Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

You've just come out with a (useless) tautology. I.e. a male brain is a brain in a male body.

It seems some people just can't get past the idea that gender does not have to correspond to biological sex, just that it usually does in the vast majority of cases. For you there is are vertical lines at either end of the distribution curve; you can't deny the existence of very butch lesbians and effeminate gay men, but past those points no human is allowed to exist because doing so would conflict with your model of the universe. I suggest that nature doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊ about our models and will just do whatever it does.

The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about finding comfortable public restrooms for butch lesbians.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The women in that space.

The mob should decide who passes. E.g., Trans woman Sandra can be in the changing rooms on Mondays, Thursdays and Fridays, but not on Tuesdays or Wednesdays because Carol claims she is "triggered" or whatever by Sandra's presence. What if Andrea is a biological female but Carol doesn't like her because she gets on with Sandra? Does she have to get changed somewhere else too? Does it depend on whether Carol or Andrea is more popular amongst the other people who use the changing room?

Medical treatment is regulated as medical treatment. That applies even if that treatment does not give you any privilege to transcend sex segregation. And anyone suffering from dysphoria should certainly get assessed. So nothing I've said suggests that there should be no assessment or treatment for trans people, or no regulation of that treatment.

But I don't see any workable regulation for granting access to males to enter female spaces.

Because you believe transsexual women should never be allowed to enter women's spaces unless they can read the minds of people in that space before they have entered it. I.e. You believe transsexual women should never be allowed to enter women's spaces because the condition you've applied to allow it is impossible to meet and you know it. Why the smoke and mirrors? Just come out with what you really think.

I already told you. What part of "That will be true for most sex segregation" did you not understand? If they pass, they should change with the women. If they don't, they should change with the men. Why are you confused by that answer?

I'm not confused, I can see right through it. See above.

Where do men go to get help if they have been raped?

I'm not opposed to spending tax dollars to fund services to support any victim of rape.

There are already alternatives for them. That has never been the problem. Excluding trans identifying males from using the women's bathroom doesn't mean they can't use any bathroom.

Just to clarify, your answer is that transsexual women should use services men go to get help after being raped?

 

[Ziggurat]

You've just come out with a (useless) tautology. I.e. a male brain is a brain in a male body.

Since not everyone thinks this is true, apparently it's not a tautology.

It seems some people just can't get past the idea that gender does not have to correspond to biological sex

I get the idea just fine. But the idea doesn't serve much function. I see reasons for sex segregation in certain contexts. I see zero reason for gender segregation under any circumstances. What do you think justifies gender segregation?

I suggest that nature doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊ about our models and will just do whatever it does.

I suggest that nature doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊ about gender and only cares about sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

The mob should decide who passes.

What exactly do you think passing means?

E.g., Trans woman Sandra can be in the changing rooms on Mondays, Thursdays and Fridays, but not on Tuesdays or Wednesdays because Carol claims she is "triggered" or whatever by Sandra's presence.

Sandra has zero right to be there at all. His presence should only be accepted with the permission of the women there. If Sandra doesn't like that, he is free to use the men's changing room, where he does have a right to be.

What if Andrea is a biological female but Carol doesn't like her because she gets on with Sandra? Does she have to get changed somewhere else too? Does it depend on whether Carol or Andrea is more popular amongst the other people who use the changing room?

Both Andrea and Carol are females, so both of them have a right to be there. Sandra does not.

Because you believe transsexual women should never be allowed to enter women's spaces unless they can read the minds of people in that space before they have entered it.

No. I believe that trans identified males should leave women's space at the request of any woman in there, since they do not have a right to be there. That's how implementation works. If they pass, they won't be asked to leave, because they pass.

But let's be honest. Not only do most trans identifying males not pass, most of them KNOW they don't pass.

I'm not confused, I can see right through it. See above.

Your "above" demonstrates your confusion.

Just to clarify, your answer is that transsexual women should use services men go to get help after being raped?

In general, yes. Because, get this, trans identified males are males.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't know how you're inferring what I think here, but you're way off. I don't deny the existence of butch lesbians or effeminate men (gay or straight) - I celebrate people who defy stereotypes. You seem stuck in some mindset that anyone who criticizes this movement must be right wing and therefore their viewpoint can be dismissed (both logical fallacies).

What do you mean "past those points"? Are you implying sex is a spectrum? It is demonstrably binary - there are two reproductive modes in all mammals, including humans (indeed it is effectively "locked in"). I agree nature doesn't care about our models - a love of that is what led me to choose my career ( I was a research biologist for ~30 years, now in clinical genetics).

Yes - there are a range of behaviors in both sexes, but that doesn't make anyone not female or male. Rather, it expands the range of the behaviors seen in males in females.

No, I'm not implying sex is a spectrum. I'm saying effeminate gay men and butch lesbians expression of their gender is often opposite of their biological sex. It therefore seems very odd to claim that no people exist who could exist further out on the gender spectrum than effeminate gay men and butch lesbians, such that they consider themselves as being female or male in every other way other than their biological sex. To these people they are in the wrong body.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I'm not implying sex is a spectrum. I'm saying effeminate gay men and butch lesbians expression of their gender is often opposite of their biological sex.

So what? Who gives a ◊◊◊◊? Very effeminate gay men are still men, and very butch lesbians are still women. What does their gender expression have to do with how we handle sex segregation?

It therefore seems very odd to claim that no people exist who could exist further out on the gender spectrum than effeminate gay men and butch lesbians

Oh, that's not the sticking point for anyone here.

, such that they consider themselves as being female or male in every other way other than their biological sex. To these people they are in the wrong body.

Every other way except their biological sex. And that means that everyone should change how we view their biological sex.

Do you not understand how self-refuting this position is? If we're supposed to accept that gender isn't sex, and gender exists on an entire spectrum, then why would you still not treat the most feminine possible male as still being male? It seems like you're the one that has a problem with a mismatch between sex and gender. Why would you insist on trying to force feminine males into pretending they are female, instead of just allowing them to be feminine males?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The problem you guys have is the only rational argument you have to exclude transsexual women from "female" groups^* is when biological sex matters. E.g., most competitive sport is a valid reason to segregate based on biological sex. Using a public toilet or changing room? Both biological sexes can use the same space equally well. So then you roll out the "menstrual flood" nonsense (anyone else got a scene from Carrie or The Shining in their head right now?), trying to use shock and awe in place of rational argument.

^*I note no one here seems to care where transsexual men go. Very odd.

 

[Manger Douse]

^*I note no one here seems to care where transsexual men go. Very odd.

That's because the problem is male not trans

Patriarchy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Elaedith]

No, I'm not implying sex is a spectrum. I'm saying effeminate gay men and butch lesbians expression of their gender is often opposite of their biological sex. It therefore seems very odd to claim that no people exist who could exist further out on the gender spectrum than effeminate gay men and butch lesbians, such that they consider themselves as being female or male in every other way other than their biological sex. To these people they are in the wrong body.

If gender and sex are separate you cannot be male or female in any way other than your biological sex.

 

[smartcooky]

Interesting that you only mention laws that prohibit the behaviours you want to reduce as ways to alter behaviour. Do you generally believe ever bigger sticks are solutions to problems?

I would suggest reducing childhood poverty, addressing inequality, education and early intervention may be better and more productive strategies for tackling male violence. Unfortunately people like @theprestige and @Ziggurat and possibly yourself will object to their tax dollars being spent on such things.

ETA: And before anyone goes gotcha!: tax dollars wouldn't pay for them.

Classic whataboutism...

I remind you this is a thread about transgenderism. The threads about "childhood poverty, addressing inequality, education and early intervention" are thataway ---------->

 

[Louden Wilde]

Since not everyone thinks this is true, apparently it's not a tautology.

I get the idea just fine. But the idea doesn't serve much function. I see reasons for sex segregation in certain contexts. I see zero reason for gender segregation under any circumstances. What do you think justifies gender segregation?

I suggest that nature doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊ about gender and only cares about sex.

No, I'm not implying sex is a spectrum. I'm saying effeminate gay men and butch lesbians expression of their gender is often opposite of their biological sex. It therefore seems very odd to claim that no people exist who could exist further out on the gender spectrum than effeminate gay men and butch lesbians, such that they consider themselves as being female or male in every other way other than their biological sex. To these people they are in the wrong body.

I did not claim that there not very effeminate males nor extremely masculine females (nor have I seen anyone currently commenting in the thread claim that). Yes, there are people who strongly identify with behaviors associated with the other sex and/or desire to be that sex. We (as a society) can help that by trying to cut down on reinforcements of those stereotypes (and reduce homophobia). What will not help is affirming that they were "born in the wrong body" and will be accepted as the other sex if they make greater attempts at mimicry.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem you guys have is the only rational argument you have to exclude transsexual women from "female" groups^* is when biological sex matters. E.g., most competitive sport is a valid reason to segregate based on biological sex. Using a public toilet or changing room? Both biological sexes can use the same space equally well.

No, that's stupid. The issue is not whether or not both sexes can use the same space equally (though I will note in passing that women tend to have a more difficult time using urinals). The issue is that women are vulnerable in bathrooms and changing rooms, and the differences between the sexes means that segregating males and females when they are in this state reduces risk and social friction. All of this has been dealt with in depth already. And you challenging this now is just a fringe reset.

^*I note no one here seems to care where transsexual men go. Very odd.

There's nothing odd about it. There are multiple contributing factors, which have also been dealt with extensively. Some of the major factors: trans identifying females have a much higher rate of passing as male. Females do not pose the same physical risk to males as males pose to females. And female sexual predators don't follow the same patterns that male sexual predators follow. Female sexual predators have no incentive to pose as males in order to gain access to victims, but the same is not true for male sexual predators.

If this were all motivated by anti-trans animus, you'd expect people to be just as upset about the trans identifying females. But they aren't, because it isn't all about anti-trans animus. There's an actual problem here, and it's not a symmetric one. People don't really care where trans identifying females go because, get this, males and females aren't the same.

ETA: oh, and you haven't posited a single rational argument for why gender should supersede sex.

 

[smartcooky]

It seems some people just can't get past the idea that gender does not have to correspond to biological sex, just that it usually does in the vast majority of cases. For you there is are vertical lines at either end of the distribution curve; you can't deny the existence of very butch lesbians and effeminate gay men, but past those points no human is allowed to exist because doing so would conflict with your model of the universe. I suggest that nature doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊ about our models and will just do whatever it does.

It doesn't matter how far beyond those two points humans exist....
- a person can be the butchest of all the butch lesbians in the world, if their development as an embryo after conception resulted in the Müllerian pathway, they they are biologically female, and they will always be biologically female.
- a person can be the most effeminate of all effeminate men in the world, in the world, if their development as an embryo after conception resulted in the Wolffian pathway, they they are biologically male, and they will always be biologically male.

 

[smartcooky]

There you go again with the binary thinking!

Sex is binary, so binary thinking is appropriate.

I think we should consider all humans and the costs and benefits for all groups.

Weak sauce indeed, and irrelevant to the point of ignorance.

If women don't want men in their spaces, only they should be qualified make any decisions to allow exceptions.

 

[smartcooky]

<Sigh>

I want people in this thread to apply a bit of nuance rather than black and white, all or nothing thinking. I think I might be waiting a long time!

Well, yes. As long as sex remains binary (and it will always remains binary), the thinking around the application of public policy is going to remain binary. If you are waiting for proven scientific reality to change, you are going to be waiting a long time.

 

[smartcooky]

Why is there no way to do this? To me it seems like it would be very possible to restrict access to (even a sub-set of) transwomen.

Have you been paying attention... any attention at all?

A man can claim to be a transgender self-identified male merely by saying so this man is physically, indisguishable from a man who does NOT claim to be a transgender self-identified male. How are women supposed to tell which is which?

 

[catsmate]

To your face

Ah, The Silent Majority fallacy.

 

[Ziggurat]

To your face

And probably behind his back as well. Because it is funny. And the reason it's funny isn't because they agree with it. Not at all.

 

[Manger Douse]

Ah, The Silent Majority fallacy.

Women lie to avoid conflict with men, even women you love

 

[Ziggurat]

Women lie to avoid conflict with men, even women you love

Sure, but I don't think they're lying about that, because again, it's funny!