Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[p0lka]

So all horses can bear young?

And all chickens lay eggs?

And all foxes gestate kits?

And all cows produce milk?

Therefore the female half of the population doesn't deserve to have a term that covers both our sex and our species?

Have you never met a hen that acts like a rooster?

 

[Ziggurat]

Bull ◊◊◊◊. I never said a word about 'more'.

If there's no 'more' then there's no use in new legislation. So what the ◊◊◊◊ were you even talking about?

There are no 'female spaces'. That's at the core of the debate.

Your position may be that there are no female spaces. My position is that there are. Historically there have been. The fact that these spaces weren't always enforced with the security of Fort Knox doesn't mean that they weren't still female spaces. They absolutely were. You taking those spaces away from females is you not being in favor of female rights.

You are anti-female rights.

I didn't say existence. I said real/sincere.

You have said "existence" on multiple occasions in the past. Are you now retracting those earlier claims?

And you're wrong about the sincere part too. Nobody here denies that there are sincere trans people.

You up for an avatar bet? Or did you know you were lying as you typed it?

I'm not interested in an avatar bet with you, because I don't trust you. A bet is a sort of contract, and I don't trust you, so why would I ever enter a contract with you?

 

[Thermal]

I love it when you pretend science is on your side.

And I love it when you pretend the medical community has been hypnotized by some faceless MKULTRA TRAs. Keep that tin foil hat on, baby.

 

[Aber]

Darlington nurses win their employment tribunal
“By requiring the Claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman… the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and creating for the Claimants a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment.

https://christianconcern.com/ccpres...ms-is-unlawful-harassment-and-discrimination/

Full judgement
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/...y-durham-and-darlington-nhs-foundation-trust/

A complete victory, apart from some very marginal claims. There is a lot of detail in the judgement about the legal position; the core being that nothing in UK Law or ECHR gives a transwoman positive rights to be included in female single-sex spaces.

My only concern is that Rose repeatedly asking a female in the changing room "are you getting changed yet" was judged not harassment. The tribunal seems to have framed the question as "would this be harassment if coming from a woman" not "would this be harassment if coming from a male".

 

[theprestige]

Oh, you want to rewrite the acronym

No, I want to use a new acronym to indicate a change in my thinking about the issues.

to beg the question in and make your arguments fly?

What question am I begging?

Sounds fair. Shall we do the same with your side?

Sure!

You guys like to whitewash your position as Gender Critical, which doesn't mean anything because both sides are being critical of the concept, even if arriving at opposite conclusions.

Figures of speech in natural languages are difficult for Alien Space Robots, but should not cause this much confusion in human beings born with the facility and raised in the practice.

We cant really lop off a dangly bit in GC, so how about we shift to the preceding letter in the alphabet for both G and C? I think we gots some poetry there.

FB? Facebook? I don't think we're doing the same thing at all. And why are you addressing my aside to Ziggurat, rather than my questions directed to you?

 

[theprestige]

Right. We don't have them, and really never had them. But we should, and need to get that codified clearly in law, along with definitions of 'wo/man' as well as 'gender'. Still baffled, or just playing dumb?

Well it's codified clearly in UK law, now. Hopefully the US will be following suit shortly. But I thought you were against a legal remedy enforced by the state, in favor of ad hoc vigilantism in the moment.

 

[p0lka]

But that's not what p0lka was arguing for.

I'm arguing for gender and sex to be treated separately. I focused on labels of toilets and sports events being labelled as woman instead of female because that's what the original thread was about. Society needs to catch up and stop mixing them together and make clearer labels and laws.

 

[theprestige]

the worldwide and historical medical consensus that transpeople are in fact real and sincere.

The worldwide and historical medical consensus that gender dysphoria is real and sincere, you mean.

There is no medical consensus that non-dysphoric trans people are real and sincere, since that's not even a medical question.

 

[Ziggurat]

Have you never met a hen that acts like a rooster?

I haven't seen it in person, but I've heard of it.
Spontaneous Sex Reversal in Your Poultry
However, chickens are not mammals, let alone humans. No mammal (including humans) can undergo the change in sexual characteristics that chickens can go through. And "hen" is still the correct word for a mature female chicken.

 

[theprestige]

I'm arguing for gender and sex to be treated separately.

Gender decoupled from sex is meaningless, and doesn't need to be treated at all by the law. Gender only has practical meaning when coupled to sex. So there's no need to treat them separately in the law, just clarify that gender is legally congruent with sex, where such things matter.

 

[Thermal]

If there's no 'more' then there's no use in new legislation. So what the ◊◊◊◊ were you even talking about?

The same as we have been talking about for a year now.

Your position may be that there are no female spaces. My position is that there are.

There's no 'position'. There are facts, and you are wrong about them, but it is fatal to your argument to acknowledge that.

You have said "existence" on multiple occasions in the past. Are you now retracting those earlier claims?

Oh, here we go. Now you want to Frankenstein an argument together instead of dealing with the current discussion. I recall you recently bitching and moaning about you changing a question on the fly when I kept addressing your original one (the 'good solution' one).

And you're wrong about the sincere part too. Nobody here denies that there are sincere trans people.

Wanna bet? Search is back, baby.

I'm not interested in an avatar bet with you, because I don't trust you. A bet is a sort of contract, and I don't trust you, so why would I ever enter a contract with you?

What a lame ass punk out. If I didn't hold up my end, you could not only publicly bask in the win, but you'd also have the 'and Thermal punked out' angle to put a cherry on top.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no medical consensus that non-dysphoric trans people are real and sincere, since that's not even a medical question.

You are correct that it's not a medical question.

They are real in the sense that there are people who claim to be trans without dysphoria, I don't think there's any real dispute there. I don't know what it means to say they are sincere, because I don't know what they're even being sincere or insincere about. I don't know what they're claiming, so I cannot evaluate whether the claim is honest or true (which also means I cannot and do not claim that they're all lying either). I don't recall anyone ever offering a coherent explanation of what it means to be trans without dysphoria.

 

[Ziggurat]

The same as we have been talking about for a year now.

We've been talking about legislation which extends new rights to trans people.

There's no 'position'.

Of course there's a position. More than one, in fact. For example, it's a position that trans identifying males should be able to enter women's bathrooms. That's not a fact, that's a position. One we've been arguing about for a long time.

Wanna bet? Search is back, baby.

You made the claim, you back it up. And don't move the goalpost either: your claim is that some of us think ALL trans people are being dishonest, not that some trans people are being dishonest.

What a lame ass punk out. If I didn't hold up my end, you could not only publicly bask in the win, but you'd also have the 'and Thermal punked out' angle to put a cherry on top.

You think I care about that? Why would I? I'm not 13.

 

[Thermal]

Well it's codified clearly in UK law, now.

To not much success or compliance, I am reading.

But I thought you were against a legal remedy enforced by the state, in favor of ad hoc vigilantism in the moment.

No, you didn't think that. You didn't think at all, or you would have recalled my repeated-a-hundred-times position that in areas where nudity is expected, we need strict segregation created. In rest rooms areas, where women are generally not flapping their card-swipers (thanks to smartcooky for his oh-so-funny-and-not-at-all-derogatory-descriptor) around outside the stalls, we are probably best off with self policing, as worked well for generations.

 

[p0lka]

Full judgement
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/...y-durham-and-darlington-nhs-foundation-trust/

A complete victory, apart from some very marginal claims. There is a lot of detail in the judgement about the legal position; the core being that nothing in UK Law or ECHR gives a transwoman positive rights to be included in female single-sex spaces.

My only concern is that Rose repeatedly asking a female in the changing room "are you getting changed yet" was judged not harassment. The tribunal seems to have framed the question as "would this be harassment if coming from a woman" not "would this be harassment if coming from a male".

This judgement was against the bosses and their failure to act, the transmale was found to have done nothing wrong.

I do think it's good that they are calling them female changing rooms in the judgement, and that rose is a biological male transwoman. Yay progress of sorts.

 

[p0lka]

Gender decoupled from sex is meaningless, and doesn't need to be treated at all by the law. Gender only has practical meaning when coupled to sex. So there's no need to treat them separately in the law, just clarify that gender is legally congruent with sex, where such things matter.

Heh, i'm going to throw the 'fringe reset' right back at you, you keep saying it, it doesn't make it true. There is a need to treat them separately in the law, open your eyes, look at the length of this thread.

 

[theprestige]

To not much success or compliance, I am reading.

There's been a lot of compliance, from what I can tell. I never expected all affected entities to comply immediately without any pushback.

But you're the one who said we needed clear codification in law. The UK has it, but now you're saying it doesn't work? Make up your mind. Do you think clear codification is necessary, or not?

No, you didn't think that. You didn't think at all, or you would have recalled my repeated-a-hundred-times position that in areas where nudity is expected, we need strict segregation created. In rest rooms areas, where women are generally not flapping their card-swipers (thanks to smartcooky for his oh-so-funny-and-not-at-all-derogatory-descriptor) around outside the stalls, we are probably best off with self policing, as worked well for generations.

Why is nudity your cutoff? It's clearly not the cutoff for anyone else, or we'd already have coed restrooms everywhere as the norm.

 

[theprestige]

Heh, i'm going to throw the 'fringe reset' right back at you, you keep saying it, it doesn't make it true. There is a need to treat them separately in the law, open your eyes, look at the length of this thread.

What need does the law have, to treat gender separately from sex?

(See how I'm directly acknowledging your rebuttal, and asking questions to advance our debate?)

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, erm, "father" and "mother" can be considered gender roles colloquially, but they too have strict biological definitions. Also, I resist using "biological" ahead of "female", "male" or "sex", since it's tautology, and subtly reinforces in some the idea that there's a non-biological sex if you had to qualify it as such.

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again.

The lack of ability to distinguish between literal and figurative use of language is going to be the downfall of civilization.

 

[p0lka]

I haven't seen it in person, but I've heard of it.
Spontaneous Sex Reversal in Your Poultry
However, chickens are not mammals, let alone humans. No mammal (including humans) can undergo the change in sexual characteristics that chickens can go through. And "hen" is still the correct word for a mature female chicken.

Don't let the tra's know or they're all going to be falling over and changing sex.