Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

What I object to is laws making it illegal for the owners/operators of such facilities to segregate on the basis of biological sex.

Agreed! I also object to laws which make it illegal for the owners/operators of such facilities to segregate on other bases, such as "acquired sex" as they say in British law.

 

[d4m10n]

And I've noted that you and the Basher Brigade use 'trans identifying males', which is a non-negotiably offensive and derogatory term.

Can you please explain why it offends you for someone to call natal males who self-identify as transgender by that label?

Seems fairly neutrally descriptive on its face.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't believe you (or anyone here) has made the case that there is a universal "wrong choice" when it comes to public accommodations offering sexed or gendered services.

I sense a semantic quibble about what constitutes "universal". But self-ID policies are wrong.

You have at best made the case that many people would greatly prefer to have those services offered by sex

No. I have also made the case that some services (such as bathrooms and changing rooms) are better off if they are segregated by sex than by gender, regardless of what people prefer.

There is a huge difference between having at least some gyms or spas or pools which offer single-sex spaces and forcing every gym or spa or pool offer them.

Now you're ignoring the distinction I made between forcing a choice and a choice being the right choice. There's a huge difference there as well. Even if you don't want to force a choice, that doesn't mean that there isn't a right choice and a wrong choice.

Segregating by self-ID gender is the wrong choice. This remains true even if you don't want to use government force to prevent it.

Totalitarianism is the notion that it is the government's proper role to make all of us moral in all things.

You did it again.

 

[theprestige]

Can you please explain why it offends you for someone to call natal males who self-identify as transgender by that label?

Seems fairly neutrally descriptive on its face.

It's offensive because it makes a practical, reality-based distinction between trans women and women, which is exactly what the TPA thought police are trying to avoid.

 

[Ziggurat]

And I've noted that you and the Basher Brigade use 'trans identifying males', which is a non-negotiably offensive and derogatory term.

What odd phrasing. How is offensiveness ever negotiated? What's an example of a negotiably offensive term?

You get that, right? It ain't your call if others find that offensive.

True enough. But the flip side of that is that people can get offended for no good reason. So the mere fact that someone is offended isn't a compelling reason to care. I should only care if they have good reason to be offended.

In this case, I don't think they do. You have not provided a good reason for me to think otherwise.

 

[smartcooky]

Can you please explain why it offends you for someone to call natal males who self-identify as transgender by that label?

He's offended on behalf of his fellow TRA cohort who are offended because the term doesn't affirm their gender identity claims, and points out the truth about who and what they really are.

Seems fairly neutrally descriptive on its face.

Of course it is, but for him, anything that does not kow-tow to the Holy Cult of Transgender Ideology is derogatory.

It is yet another thing that points to him being a TRA, no matter how much he might try to deny it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... its fairly obvious what it is!!!

 

[Aber]

Agreed! I also object to laws which make it illegal for the owners/operators of such facilities to segregate on other bases, such as "acquired sex" as they say in British law.

OK, so how do you plan to manage indirect sex discrimination caused by these alternative approaches?

 

[John Freestone]

Oops.

And of course, no, it shouldn't. No country should be "a free country." That would be silly, now wouldn't it?

@d4m10n you made a sad face at my reply. Want to hug it out?

 

[d4m10n]

OK, so how do you plan to manage indirect sex discrimination caused by these alternative approaches?

If I fill in the details here with my idea of what you are referencing, I'll likely miss the mark of what you have in mind.

Can you please flesh out a specific scenario of sex discrimination, bearing in mind that relevant antidiscrimination laws allowed for sex segregation (e.g. women's sports) until quite recently?

 

[d4m10n]

Now you're ignoring the distinction I made between forcing a choice and a choice being the right choice.

My mistake. In a thread mostly about public policy choices, I'd assumed that you were making a moral argument for a top-down policy solution such as we've seen implemented in red states and via federal executive order.

I have also made the case that some services (such as bathrooms and changing rooms) are better off if they are segregated by sex than by gender, regardless of what people prefer.

I don't find these moral arguments remotely convincing, because they rely on giving a minority of people a trump card to override the will of the majority on an issue which isn't generally considered an inalienable civil right.

If the user base of Planet Fitness generally prefers trans-inclusive locker rooms whereas the user base of YMCA generally prefers sex segregation, there is a relatively easy way to give most patrons the system they would prefer. Since these facilities are only a couple miles apart (e.g. in my kids' hometown) the minority of disgruntled patrons can switch their membership without undue inconvenience.

 

[d4m10n]

...anything that does not kow-tow to the Holy Cult of Transgender Ideology is derogatory.

Maybe that's the explanation but I'd much prefer to hear it from the one claiming offense.

My guess is that @Thermal believes it is possible to steer the course of conversation by taking offense, a tactic we saw deployed quite a bit at the very beginning of these threads.

 

[Thermal]

Can you please explain why it offends you for someone to call natal males who self-identify as transgender by that label?

Seems fairly neutrally descriptive on its face.

No, I can't, because it doesn't offend me, personally. Been over that a few times already.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't find these moral arguments remotely convincing, because they rely on giving a minority of people a trump card to override the will of the majority on an issue which isn't generally considered an inalienable civil right.

If most blacks were OK with having to use a different drinking fountain, that wouldn't make it OK. Popular opinion does not create moral value. I really don't understand what moral framework you're operating under, because the morally correct choice has never depended upon being popular.

And I actually do consider it a civil right for women to be able to go to the bathroom and change without males invading that space.

 

[Thermal]

What odd phrasing. How is offensiveness ever negotiated? What's an example of a negotiably offensive term?

Have you considered the term under debate now? Your side is trying to negotiate its usage as being acceptable, while the recipients have made it crystal clear that it is not.

True enough. But the flip side of that is that people can get offended for no good reason. So the mere fact that someone is offended isn't a compelling reason to care. I should only care if they have good reason to be offended.

In this case, I don't think they do. You have not provided a good reason for me to think otherwise.

True enough as well. We could talk it out at length, but to do it quickly:

Do you generally call black people negros? Why not? I'm assuming you generally don't because you don't sound like you are in the ICU.

 

[p0lka]

That may be true about old laws and rules. That's explicitly not true about new laws which specify gender identity.

Were you not aware that there were such laws?

A lot of old laws did, yes.

Of course they separated it. That's how they twisted those old laws to justify their position. Had gender and sex remained synonymous, they wouldn't have been able to do that.

Moreover, again, some new laws explicitly define gender as something other than sex.

You keep finding new ways to be wrong.

I could do a jordan peterson and ask you 'what do you mean by old?' in an attempt to obfuscate like jordan peterson does, the twat that they are, but I won't.
I'm not aware of any laws that define gender as distinct from sex and being a different thing entirely, no?
Can i have an example?

 

[p0lka]

No, they're not. If gender and sex meant the same to those concerned, there would be no demand to change "mother" to "birthing parent", since all birthing parents would be understood to be mothers (as indeed they are and we all know they are, and as they have been described since the word entered the English language). No one would have the ridiculous expectation that a man would try to nurse a baby on his chest, so no one would replace "breastfeeding" with "chestfeeding" - even more idiotic because men have breasts anyway, and are diagnosed with "breast cancer" not "chest cancer". Etc. You have it entirely backwards. The gender cult has hypnotised you.

The fact that gender is even relevent and mentioned when it comes to giving birth is because gender and sex are being mixed up.

What does gender have to do with giving birth? Nothing, as giving birth is a sexed based activity.

Sometimes it's hard to see the wood from the trees, as the expression goes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I oppose the intersectional feminists who hope to judicially impose a gender-based approach on everyone, but I also oppose the second wave feminists who expect everyone to conform to their sex-based approach. Both of these groups are too authoritarian for my taste, since they refuse to allow alternative approaches even when they already have at least some of their own spaces operating in the way they would prefer.

You oppose the "authoritarianism" of science and reality?

 

[Thermal]

Maybe that's the explanation but I'd much prefer to hear it from the one claiming offense.

My guess is that @Thermal believes it is possible to steer the course of conversation by taking offense, a tactic we saw deployed quite a bit at the very beginning of these threads.

That's the second time you have falsely said I was taking offense. That's a known tactic too, I'm sure you are aware.

Also, this is like the fourth time you '@'-ed me or quoted me and it doesn't show on my alerts.

 

[p0lka]

It's offensive because it makes a practical, reality-based distinction between trans women and women, which is exactly what the TPA thought police are trying to avoid.

The term I used 'transmale' is even more reality based as it's a male who is trans, but Thermal said that wasn't offensive, so I don't think you're correct.

 

[Emily's Cat]

...OK, you do understand that all those replacement words were fot the benefit of transmen, right? Or in your terms, for biological women?

It was both. Females with transgender identities who observably and definitely experience those things, but have mental breakdowns if the word "woman" includes them despite them being adult female human beings. But also males with transgender identities who demand to be included in the word "woman" any time it's used, and have massive meltdowns if something labeled "women" excludes them even if it's biological processes they cannot experience.

I don't think that is true.

WTF do you think "Transwomen ARE Women" is intended to do?

...right. Again. that's not taking away from women when it is the women pushing for the terminology.

When it's a teensy sliver of females linked arm in arm with a teensy sliver of males, and backed by a rather large number of males who simply don't give a ◊◊◊◊ if females lose the use of sex-specific language (p0lka for example), it is taking something away from females.

Seriously, what kind of logic are you employing here? If two percent of low income people support a massive tax hike on low income individuals, are you going to argue that it's not taking money away from low income people? All because some of them support it?

Ok not to get all technical on you but men getting prostrate screenings is not actually a bad idea. Not something to blame on da trans, anyway.

Oh yeah, it's totally going to benefit those females with transgender identities to get screenings for the prostates they don't have, right?

Or are you pretending to have entirely missed the point that when speaking of males of the human species, the term "men" was NEVER on the chopping block... but the word "women" has been replaced left, right, and upside down.