Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

But you're right, men are generally more welcoming to non-conformists. Why? Is it because they're better people than women? As a man, the idea flatters me, but I don't have any logical reason to accept it. Especially since there's another explanation: that men have higher risk tolerance, because we are less vulnerable than women. Non-conformity can signal potential threat (this too is logical), and women are more sensitive to danger than men. This isn't a moral fault of women, it's a logical response to a difference in circumstance.

It's well established that males have higher risk tolerance than females, including crossing over into risk seeking behavior at a much higher rate. Females of the human species are observably and consistently more risk averse - and I believe this carries through to the vast majority of mammals, except maybe hyenas and a very few other female-dominant species. The generally accepted theory is that the cost of gestation in placental mammals leads to risk aversion as a result of natural selection. Females who avoid risk have a higher likelihood of having more offspring than those that don't.

And in a rather large number of mammalian species... males of that species are one of the risks.

 

[d4m10n]

Females do not want males in our intimate spaces.

You have an unfortunate habit of speaking for all females, EC.

I've repeatedly pointed out that females are consistently more likely than males to answer surveys in favor of allowing males in those previously sex-segregated spaces. Every time trans rights have been advanced in the U.S. it has been by the party supported by more women than men. Between the survey data and the voting patterns, it seems fair to say that women got us into this mess in the first place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You have an unfortunate habit of speaking for all females, EC.

I've never claimed to do so, but I also think it's completely irrational pedantry to require that I painstakingly include every possible caveat in every single post rather than assuming that the rest of you can infer shorthand from context like normally functioning people.

I've repeatedly pointed out that females are consistently more likely than males to answer surveys in favor of allowing males in those previously sex-segregated spaces. Every time trans rights have been advanced in the U.S. it has been by the party supported by more women than men.

And I've repeatedly pointed out that "more likely than males" is still a minority of females!

For illustration purposes:
If 1% of males support whatchamajigs in whosywhatists, and 2% of females support whatchamajigs in whosywhatists, then it's a true statement to say that females are more likely to support whatchamajigs in whosywhatists than males. But it's false to imply - even if only through ommission - that females in general support whatchamajigs in whosywhatists.

 

[d4m10n]

And I've repeatedly pointed out that "more likely than males" is still a minority of females!

Tell me you didn't click the link without telling me you didn't click the link.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2016/09/FT_16.09.29_transgender_1.png

 

[Ziggurat]

I've repeatedly pointed out that females are consistently more likely than males to answer surveys in favor of allowing males in those previously sex-segregated spaces.

I'm not convinced these surveys reflect their actual feelings. There may be a strong NIMBY component to it, just like environmentalists who like the idea of windmills, but don't want them built in their back yards.

But in any case, she certainly reflects the opinions of a lot of women. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, the women who do actually want males in their spaces cannot consent on behalf of the women who don't.

Between the survey data and the voting patterns, it seems fair to say that women got us into this mess in the first place.

I don't entirely disagree, though the movement is still being led by males.

 

[theprestige]

The wifwolf erasure is real.

 

[Ziggurat]

The wifwolf erasure is real.

This thread isn't about wifwolfs.

It's about werwifs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Tell me you didn't click the link without telling me you didn't click the link.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2016/09/FT_16.09.29_transgender_1.png

2016

Because views haven't changed in a decade, right?

 

[John Freestone]

If only I could give it much more! Every time a male feels morally constrained from entering women's leagues and/or spaces, that's gender₃ at work, regardless of what we choose to call the process by which sexed roles are personally internalized and socially enforced.

But you're choosing which bits you want to give more. Surely you want freer constraints where they're pointless or negative, like not being able to get your nails done, or a woman not being free to shave her head?

It seems to me you're giving the word "gender" itself too much importance. It is entirely possible to state the central idea of gender ideology without using that word at all, as when Martine Rothblatt claimed the following:

The legacy of medicalization...is that a person with a penis usually can't wear a dress to work until they convert their penis into a vagina and change all their ID from male to female. This is absurd. We must finally end the notion that sex is between our legs. Instead, it is time to realize that sex is between our ears.​

That last bit is transsexualism/transgenderism in a nutshell: Sex isn't a condition of the body, it is a state of mind, and all things socially sorted by sex need to take that into account.

Well I didn't say abstaining from using 'gender' to indicate the sexed condition of humans would by itself stop the decay of society into incoherent ignorance. Sure, they'll happily call it sex that's maleable and on a spectrum or multi-dimensional or in their heads. That's another educational problem.

 

[d4m10n]

Because views haven't changed in a decade, right?

If you want to claim they've changed, feel free to do so. (A skeptical person might ask for data.)

My contention is that these policy changes were mostly brought about by women changing their minds and their votes so as to make society more trans-inclusive, with male allies lagging somewhat behind at every step.

 

[John Freestone]

I said I would answer when they answered my previous question.

I've answered it, but my question wasn't great, so forget it. I have another one for you: Are you male or female?

My preferred pronouns, by the way, are he/him/his, because I'm male and those are the traditional pronouns for males. On the other hand, if you wish to say they/them/their when referring to me, I don't mind.

 

[d4m10n]

Surely you want freer constraints where they're pointless or negative, like not being able to get your nails done, or a woman not being free to shave her head?

I actually prefer having a modicum of sexed taboos on this sort of stuff, because it gives the young punks something pointless to rebel against. It would seem miserly to deprive this generation of young men of the formative experiences enjoyed by previous generations, (e.g. 70s hippies growing their hair out, 90s goths wearing skirts and nail polish).

 

[d4m10n]

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, the women who do actually want males in their spaces cannot consent on behalf of the women who don't.

I don't buy this argument at all, because it leads to the absurdity that 999,999 service users cannot consent to trans-inclusion if only one person holds out for the old ways.

In reality, I expect gyms and spas to try to please most of their user base, even if that means disgruntling a minority.

 

[John Freestone]

I get that @John Freestone is saying we need to avoid using "gender" in any sense of the term because it has been weaponized for certain ideological aims, but I don't think that will actually help given that the core ideas are already out there being absorbed and passed around. Those ideas need to be squarely refuted, regardless of the language we find them wrapped in.

All I said was how I speak and why, not that "we need" to do that. But how do you squarely refute 'those ideas' unless you talk about what's real? And what is real is biology, including our sex! If we try to squarely refute gender ideology while we use the ideologues' own words, we're already on the back foot, trying to explain which of several definitions of gender we might be talking about and why they shouldn't take this or that one too seriously and what it means about their bodily choices and self-concept, and how maybe they should consider the biological definition of sex from - you know - the old days, before 1990...

Saying, "We all have a singular, binary sex that is immutable - male or female," is a much more sensible start to "squarely refuting" all the bollocks in folks heads about their "gender", it seems to me, than trying to address several definitions of the crap in their heads.

 

[John Freestone]

If you want to claim they've changed, feel free to do so. (A skeptical person might ask for data.)

I distinctly remember lots of data just a short while ago itt. Shall we find it again?

My contention is that these policy changes were mostly brought about by women changing their minds and their votes so as to make society more trans-inclusive, with male allies lagging somewhat behind at every step.

Back in that era, yes, because women are more pro-social and thus pick up on the cry-bullying and go with the flow to make the big sissies feel better. While men generally know what men are like, and tend to risk sticking their necks out and saying what they think. And now it's all changing, as more and more women are waking up to the fraud that the TRAs have pulled. They're pissed, rightly. Can I ask, are you pro-trans? Do you think this movement is good? I can't work you out.

 

[smartcooky]

You know what has NOT been pushed? The same sort of dehumanizing, degrading, reduction to bodily functions when it comes to males. There has NOT been a push to replace father with inseminating parent, or to refer to men as sperm producers or prostate owners or people with a vas deferens or ejaculators or anything remotely similar. There've been instances of magazines putting out articles in the same periodical, in the same *week* where one addressed "people with cervixes" needing to get screened for cancer, and another saying that "men" need to get prostate screenings, and similar sorts of disparities.
At the end of the day, the words related to specifically female experiences have been abused and stretched beyond recognition... but the words related to specifically male experiences have remained intact.

So tell me how females aren't having anything taken away and I'm overreacting again...

 

[d4m10n]

Shall we find it again?

If you like, go for it.

(Bear in mind, though, that UK data will be different than US data.)

Can I ask, are you pro-trans?

On some issues, sure. I'd say Glenn v. Brumby was rightly decided and that it was pointless and stupid to kick Hunter Maquez out of the USAF, to cite a couple very specific examples directly or indirectly involving people I've known.

Do you think this movement is good?

Overall, I'd say they ask far too much. ACLU activists have openly stated that they hope to replace sex with gender identity in law and policy.

 

[smartcooky]

Can you read? Zig and I were talking about why men were less concerned about nonconformists in a public rest room. You respond with weird non-sequitors.

Regarding the case you irrelevantly bring up:

1) I never said attacks don't happen, scooter. They always have, and always will. As you can see by your own story, this kid attacked where it was opportune, not relying on magic words. He dragged another girl in a seperate instance into an empty classroom. 'Magic words' didn't factor into his crimes at all.

2)Getting tired of repeating this to you, but what I said didn't happen was an increase in assaults under open gender policies, using magic words to get out of it. Prefacing any "lookit the evil tranny" story you can scrounge up with "you say this never happens" is dumber than your usual.

Come on man, step up your game.

Eta: I mean, this exact story has been held up multiple times as an example of... what? That a predatorial kid will prey when the situation presents itself? Is this really the best you can do for arguing that attacks increase under open gender laws (which I've argued shouldn't apply to schools anyway)?

Eta2: This is what your arguments invariably boil down to: the bad guy was wearing a skirt, therefore all guys who wear skirts are bad. Maybe you could consult a skeptics forum and they could explain why that reasoning sucks so hard.

Oh, my bad. I forgot about the "that wasn't what we were talking about" square on your bingo card!

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't buy this argument at all, because it leads to the absurdity that 999,999 service users cannot consent to trans-inclusion if only one person holds out for the old ways.

Veto only works when consent is required, so this doesn't produce the sort of absurdities you are referencing. For example, black people do not need the consent of white people to use a bathroom with white people in it, and one objector or even 999,999 objectors cannot keep them out. But yes, if consent is required, then it is not transferrable

I think consent is required for males to enter female spaces (some exceptions exist for law enforcement, safety, etc). The TRAs don't think consent is required, and do not rest their claim on its popularity either. You seem to be the only person hung up on the idea that popularity indicates correctness on this issue

 

[smartcooky]

I don't buy this argument at all, because it leads to the absurdity that 999,999 service users cannot consent to trans-inclusion if only one person holds out for the old ways.

Consent is not transferable. One woman cannot consent to a transgender identifying male entering a women's space because that one woman does not have standing to represent all women.

In reality, I expect gyms and spas to try to please most of their user base, even if that means disgruntling a minority.

Yup, I agree. They ought to be able to bar ALL males from women's areas, even if it risks "disgruntling a minority" who happen to be transgender identifying males.