• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

SCOTUS has a meaningful opportunity here to make new laws, ones that make sense. They can rule in favour of transgender rights with regard to the rights we all share when it comes to discrimination in employment, housing etc, while preserving the rights to sex-based spaces. No group ought be granted additional rights when those additional rights abrogate or negatively impact thrthe rights of others.

I fear they won't take that opportunity.
 
smartcooky said:
SCOTUS has a meaningful opportunity here to make new laws, ones that make sense. They can rule in favour of transgender rights with regard to the rights we all share when it comes to discrimination in employment, housing etc, while preserving the rights to sex-based spaces. No group ought be granted additional rights when those additional rights abrogate or negatively impact thrthe rights of others.
Click to expand...
In this particular case they are looking at the rather narrower point of whether states can ban trans-identifying males from participating in girls' and women's sports (and vice-versa, not that it's a real issue there), or if this somehow violates their civil rights.
 
theprestige said:
The judiciary does not have, and should have, the ability to make new laws.
Click to expand...
ADF counsel disagrees:

"This is a problem that needs a national solution because it can't be that boys should be allowed to be female athletes in California and Massachusetts," Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel John Bursch said to reporters outside of the Supreme Court after the session concluded.​

I think the federal courts should empower the states to fulfill their role as "laboratories of democracy" on nearly all trans issues with narrow exceptions for questions such as federal service. I also think the states should allow individual proprietors (e.g. Wi Spa, YMCA, youth leagues) to make on their own minds on whether to sort by sex at birth or by gender identity at present, restraining their own policymaking to state-supported intuitions such as colleges and secondary schools.

My rationale here is mostly that public opinion is in flux and varies significantly across time and space; devolving authority to the lowest levels practicable will allow for balancing values so as to allow satisficing the most voters and service users. Taking a principled top-down approach will be too inflexible and require constant relitigation.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Well, yes. Gender roles are a real thing. It's just that gender critical folks don't care about them, and don't think government should have anything to do with them.

You don't actually give any reason for this claim. You state it, and then state your preferred solution, but never once actually say what's wrong with this solution.

You keep proving that you don't understand this issue at all. Why should they have said "woman" means gender when the people who wrote the laws in question didn't think "woman" meant gender? It DIDN'T mean gender until the TRA's tried to make it mean gender, which is a very recent thing. Why should everyone else warp their language to satisfy the whims of the TRAs? How is that a solution? It isn't. If we concede "woman" means gender and try to fall back to "female", that just moves the line of contact to what "female" means. It doesn't solve anything. Because it has never, EVER been about the definitions. It has ALWAYS been about the goals.

Get that through your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ head. I'm tired of this deliberate ignorance on your part.
Click to expand...
I've been arguing about gender since the moment I was told to 'be a man'... 'men have roles' ... 'dolls are for girls' blah blah blah etc, some came from my parents but most came from the society I was born into. I was born in july 1969 and I was about five or six when I was questioning this stuff in a very simple way, I know this because we moved to run a golfcourse when I was seven so there's a fixed memory point.

edit: It's been here for along time, maybe it's just become more in your face because its hit a certain critical mass due to social media?
 
Last edited:
John Freestone said:
1. Isn't this just wishing, though? It's like saying, "If we separate borrowing things with permission from stealing them, that solves the problem of theft," when we're dealing with societies that have forgotten to make that distinction.

There's something in what you're saying that I resonate with (I can't say I agree, because I'm not sure I understand you yet). For example I am fine with 'gender nonconformity" for either sex (within certain limits), or I was before we got into in this post-trans mess - now instead of thinking a male in a dress is just nonconformist and fine, I assume he thinks he's female. On the other hand, I agree that single-sex spaces should be maintained as such, 'transition' is not a thing, etc. We appear to disagree mainly on the association between "male" and "man" or "boy", and that between "female" and "woman" or "girl". It seems to risk increasing confusion to advocate that "man" and "woman", etc., are "genders" - indeed it seems to pander to the trans lobby's wishes to identify genders at all. Maybe the next question will help clarify where you stand. Furthermore, those terms have been defined as associated with the sexes for hundreds of years, maybe thousands. A woman is an adult human female.

2. Do you think there are male women and female men, not to forget the non-binary folk of each sex? You might have just been using "male" and "female" as nouns, and that way round - "manly women" and "effeminate men" gets closer to what I was saying I was cool with. But making the "effeminate" or the "manly" into the nouns, "woman" and "man" breaks that entirely.

3. Which government is that, if you don't mind saying? ETA: Oh, I think I just got that from another poster. Hello, fellow Brit.
Click to expand...
I'm going to use the word roles. Ultimately the whole transpeople thing annoys me as they are still trying to fit into social gender roles rather than say 'i don't accept them at all'.

To answer 2. I think there are females that want to take on social opposite gender roles (man) and males that do the same (woman), their sex doesn't and cannot change with present technology.

Gender has become a big thing, whereas I wish it didn't exist at all and people just be themselves without pressure to conform to that nonsense. It does exist unfortunately so I just have to deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
I'm just gonna say "eew" and move on. :sick:
Click to expand...
What? So you have to suffer the massive gap and not have 30 minute cleaners? That's even worse.

edit: I'm in the UK and where I am the public toilets and libraries toilets and pubs toilets floors are cleaned constantly. What are you judging this on? Does that not happen in the US? eeeww.
 
Last edited:
p0lka said:
I've been arguing about gender since the moment I was told to 'be a man'... 'men have roles' ... 'dolls are for girls' blah blah blah etc, some came from my parents but most came from the society I was born into.
Click to expand...
Was government involved in any of that? It doesn't sound like it.

Do you WANT government to be involved in any of that? Because I don't see any benefit from government involving itself in gender issues. And you aren't proposing any benefits from government involving itself in gender issues.
 
Ziggurat said:
Was government involved in any of that? It doesn't sound like it.

Do you WANT government to be involved in any of that? Because I don't see any benefit from government involving itself in gender issues. And you aren't proposing any benefits from government involving itself in gender issues.
Click to expand...
You've just had a whole argument with yourself in that post, nice whan.
 
p0lka said:
Wouldn't it be so much easier if the terms were separated eh?
Click to expand...
The terms have never, ever been the problem. The problem has always been conflicting goals. When will you realize this?
p0lka said:
edit: also regarding the last post, I said society not government.
Click to expand...
I know YOU said society. Do you know why *I* said government? Do you understand the role government plays in this conflict?

No, you clearly don't. Because you don't understand the issue at all. You think it's about words. It isn't. It never has been.
 
Ziggurat said:
You don't understand anything about this issue. You think you do, but you really don't. This is just more proof.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about the gender issue in regards to the US then no I don't as you've all gone mad over there. But in regards to the rest of the world that has gender issues well let's see what happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom