Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Where do you think "the rights of females" come from?

Are they something we create via customs and laws and court rulings, or are they somehow independent of these social processes?

You seem to be playing a semantic game here, and I suggest you should not do that. If you want to call anything involving social aspects of sex "gender", then sure, you can claim a bunch of this stuff involves gender.

But that isn't where this conflict resides. It resides in the areas where gender separates from sex, in particular, the people whose claimed gender doesn't match their sex. And that's something entirely different. When we make laws that allow for sex segregation, you can claim that that's gender under this broader definition, but it's always about sex. Sex is the controlling factor, gender is only implicated to the extent that it matches sex. When you make laws allowing for segregation based on gender identity, then that's no longer about sex.

The government has no business dealing with gender separate from sex.

 

[d4m10n]

Allowing trans-identifying males (but not cis identifying males) to compete in women's sports.

Reserving a sport category just for females is quintessentially a gender issue, if gender means the roles we assign differently to males and females. Arguably the gender roles we assign people in sport are more inflexible than most other gender roles, e.g. women are expected to be nurturing to children but we admire men who are as well.

That's directly a gender issue.

Can I ask for a bit of clarification; which of the four meanings of gender are you invoking here?

(I was going with #3 but may well be mistaken.)

 

[d4m10n]

You seem to be playing a semantic game here, and I suggest you should not do that.

Far from it, I'm trying to understand what exactly your claims should be taken to mean.

 

[Ziggurat]

Far from it, I'm trying to understand what exactly your claims should be taken to mean.

That gender is bull ◊◊◊◊ and the government shouldn't involve itself in gender, but that sex is real and important and the government sometimes needs to involve itself in matters of sex.

Reserving a sport category just for females is quintessentially a gender issue, if gender means the roles we assign differently to males and females.

I'm not sure what you think "roles" have to do with sports. But this absolutely is not a gender issue, it's a sex issue. The male and female sexes have significantly different athletic capabilities based on the biology of their sexes, which justifies sex segregation in sports. Different "roles" do not justify sex OR gender segregation in sports, or anywhere else for that matter.

Can I ask for a bit of clarification; which of the four meanings of gender are you invoking here?

Definition 4. That's the one that's being used to justify allowing trans identifying males to enter female spaces. That's the definition which is used to justify the entire TRA agenda, so that's the relevant one for our discussion about the role of government.

 

[d4m10n]

Definition 4. That's the one that's being used to justify allowing trans identifying males to enter female spaces.

Fair enough. If we're talking about that one, then I sort of agree that "government shouldn't involve itself in gender" because it's a subjective state of mind rather than something observable and difficult to fake. Government institutions rarely take subjective state of minds into account, other than a few odd situations such as mens rea in the criminal courts or draft exemptions for conscientious objectors or marriage-based green cards.

 

[smartcooky]

I wonder how many times you are going to post "I wonder how many times people are going to explain the exact same thing to p0lka, with the exact same evidence, before everyone figures out it's a waste of time." before you figure out it's a waste of time.

Thats a "you" problem. When everyone tells you that your view of this is wrong, its time to recognise that maybe, just maybe your view IS wrong.

You're still stuck on mixing sex and gender.

You're still stuck on the idea that its all about labels. Its not! its about ultimate goals!

Why would it be called "Women only: You must be a biological female to enter this space", when it can just be called 'female only' ?

The wording was an attempt to get through that skull of yours that it does not matter how strictly you tie down the sign to include women and ONLY women, and exclude ALL males - TRAs WILL IGNORE IT!! It does not make any difference to them what the sign on the door says. TRA's demand access to every space where women currently have exclusive access because they demand transgender identifying males be able to (metaphorically) wave their ladydicks in women's faces wherever they go. TRA philosophy is that there shall be NO PLACE where woman can go that they cannot.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm not sure what you think "roles" have to do with sports.

Well, for example, my daughter might have pursued softball (rather than baseball) because that is the stick-and-ball game for ladies here in the U.S.

Just because a role in sports is ultimately justified by actual sex differences doesn't make it any less of a gendered role, in either the second or third sense of that term. Any time we expect boys/men to do one thing and girls/women another, that's gender in both of those senses.

 

[Rolfe]

Thats a "you" problem. When everyone tells you that your view of this is wrong, its time to recognise that maybe, just maybe your view IS wrong.


You're still stuck on the idea that its all about labels. Its not! its about ultimate goals!


The wording was an attempt to get through that skull of yours that it does not matter how strictly you tie down the sign to include women and ONLY women, and exclude ALL males - TRAs WILL IGNORE IT!! It does not make any difference to them what the sign on the door says. TRA's demand access to every space where women currently have exclusive access because they demand transgender identifying males be able to (metaphorically) wave their ladydicks in women's faces wherever they go. TRA philosophy is that there shall be NO PLACE where woman can go that they cannot.

A few weeks ago I was in a motorway service station IN ENGLAND and noticed that the toilets were very clearly labelled MALE and FEMALE. (I took a photo for Polka but it's not on my phone any more.)

I can flat guarantee that the LARPing men who use women's toilets elsewhere will not be deterred for one instant by these signs.

 

[John Freestone]

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'.

I agree, on the whole. We just have to be careful to understand the complexity of gender and social gender roles, and how we define those. What is a role? A behaviour. I'm sure you and I both want the role of police officer to be available to both sexes, so that kind of behaviour we can think of as a social gender role that was at one time reserved for males and denied females. We want gender role equality.

But we (I hope you agree) don't want all behaviours to be equally acceptable or available to either sex. I don't want males (I'll use my terms: men) 'chestfeeding' or menstruating or getting pregnant, nor do I want them simulating those things in their delusion. I don't even want medical science to waste resources on trying to make those possible. We might designate those behaviours, then as 'sex roles'.

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.

Yes. But that doesn't answer my question. Are those males who take on women's gender roles 'men', and vice versa? That is what your statements about labels of toilets seemed to suggest. You would label one of them "Females only" admitting people (whom you describe as men according to gender roles) because they are female.

If that doesn't describe your view, what is it, and why doesn't it make more sense to stick to the ancient definitions of men and women, as terms expressing sex? This still allows men to wear dresses and women to go to war, equality of social gender roles.

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.

I agree. In fact, I'd say gender doesn't exist, there are just behaviours that we associate with one sex or the other, some of which either sex can, and should be able to, exhibit (i.e., we should loosen those associations) and some of which are, and should remain, the remit of one or other sex.

This is further complicated by the existence of behaviours that either sex can physically accomplish (walking through a door into a particular room; using a shower; joining a particular sports team, scientific study or social group) that the law ought to separate by sex, because of the different needs and wishes of the two sexes.

 

[theprestige]

Well, for example, my daughter might have pursued softball (rather than baseball) because that is the stick-and-ball game for ladies here in the U.S.

Just because a role in sports is ultimately justified by actual sex differences doesn't make it any less of a gendered role, in either the second or third sense of that term. Any time we expect boys/men to do one thing and girls/women another, that's gender in both of those senses.

"Softball player" may be a gender role, but "female athlete" is not.

 

[d4m10n]

"Softball player" may be a gender role, but "female athlete" is not.

Agreed; one need not take on any specific role in order to be both female and an athlete in training.

When you sign up for a competition with separate female and male categories—such as any major city marathon—then you are putting pen to paper to indicate which of those two roles you will be performing in the event. Traditionally, you were expected to do so in conformance with birth sex, but these days you have to consult local guidance to discover what exceptions will be made based on gender identity or transition status.

 

[p0lka]

No, he isn't. You're stuck on thinking this is about words, when it isn't. It's about conflicting goals and political power.

My full post was

You're still stuck on mixing sex and gender. Why would it be called "Women only: You must be a biological female to enter this space", when it can just be called 'female only' ?

So smartcooky definitely is mixing sex and gender in that statement, contrary to what you think. You snipped my post but do you have an answer to the full post?

 

[p0lka]

Because

https://twitter.com/x/status/1559530487680569344

Haha, are they trolling for clicks or something? They literally say they are a 'biological woman' and 'female' haha, don't fall for that ◊◊◊◊ it's ragebaiting nonsense. They know it's nonsense.

 

[p0lka]

I'm about done. My appetite for unproductive repetition is much lower than most. But while we're here: Why do you keep doing the same fringe reset over and over, even though you have nothing new to add, and even though you keep getting the same answer?

You keep throwing fringe reset at me and i've googled it but don't get what you mean, what do you mean?

 

[d4m10n]

...what do you mean?

"I don't like explaining something I've explained before during the last several years" takes too long to say, so we say "fringe reset" instead.

They literally say they are a 'biological woman' and 'female' haha, don't fall for that ◊◊◊◊ it's ragebaiting nonsense. They know it's nonsense.

Since I don't at all mind explaining something I've explained before during the last several years, they really don't know that.

You weren't here back when @Boudicca90 made the case that she is actually female, but it sounded completely sincere.

IIRC (and I really mightn't) she proceeded from the premise that sex is a wibbly-wobbly sort of category made up of all sorts of variables, and that enough of hers had been set to female either from birth (e.g. brain sex) or by subsequent cross-sex medical intervention.

 

[p0lka]

Thats a "you" problem. When everyone tells you that your view of this is wrong, its time to recognise that maybe, just maybe your view IS wrong.


You're still stuck on the idea that its all about labels. Its not! its about ultimate goals!


The wording was an attempt to get through that skull of yours that it does not matter how strictly you tie down the sign to include women and ONLY women, and exclude ALL males - TRAs WILL IGNORE IT!! It does not make any difference to them what the sign on the door says. TRA's demand access to every space where women currently have exclusive access because they demand transgender identifying males be able to (metaphorically) wave their ladydicks in women's faces wherever they go. TRA philosophy is that there shall be NO PLACE where woman can go that they cannot.

Yeah, don't word things to attempt to get through that skull of mine, just say what you see as the expression goes.

you keep mixing woman/males together in your sentences, that's literally gender and sex terms together when i think they should be separated.

edit: you didn't answer the question, hypothetically why not just call it female?

 

[Brainster]

Haha, are they trolling for clicks or something? They literally say they are a 'biological woman' and 'female' haha, don't fall for that ◊◊◊◊ it's ragebaiting nonsense. They know it's nonsense.

Google India Willoughby. This is not some rando, this is a famous transwoman who says nonsense like that all the time and does not appear to know it's nonsense.

 

[p0lka]

"I don't like explaining something I've explained before during the last several years" takes too long to say, so we say "fringe reset" instead.

Since I don't at all mind explaining something I've explained before during the last several years, they really don't know that.

You weren't here back when @Boudicca90 made the case that she is actually female, but it sounded completely sincere.

IIRC (and I really mightn't) she proceeded from the premise that sex is a wibbly-wobbly sort of category made up of all sorts of variables, and that enough of hers had been set to female either from birth (e.g. brain sex) or by subsequent cross-sex medical intervention.

I remember Boudicca, as i recall factual things were thrown at them and they disappeared over time as the whole premise didn't really work.

edit: i think i posted in the thread at the time.

edit2: yeah they did actually believe it though didn't they

 

[theprestige]

You keep throwing fringe reset at me and i've googled it but don't get what you mean, what do you mean?

"I don't like explaining something I've explained before during the last several years" takes too long to say, so we say "fringe reset" instead.

Yes, and the reason we say "fringe reset" is that it's a common slang term for ignoring rebuttals and returning to the original (now rebutted) claim. Which is what you keep doing. You propose something. Arguments against the proposal are made. You go away. You come back after some time with the same exact proposal, even though it's already been rebutted.

 

[p0lka]

A few weeks ago I was in a motorway service station IN ENGLAND and noticed that the toilets were very clearly labelled MALE and FEMALE. (I took a photo for Polka but it's not on my phone any more.)

I can flat guarantee that the LARPing men who use women's toilets elsewhere will not be deterred for one instant by these signs.

I can guarantee that my farts will take me to the moon, but did you see any transpeople going into the wrong doors? Did you get any data on the male/female instead of man/woman conundrum? Where is it in england as there's actually useful data to be found there.

edit: sorry for my rudeness I saw flat and larp heh oops, it would be interesting to see what happens though.