Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Most are unlikely to want to have to fool everyone they know and medical professionals that they are a woman

They don't have to. Under self ID, they can just declare themselves to be women, and then they are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My wife and I have talked about this and we each behave in ways that are fairly congruent with our biological sex, but neither of us feel male or female. We're both just feel like 'me'. I think for most cisgender people the 'neither' category could also have 'generally no feelings at all', or 'mostly invisible', because their gender identities and biological sexes match and are essentially two forces pushing in the same direction.

I'd like to submit an alternative to the hypothesis that everyone has a gender identity. The current TRA position is that everyone has a gender identity, but most people just aren't aware of it. As an alternative, I submit that most people do NOT have a gender identity, and that only a small number of people develop one.

I submit that you and your spouse, as well as me and my spouse, and many people in this thread do NOT have a gender identity, because society's sex-based stereotypes aren't a significant part of our identities.

First, let's talk terminology. The first thing I want to do is to make the distinction between identity and identification.

Identification in this context refers to the ways in which other people can tell that you are you. This is very often related to the information on various identification documents - height, weight, age, hair and eye color, sex. But it also refers to other physical characteristics, like body and face shape, voice tonality, even fingerprints. To some extent, identification can also extend into behavioral and personality characteristics, things which aren't obvious but which can often be observed nonetheless.

Identification is how you could tell me apart from Thermal if you stood us in a line-up... but it's also how you can tell whether it's me posting or Thermal posting, even if there's no name attached to the words - we have different styles, different ways of expressing ourselves, different word choices, etc.

Identity, however, is an internal framework of how we view ourselves, and often how we want other people to view us. This frequently has a lot to do with our accomplishments, what's important to us, etc. For me, this includes things like... health actuary with a ton of experience in the individual market, intelligent and good decision-maker, able to lead a team of people to success, accountable for my decisions and actions, logical and pragmatic, considerate, etc. It's also shaped by things outside of my control, but which have a considerable influence on my life. I'm epileptic, I get migraines from chocolate and pineapple, I have several alcoholics in my family. To some extent, the fact that I'm female has exerted a lot of pressure on my life, and it's an inescapable aspect of my identity... but society's stereotypes and expectations of my sex are NOT a material part of my personality.

I think that the vast majority of people do NOT have a gender identity, because gender (society's set of expectations and stereotypes based on sex) are not part of what we view as important about our personalities. I would submit that the only people who have a gender identity are those people for whom gender is an important element of their internal identity schema.

 

[theprestige]

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.

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.

Hang on. You literally just said that you will treat anyone expressing the woman's gender role as a woman - i.e., different from how you treat men. Now you're saying you wouldn't treat men and women differently, except in matters of sex, because gender roles are irrelevant to you?

And you also predicated this on making a distinction between men's and women's gender roles. Now you're saying you have no clear idea what those distinctions look like?

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.

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

So which is it? Can you distinguish between the gender roles or not? Do you treat men and women differently, based on your perception of their gender roles, or not?

 

[Thermal]

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.

I'm coming up with between 4 and 0.4 rapists? How did you average that to 4?

Looking back at how these "rapists" self defined themselves in the study we are relying on for data, words like 'rape' and 'assault' were not used. Asking a man if he ever coerced a woman into having sex could be taken as anything from rape to sweet talking their partner. This data may not be as illuminating as it seems for us to br relying on it so heavily.

 

[smartcooky]

No idea how you can square this with your proclamation that "Whether they identify as woman, man, male, female, non-binary, lesbian, gay, homosexual, queer, +, ++, two -spirit, furrie, attack helicopter, or any letter(s) of the alphabet, they use the facilities that are commensurate with their BIOLOGICAL SEX."

Are you now amending your seemingly black-and-white rule with a loophole for people who can get away with breaking it?

Can you please clarify whether you believe people who pass as the opposite sex ought to adhere to the proclamation of #11,219 or not?

No, I'm not amending ANY rule. I'm simply making an observation

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, it's right on. Approximately 1 in 200 people identify as transgender in the US. Their lives barely intersect others.

In any given work day, I interact with on the order of 3000 people. We share restroom facilities by necessity, because none of us want to have to drive home to pee. If I stop at the grocery store or the yoga studio or run an errand, my life intersects hundreds to thousands more.

1 in 200 is a LOT. And it affects the rights and safety of all females in the US.

 

[smartcooky]

If someone proclaims a rule with the intent of having people break it, then they shouldn't expect us to take the rule seriously.

The proclamation of #11,219 is hereby rescinded and held in abeyance until such a time as the rulemaker can come up with a new rule that they actually believe everyone should follow.

Perfect is the enemy of good, remember

 

[Emily's Cat]

It gives clearly defined rights to transsexual people and does not empower bigots to whip up hate.

It gives special privileges to some males who say magic words, and empowers misogynists to coercively evict female humans from full and fair participation in society.

 

[d4m10n]

Perfect is the enemy of good, remember

Do you believe you are making the world even slightly better by suggesting that females who pass as males need to go back to using women's spaces?

Seems to me that you'd be creating unnecessary anxiety and stress for the women already in those spaces.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yep. It's like Muslim countries where women who don't wear a veil or burka are beaten by men.

Not allowing males to force themselves into the presence of naked or vulnerable females just because they really really want it is totally the same as muslim countries.

Are you seriously arguing that protecting the equal rights of females it the same as females having no rights at all?

 

[Thermal]

In any given work day, I interact with on the order of 3000 people. We share restroom facilities by necessity, because none of us want to have to drive home to pee. If I stop at the grocery store or the yoga studio or run an errand, my life intersects hundreds to thousands more.

1 in 200 is a LOT. And it affects the rights and safety of all females in the US.

You interact daily with 15 transgender people per day then? Plus another few to a dozen after work? That seems like a lot.

How many restroom assaults do you deal with in the average month? As I'm reading the probabilities put forth, it seems like it would have to be quite a few?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No idea how you can square this with your proclamation that "Whether they identify as woman, man, male, female, non-binary, lesbian, gay, homosexual, queer, +, ++, two -spirit, furrie, attack helicopter, or any letter(s) of the alphabet, they use the facilities that are commensurate with their BIOLOGICAL SEX."

Are you now amending your seemingly black-and-white rule with a loophole for people who can get away with breaking it?

Can you please clarify whether you believe people who pass as the opposite sex ought to adhere to the proclamation of #11,219 or not?

Don't be willfully obstinate.

Jaywalking is illegal, all the time, in all situations, for all reasons.
If it's the middle of the night and there's no traffic and nobody around to see you, you're not going to get in trouble for jaywalking.

I know you can square those two statements, and understand that they're not in contradiction in the real world.

 

[smartcooky]

The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different if it were actually about trans-identifying females wanting to intrude on men's restrooms.

Indeed. Transgender identified women have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with this debate. One only need to check the title of this debate to understand this.

This insistence that @Ivor the Engineer has about forcing "transsexual men to leave a public toilet" is pure whataboutism - its nothing more than a pathetic attempt to distract away from the fact that he has no answer to the questions that have been put to him.

This issue is NOT symmetrical. The issue of transgender identified males entering women-only spaces IS NOT the equal and opposite of transgender identified females entering men-only spaces, for the same reasons that men in women's sports is not the equal and opposite of women in men's sports. The concern is the far greater propensity for males to commit violence, especially upon women, and the physical advantage that allows them to commit that violence. Yes, technically, technically, you could argue that it would allow men to eject a transgender identified female from a public toilet, but the reality is that it is not going to happen. More likely, men would simply laugh at them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Every rule always has a loophole for those who can get away with breaking it.

If someone proclaims a rule with the intent of having people break it, then they shouldn't expect us to take the rule seriously.

The proclamation of #11,219 is hereby rescinded and held in abeyance until such a time as the rulemaker can come up with a new rule that they actually believe everyone should follow.

It's not proclaiming with the intent of having people break it, it's acknowledging that there are some situations in which it cannot be perfectly enforced.

What about laws that prohibit underage drinking? We all know that a motivated teen with enough skill can pass as older than they actually are, especially if they put in the effort to get a fake ID. We all know it's a possibility, and that some teens are going to break the law without being caught. Do you think that's a good reason to argue that we should get rid of the law altogether?

Personally, I think that lawmakers believe that everyone should follow the laws against underage drinking, but that everyone has just enough pragmatism to understand that sometimes someone is going to get away with breaking that law, and other people won't even be aware that it's been broken.

That's the same deal here: We can believe that everyone should follow the law that people use sex-separated spaces on the basis of their actual real sex. But we also have enough pragmatism to acknowledge that some few people are going to be able to break that law and not get caught, because nobody realizes they're breaking it.

 

[smartcooky]

Don't be willfully obstinate.

But being willfully obstinate is his shtick

Jaywalking is illegal, all the time, in all situations, for all reasons.
If it's the middle of the night and there's no traffic and nobody around to see you, you're not going to get in trouble for jaywalking.

Indeed

I know you can square those two statements, and understand that they're not in contradiction in the real world.

Of course he can, but where then fun for him in that?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This is pretty much exactly what I want, and I believe that's what everyone on the gender critical side of this discussion wants.

 

[smartcooky]

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 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

Agree, he has a lot of YOU problems going on...

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

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

So what?

You're framing this based solely on your assessment of likelihood, and you're ignoring the magnitude of the risk involved.

Most people like dogs, they've been domesticated parts of our societies for about as long as societies have existed. The likelihood of a domestic dog biting someone is pretty low. If you run across a domestic dog out in the world, the chances of it biting you are negligible.

Would you support eliminating leash laws and allowing dogs to run about unsecured?

 

[smartcooky]

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.

It is also how things worked for decades, with no problems whatsoever, until the Holy Cult of Transgender Ideology infested human affairs

 

[smartcooky]

Thought I'd just drop this here for our resident TRA contingent...