Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

What I want to know is: if some males are not safe in the company of other males, why is that women's problem to solve? Especially when the "solution" puts them in danger from males?

And even if it was only males who take female hormones we were expected to welcome into what were previously female only spaces (which of course it isn't), they are still far more "testosterone laden" than females and therefore, by his own admission, a danger to them.

Its no contest.

Relative testosterone levels are such that the males with the LEAST testosterone are between 3½ to 20 times the level of females (250-300 ng/dL v 15-70 ng/dL)

Edited by jimbob: 

GIF attachments removed as requested

 

[Rolfe]

They ought to be allowed to dress however they wish [...] and express themselves in any way they like.

Um, can we add the qualifier "within the generally accepted bounds of public decency" to that? I mean, you've seen the way some of them dress and behave!

 

[Rolfe]

What I want to know is: if some males are not safe in the company of other males, why is that women's problem to solve? Especially when the "solution" puts them in danger from males?

And even if it was only males who take female hormones we were expected to welcome into what were previously female only spaces (which of course it isn't), they are still far more "testosterone laden" than females and therefore, by his own admission, a danger to them.

You'll search the world and have difficulty finding any actual cases of men in dresses being assaulted by other men in men's toilets. You will find lots of men in dresses (who have some notion of decent behaviour) saying they use the men's room all the time without any problems. In Thailand the "ladyboys" use the men's and nobody bats an eyelid.

Men in general are not actually permanently poised to go on the attack and beat up some random stranger.

Having said that, we know that gay-bashing happens. I don't see any demand from gay men to be allowed to use the women's facilities though. It's not women's job to protect weak or nonconforming men from other men. And certainly not at the cost of allowing any man who wants to use the women's facilities to do so (which is what the trans lobby demands). Kind of defeats the purpose.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

If that is what you see, then you are looking through glasses tinted with your own biases, prejudices and premeditated conclusions.

I believe that gays, lesbians, non-binary and transgender people must be granted the same rights granted to every other person in society, with the proviso that such rights shall not abrogate or transgress the existing rights of others. That means they must not be discriminated against with regards to employment, housing or freedom of speech. They ought to be allowed to dress however they wish, love whoever loves them back and express themselves in any way they like.

At the end of the day, however they are men... biological males - this is a 100% irrefutable, observable, biological, medical and scientific fact. Along with men,
I consider it perfectly acceptable to positively discriminate in favour of women, and keep all men out of women's spaces.

I'm glad you've made that clear. By page 326, post #13023 some people might not know what your opinion on this issue was.

You and the other two may have not noticed, but pretty much everyone who disagree with you have left the thread, which now mostly consists of three people agreeing with each other.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh look, the trans supporters have run away with their tails between their legs. That isn't a sign they won the argument.

 

[Pixel42]

You and the other two may have not noticed, but pretty much everyone who disagree with you have left the thread, which now mostly consists of three people agreeing with each other.

This thread had been deserted by anyone who disagreed with its title long before I even started reading it, let alone posting on it.

Occasionally some well meaning poster comes along, determined to explain to us why we are all evil bigots, reiterates the same pathetic arguments for why the feelings of a small minority of men should take priority over the feelings of the vast majority of women, gets their arse handed to them, and runs away. In between these visits, the rest of us share and discuss the news stories which encourage us to believe that eventually reality will win out over fantasy.

 

[Rolfe]

The sexual binary is inviolable.

I'm genuinely curious as to whether a woman with CAIS could do this. Maybe some can and some can't? I met a woman last summer whom I'm moderately sure has CAIS but it's not something you can just ask a casual acquaintance to do!

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, you quoted the court saying how those terms should be interpreted when they appear in the EqA, not when they appear in other official documents or even other statutes touching on sex and gender.

Here is what the court actually said (at paragraph 2) about whether the ruling would impact other uses of the relevant terms:

It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010.​

That seems fairly definitive to me.

Emphasis mine, seeing as you seem to have missed that rather important clause.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Still haven't answered the question. Is she a he? Or is he a she?

What reproductive system does this individual have? What criteria are scientists using to determine that this individual is a 'woman' in the first place, and are they speaking in terms of evolutionary reproductive role or psychological identity?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you can't define it, how do you regulate it? Are their exceptions for intersex people? And what Intersex conditions qualify? Is every person who has a penis a man? Is every person with a vagina a woman? What if they have both? Or do we define by hormone levels like they do in certain sports? Or do we define by chromosomes? What if your skin, teeth have XX chromosomes and your blood has XY chromosomes?

We've been through this dozens of times, and YOU have been involved in those discussions so your blatant fringe reset is nowhere near the groundbreaking gotcha that you think it is.

Sex is defined based on the type of reproductive system that the individual has. Within anisogamous species, there are always two distinct evolved reproductive systems. One evolved in tandem with small gametes, and supports the production and delivery of those gametes. Individuals with the type of reproductive system associated with small gametes are called males. The other evolved in tandem with large gametes, and supports the production of those gametes. Individuals with the type of reproductive system associated with large gametes are called females. An individual does not need to actually produce gametes in order to have a reproductive system, nor do they require every single element of that system. A female who has had a hysterectomy doesn't stop being female; a male who's had an orchiectomy doesn't stop being male.

Sex in humans is NOT defined by karyotype - we've been through this many times. If you actually want to discuss disorders of sexual development in good faith, we have a thread for that: https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ences-in-sex-development-aka-intersex.355523/

On the other hand, if you want to pretend that the real deleterious medical conditions of some people somehow justify giving completely phenotypical and karyotypical males the right-by-law to violate female boundaries based on their subjective feelings... well, that makes you disingenuous.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It is the foundation for the hate that many have regarding sexuality outside their comfort zone.

1) Nobody in this thread has any hatred toward anyone based on their sexuality
2) Psychological transgender identity isn't a sexuality
3) Nobody has hatred toward anyone's psychological identity
...
None of that alters that fact that many of us oppose allowing males to override female boundaries and safety based on their unverifiable, subjective feelings about what social stereotype they think best fits their personality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There have been no societies throughout history that have had more than two sexes.

I said genders.

Yes, we're all quite well aware that you're conflating sex and gender in situations where sex is the salient criteria. None of us have somehow missed your oh-so-clever substitution.

It's precisely because 'gender' is essentially meaningless that such laws and regulations must be based on sex.

But they never have been

Yes, they have always been. At no point in history have intimate facilities been based on whether the person in question is wearing a skirt or trousers, nor have they ever been separated based on someone's professed feelings about their internal gender soul. They have always been based on sex, and operated on the external indicators of sex. And up until about five minutes ago, any male who goes into a female intimate space and shows off their dick to non-consenting females would have been considered a sex offender. Now, because people like you have decided that the belief of some males in their special internal subjective gendery essence is sacrosanct, you've taken it upon yourself to sacrifice the safety and dignity of females on the altar of your newly-minted religion. Apparently the concept of human rights doesn't apply to females, b but it's paramount when the 'right' is making males feel happy about themselves.

Sex is not binary. There are exceptions to every factor you might use.

No, there really really aren't. Stop imbibing pseudoscientific claptrap.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're right, I don't have you on ignore. I'm sorry that I overlooked your posts. That was not my intent.
I'm sorry, I don't see it that simple. And I simply don't care about putting people in boxes. I find it inherently unkind and inhumane. In a world of problems, this is pathetically minor. And yet some individuals will give away a kind and civilized society to defend a hill of unkindness.

I can't stand the hate. So I must troll this thread from time to time.

You don't care about putting people in boxes... except when those boxes are "accepts biological and evolutionary biology" versus "buys in to the new religion of gendery souls and doesn't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about the impact on females". In that case, you're quite happy to label the first box as "hate" and the second box as "progress".

 

[Emily's Cat]

There are worse men in every bar and church.

So what? The idea that some males are worse than others doesn't mean that the less bad males should be given the special privilege of overriding female boundaries and violating female consent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's politicians for you. They'll embrace any policy regardless or how hateful and awful it is if it is popular.

When you try to frame honoring female boundaries and consent as "hateful" because it doesn't give males what they want, I'm a lot less concerned about how you view politicians.

I saw a Republican Presidential debate among the top 8 leading Republican candidates. Not one of them would acknowledge evolution.

You don't acknowledge evolution either, apparently.

 

[acbytesla]

Hate is stronger than kindness and human dignity. It's a powerful emotion. Must bow to it.

Haters are going to hate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This trans panic always cracks me up. Just how often does anyone use a public bathroom? Once a year? Once a month? Once a week Or maybe every day. How often have they encountered someone they knew to be of the opposite sex in the bathroom? And why does it really matter? Not only is it likely to be extremely rare, stalls are almost universally private. How much time does anyone spend in a public bathroom?
Don't you do your business and leave?

So rank classism as well as sexism wrapped up in one post. Congratulations you for not caring at all about the poors or those pesky females.

I have a job, and that job has a building, and that building has shared restrooms that are marked for males or for females. I use them pretty regularly. And child or young adult in school uses shared bathrooms - and the violation of female boundaries in service to the feelings of males has already resulted in some female school children being raped and assaulted by males in female restrooms.

Seriously, in the scheme of things, this problem isn't a problem. It is insignificant compared to how bent out of much people get their panties in a twist.

It's not a problem for YOU, because YOU don't have to deal with it, and YOU apparently don't go out in public and YOU aren't likely to be subjected to sexual offending, therefore YOU have declared that it can't possibly be a problem for anyone else.

Empathy seems to be sorely lacking from YOU.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What difference does that make?

It makes rather a lot of difference when you aren't the one who has to be subjected to the consequences of the policy you support. Letting males with gendery souls violate female boundaries and override female consent doesn't affect you at all. But it does affect females, quite a lot.

So the fact that you're male has rather a lot to do with the objection to you deciding females don't need rights so that some males with special feelings can get what they want.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Safety. Testosterone laden men have a significant history of violence against women.

And yet you're perfectly happy to give them access to female intimate spaces?

Honestly, are you imagining some magical world wherein the only males who identify as transgender are all 5'3" delicate things, who've had complete orchiectomies and penectomies and vaginoplasties and facial feminization surgery and tracheal shaving and nobody can tell they're male? About 20 years ago, only 20% of transsexual males had actually had orchiectomies and penectomies - 80% were fully intact. Nowadays that's even lower, because the term "transgender" has been brought into play and it includes any male who simply *says* they "feel like a woman" without any explanation of what that means.

You're arguing to let in fully intact males without even bothering to contemplate that those males are *still* testosterone laden.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm seeing ignorance, arrogance and hate.

The "ignorance" of understanding that sex in anisogamous species is entirely binary, and in mammals it's gonochoric. The "ignorance" of understanding that male and female humans have materially different internal structures, with different skeletons, different attachment points of muscles ligaments and tendons, different elasticity in our connective tissues, and different internal organs that have evolved over the course of hundreds of millions of years to support the needs of sexual reproduction.

The "arrogance" of females demanding the ability to *retain* intimate spaces that are single sex. The "arrogance" of daring to tell males that no, they don't get to see us naked without our permission, and no, they don't get to expose their genitals to us without our consent. The "arrogance" of expecting that we won't be locked up in a prison cell with a strange male.

The "hate" of expecting males to toilet, shower, and change with other males. The "hate" of not surrendering female sports to males who believe they align with the regressive social stereotypes that have historically been applied to females.