Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Tomboy]

So you keep asserting. You do you. I think we have obligations, often legal ones, to be cool to others.

When do women biological females get to be the ones you think others should "be cool to"?

The hilite here is the key. I'm engaging in this thread specifically because it's on a skeptics forum. I know the generic twitter arguments already, and don't waste any more time with their endless and mindless repetition. It's specifically the critical arguments that we pride ourselves for championing that should make the discussion unique.

But to your point: the feels is reals. Totally get that. And that's precisely where the skepticism should kick in. Are the feels right, or is the reality right? And what is the reality?

Cool. Skeptics forum. I dig it. That's why I hang out here. So where are the studies that show that allowing transwomen to use spaces formerly designated as sex segregated for biological females is enough of a life altering benefit to them that it's worth the consequences? Because your critical arguments aren't as critical as you seem to think they are. From my perspective, you're still trying to balance the feels of a small number of biological males against the feels of a much larger percentage of biological females.

Non-sparring reply: I see and understand exactly what he means. That you guys can't see even vaguely my slightly different take on what a mentally illness is, as opposed to more of a quirk, is the most telling thing in this discussion.

I absolutely see your point about the difference between a mental illness and a quirk. I'm quirky as the day is long. I also have my share of mental illness. What I don't understand is why a quirk requires any accommodation at all, especially when it risks putting others biological females in, at best, an uncomfortable situation and at worst, a dangerous situation, and causes the loss of rights that we had to fight to get in the first place.

Yes, I am in good company. I don't endorse inflexible rules for what normal/not mentally ill entails, and am more than willing to 'go along' with atypicals, if it's no skin off the nose. And before you say "but is is skin off the nose because they are bloodthirsty pervets", this end of the discussion does not have any ogres in it. The ogres, we have seen, manifest with or without permission to walk through the unlocked door.

I mean, I love atypicals. I am atypical. My friends are atypical. I love it when people break stereotypical gender stereotypes. Be diverse. Get pierced and tattooed and go for that job in a white collar office environment. Challenge what society views as acceptable. Celebrate those counter cultures. But you lose me when you say you're more than willing to go along with atypicals if it's no skin off the nose. Off of whose nose? Yours? Fine. But we're not talking about any skin from your nose. Unfortunately, biological women do have to deal with bloodthirsty perverts in just about all walks of life.

Note that this isn't me saying that transwomen are bloodthirsty perverts. But by opening the doors to formerly female sex segregated spaces to them, you're also opening those doors to those bloodthirsty perverts that we all know do exist.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Left alone. Is that what you think you've been doing ITT for years, leaving them alone?

"Leaving them alone" in this case means LETTING THEM USE FEMALE INTIMATE SPACES WHENEVER THE ◊◊◊◊ THEY FEEL LIKE IT AND FEMALES ARE SUPPOSED TO JUST SHUT THE ◊◊◊◊ UP AND DEAL WITH DICKS IN OUR SHOWERS!!!!

 

[Thermal]

Do you believe that a person's mind is magically beamed into their body, and their body is an empty vessel awaiting the installation of mind? Or anything substantially similar to that, on the presumption that you'll object to the specific words I've used rather than the concept embodied by them.

Not particularly, no. But I do believe them when they say they felt like the opposite sex as long as they could remember.

 

[Thermal]

If a right-handed person tells you that they feel like they were born in the wrong body, because they identify as left-handed... what's your reaction to that?

That it's a unique claim, without claimants worldwide numbering in the many millions. Why do you ask?

 

[Thermal]

"Leaving them alone" in this case means LETTING THEM USE FEMALE INTIMATE SPACES WHENEVER THE ◊◊◊◊ THEY FEEL LIKE IT AND FEMALES ARE SUPPOSED TO JUST SHUT THE ◊◊◊◊ UP AND DEAL WITH DICKS IN OUR SHOWERS!!!!

No it isn't. Here, we are on a skeptics forum discussing a controversial topic.

 

[Ziggurat]

And without self ID policy, what would have happened? Pretty much the same thing.

No, not the same thing. What happened to him in Arlington was radically different from what happened in Fairfax.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Left alone. Is that what you think you've been doing ITT for years, leaving them alone?

I've left everyone alone who left other people alone.

 

[Ziggurat]

That it's a unique claim, without claimants worldwide numbering in the many millions. Why do you ask?

Why would the number of claimants be relevant?

 

[d4m10n]

I do believe them when they say they felt like the opposite sex as long as they could remember.

I've no way of knowing what it feels like to be female, and I am skeptical of my fellow males when they claim to know this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not particularly, no. But I do believe them when they say they felt like the opposite sex as long as they could remember.

What if they say they've felt like a cat for as long as they can remember?

Look, there's a nuance here that is nearly always swept under the rug and ignored. I'm going to try to explain it.

I have always felt taller than I actually am. Genuinely - I'm not making this up for illustrative purposes. My mental image of myself is realistically about 5'8". I feel like I'm at eye level with my boss. I feel like I'm only a small bit shorter then my 6'2" spouse. I've always felt taller. I'm 51, and I still end up slightly surprised when I can't reach things on the top shelf at the grocery store. Logically, I know that I'm 5'1", and I know that I've always been short relative to my same-age peers.

I've had several discussions with my spouse and my family and friends about this. They believe me when I say I feel taller than I am. They don't think I'm making it up. They believe that I feel this thing, but they don't believe the thing itself. I'm not taller than I am, I'm not eye-level with my boss, I'm not near-in-height to my spouse, and I can't reach the top shelf at the grocery store. That's objectively true, it's factual. My feelings about it are irrelevant, and the sincerity of my feelings has no bearing on reality for myself or for anyone else around me.

Whether you or I or anybody else believes a male who says they've always felt like a female for as long as they remember doesn't matter. Their feelings about it don't actually matter, nor does our evaluation of whether they're sincere about their feelings. The factual reality is that they're male. They might feel like they're the opposite sex, but they are not the opposite sex.

I can believe that a schizophrenic genuinely and sincerely feels that aliens are whispering the secrets of the universe to them. They can sincerely believe it, and I can acknowledge that their belief seems sincere to me. But that does not in any fashion mean that aliens are actually whispering to them. And it definitely doesn't suggest that I should pretend that the aliens are real, or that I should accommodate their false belief and false feelings.

That's what a delusion is - it's a false belief. A hallucination is a false perception. In this context, saying that a male with a transgender identity is delusional isn't a moral judgement - it's a statement that their belief is false. They are NOT the opposite sex. The genuineness of their feelings is irrelevant to that. They were not born in the wrong body, that's impossible.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That it's a unique claim, without claimants worldwide numbering in the many millions. Why do you ask?

Uniqueness has nothing to do with it. This is a person who is observably and verifiably right-handed.

If they tell you that they feel like they were born in the wrong body, and that they're actually internally left-handed, what is your reaction to that? Do you accept their claim, and to what extent? How far do their feelings, and their claim of having an internal state that is objectively in contradiction to reality extend in your regard?

 

[Thermal]

When do women biological females get to be the ones you think others should "be cool to"?

All the time, including in this discussion. Note that I'm not saying transwomen should be allowed in women's restrooms; I'm saying the reasons frequently presented (they are dangerous and mentally ill, here, look at this 20 year old tweety! Perverts!) are not sound.

Cool. Skeptics forum. I dig it. That's why I hang out here. So where are the studies that show that allowing transwomen to use spaces formerly designated as sex segregated for biological females is enough of a life altering benefit to them that it's worth the consequences? Because your critical arguments aren't as critical as you seem to think they are. From my perspective, you're still trying to balance the feels of a small number of biological males against the feels of a much larger percentage of biological females.

I weigh that constantly. I dont argue strongly on the gender critical side, because, come on- you guys have that under control.

Maybe thats the core problem? There is no other position for me to argue, other than my own concerns with the extreme of the other side. In areas of agreement, well, theres not much to talk about. It's only where it gets thorny that it gets interesting, and unfortunately I'm largely on my own ITT.

I absolutely see your point about the difference between a mental illness and a quirk. I'm quirky as the day is long. I also have my share of mental illness. What I don't understand is why a quirk requires any accommodation at all, especially when it risks putting others biological females in, at best, an uncomfortable situation and at worst, a dangerous situation, and causes the loss of rights that we had to fight to get in the first place.

I get that. Does the previous status quo (nominal sex segregation with the rare non-conformist occasionally using the wrong one) work for you, or do you feel like it's past that point and it's war?

I mean, I love atypicals. I am atypical. My friends are atypical. I love it when people break stereotypical gender stereotypes. Be diverse. Get pierced and tattooed and go for that job in a white collar office environment. Challenge what society views as acceptable. Celebrate those counter cultures.

Dig it. Even the ones I don't get, I cheer them on. Only one trip on this side of the dirt and all that.

But you lose me when you say you're more than willing to go along with atypicals if it's no skin off the nose. Off of whose nose? Yours? Fine. But we're not talking about any skin from your nose. Unfortunately, biological women do have to deal with bloodthirsty perverts in just about all walks of life.

I'm a dad, with daughters, a wife and a mom. What hurts them, hurts me more than what hurts me directly, if you take my meaning. A little skin off their noses is like a nose amputation on me. So I ask them how they feel about it. My daughters either don't care or are vocally supportive, my wife doesn't much care (although she says a mild mannered transwoman doesn't bother her, but a more boisterous one does), and my mom feels the same, but with more obvious discomfort with the whole idea. The skin off their nose factors in strongly to my feelings on this whole gig. They want to be cool to everyone too, even if they are a little uncomfortable. It's worth it to them.

Note that this isn't me saying that transwomen are bloodthirsty perverts.

Understood, and I don't mean to put you in that category. Everyone arguing on your side does not have a homogenous stance.

But by opening the doors to formerly female sex segregated spaces to them, you're also opening those doors to those bloodthirsty perverts that we all know do exist.

They do, no question. But do they take advantage of those open doors? I don't think they do (statistics and lack of reports back this up), and logistically, I don't think any would, as they don't gain advantage. You never know who might come through that door, or hear a scream. A cop? A boyfriend? A father? The pervs know what wheelchairs are and I don't think they want to risk being in one.

 

[Thermal]

I've no way of knowing what it feels like to be female, and I am skeptical of my fellow males when they claim to know this.

We've been over this. You know what it's like to be a d4m10n, who is male (see how easy that was for me to remember? Effortless). If you did a plumbing inspection and didn't see what jibes, you couldn't understand that incongruance, and feel the force of your taken-for-granted selfID?

 

[Ziggurat]

They do, no question. But do they take advantage of those open doors? I don't think they do

Richard Cox did.

(statistics and lack of reports back this up)

That's not true. You are artificially limiting the problem to reach this conclusion.

, and logistically, I don't think any would, as they don't gain advantage. You never know who might come through that door, or hear a scream. A cop? A boyfriend? A father? The pervs know what wheelchairs are and I don't think they want to risk being in one.

What risk? They can be voyeurs all they want, legally. When people scream at them, the establishment defends them, not the person screaming. We've seen this time and time again.

 

[Thermal]

Uniqueness has nothing to do with it. This is a person who is observably and verifiably right-handed.

If they tell you that they feel like they were born in the wrong body, and that they're actually internally left-handed, what is your reaction to that? Do you accept their claim, and to what extent? How far do their feelings, and their claim of having an internal state that is objectively in contradiction to reality extend in your regard?

Lol, I know a few people who were naturally left handed and weere forced to be right hsnded at a young age, because they were told they must be to conform. They are quite literally left handed people in a right handed body. Did you really think this one through?

 

[Myriad]

I think there's a time to make a stand for ultimate truths, and a time to be a little more casual about it.

The prayer thing hits home for me. I did my first year of High School in a Catholic school, being a protestant (my whole town went to this school because our public sending district was shared with one of the state's most violent school systems). My attitude was ultimately 'when in Rome' and I didn't raise a stink over Hail Marys and the other Catholic jazz. I knew what I was, and 'playing ball' in that limited context didn't compromise my essence.

There are many claimants to ultimate truth but "the information's unavailable to the mortal man" (Paul Simon) so what we really have are a collection of mental models. Stories, basically, about what things mean and how things work. I think of them as different sometimes-overlapping collections of cognitive tools. In the modern world most of us have access to as many of those tools as we can learn to handle. But only after we learn to put them down, which is the hard part. Most people never learn to do that at all, maintaining a death grip on one story for their entire lives, and until we're ready to completely reinvent education from the ground up, we have to expect that.

Good for you for your accommodationist flexibility but do you understand that a Protestant from a different sect or region or era, one whose personal truth includes equating praying to Mary with sinful idolatry that would get you sent to hell, might have greater objections to being compelled to recite Hail Marys? No problem, if they can just change their beliefs, but...

So, to the topic, sure, there are all kinds of mental models, stories you can tell, that make it perfectly okay that a female high school athlete loses a college scholarship to a male-bodied trans competitor.

- It was only genetic luck that gave the female athlete the ability to develop elite skills in the first place, so she has little reason to complain if arbitrary luck of a different type takes the opportunity away. An injury or illness could have had the same consequences and we'd call that unfortunate, but not unfair.

- It says "women's sports" on the tin and trans women are women if we make the definitions vague and abstract enough so it's just truth in advertising really.

- It makes little sense for colleges to be in the athletics business. In any sane world throwing a ball wouldn't be yada yada...

- Karma, man. She was probably entitled in her previous life so the Angels of Karma set her up for a lesson in expectations and disappointment, necessary for the progression of her soul, all for her own good, really.

- In the long run, we're all dead anyhow.

It's easy to explain or justify just about anything with just about any narrative, and all the more so if you're shifting between multiple narratives. But that's not what mental models or adeptness with multiple mental models are for. They're for making predictions to assist in making decisions. Scientific tools are good for predicting and deciding what arrangements of components will receive and process a radio signal. Skeptical tools are good for predicting and deciding whether an investment in Brilliant Light Power will return profits, or for predicting and deciding whether to rely on an imminent Second Coming to improve your life. Religious tools are good for predicting how individuals and societies will react to crises and propositions for social change. "Raw" narrative tools like myths, genres, styles, and tropes are good for crafting fiction (such as writing or role playing game mastering) and other related activities such as marketing.

There's a reason why adeptness with multiple models, "knowing many stories," is a rare ability. Because it puts pressure on another valuable quality: sanity. Take a look at a stranger on the train platform. In that moment, can you think of a scenario where it is absolutely imperative that you immediately kill that person? You can't? Okay, you're normal, if maybe a bit boring. You can? Great, you're a flexible thinker adept with narratives. But if you then actually go ahead and kill the person, or try to? You're a dangerous lunatic and need to be locked up. Because you're not the solipsist (even if you think you are), and your narratives coexist with and impinge on everyone else's.

The ultimate import of that is that society absolutely can make comparative judgments about accommodations of peoples preferences and needs. Here are some example hypothetical cases of someone requesting accommodation by a public school cafeteria.

1. "I'm a student who eats the school cafeteria meals daily. I don't like broccoli. I request that meal options that don't include broccoli should always be available."

2. ""I'm a student who eats the school cafeteria meals daily. I really like broccoli. I request that meal options that include broccoli should always be available."

3. "I'm a student who eats the school cafeteria meals daily. I have a documented extreme allergy to broccoli, such that even trace amounts transferred by utensils or surfaces can cause a life-threatening allergic reaction. For my safety, I request that no broccoli whatsoever be prepared or served by this cafeteria during my time here."

4. "I'm a student who eats the school cafeteria meals daily. I have a phobia of broccoli. Just seeing it on someone else's tray or even thinking about other people eating broccoli in the same room as me makes me very anxious and uncomfortable. For my well-being, I request that no broccoli whatsoever be prepared or served by this cafeteria during my time here."

Not everyone agree on which of these accommodations a given school administration should agree to, but we don't really have much difficulty coming to a democratic consensus on them in real life. We can see, for instance, that they're all different, so agreement with #1 or #3 doesn't automatically imply agreement with #2 or #4. We can agree that broccoli is not essential but that either banning it or requiring it would come at a cost to other students that has to be weighed against the cost of accommodation. We can agree that a verifiable physiological consequence is of more significance in the decision than subjective feelings of disappointment or discomfort, even if we're inclined to accommodate the latter anyhow. Lack of ultimate truth about broccoli is no impediment to making rational decisions about it.

 

[Thermal]

Richard Cox did.

I'm bored with repeating to you that I am opposed to males in the girls shower. It's not a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ gotcha to demonstrate that you have a ladydick in your ear.

That's not true.

It is.

You are artificially limiting the problem to reach this conclusion.

So you keep saying, unconvincingly.

What risk? They can be voyeurs all they want, legally. When people scream at them, the establishment defends them, not the person screaming. We've seen this time and time again.

Was Cox arrested, or left alone to do as he pleased? How did that work out again?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Maybe thats the core problem? There is no other position for me to argue, other than my own concerns with the extreme of the other side. In areas of agreement, well, theres not much to talk about. It's only where it gets thorny that it gets interesting, and unfortunately I'm largely on my own ITT.

I get this. I keep getting lambasted as being pro-Trump and a republican for a similar reason. The "Trump is an idiot" cohort is large and pervasive, and I don't see any need to add to it. I end up saying something when the claims are egregiously wrong or exaggerated (fascist nazi trying to be king etc) that I make a comment. So yeah, I get how you feel.

I get that. Does the previous status quo (nominal sex segregation with the rare non-conformist occasionally using the wrong one) work for you, or do you feel like it's past that point and it's war?

It's not "war", but yes - we're past that point. I don't think we can go back. I think we need laws about it now, where social convention was sufficient before.

We can't go back in part because what we thought was the case turned out not to be true in the first place. Generally, females thought that all of the transsexuals in our spaces had been surgically altered, and that wasn't the case. Turns out it was never the case, and that only about 20% of them had removed their jingles. We can't unknow that. And at this point, we've been subjected to so many egregiously vitriolic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that there's no way we can just take it on faith that those ones are going to voluntarily absent themselves from our spaces. It has to be forced now, because asking nicely and explaining our concerns and our positions has brought us nothing but threats, intimidation, and abuse.

 

[Thermal]

There are many claimants to ultimate truth, but...

It felt kind of trite to give such a thoughtful post a 'like', but I'm not sure how to respond while I'm driving. I'm mostly here for the petty hyperpersonalized squabbling and snide snarky one-liners, so the heady stuff goes right by me sometimes. Will properly respond when in smoking jacket and brandy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We've been over this. You know what it's like to be a d4m10n, who is male (see how easy that was for me to remember? Effortless). If you did a plumbing inspection and didn't see what jibes, you couldn't understand that incongruance, and feel the force of your taken-for-granted selfID?

But that's not the same! Looking down and seeing an innie where you expected an outie is a reaction to a somatic variance - the body isn't what your brain expects to see. That's NOT what transgender people describe when they say they "feel like a female". It's not surprise at their body, it's an entirely internal, emotional thing. They describe it as having a female personality, female behaviors, liking things that females like, etc. That's not at all what you're saying above.

d4m10n and you and all other males have the somatic experience of being male, and there is no possible way any of you could credibly know how it feels to be a female. No more so than you could know how it feels to be 85 or how it feels to be Basque or how it feels to be epileptic.

 

[Thermal]

I get this. I keep getting lambasted as being pro-Trump and a republican for a similar reason. The "Trump is an idiot" cohort is large and pervasive, and I don't see any need to add to it. I end up saying something when the claims are egregiously wrong or exaggerated (fascist nazi trying to be king etc) that I make a comment. So yeah, I get how you feel.

Thanks for that. Rightly or wrongly, that's how I keep ending up here. I don't want guys intimidating women (or much worse, obvs) and I don't want anyone uncomfortable when in an intimate space. And even if I don't entirely 'get' transfolk, I just want to be cool with them. It really sucks that this has to turn into such a passing match. So again, and sincerely, thanks for that.