Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[catsmate]

I presume you mean the EHRC?

No. The European court of human rights.

 

[theprestige]

Even if that we true, transmen scrupulously following the proclamation of #11,219 would only make this problem worse.

There is no particular reason for transmen to scrupulously follow the proclamation, as long as they leave without objection if a man asks them to. Which is unlikely, since they're not the issue.

 

[theprestige]

What sex you are is a fact and cannot be changed with our present technology, where did you get the idea I was agnostic about that?

I'm not saying you're agnostic about sex. I'm asking you for a definition of gender that doesn't reference sex in some way. Do you have such a definition?

The equality decision in the uk has defined woman as a biological female, but in spite of that I will live my life treating anyone who takes on the woman gender role as a woman until it hits hard definitions like private spaces or sports and such, in which case it's what sex you are that matters anyway.

Name three practical ways you treat women differently from men, that don't have to do with sex in some way.

So my definition of a woman would be whomever takes on that gender role, subconsciously led by society, or consciously.

What are the distinguishing hallmarks of the woman's gender role in society?

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you see the glaring disanalogy here?

It wasn't really meant as an analogy, only as an observation that in the real world, we don't actually expect perfect adherence to the rules. I don't really see a problem with making a rule with that in mind.

Smartcooky's proposed rule only works if people who pass as the opposite sex choose to break the rule.

Which part of the rule? Seems like there's two components: who should enter, and what one should do when asked to leave. They are not of equal importance. And a bit of rewording of the first part would fix your objection anyways. But you aren't advocating rewording, you're just flat-out rejecting, which seems needlessly pedantic.

 

[Thermal]

Who on Earth made that claim? We've discussed dozens of examples of sorting by gender instead of sex.

We have always and ever and only been talking about sex segregation.

 

[theprestige]

I saw something interesting yesterday. I've been watching compilations and specials of comedian Ashley Gavin. I think she's hilarious. She's also gay. She has a lot of LGBTQ-positive material, and a large LGBTQ following, to the point where a lot of her audiences are predominantly LGBTQ.

At one of her San Francisco shows, a person in the audience laments being single. Ashley is doing crowd work, and interacts with the audience member. Being a good and respectful person, Ashley asks the person's pronouns first thing. The audience member is obviously female, but prefers "they/them" pronouns.

Ashley brings them up on stage, banters with them for a bit, and finally asks if anyone in the audience wants to hook up with this poor single nonbinary lesbian. And someone in the audience does! So that audience member also comes up on stage, there's more banter, and it turns out the two people already know each other. At the end of the bit, the two audience members kiss, and presumably hook up after the show.

Anyway, the interesting part is that halfway through the banter, in all the excitement and hilarity, Ashley (the comedian) starts referring to the first audience member as "she/her". And nobody catches it. Ashley doesn't catch herself, apologize, and correct. Neither audience member seems to notice the shift. Certainly neither of them mentions it. Nobody else in the audience speaks up. Everybody just carries on joking and laughing as if "she/her" for an obvious female is the most natural thing in the world - preferred pronouns notwithstanding.

My takeaway is that even the most LGBTQ+ people in the most LGBTQ+ city don't really think in terms of preferred pronouns. They think in terms of sex, not gender.

 

[Thermal]

I saw something interesting yesterday. I've been watching compilations and specials of comedian Ashley Gavin. I think she's hilarious. She's also gay. She has a lot of LGBTQ-positive material, and a large LGBTQ following, to the point where a lot of her audiences are predominantly LGBTQ.

At one of her San Francisco shows, a person in the audience laments being single. Ashley is doing crowd work, and interacts with the audience member. Being a good and respectful person, Ashley asks the person's pronouns first thing. The audience member is obviously female, but prefers "they/them" pronouns.

Ashley brings them up on stage, banters with them for a bit, and finally asks if anyone in the audience wants to hook up with this poor single nonbinary lesbian. And someone in the audience does! So that audience member also comes up on stage, there's more banter, and it turns out the two people already know each other. At the end of the bit, the two audience members kiss, and presumably hook up after the show.

Anyway, the interesting part is that halfway through the banter, in all the excitement and hilarity, Ashley (the comedian) starts referring to the first audience member as "she/her". And nobody catches it. Ashley doesn't catch herself, apologize, and correct. Neither audience member seems to notice the shift. Certainly neither of them mentions it. Nobody else in the audience speaks up. Everybody just carries on joking and laughing as if "she/her" for an obvious female is the most natural thing in the world - preferred pronouns notwithstanding.

My takeaway is that even the most LGBTQ+ people in the most LGBTQ+ city don't really think in terms of preferred pronouns. They think in terms of sex, not gender.

Point of order: you can't logically be a non-binary lesbian, by definition. Non-binary people back themselves into far more corners than they realize.

 

[theprestige]

Point of order: you can't logically be a non-binary lesbian, by definition. Non-binary people back themselves into far more corners than they realize.

ThatsTheJoke.jpg. The juxtaposition of nonbinary pronouns with a very clearly binary sexuality.

 

[Thermal]

ThatsTheJoke.jpg. The juxtaposition of nonbinary pronouns with a very clearly binary sexuality.

I agree that pronoun slippage is common and often goes unnoticed because no one intensely gives much of a ◊◊◊◊. Except maybe the two lesbians after the show.. It just drives me nuts when they formulate the descriptor with contradictory terms. That shouldn't survive first blush, much less a little slip up later.

And going full tilt pedantic cranky: saying she prefers they/them doesn't mean she demands them or would be insulted by other pronouns. We all have preferences that aren't non-negotiable fighting words, yeah?

 

[p0lka]

I'm not saying you're agnostic about sex. I'm asking you for a definition of gender that doesn't reference sex in some way. Do you have such a definition?

No I don't think I do?
sex is the factual thing and culture/society becomes a system where sex dictates where you fit in that society and over time some people say "no I'm not following what you say", then gender becomes a different thing from sex.

Name three practical ways you treat women differently from men, that don't have to do with sex in some way.

I don't treat them differently as they are gender labels, I do treat females and males differently though depending on context for the obvious reason that they are different.

What are the distinguishing hallmarks of the woman's gender role in society?

Well I wish all the societal gender roles, especially the stereotypical ones that have been subconsciously absorbed by people would cease to exist, but given that they still do exist it would be a stereotype, probably a ridiculous one as they all are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No I wasn't. I was asked (somewhat nonsensically) for a reason that I wouldn't find bigoted. That qualifier threw me for a loop, because being bigoted never even crossed my mind. I had only said that many guys would prefer a woman because she had smaller diameter fingers. Yes, you guys are portraying a strip search as some kind of pervy romp; I see it as a humiliating sexual assault that I would seek to minimize the discomfort of. Which brings up the following:

...

Wait... do you have the wit or imagination to visualize what a strip search is like for a male? It ain't no erotic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ interlude. It is a humiliating, degrading experience when you are naked in a small room with like four people, one of whom is handling your body like you were livestock, all in the name of accusing you of hiding something that they have no reason to assume you personally are concealing.

YOU don't think it's exciting or sexual. But a lot of males do. YOU think it's humiliating. But a lot males don't... and a lot of males are turned on by humiliation. YOU would like smaller hands involved. But a lot of males get off on forcing females to do things they don't want to do.

YOU keep acting as if all males are perfectly harmless with no sexual thoughts in their heads at all. But YOU also know that's not even remotely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ true, and that a lot of males are absolutely pervy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

I would like a direct answer from you about why you keep lying about my posts.

Your inability to communicate yourself clearly and without contradiction does not make me untruthful.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Actually they were. You are wrong (as usual). You see I actually asked people, rather than assuming they shared my prejudices. You should give it a try.

This is just silly.

Why do YOU think that any male makes a better female than females do?

 

[d4m10n]

There is no particular reason for transmen to scrupulously follow the proclamation, as long as they leave without objection if a man asks them to.

You have significantly modified the terms of the original proclamation in order to make it much less inflexible.

Seems like there's two components: who should enter, and what one should do when asked to leave.

Seems like you've added a component. Here is the original proposed rule in its entirety:

Whether they identify as woman, man, male, female, non-binary, lesbian, gay, homosexual, queer, +, ++, two -spirit, furr[y], attack helicopter, or any letter(s) of the alphabet, they use the facilities that are commensurate with their BIOLOGICAL SEX.

Notice that there is nothing here about how to deal with objections, only who should enter in the first place.

It's probably also worth pointing out that this isn't just a hypothetical rule, it is substantively the same one laid down in the executive order, which does in fact require trans men to go back to using ladies facilities in all federal agencies, no matter how much discomfort that causes to employees or service users in those spaces, and provides no leeway for people who pass.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Utter rot. But not surprising as most of what you post is merely your opinion of how you would like the world to work.

Where on earth do you get that the average number of rapes per rapist is 10?

That was my simplifying assumption, not Ivor's. It was used to set a boundary scenario.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I saw something interesting yesterday. I've been watching compilations and specials of comedian Ashley Gavin. I think she's hilarious. She's also gay. She has a lot of LGBTQ-positive material, and a large LGBTQ following, to the point where a lot of her audiences are predominantly LGBTQ.

At one of her San Francisco shows, a person in the audience laments being single. Ashley is doing crowd work, and interacts with the audience member. Being a good and respectful person, Ashley asks the person's pronouns first thing. The audience member is obviously female, but prefers "they/them" pronouns.

Ashley brings them up on stage, banters with them for a bit, and finally asks if anyone in the audience wants to hook up with this poor single nonbinary lesbian. And someone in the audience does! So that audience member also comes up on stage, there's more banter, and it turns out the two people already know each other. At the end of the bit, the two audience members kiss, and presumably hook up after the show.

Anyway, the interesting part is that halfway through the banter, in all the excitement and hilarity, Ashley (the comedian) starts referring to the first audience member as "she/her". And nobody catches it. Ashley doesn't catch herself, apologize, and correct. Neither audience member seems to notice the shift. Certainly neither of them mentions it. Nobody else in the audience speaks up. Everybody just carries on joking and laughing as if "she/her" for an obvious female is the most natural thing in the world - preferred pronouns notwithstanding.

My takeaway is that even the most LGBTQ+ people in the most LGBTQ+ city don't really think in terms of preferred pronouns. They think in terms of sex, not gender.

Actually, I think it's the grammar part of the brain that rejects they/them as pronouns.

 

[Emily's Cat]

P(R) = 431840 / 320,000,000 = 0.00135 = 0.135%

Therefore P(R|M) = 0.27%, not 27%!

If we include the fact that most rapists are multiple offenders and use 10 as the (reasonable) estimate of the number of rapes they each commit, then:

P(R|M) = 0.027%.

Anyone like to disagree?

You are correct. That's what I get for doing back of the envelope math. Also covers the "that seems too high" bit.

So let's revise. That means that somewhere between 2.7 per 1,000 males and 2.7 per 10,000 males is a rapist.

I work for a company of over 3,000 people, half of whom are males. I work with, on average, 4 rapists. That's just the people I work with.

 

[d4m10n]

@Thermal — In reply to #11,290 it should suffice to say that "talking about sex segregation" is not the same as claiming gender (i.d.) segregation "does not exist," especially if the speaker is comparing the two alternatives.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's a weird argument. Humans are the only one in that list that can communicate an opinion about the descriptors?

It's not descriptors, it's the definition.

Horse is the word that means a member of the equine species. It does not distinguish on any characteristic other than species.
Foal is a word that means a juvenile member of the equine species; it distinguishes both species and reproductive maturity.
Filly is a word that means a juvenile female member of the equine species; it distinguishes species, reproductive maturity, and sex.
Colt is a word that means juvenile male member of the equine species; it distinguishes species, reproductive maturity, and sex.
Mare is a word that means adult female member of the equine species; it distinguishes species, reproductive maturity, and sex.
Stallion is a word that means reproductively capable adult male member of the equine species; it distinguishes species, reproductive maturity, reproductive capability, and sex.
Gelding is a word that means reproductively incapable adult male member of the equine species; it distinguishes species, reproductive maturity, reproductive capability, and sex.

These are all terms that convey a whole lot of information in a clear and concise way. We don't always incorporate all of the same meaning into our terminology - for example, we have a word specifically for a juvenile female bovine (heiffer), but not for a juvenile male bovine, which are just referred to by the general term "calf", although often modified as either a bull calf or a steer calf, depending on whether they've been castrated.

The point is that opinion has nothing to do with this. The terms aren't about feelings, they're about observable objective fact.

 

[Thermal]

YOU don't think it's exciting or sexual. But a lot of males do. YOU think it's humiliating. But a lot males don't... and a lot of males are turned on by humiliation. YOU would like smaller hands involved. But a lot of males get off on forcing females to do things they don't want to do.

YOU keep acting as if all males are perfectly harmless with no sexual thoughts in their heads at all. But YOU also know that's not even remotely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ true, and that a lot of males are absolutely pervy ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

I wasn't asked about other males. I was asked for my personal response. You're trying to correct me without reading what the question was.

Your inability to communicate yourself clearly and without contradiction does not make me untruthful.

Oh, no you don't. This was a straight up black and white misrepresenting about what I just said clearly in the very post you were quoting. I said X, then you claimed I said Y in that very post.

This has got nothing to do with the dishonest cop out that "oh I just can't understand what Thermal is saying".

I said it was black, and you immediately claimed I said it was white. This is 100% a you thing.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You are correct. That's what I get for doing back of the envelope math. Also covers the "that seems too high" bit.

So let's revise. That means that somewhere between 2.7 per 1,000 males and 2.7 per 10,000 males is a rapist.

I work for a company of over 3,000 people, half of whom are males. I work with, on average, 4 rapists. That's just the people I work with.

Once you've caught up you'll see I accept you probably work with between 23 and 78 rapists. The majority of those are raping partners or ex-partners at home. Most are unlikely to want to have to fool everyone they know and medical professionals that they are a woman just to get access to places where it would be highly likely committing a sexual assault would be detected.