Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Pixel42]

While it is true that transsexual people are more at risk of suicide, there are many examples of transsexual people who have satisfying, productive lives, outside the hate they face for having the temerity to exist and making people feel uncomfortable. I doubt there are many, or probably any, people who are actively anorexic that have satisfying, productive lives.

Transexuals have exactly the same rights as everyone else, and I wish them well. They do not have the right to deny females access to female only spaces, services and sports leagues by demanding that access for themselves, knowing full well they do not qualify for it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Transexuals have exactly the same rights as everyone else, and I wish them well. They do not have the right to deny females access to female only spaces, services and sports leagues by demanding that access for themselves, knowing full well they do not qualify for it.

No shades of grey or flexibility for individuals who don't fit the mould. Hard and rigidly enforced laws.

Is that the kind of country you want to live in? If so, vote Reform at the next election.

 

[Thermal]

Transexuals have exactly the same rights as everyone else, and I wish them well. They do not have the right to deny females access to female only spaces, services and sports leagues by demanding that access for themselves, knowing full well they do not qualify for it.

Pretty sure they sincerely believe they qualify for it. Pretty sure that's the core of the debate. Pretty sure that what 'female only spaces' actually exist, or should exist, is in the top three core issues too. Pretty sure that challenging what you take as a given is what the debate revolves around.

There's a few posters here that say "there are female only spaces, and well, everybody knows that, and that's that". Not much rational discussion can be had against that starting position.

 

[smartcooky]

I suspect you think people who absolutely believe that a particular limb does not belong to them and want it chopped off are not making a choice to believe that their limb doesn't belong to them. You think, just as I do, that there is something in their brains that makes them perceive their body that way.

Interesting comparison you have drawn. Lets examine it...

What you are talking about here is called Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) (a.k.a. body integrity dysphoria). It is considered to be related to somatoparaphrenia, a condition where individuals deny ownership of a body part. Do we affirm the feelings of people with this disorder, and tell them its perfectly normal by affirming their feelings? Do we tell them its OK for them to amputate the offending limb? No, of course we don't. Why? Because its a mental illness. It needs to be treated as a mental illness. If a sufferer of either of these two conditions decides to cut off their limb, that is their choice to do so.

Gender dysphoria is also a mental illness... it needs to be treated NOT affirmed.

So why do you think people who believe they are in the wrong body are making a choice? I can't comprehend either point of view and find them both logically inconsistent: the body I'm 'in' is the only body I could be 'in'.

There is no such thing as being "born in the wrong body". This is a fiction, created by medical pseudo-professionals, and promoted by the pro-trans lobby. The hypothesis that "gender identity" develops pre-natally, and as a consequence, babies are somehow born with it already in place, is absolute junk-science of the worst kind, the kind that can, and does cause long term harm to people. It is totally unsupported by any credible science. The idea that there is a separate innate ‘gender’ area of the brain that is fixed at birth is preposterous.

While I don't think the trans point of view should be promoted to anyone, particularly children whose personality is still developing and are often not comfortable in their own skin,

The first thing you have ever said in this debate that makes any sense .

I accept that there are adults who genuinely hold it.

Agree, but irrelevant. If I genuinely hold the feeling that I am a fully trained airline pilot, should my feelings be affirmed? Should my demand to be allowed to fly a plane load of passengers from London to New York be acceded to? Should the passengers be forced to accept me as their pilot?

If the above was TL;DR, how about this: Your argument boils down to transsexuals have free will while gay people don't have free will.

More importantly, should that free will be forced on others against their free will?

You see, I believe that gay people have no free will when it comes to who they are attracted to. But them exercising their free will impacts NO-ONE else.

However, even if I am wrong about transgender people, and they cannot help being what they are, I will object when any part of their exercising of that free will has impacts on others.

If you disagree, then...
1. Please explain to me why the women in my life should have to tolerate males in their safe spaces, where they are not wanted?
2. Please explain why a woman who who is in a restroom, dealing with a biological issue such as a menstrual flood, should be forced to accept a male coming into that space?
3. Please explain why a women who has been raped (when the LAST thing she wants have anywhere near her is a male) should be forced to tolerate being in a space with a male, let along being counselled by one?

Apologies. I somehow missed the 'not' out of that sentence. To be clear I meant to say: Gender and biological sex are *not* synonymous.

Agreed

BS. It's as much of a pretence as any crazy religious rule.

No, it not BS! All laws are social contructs.
As @Ziggurat correctly points out the prohibition against rape is a social construct. Rape occurs in the animal kingdom all the time. This includes among our pre-hominid ancestors. Same applies to other things we call crimes such as theft & assault.

 

[Thermal]

By contrast, here's my sex-based definition of "woman": Adult human female. This definition has practical applications. For example, it tells us who does and doesn't belong in a women's restroom.

Hm. So since you are so set on the limitations of strict definitions, a minor human female is not allowed in a women's room. And I guess so is a little boy going in with their mother. And male caregivers, cleaning and maintenance people...

What's that you say? "Oh, it's not strict, there are exceptions made willy-nilly. You know, just whenever you like the reason." Yeah, I hear you.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Interesting comparison you have drawn. Lets examine it...

What you are talking about here is called Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) (a.k.a. body integrity dysphoria). It is considered to be related to somatoparaphrenia, a condition where individuals deny ownership of a body part. Do we affirm the feelings of people with this disorder, and tell them its perfectly normal by affirming their feelings? Do we tell them its OK for them to amputate the offending limb? No, of course we don't. Why? Because its a mental illness. It needs to be treated as a mental illness. If a sufferer of either of these two conditions decides to cut off their limb, that is their choice to do so.

Gender dysphoria is also a mental illness... it needs to be treated NOT affirmed.

The same was thought about homosexuality. But even if we assume transsexuals have a mental illness, if the current attempted cure for transsexual people leads to significantly worse outcomes than letting them conform to the gender norms they believe are appropriate, why do you want to inflict it on them? How does a male called Sandra wearing lipstick and a dress make your life worse?

There is no such thing as being "born in the wrong body". This is a fiction, created by medical pseudo-professionals, and promoted by the pro-trans lobby. The hypothesis that "gender identity" develops pre-natally, and as a consequence, babies are somehow born with it already in place, is absolute junk-science of the worst kind, the kind that can, and does cause long term harm to people. It is totally unsupported by any credible science. The idea that there is a separate innate ‘gender’ area of the brain that is fixed at birth is preposterous.

There are very effeminate gay men and butch lesbians who tend to adjust their appearance and mannerisms to be closer to the opposite gender. Is it really such a stretch to imagine that there are people whose gender identity is opposite to their biological sex? I can't comprehend it, but the existence of transsexuals makes it a fact.

The first thing you have ever said in this debate that makes any sense .


Agree, but irrelevant. If I genuinely hold the feeling that I am a fully trained airline pilot, should my feelings be affirmed?

If you are, then yes. If you are not, then probably not.

Should my demand to be allowed to fly a plane load of passengers from London to New York be acceded to?

No.

Should the passengers be forced to accept me as their pilot?

No.

More importantly, should that free will be forced on others against their free will.

You see, I believe that gay people have no free will when it comes to who they are attracted to. But exercising their free will impacts NO-ONE else.

You describe gender as being junk science and then claim to believe in free will. Can you point to where free will resides in the brain?

However, even if I am wrong about transgender people, and they cannot help being what they are, I will object when any part of their exercising of that free will has impacts on others.

If you disagree, then...
1. Please explain to me why the women in my life should have to tolerate males in their safe spaces, where they are not wanted?

The terminology adopted by extremists on both sides of this issue is bizarre. No group has "safe-spaces".

2. Please explain why a woman who who is in a restroom, dealing with a biological issue such as a menstrual flood, should be forced to accept a male coming into that space?

Why are people so ashamed and embarrassed about women menstruating? Never once have I read anyone use the example of walking in on a women doing a really smelly poo. But a bit of blood from their vagina...THE HORROR AND SHAME OF IT! I also don't see how it would happen in reality and my GP wife who has lived on two continents and travelled in Europe has never experienced anything like this in a public toilet. I.e., I suspect this is more about weaponising the ridiculous taboos that linger around menstruation.

3. Please explain why a women who has been raped (when the LAST thing she wants have anywhere near her is a male) should be forced to tolerate being in a space with a male, let along being counselled by one?

Please explain how this hypothetical woman got into a public toilet without encountering any males. As we're throwing out ridiculous scenarios, what if the woman had been raped by her lesbian partner? Should butch looking women be excluded from her presence in that case?

Agreed


No, it not BS! All laws are social contructs.
As @Ziggurat correctly points out the prohibition against rape is a social construct. Rape occurs in the animal kingdom all the time. This includes among our pre-hominid ancestors. Same applies to other things we call crimes such as theft & assault.

And laws change over time. Stop pretending this current social norm is a law of nature.

 

[Pixel42]

No shades of grey or flexibility for individuals who don't fit the mould. Hard and rigidly enforced laws.

Hang on, you just said

I also think the idea that it is obvious that human males and females must be segregated for the safety of the females is a signal something is very wrong with society and needs to be addressed, not just accepted that human males are just like that and there is nothing to be done about it.

So which is it? Should sex segregation be abandoned as an outmoded social construct, or should the rules of it be changed so that trans identifying males are allowed to access the sex segregated facilities of females (even if that means females no longer have access to female only facilities, as there is no longer any such thing)?

I've seen trans identifying males insisting that unless sex segregation is kept and they are classified as female they will be confined to their homes as they cannot possibly use facilities with males in them. But if female rape victims - who have far more reason to be wary of sharing facilities with males - say they will be confined to their homes if there are no male free facilities they can use, they are apparently being mean and unreasonable. A better example of double standards would be hard to imagine.

 

[Pixel42]

Pretty sure they sincerely believe they qualify for it. Pretty sure that's the core of the debate.

No male will ever menstruate. They will never risk pregnancy when they have sex. They will never get pregnant. They will never give birth. They will never breast feed a baby. They will never know what it's like to be surrounded by an opposite sex who are almost all bigger and stronger than they are, with completely different sexual drives to them, any one of whom might be a danger to them. They will never go through the menopause. No male will ever qualify, no matter what thoughts they have in their heads, because no male will ever know what it's like to live life as a woman.

This is why so many trans identifying males are so obsessed with accessing female only facilities: it is literally the only way they can "be" a woman, and be recognised as such by society as a whole. That's why no amount of single use unisex cubicles alongside the male and female facilities will satisfy them. As long as there is anything labelled "female only", they will demand access to it. Because it's the only way in which they can get their validation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Pretty sure they sincerely believe they qualify for it.

So what? Anorexic people sincerely believe they need to lose weight.

Pretty sure that's the core of the debate.

Let's be more precise: the core of the debate is not whether they think they qualify, but whether they do.

There's a few posters here that say "there are female only spaces, and well, everybody knows that, and that's that". Not much rational discussion can be had against that starting position.

There's not much rational discussion to be had with the starting position that trans identifying males should access female spaces because they believe they qualify, either.

 

[smartcooky]

The same was thought about homosexuality.

Whataboutism

And that was wrong anyway.

But even if we assume transsexuals have a mental illness, if the current attempted cure for transsexual people leads to significantly worse outcomes than letting them conform to the gender norms they believe are appropriate, why do you want to inflict it on them? How does a male called Sandra wearing lipstick and a dress make your life worse?

Ask a woman who has been raped, and is sheltering in a rape crisis centre, why you are expecting her to tolerate Sandra's presence..

Oh, wait, I forgot...

No group has "safe-spaces".

... no rape crisis centres or domestic violence shelters then! Amirite?

You describe gender as being junk science and then claim to believe in free will. Can you point to where free will resides in the brain?

Fallacy of the false analogy. Gender is not an analogy for free will. Neither resides in the brain.

Why are people so ashamed and embarrassed about women menstruating? Never once have I read anyone use the example of walking in on a women doing a really smelly poo. But a bit of blood from their vagina...

Misogyny at at worst and most obvious.

If you really need to ask such a question, then I feel really sorry for all the women in your life... I really do.

THE HORROR AND SHAME OF IT! I also don't see how it would happen in reality

Ask Sandy Peggie... I'm guessing you probably don't even know who that is.

..and my GP wife who has lived on two continents and travelled in Europe has never experienced anything like this in a public toilet. I.e., I suspect this is more about weaponising the ridiculous taboos that linger around menstruation.

Appeal to Authority. Your wife is an example of one. You should ask other women what they think

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Hang on, you just said



So which is it? Should sex segregation be abandoned as an outmoded social construct, or should the rules of it be changed so that trans identifying males are allowed to access the sex segregated facilities of females (even if that means females no longer have access to female only facilities, as there is no longer any such thing)?

I've seen trans identifying males insisting that unless sex segregation is kept and they are classified as female they will be confined to their homes as they cannot possibly use facilities with males in them. But if female rape victims - who have far more reason to be wary of sharing facilities with males - say they will be confined to their homes if there are no male free facilities they can use, they are apparently being mean and unreasonable. A better example of double standards would be hard to imagine.

My point was that if someone believes it is obvious that males and females need to be segregated for the safety of the females, then that person should be asking that society addresses why males are so dangerous, rather than just shrugging their shoulders and disappearing off into the nearest "safe space". But I suppose it is also possible to believe that it is an innate and immutable part of maleness and nothing can be done about it.

 

[Ziggurat]

My point was that if someone believes it is obvious that males and females need to be segregated for the safety of the females, then that person should be asking that society addresses why males are so dangerous, rather than just shrugging their shoulders and disappearing off into the nearest "safe space".

THis debate tactic of "you must solve this problem that no human society has ever figured out how to solve instead of taking action to mitigate that problem" is the height of arrogance.

No. If you figure out how to solve the problem of male violence AND actually implement that solution and demonstrate it works, THEN we can go back and revisit whether we still need sex segregation. But only after, not before.

But I suppose it is also possible to believe that it is an innate and immutable part of maleness and nothing can be done about it.

I won't argue it's immutable, that's not a necessary component of my position. But good luck finding a solution to it. Nobody has managed one yet. Maybe you will be the first to solve the human condition.

Or maybe you're talking out your ass.

 

[smartcooky]

THis debate tactic of "you must solve this problem that no human society has ever figured out how to solve instead of taking action to mitigate that problem" is the height of arrogance.

And its a dodge! A pathetic and obvious dodge he is taking because he's cornered.

No. If you figure out how to solve the problem of male violence AND actually implement that solution and demonstrate it works, THEN we can go back and revisit whether we still need sex segregation. But only after, not before.

Boom! Right there!

I won't argue it's immutable, that's not a necessary component of my position. But good luck finding a solution to it. Nobody has managed one yet.

Indeed.

Maybe you will be the first to solve the human condition.

Least unlikely. The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one - he's not even got to there yet.

Or maybe you're talking out your ass.

Most likely.

 

[lionking]

No shades of grey or flexibility for individuals who don't fit the mould. Hard and rigidly enforced laws.

Is that the kind of country you want to live in? If so, vote Reform at the next election.

What is grey about transwomen (like Lia Thomas) demanding to compete in womens
‘s sport?

 

[theprestige]

Hm. So since you are so set on the limitations of strict definitions, a minor human female is not allowed in a women's room. And I guess so is a little boy going in with their mother. And male caregivers, cleaning and maintenance people...

What's that you say? "Oh, it's not strict, there are exceptions made willy-nilly. You know, just whenever you like the reason." Yeah, I hear you.

Nobody is this confused.

 

[smartcooky]

No shades of grey or flexibility for individuals who don't fit the mould.

1. Why should there be?
2. There is no grey area... everyone but a minuscule exception (in the 100ths of a percent) is either biologically male or biologically female. Even the vast majority of people with DSD are still one or the other.

Hard and rigidly enforced laws.

Yup, that's what we should have.
On the lighter side, when a driver doesn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign, I don't want them to be able to argue "grey area" because they didn't blast through the stop sign, they almost stopped.

On the darker, more serious side, if a rape is committed, I don't want the perpetrator arguing "grey area" because "they didn't really penetrate very far, or they only used their fingers, or the victim didn't for realsies say no.

Is that the kind of country you want to live in?

If you're in the UK, you're already living in that kind of country.

30 months in jail for a hurty tweet.

Access Restricted

Police bringing half a dozen officers to your house to investigate you for a social media post, and ransacking your house while they were there

Kent PCC demands answers from force over X post case

Julian Foulkes, 71, from Gillingham, says he is taking legal action after his alleged mistreatment.

www.bbc.com

Entries on people's criminal record without ever being charged or convicted of a crime.

Non-crime hate incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Blasphemy laws being introduced to protect Islam from criticism.

England now has a blasphemy law

Officially, blasphemy was abolished by New Labour in the 2008 Criminal Justice Act. But today, with the conviction of Hamit Coskun, blasphemy laws now exist in England. This law has been created by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and District Judge John McGarva. Between them they have...

www.spectator.co.uk

If so, vote Reform at the next election.

Reform can't do any worse than what is happening now in the UK

 

[smartcooky]

Nobody is this confused.

Yeah, its the ultimate in strawmanning an argument.

I'd like to call that post what it is... but I won't

 

[Aber]

Also, the uk ruling that woman is defined by biological sex under equality laws causes more problems that it solves.

Name them.

 

[smartcooky]

Also, the uk ruling that woman is defined by biological sex under equality laws causes more problems that it solves

I can understand why YOU think it causes problems. Its because you are obsessed with labels. You are (irrevocably it seems) wedded to the flawed idea that "woman" must be exclusively a "gender" label, and "female" must exclusively be a "sex" label. However, until relatively recently, the term "gender" was almost exclusively an adjective used in grammar when assigning nouns as masculine or feminine, in particular, in languages such as French (Le, La), Italian (-o, -a), Portuguese (-o,-a) and German (Der, Die - and they also have Das which is neutral). You can see this as recently as about 40 years ago in the following extract from the 1982 Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary....

"Gender" in this defintion is a noun, not an adjective as it would have to be if you were using the way you want to. Its also worth noting that the word "sex" in regards to the defintion of gender was only ever used in a jocular fasion at that time.

When you look at the defintion of "sex" from the same dictionary, the term gender does not appear at all...

I predict it's temporary and it will have to be looked at again, and they then maybe come to the logical conclusion which is mine.

I doubt this will ever happen, and your conclusion is so far from logical, I almost consider it a non-seqitur.

The term "gender" has been hijacked by TRAs and the ultra-progressive left. The reality is that term "female" is common across all mammalian species, and "woman" is the descriptor for humans, i.e. Adult Human Female, just as other mammalian species have their own descriptors

Mare = adult equine female
Bitch = adult canine female
Sow = adult porcine female
Cow = adult bovine female
Ewe = adult ovine female
Nanny = adult caprine female
Queen = adult feline female

etc

 

[d4m10n]

Because he knowingly entered the club (and then further into the locker room) without permission, knowing he was not allowed to be there, not because he was a man/male entering a woman's space.

Which part of the decision led you to believe he entered the club itself without permission?

The defendant was found to be guilty of criminal trespass because he trespassed into a 'separately secured or occupied' part of the building, not because he was male entering a women's space.

The defendant was found to be guilty of criminal trespass because he was put on notice as a male that the women's area was off limits to him.

Although the occupancy of the ladies' room is extensive, encompassing all women in the club, it is nevertheless true that all women in the restroom may exclude all men, even those legitimately in the club, from occupying that area. The ladies' room is therefore "separately secured or occupied" for precisely the same reason that an office in an office building is — it is reserved for the exclusive use of only a subset of the total population authorized to use the larger structure.​

...your example here is irrelevant; it has nothing whatsoever to do with gender or sex legality for restroom access.

See above.