Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

Polls done within the last 5 years all show that the majority of citizens do NOT support males being granted the privilege to use female single-sex spaces, be housed in female prisons, or compete on female sports.

Well in the UK at least, support for items on the TRA wishlist has crashed spectacularly in the last five years...

 

[smartcooky]

Were those polls broken out by state?

You're never going to get that across the 50 states. The best you can do is get an overall picture across the the US, with some states that you can get data for.

Americans have grown more supportive of restrictions for trans people in recent years

Two-thirds of U.S. adults favor laws and policies that require trans athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth.

www.pewresearch.org

Interestingly, organizations like Sex Matters have found that a significant percentage of the population do not understand what a "transwoman" is - many of them incorrectly think that a "transwoman" is "a woman who is transgender" i.e. a woman who thinks she is a male, and not the other way around. When you explain that a "transwoman" is not actually a woman at all, but is actually a transgender identified male (a biological male who thinks he's a woman), the poll results change dramatically towards opposing to transgender identified male access to women's spaces and women'sports.

I believe this is partially what happened in the polls that relate to the gif I posted in my last post... British people have become better educated about the issue, probably due to exposure to these issues such as the FWS case to the Supreme Court, the Darlington Nurses case and the Sandie Peggie case.

I certainly believe that the British are generally better educated on this issue than Americans or Australians.

 

[d4m10n]

First off, I can't tell how much you agree with the positions of the authors of your link, if at all.

The issue under dispute was whether state legislatures are captured by interest groups when they write gender identity into their civil rights and antidiscrimination laws, and my personal views have no bearing on that.

There's no reason to expect Californian voters to feel the same about each of them.

There is also no reason to expect that the state courts will invariably take the maximalist position laid out by the ACLU, but you asked what stuff I was talking about and that webpage managed to gather most of the various issues together in one place.

So to speak a bit more explicitly, when you say that California voters back TRA positions, you need to specify which positions you're talking about.

Probably most of the positions on that webpage but @smartcooky is correct to point out that state level data are difficult to come by.

ETA: I did find strong support for the 2021 Equality Act but that does not imply any "consensus among Californians on transgender issues in public schools" which was later found to be lacking. As we might well expect, voters are more protective of minors than adults when it comes to social experimentation.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is also no reason to expect that the state courts will invariably take the maximalist position laid out by the ACLU, but you asked what stuff I was talking about and that webpage managed to gather most of the various issues together in one place.

Unless your claim is that the legislature is in step with the voters on every single one of those issues (and I don't think it really is), then that's not really an answer. On what issues are you claiming that the legislature is in step with the public? Because it's not all of them. And the existence of issues where they are out of step with voters is evidence that they are ideologically captured.

 

[d4m10n]

On what issues are you claiming that the legislature is in step with the public?

I expressed skepticism of EC's claim that the state legislature is out of step with the public.

(That isn't quite the same thing as affirmatively claiming that the legislature is indeed in step with the public.)

And the existence of issues where they are out of step with voters is evidence that they are ideologically captured.

Can you be more specific?

 

[Ziggurat]

I expressed skepticism of EC's claim that the state legislature is out of step with the public.

They are. Not on every single thing, but that's not part of her claim.

Can you be more specific?

Transing kids behind parents' backs is unpopular. Male sexual predators in female prisons is unpopular. I suspect male athletes competing against females is unpopular. The California legislature went for all of these. It is an ideologically captured institution. And again, that's been clear for decades, not just on trans issues.

 

[Thermal]

Your definition of gender isn't objective at all. Operationally, it's completely subjective.

Yet entirely objective well over 99.5% of the time. Even most ranspeople can be clocked as the gender they identify with, if not flawlessly passing. An accuracy rate that high rises to objectivity in the practical sense.

He didn't say anything about sincerity. He said something about effort. There may be a correlation between sincerity and effort, but they are not synonymous.

Pedantry noted.

And what changed, rather obviously, is the advent of self ID. No real effort is required anymore.

There never was a requirement. That's imaginary.

I can't tell if your use of the word "apes" is supposed to be a noun or the third person present tense of the verb "ape", which doesn't actually have anything to do with the noun in context.

More pedantry noted.

Why do you treat them differently? Is that difference related to their sex? Or is it decoupled completely from their sex? That was theprestige's point: not that they have to be treated the same, but that the difference is grounded in sex, and not gender decoupled from sex.

Again with the extremes. What is this resistance you show to gender related to sex and sex roles/representation?

That's actually one point that I have changed my mind about, though. I don't react to sex so much as gender in my treatment of others. A butch gal is very much treated as 'one of the guys', and a girly guy treated almost indistinguishably from how I treat a woman. So thanks for that.

I see no reason to treat men and women any differently that's not related to their sex. You have described some of the differences in how you treat them, but you have not said why those differences are decoupled from sex.

Since I have said repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly that gender is not decoupled from sex (linked but not synonymous), that shouldn't surprise you at all.

Um... what? No. There is absolutely nothing about flirting that is rare or exceptional at all. It's quite common.

Flirting is normally associated with sexual interest, and I dunno about you, but I am not taking even benign sexual interest in the majority of women I come across. Apparently YMMV.

Then why would gender be relevant if sex is not?

See previous answers.

Depends what you mean. It negates certain concepts of trans people,

The ones which are the topic of this thread, yes.

but certain concepts of trans people are just factually wrong. We need not accomodate every concept out there. Does it negate the concept that certain people feel a certain way? No, it doesn't.

You've made it pretty clear that you don't think transpeople exist except as play actors. I see no point in continuing down that path.

Why?

How is it related? You've said that it's their "internal sense", but what does that actually mean? Furthermore, you've made several claims based on this definition that don't withstand scrutiny, such as the impossibility of non-binary identity or gender fluidity. I don't know how you can claim that someone's sense can't change over time. I don't know how you can claim that if someone's sense can be something different from their actual body, that it can ONLY be one other thing and not multiple other things. You have never provided any basis for these claims. So I don't think you actually have a robust definition of gender at all. My sense is that your definition of gender is only constructed to the extent that it allows for trans identifying males to claim to be women, and that's where it ends.

Yes, we are all familiar with relying on precise definitions to nail down the imprecision of the language, so that you can nitpick it away to nonexistence. "What is a peanut butter sandwich?', then pick away at the imprecision till you ultimately declare '...therefore there is no peanut butter sandwich'. I don't find that to advance things much.

Is being called "he", on its own, really harassment? Is it mockery? Is it humiliation?

On its own? No, of course not, nor did I suggest that. Do we really have to drop down to explaining contexts?

Why?

What do you mean, denying their existence? How is noting that trans-identifying males are males denying their existence?

Seriously, dude?

No. theprestige (and myself, and many others) like to lean on policy because that's what has actual consequences, and we care about actual consequences.

Nothing changes? Of course something changes. Age changes.

Only in the ridiculously pedantic sense that age changes by the picosecond. Nothing consequential changes at midnight on the 18th birthday, and you damn right well know it.

Now, in the case of age, you can argue that age shouldn't be what we really care about. We really care about things like responsibility, competence, etc., and that age is an imperfect proxy for these other much more complex factors. Which is true: these things correlate to age, but not perfectly, so that some people could be ready at a younger age and some at an older age. But age is, practically speaking, the best proxy for these things that we have which doesn't produce more problems than it solves. Thus, we use age anyways, imperfect though it may be. Do you have a better suggestion?

Several, but not practical. But that is exactly the point- we dumb it down for practicality, not because it is good, right, just, or even meaningful. That's exactly the flaw we should be trying to avoid in this discussion.

It sounds like you're claiming that we're trying to use sex as a proxy for other factors, just like age is used as a proxy, but that sex doesn't capture these other factors very well. That's a logical enough claim which I think has some merit, but let's examine that argument in more detail. Yes, sex is a proxy for a LOT of stuff that you might care about. But what, to your mind, are these other factors? And do you think gender is a better proxy than sex for these other factors? Why? From a policy perspective (because again, policy has consequences), we CANNOT write policy based on in-depth complex factors that are hard to access and evaluate. We often MUST use proxies like age for purely practical reasons. And should gender (which, under your definition, cannot be assessed in any objective way even if you think it exists objectively) actually be substituted for sex as a better proxy? Is there any better proxy than sex? Because I don't think there is a better proxy. I think sex is the best practical distinguisher for doing things like segregating sports or bathrooms or changing rooms. I think gender is a far inferior distinguisher for these purposes.

Largely agreed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet entirely objective well over 99.5% of the time. Even most ranspeople can be clocked as the gender they identify with, if not flawlessly passing. An accuracy rate that high rises to objectivity in the practical sense.

I don't think you understand what "objective" means. It doesn't mean accurate.

Pedantry noted.

It's not pendantry. It's a rather fundamental distinction, actually. There are some points I'm being pedantic about, because pedantry is justified when we're trying to define terms. But this isn't even one of those things. There's a rather major distinction between effort and authenticity. And the difference matters.

Again with the extremes. What is this resistance you show to gender related to sex and sex roles/representation?

You misunderstand. I know full well that gender is related to sex. That's not the issue. But gender isn't sex. Part of gender is sex (where they overlap), and part of it is not related to sex. It's the part that's not sex which is causing all the friction. So that's the part worth focusing on here.

That's actually one point that I have changed my mind about, though. I don't react to sex so much as gender in my treatment of others. A butch gal is very much treated as 'one of the guys', and a girly guy treated almost indistinguishably from how I treat a woman. So thanks for that.

Wait, what? You aren't responding to their gender at all. Not as you defined it anyways. Your claimed definition was an internal sense of themselves as a man or a woman. On what basis can you conclude that a butch gal thinks of herself as a man? On what basis can you conclude that a feminine man thinks of himself as a woman? You aren't responding to their internal sense at all. You are responding entirely to their presentation, based on sexual stereotypes.

I see no consistency in your position at all.

Flirting is normally associated with sexual interest, and I dunno about you, but I am not taking even benign sexual interest in the majority of women I come across. Apparently YMMV.

News flash: lots of people are sexually interested in lots of other people.

Flirting is normal.

You've made it pretty clear that you don't think transpeople exist except as play actors. I see no point in continuing down that path.

This is rather disingenuous of you. There's never been any question that trans identifying people exist. Now, what it means to be trans, that's a more complex issue, and you're basically trying to dismiss my position without having to argue against it, or I suspect even understanding what it is.

I do not think a trans identifying person with gender dysphoria is pretending to have dysphoria. I don't think they're pretending that they want to be identified as the opposite sex. When they dress and act as if they are the opposite sex, that is pretending. Which they are entitled to do, up to a point. Where am I wrong?

Yes, we are all familiar with relying on precise definitions to nail down the imprecision of the language, so that you can nitpick it away to nonexistence. "What is a peanut butter sandwich?', then pick away at the imprecision till you ultimately declare '...therefore there is no peanut butter sandwich'. I don't find that to advance things much.

Your imprecision isn't at the edges. It's at the heart of your definition. You can't even decide if it's supposed to be an internal feeling (your claim) or an external expression (which is the definition you actually use in practice).

Only in the ridiculously pedantic sense that age changes by the picosecond. Nothing consequential changes at midnight on the 18th birthday, and you damn right well know it.

I do indeed. And I expounded upon that at length.

Several, but not practical.

Impractical suggestions are useless, and not a reason to abandon practical methods.

Sex segregation for intimate spaces is practical.

But that is exactly the point- we dumb it down for practicality, not because it is good, right, just, or even meaningful.

Sex is very meaningful. And I specifically invited you here to expound upon what factors beyond sex we should consider. Have you done so? No. Are you even trying to do so? No. Instead, you're just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on us for wanting to use sex because it's practical. But of COURSE we want to use sex because it's practical. We live in the real world. We have to consider practicality.

So what are the factors that you think we should consider instead of sex? If you say "gender", go sit in the corner and think about your mistakes, because gender is even more of a proxy than sex.

That's exactly the flaw we should be trying to avoid in this discussion.

It's not a flaw to consider practicality.

Largely agreed.

I don't believe you. Everything you said before this indicates that you don't agree.

 

[Thermal]

I'm skipping your personal diatribe here.

Right. You are snipping out the meat of the post, which challenges the very core if your position, because you want to talk about something less thorny to you. As I keep repeating to you, this bores the ◊◊◊◊ out of me.

 

[Aber]

There are three main stances on your side ITT: traditional conservatism, hard-core fear/distrust of men in general, and inarguably blatant bashing.

You blatantly don't understand those you are arguing with.

I think the largest group covers:
- believes that boundaries must be drawn somewhere, in that co-ed showers etc are unacceptable on grounds of privacy, decency and safety (NB it is not just safety)
- the simplest boundary is biological sex

 

[Ziggurat]

You blatantly don't understand those you are arguing with.

I think the largest group covers:
- believes that boundaries must be drawn somewhere, in that co-ed showers etc are unacceptable on grounds of privacy, decency and safety (NB it is not just safety)
- the simplest boundary is biological sex

It's not just the simplest boundary. It's the best boundary.

 

[Thermal]

I don't think you understand what "objective" means. It doesn't mean accurate.

And I don't think you understand how objective it is in practice. You will have the occasional Misty Hill, with no makeup and wearing cargo pants, that you would not objectively catch on the first glance. But overwhelmingly, someone's gender jibes with their presentation so well that it meets the bar for what is objectively understood. See a few responses below.

You misunderstand. I know full well that gender is related to sex. That's not the issue. But gender isn't sex. Part of gender is sex (where they overlap), and part of it is not related to sex. It's the part that's not sex which is causing all the friction. So that's the part worth focusing on here.

You are repeating my position back to me.

Wait, what? You aren't responding to their gender at all. Not as you defined it anyways. Your claimed definition was an internal sense of themselves as a man or a woman. On what basis can you conclude that a butch gal thinks of herself as a man? On what basis can you conclude that a feminine man thinks of himself as a woman? You aren't responding to their internal sense at all. You are responding entirely to their presentation, based on sexual stereotypes.

No, I'm responding to their presentstion, not a stereotype, which is how i respond to a cis persons presentation.

This is rather disingenuous of you. There's never been any question that trans identifying people exist. Now, what it means to be trans, that's a more complex issue, and you're basically trying to dismiss my position without having to argue against it, or I suspect even understanding what it is.

Your stated position is that they exist, but are just guys pretending. There is no significant difference between that and not existing at all.

Do leprechauns exist, except that they are really just people pretending? That is literally your argument.

I do not think a trans identifying person with gender dysphoria is pretending to have dysphoria. I don't think they're pretending that they want to be identified as the opposite sex. When they dress and act as if they are the opposite sex, that is pretending. Which they are entitled to do, up to a point. Where am I wrong?

All of it, but most glaringly when you say they are pretending to be the opposite sex. You don't acknowledge that they are just being themselves, and expressing and choosing what feels right to them.

Serious question: do you think women pretend, and choose their presentation? Do you pretend to be a man, and choose accordingly? I don't think transwomen do, either. I think they are choosing their expression just as naturally and genuinely as you choose yours. To dismiss them as pretending is implying they are being deceitful. They are not. Wearing a dress is just as genuine to them as wearing jeans is to you.

Your imprecision isn't at the edges. It's at the heart of your definition. You can't even decide if it's supposed to be an internal feeling (your claim) or an external expression (which is the definition you actually use in practice).

I understand expression to be a natural reflection of the inner sense. You've got some other convenient understanding. Again, not much to debate. You think it's all a put on. I generally believe them.

I do indeed. And I expounded upon that at length.

And pointlessly. Nothing significant changes but the arbitrary policy benchmark, which is physiologically meaningless.

Impractical suggestions are useless, and not a reason to abandon practical methods.

Sex segregation for intimate spaces is practical.

Sex is very meaningful. And I specifically invited you here to expound upon what factors beyond sex we should consider. Have you done so? No. Are you even trying to do so? No. Instead, you're just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on us for wanting to use sex because it's practical. But of COURSE we want to use sex because it's practical. We live in the real world. We have to consider practicality.

I'm not arguing that practicality is not important, and ultimately what we have to consider. But to use it as a fig leaf to cover contempt for transpeople is a pointless roadblock to anything productive here.

I don't believe you. Everything you said before this indicates that you don't agree.

Ya I get that. And no amount of discussion/clarification/expounding will shake you out of your preconceptions.

 

[Thermal]

You blatantly don't understand those you are arguing with.

I think the largest group covers:
- believes that boundaries must be drawn somewhere, in that co-ed showers etc are unacceptable on grounds of privacy, decency and safety (NB it is not just safety)
- the simplest boundary is biological sex

Which I agree to, and have said so many times. What was that you were saying about not understanding those you were arguing with?

 

[d4m10n]

The California legislature went for all of these.

I'm going to trust you on this despite not having any links on point.

Transing kids behind parents' backs is unpopular.

I rather doubt this is true for California Democrats, who dominate the state legislature at around 3-to-1. The closest survey question I can find on point has partisan respondents 70/28 in favor of schools being able to use preferred pronouns without asking parents. This leads me to believe that this school policy is not driven by ideological capture (activist groups) so much as the usual partisan polarization that happens on these sorts of culture war issues.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I'm responding to their presentstion, not a stereotype, which is how i respond to a cis persons presentation.

You are responding to which stereotype their presentation matches. So you are absolutely basing this on a stereotype. And the fact that you're doing it on the basis of a presentation which very well may NOT match their self conception (for example, plenty of effeminate gay men consider themselves to be men, not women) indicates to me that you are not in fact basing your treatment on gender as you have defined it.

Your stated position is that they exist, but are just guys pretending.

Well, no. Again, I think gender dysphoria is quite real. Some trans identifying males such as Bryson are probably just pretending, but the ones with actual gender dysphoria, they aren't pretending that aspect. When they dress up to look like women, that's pretending, yes. Because, get this, they aren't women.

There is no significant difference between that and not existing at all.

Sure there is.

Do leprechauns exist, except that they are really just people pretending? That is literally your argument.

That is literally not my argument. The definition of a leprechaun is something other than a human, so naturally people pretending to be leprechauns aren't leprechauns. Calling them leprechauns doesn't make them leprechauns. The definition of a transwoman isn't a woman with a penis, that is something that doesn't exist, but there are males who want to be thought of as women, and they're quite real.

All of it, but most glaringly when you say they are pretending to be the opposite sex. You don't acknowledge that they are just being themselves, and expressing and choosing what feels right to them.

They often aren't being themselves. When you put a wig on, that's not being yourself. When you have plastic surgery to make it look like you have breasts, that's not being yourself. They aren't being who they are, they're pretending to be who they want to be. Cisgender people do that too, BTW, and I'm not even saying there's anything wrong with that. The entire cosmetics industry is based on that, so there's nothing particularly unique in this regard.

Serious question: do you think women pretend, and choose their presentation?

◊◊◊◊ yes. Obviously. Not about being women (because they are), but about being prettier and more youthful than they actually are. Is this news to you?

Do you pretend to be a man, and choose accordingly?

I don't have to pretend to be a man. I am one, whether or not I want to be. But I wouldn't be offended if you were to suggest that when I dress up, I pretend to be handsomer, more successful, more charming than I actually am.

I don't think transwomen do either.

Then you're delusional.

I think they are choosing their expression just as naturally and genuinely as you choose yours. To dismiss them as pretending is implying they are being deceitful.

No, not deceitful (most people aren't fooled anyways). Rather, I think it's aspirational.

I'm not arguing that practicality is important, and ultimately what we have to consider. But to use it as a fig leaf to cover contempt for transpeople is a pointless roadblock to anything productive here.

This is my third time asking: if sex is just a proxy for other things we should care about, what are those other things? This is an opportunity for you to be more "productive" in this discussion, to advance beyond mere sex discrimination that you consider a fig leaf. You have failed to even attempt an answer twice already. Will you go for three times? If so, then I cannot help but conclude that you aren't actually interested in what you claim to be interested in.

 

[Ziggurat]

The closest survey question I can find on point has partisan respondents 70/28 in favor of schools being able to use preferred pronouns without asking parents. This leads me to believe that this school policy is not driven by ideological capture (activist groups) so much as the usual partisan polarization that happens on these sorts of culture war issues.

First, you say that like these are different phenomena, but they're intimately related. These opinions came down to voters from the top, they didn't come up to the legislature because of any true grass roots movement.

Second, the survey question was, "Would you support or oppose allowing public schools to accommodate students' requests to go by pronouns that match their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth?" Note that this DOES NOT address hiding anything from parents.

Third, if you want some more clear polling, well, the males in female sports issue has some of that:

https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-education-april-2025/

"Sixty-five percent of adults and 71 percent of public school parents support requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams that match the sex they were assigned at birth, not the gender they identify with; majorities across the state’s regions and demographic groups are in support, while partisans are divided (49% Democrats, 91% Republicans, 71% independents)."​

Not even a majority of Democrats want males to play in women's sports. But that's what the California legislature wants.

 

[theprestige]

It's wild to me that at this point in the conversation, damion still tries to play the "maybe trans privilege extremism is what the majority of voters want" card.

What we're actually seeing is that Democrat voters were eager to agree with anything that sounded like tolerance and support for trans people, but recoiled once they understood or experienced the extremist anti-social policies that were enacted in the name of their "agreement".

I've started calling it "trans privilege", because "trans rights in public policy" turned out to be a massive bait and switch. Even Democrat voters are figuring it out. Even in California.

 

[Pixel42]

Wearing a dress is just as genuine to them as wearing jeans is to you.

Ever since it became possible to choose, most women have chosen to wear trousers most of the time. But I think you're right; most men with gender dysphoria do seem to choose to wear dresses or skirts. Why is that, do you suppose? Why do they make the opposite choice to the one most actual women make?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-education-april-2025/

"Sixty-five percent of adults and 71 percent of public school parents support requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams that match the sex they were assigned at birth, not the gender they identify with; majorities across the state’s regions and demographic groups are in support, while partisans are divided (49% Democrats, 91% Republicans, 71% independents)."​

Not even a majority of Democrats want males to play in women's sports. But that's what the California legislature wants.

I'm confused. 49% is a majority? And why only concern about 'males' in women's sports?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm confused. 49% is a majority?

You're right, I was misreading. Up to 51% of Democrats might support males in female sports, which would be a slim majority. But it could also be less than that, since there could be undecided too.

And why only concern about 'males' in women's sports?

Seriously? It's not obvious?