Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

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

All quite correct, but in the real world, they are all just called horses in 99.9% of usage. Maybe pony if it's a little one. That's how little in matters in day to day living. Getting hyper technical when it just doesn't matter in practical terms is needlessly argumentative.

 

[Emily's Cat]

All quite correct, but in the real world, they are all just called horses in 99.9% of usage. Maybe pony if it's a little one. That's how little in matters in day to day living. Getting hyper technical when it just doesn't matter in practical terms is needlessly argumentative.

And with this, your argument becomes that female humans don't need a word that simultaneously captures both our species and our sex... because everyone just refers to us all as "humans" in practical day to day living?

Or are you trying to say that since we generally refer to horses as horses a lot of the time, it's perfectly fine if some activists come along and decide that everyone should start using the term "mare" to mean horses with long fetlocks, and "stallion" to mean horses with short fetlocks?

I mean, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here, other than to ensure that female humans don't get to have a word for ourselves, since that might hurt the feelings of some males with transgender identities?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

So what?

So, stop being irrational.

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?

Do you drive? What are the risks involved? What about the magnitude of those risks?

 

[smartcooky]

And with this, your argument becomes that female humans don't need a word that simultaneously captures both our species and our sex... because everyone just refers to us all as "humans" in practical day to day living?

Or are you trying to say that since we generally refer to horses as horses a lot of the time, it's perfectly fine if some activists come along and decide that everyone should start using the term "mare" to mean horses with long fetlocks, and "stallion" to mean horses with short fetlocks?

I mean, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here, other than to ensure that female humans don't get to have a word for ourselves, since that might hurt the feelings of some males with transgender identities?

And actually, being someone who is actually involved with horses, I rarely refer to them as "horses" (I usually only use that term when talking to a greenhorn). More often, I refer to them as ponies, mares, stallions, geldings, colts, fillies, yearlings etc depending on what they are.

 

[d4m10n]

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

Nope, how it worked for decades was basically an honor system completely lacking in top-down rules such as the one you proclaimed at #11,219.

Transgender identified women have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with this debate.

Then why does your proclamation cover them?

 

[d4m10n]

We can believe that everyone should follow the law that people use sex-separated spaces on the basis of their actual real sex.

Do you actually believe this, though?

Do you really want to persuade (or coerce) females who pass as males to go back into the spaces reserved for women, even knowing the confusion and anxiety that will invariably produce?

I think it is absolutely absurd to keep dodging this question by saying that we can count on those people to break the rules, just after saying you believe those rules need to be obeyed.

 

[Thermal]

And with this, your argument becomes that female humans don't need a word that simultaneously captures both our species and our sex... because everyone just refers to us all as "humans" in practical day to day living?

Or are you trying to say that since we generally refer to horses as horses a lot of the time, it's perfectly fine if some activists come along and decide that everyone should start using the term "mare" to mean horses with long fetlocks, and "stallion" to mean horses with short fetlocks?

I mean, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here, other than to ensure that female humans don't get to have a word for ourselves, since that might hurt the feelings of some males with transgender identities?

I'm saying that your soul is not compromised by casual word usage. I agree that transwomen calling themselves 'women' will cause confusion quickly, especially when bio females are also being referred to. That's why 'transwomen' works well. It clarifies that there is a specifier built right in, which is exactly what you seem to advocate, while at the same time affording them a little tiny bit of validation about how they feel.

You implied that you deal with 15 transgender people a day. Do you refer to them by their bio sex, or tell them they are wrong?

Eta: maybe there is another math problem? You said "In any given work day, I interact with on the order of 3000 people." Assuming an 8 hr workday, you are interacting with 375 people per hour, of which one or two would be trans each hour, statistically. Are you pretty sure that's the volume?

 

[smartcooky]

Nope, how it worked for decades was basically an honor system completely lacking in top-down rules such as the one you proclaimed at #11,219.

Then why does your proclamation cover them?

More wilful obstinacy.

My "proclamation" (as you incorrectly call it) was not a proclamation, and certainly not a rule or rules. It was a suggested solution (see what I was replying to). And yes, I call for a return to an honour system that worked very well for decades until the transgender ideology madness infested our social norms.

And the way it worked before was that if a women caught a man in the women's toilet, she was immediately and legally the victim and she could legally ask him to leave, or with help, she could eject him. But under the gender ideology dogma, if she does any of that, all the man had to do is cry "I am a woman", and suddenly, he is legally the victim, and she is now labelled a transphobe and a tranny-bashing bigot - and if that toilet is in her ideologically captured workplace, such as the NHS, she can be suspended, or even fired (See Sandie Peggie & Jennife Melle).

... and you seem happy to allow this woeful unjust state of affairs to continue.

 

[d4m10n]

And yes, I call for a return to an honour system that worked very well for decades until the transgender ideology madness infested our social norms.

What will your ideal honour system do with females who pass as males? Your earlier post said that they should use the bathroom of their sex at birth, along with everyone else.

People keep dodging this issue, even though we've already discussed the prevalence of ROGD among adolescent girls and the ease of access to cross-sex hormones.

 

[Thermal]

Do you actually believe this, though?

I think they are as clear as can be hoped for. They want pure sex segregation, unless they like the transperson or don't notice them. Then the rules aren't important. As long as the rules allow them to humiliate transwomen who don't look girly enough for their tastes. They even provide pics of such transpeople to make it clear that they don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about the actual sex, just the Girly Standard. We good?

 

[theprestige]

What will your ideal honour system do with females who pass as males? Your earlier post said that they should use the bathroom of their sex at birth, along with everyone else.

People keep dodging this issue, even though we've already discussed the prevalence of ROGD among adolescent girls and the ease of access to cross-sex hormones.

As far as I'm concerned, you're framing it wrong. It's not about pass/no pass. It's about demand/no demand.

The old honor system worked because there was no legitimate demand. Only earning and keeping the goodwill of the people around you. Reject fiat self-ID, and give people legal protection if they choose to enforce sex segregation in the restroom they're in, and the old system works just fine. Always has.

Remember, the real problem is a tiny cohort of men who demand access whether or not women are comfortable.

 

[smartcooky]

What will your ideal honour system do with females who pass as males?

Irrelevant. The title of this thread is "Transwomen are not women"... If you want to discuss "Transmen are not men" make a thread for that

Your earlier post said that they should use the bathroom of their sex at birth, along with everyone else.

Yup. and?

People keep dodging this issue, even though we've already discussed the prevalence of ROGD among adolescent girls and the ease of access to cross-sex hormones.

Dodging an issue that is not an issue under discussion here. I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

 

[Emily's Cat]

So, stop being irrational.

As a female of the human species who has been subjected to two attempted rapes, and several sexual assaults... I cannot respond to your thoughtless, careless, and completely heartless comment that lacks anything remotely resembling empathy in a way that does not violate the MA.

 

[Thermal]

As far as I'm concerned, you're framing it wrong. It's not about pass/no pass. It's about demand/no demand.

The old honor system worked because there was no legitimate demand. Only earning and keeping the goodwill of the people around you. Reject fiat self-ID, and give people legal protection if they choose to enforce sex segregation in the restroom they're in, and the old system works just fine. Always has.

Remember, the real problem is a tiny cohort of men who demand access whether or not women are comfortable.

I continue to warm up to this or at least somrthing very close to it. I only object to the legal protection for people who just don't like transfolk, and order them out on principle. I'd rather that in that kind of conflict, the ejector has to make their case beyond "I hate the cross dressing pervs and don't want one near me", which is solidly in Discriminationland and shouldn't enjoy summary protection.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, and this thread is hate. People that want to control others. They think they have a right to tell others how they should feel, think, and act.

 

[theprestige]

I continue to warm up to this or at least somrthing very close to it. I only object to the legal protection for people who just don't like transfolk, and order them out on principle. I'd rather that in that kind of conflict, the ejector has to make their case beyond "I hate the cross dressing pervs and don't want one near me", which is solidly in Discriminationland and shouldn't enjoy summary protection.

There's no case to make. Men don't belong in women's restrooms. Especially men who demand access whether women like it or not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you actually believe this, though?

Do you really want to persuade (or coerce) females who pass as males to go back into the spaces reserved for women, even knowing the confusion and anxiety that will invariably produce?

I think it is absolutely absurd to keep dodging this question by saying that we can count on those people to break the rules, just after saying you believe those rules need to be obeyed.

What I want is a return to the status quo ante, but that's not possible. Sometimes I don't get what I want.

What I think is reasonable is a rule that allows the sex for which the space is designated to eject anyone of the opposite sex at any time for any reason no questions asked. That gives females the ability to make the occasional discretionary exception, subject to veto by any other female. It also gives males the ability to make discretionary exceptions, subject to veto by any other male. But that's rather difficult to make into a rule, and even more difficult to penalize transgressors.

So what I'll settle for is a rule that defines the spaces as being for those of each specified biological sex. That is the only approach that I can envision in the current environment that allows for penalization of those who break the rules. I settle for this with the full understanding that there will be some rulebreakers who get away with it, for the simple reasons that either 1) nobody can tell they're the opposite sex in the first place or 2) the other people in the space won't care enough to complain or report the incident.

1) Applies to those rare males with transgender identities that have had enough work done that they're not easily identifiable as male - thus the "old school transsexuals" can slip around the edges because they actually do pass and they don't cause problems. It would also apply to those females with transgender identities who have grown full beards and don't stand out from other beardy-bros at a quick glance.

2) Applies largely to females with transgender identities in many situations where the males using the restrooms or changing rooms just don't care and aren't intimidated by either a smaller more delicate perceived male or by a female of any sort. It may also extend to venues with a high volume of transgender identified attendees where everyone knows what's going on and nobody is caught off guard by it.

The net result of all that, however, is that *if* someone *does* feel the need to make a complaint about an opposite-sex person being there... they can do so without fear, and their right to report the transgressor will be honored.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think they are as clear as can be hoped for. They want pure sex segregation, unless they like the transperson or don't notice them. Then the rules aren't important. As long as the rules allow them to humiliate transwomen who don't look girly enough for their tastes. They even provide pics of such transpeople to make it clear that they don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about the actual sex, just the Girly Standard. We good?

And you complain about your posts being misrepresented, sheesh. This is an absurd and downright malicious framing, and you know good and well that this is not the intent.

If you can't take it, perhaps you might consider dishing it out just a bit less, eh?

 

[theprestige]

Yes, and this thread is hate. People that want to control others. They think they have a right to tell others how they should feel, think, and act.

Sounds like you have a serious problem with preferred pronouns.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I continue to warm up to this or at least somrthing very close to it. I only object to the legal protection for people who just don't like transfolk, and order them out on principle. I'd rather that in that kind of conflict, the ejector has to make their case beyond "I hate the cross dressing pervs and don't want one near me", which is solidly in Discriminationland and shouldn't enjoy summary protection.

Oh FFS. "That person is male and this is the room for females" end of discussion. Similarly, "that person is female and this is a space for males".

Your malign framing is far more likely to happen to a male with a transgender identity in a male space, simply because males gatekeep masculinity far tighter than anyone else.