Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

Places which hold themselves out to the public as inclusive of trans folks (e.g. www.SolcanaFitness.com) and which have adopted gender identity sorting of their own volition rather than being forced to do so by law. My contention is that it would be unduly authoritarian to legally ban these gyms or else force them to convert themselves into the sort of sex-segregated spaces which I happen to prefer for myself and my family (e.g. YMCA).

I get where you're coming from... but I'm not sure I agree. I could get behind letting privately owned businesses choose to have either sex-separated facilities or have mixed-sex facilities - clearly marked as such.

I'm not sold on having them separated by gender identity, because it's a bit of a bait-and-switch. Especially because despite increased education over the past decade, a whole lot of people still think that "transwomen" are females who present as if they were males.

Clarity in labels:
Women's (by which we mean female humans) and Men's (by which we mean male humans)
Mixed sex (both males and females all in one)
Lack of clarity:
Trans Inclusive Women's (by which we mean female humans having a false sense of security because any male who wants to go in and see the naked females is totally allowed to do so as long as they say the password first) and Trans Inclusive Men's (by which we mean male humans having a false sense of security because any female who wants to go in and see the naked males is totally allowed to do so as long as they say the password first)

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Can't we use slurs if they are not here?" is not the persuasive argument you might think.

Your rejoinder isn't an argument at all. It's just another case of you trying to pull on emotional strings while you demand that the term be viewed as inarguably offensive by a group of people who will ONLY accept terms that implicitly accept their false premise.

 

[Rolfe]

For cattle, for example, we frequently use "cows" to mean both cows (mature female bovines) and bulls (mature intact male bovines) and steers (mature castrated male bovines) and calves (immature bovines of either sex).

Americans are weird and do my head in. "Cow" is very specifically an adult bovine female. Try running a veterinary practice with your definition. ("Bovine" is an adjective for crying out loud.) A calf is not a cow. A bull is not a cow. For crying out loud.

When referring to individual animals it's simple to use the correct term for that individual's age and sex. For the plural, "cattle" does excellent service. That is, if you have something against the actual generic word for bovine animals, ox (sing)/oxen (plural).

 

[Rolfe]

Apologies for forgetting the handful of outliers who don't spend much time talking about religion, then

I seem to remember reporting that the church I belong to is thoroughly captured in the higher echelons, and that our previous minister got a lot of people's backs up by preaching an emotional sermon calling for a particular trans-identifying man to be incarcerated in a women's prison.

Religion isn't a relevant issue in this debate.

 

[John Freestone]

Places which hold themselves out to the public as inclusive of trans folks (e.g. www.SolcanaFitness.com) and which have adopted gender identity sorting of their own volition rather than being forced to do so by law. My contention is that it would be unduly authoritarian to legally ban these gyms or else force them to convert themselves into the sort of sex-segregated spaces which I happen to prefer for myself and my family (e.g. YMCA).

Yeah, I think I agree it might be rather authoritarian to ban those. I think I suggested I was a bit conflicted on this point, and it's not something I've thought about much. And the more I think about it, the more I think you're right (although possibly for different reasons). My dawning reason is that it is likely to entrench the contingent of each of those "sorted" groups with mental issues rather than ameliorate the problem. It might be better to work from other angles - as is happening, of course - towards the fizzling out of the gender cult.

Alternatively, we could try to collectively get past the idea that everyone has to adopt the same approach on moral grounds.

Again, I just think your emphasis on freedom is overblown. We don't try to get past the idea that everyone has to adopt the correct side of the road to drive on. Sometimes we make laws, sometimes we take other measures, like discouraging certain activities or false beliefs, and sometimes we do that because the things we try to counter are not conducive to general human flourishing.

I mean, you could make exactly the same point you've just made about self-harm or anorexia - why shouldn't some people cut themselves (human societies have been doing it forever, apparently), or starve themselves (ditto). What kinds of actions we take, agreements we make as societies, laws we pass, etc., will differ depending on the circumstances. We might not make anorexia illegal and punish it with fines and prison sentences, partly because that's counter-productive, and partly because we recognise that those people are often suffering and need support and care. But we might shut down the pro-anorexia sites, that encourage sufferers in their dangerous escapades.

So where do I place a gym that panders to gender identity disorder, encouraging society as a whole in the belief that we can choose what sex we are, or that it's good to pretend to be the opposite sex, or that people who identify out of their sex are healthy in the head? As I say, I'm conflicted, but not in the 'Helpful' pile.

When some new celebrity (usually a 'comedian') pops up on a pannel show and announces they're "trans", I want them to ◊◊◊◊ right off and stop advertising their insanity (which of course everyone pretends is perfectly normal even if they don't celebrate it), but it's not transphobia, as far as I can tell. That's an irrational fear. I have very rational reasons for wanting them to ◊◊◊◊ right off. They're not sane, and they're not good for the general flourishing of humanity. They indoctrinate children by just being there. This is how social contagion works. If someone came on and said, "I like to cut myself when I'm down, look," and everyone nodded and went on with the show, I'd have a similar problem with it. Except of course if they said that it would obviously be part of their comedy act and we'd all laugh. Someone announcing they're the opposite sex ought to be hilarious.

 

[John Freestone]

Religion isn't a relevant issue in this debate.

Well not that one anyway.

 

[smartcooky]

Religion isn't a relevant issue in this debate.

Correct, which is amusing to say the least given that many people who consider "transwomen" to be actual women for realsies, think that everyone who opposes them must be a bigoted, tranny-bashing far-right wing religious zealot

 

[Aber]

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

No. The safety reasons are mostly a side-effect of the world being designed for men. See:

https://carolinecriadoperez.com/book/invisible-women/

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.

Agreed; which is why UK law uses a proportionate method of achieving a legitimate aim as a benchmark.

 

[Thermal]

Your rejoinder isn't an argument at all. It's just another case of you trying to pull on emotional strings while you demand that the term be viewed as inarguably offensive by a group of people who will ONLY accept terms that implicitly accept their false premise.

There is no such false premise that isn't also inherent in your terminology. There just isn't a neat, clear way to say what it is without being ambiguous. "Biological male with the transgender identity of a woman" is awkward, but at least is clear. The shorter versions all have room for misinterpretation.

Transpeople are dealing with an identity issue that often rises to dysphoria and clinical distress. It's just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mean to rub that in their faces by insisting on your terminology. You know damn right well that they are having a rough time of it in the best of cases. That's why it rises to being inarguably offensive. It's your declared intent to be sadistic in order to make your point, not suggest a neutral and dispassionate clinical description.

 

[p0lka]

You are under some serious misunderstanding of the reality of what's going on. You think that your definitions control reality, and that other people will operate according to your understanding of those words.

The world has never worked that way. Pull your own head out of your own arsehole.

I asked you to post an example of gender being separated from sex in the link you posted then you posted this

"During the initial intake and classification process, and in a private setting, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall ask each individual entering into the custody of the department to specify all of the following:
(1) The individual’s gender identity of female, male, or nonbinary."

Gender identity, not sex. You cannot self declare your sex. You can self declare your gender identity. Your gender identity doesn't need to match your sex. They are therefore completely separate things.

Look at it, it literally mixes gender and sex in the same sentence? then you replied

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.

Re: the highlighted red Wow, that's a pure example of mixing up gender and sex.

Now you're arguing that gender = male/female/nonbinary and doesn't refer to sex but gender?

What you are saying is circular nonsense which is why I said you had argued yourself up your own arse, I wasn't telling you to stick your head up your arse, I was suggesting for you not to be circular.

 

[Thermal]

Americans are weird and do my head in. "Cow" is very specifically an adult bovine female. Try running a veterinary practice with your definition.

That's exactly the point: the overwhelming majority of the population aren't running a veterinary practice or cattle ranch, or any of the other niche occupations and past times where the distinction makes the slightest difference. It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ moo cow, and further specification means nothing to the overwhelming majority.

 

[p0lka]

I know what the context is. You replied that you would ask (first) what prison inmates' gender is, then what their sex is. I'm not sure much more context is required, is it? If you just mean you made a mistake and of course you wouldn't ask them what their gender is, because it's utterly irrelevant, then say so. If there's some reason you think we should ask them what their gender is, tell me what it is. It's not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ rocket science.

If you know the context then you know it was an example of how you would ask questions to separate sex from gender If you wished to do so. The question order is unimportant. I didn't say anyone had to ask those questions, just that if you did want to separate sex from gender that's the simple way to do so.
I thought you knew the context? C'mon it's not rocket science.

 

[p0lka]

Correct, which is amusing to say the least given that many people who consider "transwomen" to be actual women for realsies, think that everyone who opposes them must be a bigoted, tranny-bashing far-right wing religious zealot

The indoctrination is deep with religion, it's even deeper with gender and sex roles in my opinion. But at least the gender bollocks is rational, religion is just off it's head reality wise. But yeah religion is a different thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

Look at it, it literally mixes gender and sex in the same sentence?

No, it doesn't. That's what you don't get, because you cannot conceptualize that people would do what they did. You cannot conceptualize that someone would say "male" or "female" and mean gender and not sex, because you seem to think these terms are sacred and inviolable. But they aren't. The TRAs will absolutely twist these terms to their purposes.

And in the case of this California law, "male" and "female" DO mean gender and not sex. That's not them mixing up gender and sex. That's them substituting gender for sex. And it's an example of why mere relabelling will accomplish nothing. This is an example IN LAW where "male" and "female" mean gender and not sex. The thing you insisted wouldn't happen, already happened.

You STILL refuse to understand the situation. You still think it's about words, and not goals. But it has never been about words, it has always been about goals. What's the goal of this law, p0lka?

Now you're arguing that gender = male/female/nonbinary and doesn't refer to sex but gender?

In this case, it absolutely refers to gender and not sex. Not only are those categories explicitly labelled as gender and not sex, the law explicitly divests them from anatomy. Furthermore, just consider the logic of the law: you get to declare whether you're male or female or nonbinary. That only makes sense in relation to gender and not to sex.

What you are saying is circular nonsense

California's law might be circular nonsense, but my description of it isn't.

What's the goal of this law, p0lka?

 

[p0lka]

No, it doesn't. That's what you don't get, because you cannot conceptualize that people would do what they did. You cannot conceptualize that someone would say "male" or "female" and mean gender and not sex, because you seem to think these terms are sacred and inviolable. But they aren't. The TRAs will absolutely twist these terms to their purposes.

And in the case of this California law, "male" and "female" DO mean gender and not sex. That's not them mixing up gender and sex. That's them substituting gender for sex. And it's an example of why mere relabelling will accomplish nothing. This is an example IN LAW where "male" and "female" mean gender and not sex. The thing you insisted wouldn't happen, already happened.

You STILL refuse to understand the situation. You still think it's about words, and not goals. But it has never been about words, it has always been about goals. What's the goal of this law, p0lka?

In this case, it absolutely refers to gender and not sex. Not only are those categories explicitly labelled as gender and not sex, the law explicitly divests them from anatomy. Furthermore, just consider the logic of the law: you get to declare whether you're male or female or nonbinary. That only makes sense in relation to gender and not to sex.

California's law might be circular nonsense, but my description of it isn't.

What's the goal of this law, p0lka?

Male and female refers to sex, factually scientifically, if someone wants to use male and female to refer to gender then they are mixing up sex and gender.

The mere instance of replacing a sex term with a gender term is mixing up sex and gender, so if California is doing that then they're mixing up sex and gender.

If you are replacing sex terms with gender terms then you too are mixing up sex and gender.

I don't care what any goal of any law is in this context, I want you to recognize your blind spot metaphorically. Indoctrination's a female dog .

 

[Ziggurat]

Male and female refers to sex, factually scientifically

Says who? California lawmakers apparently disagree.

Like I said, you can pretend that your definitions are inviolable, but they aren't. If "man" and "woman" can be redefined as gender labels, what makes you think that "male" and "female" can't be? I just showed you an example where they are.

, if someone wants to use male and female to refer to gender then they are mixing up sex and gender.

No, they aren't. They are redefining words. You can complain about that if you want to, but your complaints don't matter.

I don't care what any goal of any law is in this context

You should. Because again, this conflict is about goals, not words.

You have never engaged in the issue of goals. At every opportunity, you avoid talking about goals.

I want you to recognize your blind spot metaphorically.

No you don't. You want to pretend this conflict is about something other than what it's really about, and you want everyone else to play along with your fantasy.

What's the goal of this law, p0lka?

 

[Thermal]

Because again, this conflict is about goals, not words.

You have never engaged in the issue of goals. At every opportunity, you avoid talking about goals.

The goal is to protect the rights of transpeople. Treat them like regular first class citizens and all that?

 

[Ziggurat]

The goal is to protect the rights of transpeople.

This begs the question (in the correct sense of the phrase) both of who is trans and what their rights are.

Stated more plainly and without your obfuscation, the goal is to allow male prisoners to be placed in women's prisons.

 

[Thermal]

This begs the question (in the correct sense of the phrase) both of who is trans and what their rights are.

Stated more plainly and without your obfuscation, the goal is to allow male prisoners to be placed in women's prisons.

If that were true, there would be no women's or men's prisons, just Open Division,and the law would say as much explicitly.

 

[Ziggurat]

If that were true, there would be no women's or men's prisons

No, that doesn't actually follow.

, just Open Division,and the law would say as much explicitly.

Did you read the law? Because it DOES explicitly say that a prisoner who wants to be housed in a women's prison gets to be housed in a women's prison. All they need to do is say that they're trans or non-binary.