Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

Yes, it's figurative. It pretty much has to be, for a shorthand moniker.

I don't care if it's figurative. I care that you're applying a double standard with regards to intent. And "Oh look! It's figurative!" was in reference to my own statement that "You want to have your cake and eat it too", not in reference to your term. I was mocking you for the pretense that figurative language was a concept that I had trouble with by demonstrating my own use of figurative language.

You are bad at communication.

 

[p0lka]

We're talking at cross purposes, perhaps. The fact that a self-identified "man" can be in hospital giving birth is because gender (the man-ness of the man, as she thinks she is) has been separated from the sex (the real bit, the woman giving birth). You keep conceiving of "gender as a synonym for sex" as somehow "mixing them up." What the statement "gender is another word for sex" means is that men/males can't give birth. Gender being one thing while sex is another allows "men" (by your own definition of such) to give birth, because their gender is "man" while their sex is "female". You are perfectly happy with the statement, "Men can give birth to babies," precisely because you separate the meanings of gender and sex.

Females give birth, I don't care what societal roles anyone puts on.

I can see where you're coming from. Such a "trans man" goes to hospital and says she is a man with pronouns he/him, and that this is her gender, and everyone agrees, so you think that means gender hasn't been divorced from sex. But clearly it must, because men can't give birth. Sure, there's a mixing up of terms at the point of delivery (so to speak), but the word, "gender" (as it relates to someone's identity) is being used in opposition to, or independent of the actual, biological sex. That is the separation. You are in favour of it.

What if the 'trans man' goes to hospital and someone notes down their gender and their sex and treats them according to their sex when it comes to actual real procedures as that's based on science. The gender part wouldn't be even relevant in that context as gender loses to sex when the ◊◊◊◊ hits the fan and you need reality based treatment.

Get it through your head that a word is a mere token of something. So if we have a hundred words for the same thing, there can be no problem at all. The thing doesn't change. And if everyone knows that the words mean that very same thing, what's the harm? A "trans man" would have a female gender as well as a female sex, obviously. Separate them, and she can suddenly have a male gender and a female sex, and then you have long, tedious posts in long tedious threads like this one (not to mention all the kids getting hacked to pieces).

FFS, wake the ◊◊◊◊ up.

Still can't help but mix up sex and gender, FFS, wake the ◊◊◊◊ up indeed.

 

[Aber]

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?

UK laws allow sex discrimination when it is a proportionate method of achieving a legitimate aim; such as dignity, privacy and safety in single sex spaces.

Indirect discrimination is a different concept
Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy which applies in the same way for everybody has an effect which particularly disadvantages people with a protected characteristic.

eg Darlington nurses judgment highlights that males and females have different reactions to being forced to be naked in the presence of a member of the opposite sex, and therefore mixed sex spaces are indirect sex discrimination against females, as they are adversely affected compared to males

Alternatively unisex minimum height requirements etc

 

[Emily's Cat]

I said it is considered an offensive term. That doesn't mean I am offended. I don't give a ◊◊◊◊, and find it handy for clearly defining who intentionally wants to be offensive.

You made a much stronger claim than that though. You didn't say "some people consider it offensive" or that "transpeople consider it offensive". What you said was:

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

You made the claim that the term *is* offensie and derogatory, and you didn't leave any wiggle room. You've repeatedly castigated posters in this thread for using the term transgender identifying male/female, and you personally have expressed that it suggests bigotry and hatred.

Why are you backpedaling now? Stand by your principles. Alternatively, stop trying to force other people to use inaccurate and misleading language.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You can do what you like. I'm just making it clear (on the off chance thar someone is genuinely not aware of it) that you are choosing to use derogatory language. That's fine, knock yourself out. Just knock the self righteous halo off your head while you do so.

Once again, give me a reasonable alternative to use. Make a suggestion! Give me an option!

FFS, most of your participation in this discussion has been you taking pot-shots at us, a hairsbreadth away from calling us all evil bigots (although I think you've done that to a few posters at least insinuated). NONE of your participation has been engagement in the topic, suggestions for solutions, or even recognition of the conflict of rights involved. All you ever seem to do is ◊◊◊◊ on other people.

 

[d4m10n]

Alternatively unisex minimum height requirements etc

Like on roller coasters or for flight training? We need to keep those for safety reasons.

Darlington nurses judgment highlights that males and females have different reactions to being forced to be naked in the presence of a member of the opposite sex, and therefore mixed sex spaces are indirect sex discrimination against females, as they are adversely affected compared to males

Couldn't this indirect discrimination logic be used to outlaw opt-in nudist camps or beaches?

Are gender gaps in standardized testing be evidence of unlawful indirect discrimination in educational systems?

Come to think of it, there are measurable gender gaps in so many areas of life that we could extend this logic to outlaw all sorts of things.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It is argued (by some) that you can do exactly that. That's why introducing new terms is unhelpful.

MtF and FtM are probably as clear and neutral terms as we can get, although men/women might be better than male/female. The non-negotiable part is when one side says 'I feel like that particular term is meant to be insulting' and the other says 'yeah ◊◊◊◊ off, we like to be insulting'.

Why do you do this? This is disingenuous and bad faith, Thermal. You know that none of us has even remotely come close to saying "◊◊◊◊ off we like to be insulting". It's especially disingenuous, because you have been called out for using blantantly derogatory slurs and trying to force them into our mouths. Here, you're doing the same thing - you're FALSELY trying to stuff a malicious motivation onto us. It's a strawman, and it's fallacious.

You've been provided the reasoning multiple times. You refuse t offer up any suggestions for alternatives. So just stop already.

 

[d4m10n]

Society should not, IMHO, pander to the idea of gender identity in any shape or form

Does decriminalization of trans-inclusive spaces (e.g. spas or gyms) count as pandering in the sense used here?

Even if we judge it by democratic wishes, we might find that the majority of people do not want to have gender-id clubs, gyms, toilets, etc., in whatever electoral area they participate in.

I've no doubt this would be the case where I live, much doubt that it would be the case in more progressive states like NY & NJ.

My main reason is because of the social contagion that persuades children and young adults to identify out of their sex, with the terrible consequences we've seen

You'd need something like the Great Firewall^WP to stuff all the gender ideology memes back in the tube.

 

[Thermal]

I don't care if it's figurative. I care that you're applying a double standard with regards to intent. And "Oh look! It's figurative!" was in reference to my own statement that "You want to have your cake and eat it too", not in reference to your term. I was mocking you for the pretense that figurative language was a concept that I had trouble with by demonstrating my own use of figurative language.

You are bad at communication.

If it were my communication skills that were bad, you wouldn't need to be clarifying what ambiguous thing you meant.

But you're wrong in either interpretation. The existing terms, transwo/man, have been around for decades. They are about as short as we can make them. Your superfluous rebranding is a little longer and no more clear, but affords you the opportunity to be a bit if a dick about it.

And again, for good communication : they are not my terms, nor do I particularly like them, nor do I prefer them. Is anything left ungood, communication-wise?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Gave you some earlier, that you surprisingly agreed to if a little reluctantly (and I kind of agree with that): MtF and FtM.

Something for you to ponder.

MtF is shorthand for "Male to Female Transitioner".

Do you think this applies to someone who hasn't undergone any medical process to change their body? For example, do you think this applies to Eddie Izzard, who has undergone no surgeries (I don't even think they take estrogen), and who has literally and only identifies as a "woman"? What about Alex Drummond, who has not altered their body in any fashion at all, and who unapologetically rocks a full beard but identifies as a "woman"? Why do you think this should be the preferred term when it's applied to people who have NOT transitioned in any notable way?

Do you think that males actually become females when they undergo cosmetic and pharmaceutical interventions to change their exterior shape? Do you think they actually become females when they begin to identify in their minds as a "woman"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

They are clear, but they are not neutral. They imply that you can change your sex.

You cannot change your sex.

They also imply that the subject has undergone surgical intervention.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, it's figurative. It pretty much has to be, for a shorthand moniker. I don't like the terms, but this weird-ass campaign you guys are on to rebrand seems entirely malicious, and not one of you has said a word to dispel that impression. Keep in mind, there are a couple ways to lobby it constructively that I can see, but you choose... the one you choose. So be it.

Oh no, the horribly malicious intent of making it very, very clear that Eddie is a male of the human species, and has no undergone any surgical intervention, and whose claim to "womanhood" is based solely and exclusively on their subjective, internal, unverifiable feelings about their gendered soul.

Truly evil to highlight reality and not play along with someone's wishes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you want to separate a herd, saying 'females in the west pasture' and 'males in the north pasture' uses less words than what you're adding on to make a point that fails at the first hurdle, then you give that example by swapping in gender labels and saying it as efficiently as I just did.

Gotcha. We'll put all of the mares, all of the hens, all of the nannys, and all of the women and girls in the west pasture then. Sounds like a great solution that can't possibly result in any confusion. And of course, the women and girls couldn't possibly take offense at being forcibly robbed of their humanity.

Also hens and roosters...no one expects eggs from a rooster.

But, but, don't you know that rooster is a gender term, not a sex term? So obviously roosters can totally lay eggs if that's how they identify, right? RIGHT?!?!?!

 

[Emily's Cat]

What if the 'trans man' goes to hospital and someone notes down their gender and their sex and treats them according to their sex when it comes to actual real procedures as that's based on science. The gender part wouldn't be even relevant in that context as gender loses to sex when the ◊◊◊◊ hits the fan and you need reality based treatment.

You know, in reality, we've seen the opposite happen. We've had a couple of cases. I recall one where a well-passing female with a transgender identity went to the hospital complaining of abdominal pain, but identifying as a "man". The hospital, in compliance with that person's wishes, listed them as a "man". As a result of that, they failed to do the same tests they would have done on a female, and they missed the ectopic pregnancy that very nearly killed that "man".

 

[d4m10n]

That's the second time you have falsely said I was taking offense.

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

 

[d4m10n]

Seems to me that if a given term is "non-negotiably offensive," that means someone is taking offense, that the taker-of-offense refuses to even consider whether offense was intended or not, and typically demands that the topic be closed in their favor. This is such a common approach in social justice circles that they have even developed shorthand for it.

 

[p0lka]

Because "male" and "female" in that sentence don't mean sex. I know you think that "male" and "female" must only indicate sex, but this is a counter-example where they do not mean sex. They mean gender identity, which is clearly different than sex.

"Male" and "female" for gender still reference sex indirectly, and if that's all you mean, so the ◊◊◊◊ what? That's irrelevant. They do not mean sex. They are different than sex. Your gender identity under California law in regards to the Department of Corrections doesn't have any connection to your sex.

You don't get it. They aren't going to ask, because under the law, they don't care what your sex is. They aren't mixing sex and gender because sex is irrelevant. They make that explicit:

"(c) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall not deny a search preference pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) or a housing placement pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) based on any discriminatory reason, including, but not limited to, any of the following:​

(1) The anatomy, including, but not limited to, the genitalia or other physical characteristics, of the incarcerated person."​

That there is the only place in this law which deals with sex, and it only comes into it in order to explicitly exclude it as a factor for consideration.

You should read that back and ponder. This is not about winning anything but getting to the correctness of the matter, and you've successfully argued yourself up your own arsehole.

 

[p0lka]

You know, in reality, we've seen the opposite happen. We've had a couple of cases. I recall one where a well-passing female with a transgender identity went to the hospital complaining of abdominal pain, but identifying as a "man". The hospital, in compliance with that person's wishes, listed them as a "man". As a result of that, they failed to do the same tests they would have done on a female, and they missed the ectopic pregnancy that very nearly killed that "man".

yup just another example of mixing up gender and sex and the problems it causes.

 

[Thermal]

Try it with a term you might be more familiar with the ab/use of: the n-word.

Can we stretch the limits of human understanding and acknowledge the term is non-negotiably offensive, even if it is used jocularly among those it is directed at? Doubly so if the group using it is in flat opposition to the group it is aimed at?

 

[Thermal]

Something for you to ponder.

MtF is shorthand for "Male to Female Transitioner".

Do you think this applies to someone who hasn't undergone any medical process to change their body?

No, I don't think it is limited to anyone in particular beyond their gender selfID. Some transition, some don't, some for financial reasons, some for others. I don't seek to be a dick to any of them.

For example...

No, I dont care about a one size fits all name that can't even theoretically encompass everyone's conceivable gender ID out there.

Do you think that males actually become females when they undergo cosmetic and pharmaceutical interventions to change their exterior shape? Do you think they actually become females when they begin to identify in their minds as a "woman"?

I've answered this question multiple times. Please stop trolling. It's been a solid half a year for you.