]

We can find places where the toilets are labelled Male and Female, thanks to Aber's observation. Now it's not practical to stand by these doors for days to see whether a man in a dress turns away from the female toilet when he sees the sign and moves to the male one. However it's pretty damn unlikely that no trans-identifying men ever use the McDonald's branches with that signage. Given the trans propensity for creating merry hell and screaming "transphobia" any time they're excluded from female-only facilities, we can reasonably conclude that if any such person had felt barred from using the female toilets by that sign, we'd have heard about it.

 

[p0lka]

You prove yet again your cluelessness. How many times have I already told you that the label is not the rules? How many times have I told you that the rules matter and the labels don't? For you to appeal to the rules as proof of the power of labels is just mind-numbingly stupid. The example proves you wrong and proves me right. The rules matter, the labels don't. I have been saying that from the start. And you keep ignoring it. How can you be so consistently wrong about everything?

You are not paying attention are you? You posted this to demonstrate that my idea had already failed.

We have already seen it fail. Do you not remember the Park Run discussion?

And your contention that it will work consists of nothing but "because I said so", so your complaint is rather ironic.

Park Run. We've already gone over this.

I then said go back and check the parkrun discussion where I posted the parkrun rules which showed that the people in this thread at the time were talking nonsense.

You brought up the parkrun thing as evidence that I'm incorrect,

yet the moment I point out to you that I dealt with that bollocks umpteen pages ago, now you want to ignore it?

yeah that's not an honest discussion.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm not trying to convince you; you're trying to convince me.

Whomever made the claim "women like their sex-segregated safe spaces" gets to shoulder the burden of that claim—I'm not going to bother go back and look up who said it in this thread. American women tend to support the political party which wants to abolish those spaces (in favor of sorting by gender identity) so we have prima facie reasons to be skeptical of that original claim, at least until we see look at some evidence (e.g. Pew Forum surveys) more directly on point. I'd go ahead and pull that evidence myself, but I'm fairly confident those are not my words.

But you weren't asking for "claims to be backed by evidence" you just posted a map claiming it meant something.

I posted a map to back up my claim that American women are not voting in such a way as to demonstrate that they "like their sex-segregated safe spaces" enough to prioritize that issue over others which they presumably find more important. It's entirely possible that the median female voter doesn't much care whether they encounter males in those spaces, unlike the women who post here in this thread. I've no idea, really, since the progressive circles that I run in tend to treat this topic as taboo.

Your statement demonstrates is that you haven't got a clue how politics work.

Feel free to enlighten me, if you like.

Have you direct experience with a federal employee who is facing this dilemma?

Probably, but it's a bit rude to ask.

 

[p0lka]

We can find places where the toilets are labelled Male and Female, thanks to Aber's observation. Now it's not practical to stand by these doors for days to see whether a man in a dress turns away from the female toilet when he sees the sign and moves to the male one. However it's pretty damn unlikely that no trans-identifying men ever use the McDonald's branches with that signage. Given the trans propensity for creating merry hell and screaming "transphobia" any time they're excluded from female-only facilities, we can reasonably conclude that if any such person had felt barred from using the female toilets by that sign, we'd have heard about it.

Not in my experience, you must be hanging around with these tra people. Also, female-only facilities? Surely you mean women-only facilities as that's what they are called at this present time.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are not paying attention are you? You posted this to demonstrate that my idea had already failed.

Yes. They labeled the category "female", but it didn't matter.

I then said go back and check the parkrun discussion where I posted the parkrun rules which showed that the people in this thread at the time were talking nonsense.

The rules aren't the label. Appealing to the rules to try to make a point about the label is stupid. You're the one not paying attention, not me. Changing the rules makes a difference. Changing the labels means nothing. The rules matter, the label doesn't. And the Park Run example demonstrates that. It does not demonstrate your claim.

You brought up the parkrun thing as evidence that I'm incorrect,

Because it does.

yet the moment I point out to you that I dealt with that bollocks umpteen pages ago, now you want to ignore it?

I'm not ignoring anything. You are. You're ignoring the difference between rules and labels. You did then, and you are now.

God damn, but you're doubling down on stupidity.

yeah that's not an honest discussion.

Indeed, it's not an honest discussion, it's a stupid discussion. How can you not understand the difference between labels and rules? Seriously, it's like I'm talking to the people in those electric universe threads.

 

[theprestige]

"Autogynephiliacs"

"Delusional"

"Mentally ill"

"Dysphorics"

Y'all half wit psychoanalysts would laugh your fool heads off if some other unqualified nit wit strolled onto the forum and started making unconventional medical diagnoses with no qualifications whatsoever.

This is a good one.

When I use these terms, I'm not diagnosing anyone. I'm stipulating to the old-fashioned claim that the entitlement to override sex segregation is necessary for medical reasons. Specifically, I'm stipulating to the claim that transgender identification stems from some kind of dysphoria.

This is one horn of the dilemma facing trans rights activists. If there is a medical need here, then we need to see good medical science to support it. How is it diagnosed? How is it best treated? Is there any scientific support for the idea that social transition and/or overriding sex segregation is an ethical, effective treatment for the condition?

Those are the questions I'm raising whenever I stipulate to an underlying mental health condition that needs treating. The answers continue to be "we don't know", "we haven't asked", "we're not interested in science", etc. So for now, we have no good medical reason to permit overriding sex segregation as a treatment for gender dysphoria.

If you don't like me stipulating to the claim of medical necessity, that's fine. I'm happy to stipulate to the other thing, instead. And that brings us to the other horn of the dilemma facing trans rights activists.

If the demand to override sex segregation is not based on medical necessity, then why honor it at all? At that point it just boils down to a dude saying he should get to use the women's restroom for no other reason than that's what he wants. At best, he's no different from the guy who wishes more public venues were clothing optional. At worst, he's no different than the guy who likes to involve people in his kink without their consent. And across that entire spectrum of "because I wanna", there's no good reason to change the status quo ante.

So there it is, Thermal. Do we stipulate that overriding sex segregation stems from some mental health need? If so, where's the science? No science, no overriding sex segregation.

Or do we stipulate that overriding sex segregation stems from nothing other than some men wanting to? The way some men want to play darts, or dance naked, or run marathons, or sit ringside at a pro basketball game? If so, why override sex segregation at all?

Personally, I lean towards the second option, and it seems like the rest of the world is starting to lean that way as well. We've already agreed, in many cases, that trans-identifying men aren't entitled to override sex segregation. Sports, for example. Hopefully prisons will follow soon. No serious argument has been made that Willam Thomas needs to compete as a woman in NCAA swimming for his mental health, for example. The general consensus seems to be, "he'll get over it".

So let's get over the medical argument, Thermal. Let's agree that no man needs to be in the women's restroom as a treatment for a mental health condition of any kind. Can we agree on that? Or do I need to keep banging on about dysphoria and mental illness among trans-identifying males?

---

A note about different policies in different jurisdictions. You argue that fiat self-ID in your jurisdiction haven't manifested the issues some people seem so afraid of. And that's fine. I'm glad that's working out for you in New Jersey, or whatever jurisdiction you're in.

However, we have seen other, much less pleasant outcomes in other jurisdictions.

Therefore, we cannot take the apparently okay outcome in your jurisdiction as a rebuttal to the claim that fiat self-ID does not risk or incur certain harms previously avoidable.

In conclusion, I propose that if fiat self-ID is working for your community, great! There should be no higher authority that compels you to abolish it and go back to sex-segregation in places where your community prefers to desegregate. Conversely, if your community - or any other - tries desegregation and doesn't like the results, there should be no higher authority that compels you to uphold desegregation.*

Further, no community should be seen in a negative light, just because they would rather not incur the risk, no matter how small, that attends on fiat self-ID.

---

*The obvious exception is when your community voluntarily puts itself under a higher authority. Take federal funding, follow federal rules. Simple as.

 

[smartcooky]

If clinically accurate nomenclature is your standard, then why the disagreement with labeling all sports or private spaces etc as male or female according to your standard?

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ!! What is it going to take?

Yes, having toilets and restrooms labelled "male/female" instead of "men/women" is a reality-based, scientifically accurate descriptor, and stay with me here, IT WILL NOT WORK THE WAY YOU THINK IT WILL. Transgender identified men will ignore those signs. Your precious little flowers might even be offended by them (did you think of that? I'll bet you didn't). Changing all the signs on all toilets and restrooms to comply with your stupid idea WILL COST MILLIONS, all to achieve NOTHING.

On the other hand, calling a man who identifies as (i.e. is under the delusion that he is) a woman, a "transgender identified man" is also a reality-based, scientifically accurate descriptor. The difference it, it works, and it costs NOTHING.

 

[p0lka]

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ!! What is it going to take?

Yes, having toilets and restrooms labelled "male/female" instead of "men/women" is a reality-based, scientifically accurate descriptor, and stay with me here, IT WILL NOT WORK THE WAY YOU THINK IT WILL. Transgender identified men will ignore those signs. Your precious little flowers might even be offended by them (did you think of that? I'll bet you didn't). Changing all the signs on all toilets and restrooms to comply with your stupid idea WILL COST MILLIONS, all to achieve NOTHING.

Because you said so?

On the other hand, calling a man who identifies as (i.e. is under the delusion that he is) a woman, a "transgender identified man" is also a reality-based, scientifically accurate descriptor. The difference it, it works, and it costs NOTHING.

I thought TIM stood for transgender identified male? Anyway, gender labels are not biology/scientifically anything, other than societal constructs that not everyone follows, hence the problem with using them as fact based labels for anything.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's almost like they don't see transwomen as men, innit?

Here's the deal: The do see transwomen as men, almost all the time. They can pay lip service to the slogan, and loudly proclaim their affiliation to "TWAW"... but at the end of the day, they don't actually for realsies see them as indistinguishable from female human beings. Neither do you. While I will concede that there might be an extremely small handful of people whose brains are so damaged that they can't tell male from female under any circumstances, or who are so brainwashed that they won't let reality in... the overwhelming majority of people absolutely know that transwomen are males, and they don't perceive them as females at all, nor as "women" in anything other than the vaguest figurative sense.

You don't believe me? Yeah, how many heterosexual males would consider a transwoman for a romantic partner? How many females would be flattered or neutral about someone referring to them as a transwoman?

You know they're not women. I know they're not women. They know they're not women. EVERYONE knows they're not women. But a whole lot of people are ideologically invested in playing along.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Transwomen have a crossed wire somewhere in there, and think they are women.

Some few might. A whole lot don't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But then the crew here lobbies their reasoning, which ignores those very good reasons and pushes hard for the blatantly bigoted ones, giving this thread its long long long standing reputation.

The "blatantly bigoted" reason of not wanting males in a space where we're vulnerable, half unclothed, and sometimes dealing with a menstrual or pregnancy-related emergency. The "blatantly bigoted" reason of not wanting to make it even easier for males to engage in voyeurism and exhibitionism regardless of how they claim to identify. Yep. Totally bigoted.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you grant males access to female only spaces and services - because they feel female in their heads and insist that gives them the right to be treated as if they really are female - you immediately turn them into mixed sex spaces and services. Which means that actual females no longer have access to female only spaces and services.

It's a simple choice: either deny all males access to female only spaces and services, or deny all females access to (i.e. abolish) female only spaces and services.

QFT

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Transgender identified/identifying male". The transman version is "transgender identifying female (TIF).

They are both acknowledged derogatory slurs. Those who use these longer, more awkward and confusing terms are wearing their position on their sleeves, which is helpful in its way. Easy ID.

I'm not going to play this game. They've been declared to be slurs by people who have transgender identities - and it's done coercively. The only language that they deem to NOT be a slur is one that capitulates to their desires and labels them as "women" of some sort or other (or "men" for the females). But they're NOT women of any sort - they're male human beings, and therefore men.

I'm not willing to surrender common use of literal language to ideological zealots. Thus I stick with a clear description of what's actually under discussion here: Human males who profess to have a transgender identity.

If you'd like to suggest something that provides an accurate description of the issue while also NOT using the words "woman" or "girl", I'll consider it.