Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[John Freestone]

...at least the gender bollocks is rational, religion is just off it's head reality wise.

Relatively real, rational gender bollocks.

 

[theprestige]

Thermal: "Nobody's saying men should be allowed to override sex segregation whenever they want, just by saying they want to."

The Law: "Men should be allowed to override sex segregation whenever they want, just by saying they want to."

 

[Thermal]

No, that doesn't actually follow.

It does, if the goal was what you claimed. But that's not the goal.

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.

No, there may be an issue with adequately defining who is trans or non-binary (and agreed, there is), but the housing is not offered to anyone who "wants to and says words". The housing is to protect people who profess certain identities. The loophole gained by lying is a seperate matter, although one that should be closed via assessment for veracity, as NJ does.

Eta: the law cites a Cali study than indicates transgender prisoners were sexually assaulted at a rate 13x higher than cis prisoners. That's who they are trying to protect.

MoETA: the law also specifies that the correctional facility can DENY the housing of the inmates preference upon their review. Kinda blows a hole in the magic words posit, dunnit?

 

[Thermal]

Thermal: "Nobody's saying men should be allowed to override sex segregation whenever they want, just by saying they want to."

Thermal does not say that.

The Law: "Men should be allowed to override sex segregation whenever they want, just by saying they want to."

The Law does not say that.

 

[Ziggurat]

It does, if the goal was what you claimed. But that's not the goal.

Since that's what the bill actually and explicitly does, I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

No, there may be an issue with adequately defining who is trans or non-binary (and agreed, there is)

There isn't "an issue with adequately defining who is trans or non-binary". The bill works as intended. It's intended to be self-ID. That's not an accident.

but the housing is not offered to anyone who "wants to and says words".

It absolutely is. It says so right in the bill.

The housing is to protect people who profess certain identities.

Now you're arguing for why it's justified to allow males to be put in women's prisons. But that's still a why, not a what.

The loophole gained by lying is a seperate matter

There is no such thing as lying with respect to SB 132. Your gender identity is whatever you say it is. What you say it is defines your gender identity.

, although one that should be closed via assessment for veracity, as NJ does.

There is no such thing as checking for veracity when it comes to self-ID. This wasn't an accident, this wasn't a loophole. This is the stated policy goal of the TRA's. And in California, they achieved it.

Eta: the law cites a Cali study than indicates transgender prisoners were sexually assaulted at a rate 13x higher than cis prisoners. That's who they are trying to protect.

Again, you're arguing the why, not the what.

MoETA: the law also specifies that the correctional facility can DENY the housing of the inmates preference upon their review. Kinda blows a hole in the magic words posit, dunnit?

Can they? On what grounds? They cannot do so on the grounds of the person's sex. They cannot do so on the grounds of the person's self-declared gender identity. They cannot do so because the person is not "authentically" trans. They might be able to if the person has a history of sex crimes (although we've seen that not happen as well), but that doesn't mean that a male without such a history can't say the magic words and get his preferred placement.

 

[p0lka]

Relatively real, rational gender bollocks.

Sorry, I was using slang, I'll rephrase.... religion is indoctrination and the social gender stuff is even deeper indoctrination, but the social gender stuff is at least rational, whereas religion is completely irrational.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I get it, but it's not exactly unusual to refer to an aggregate using the term for one sex or the other. A field full of cattle in the US is often met with a childlike "Oooh, look at all the cows!" even if some of them are bulls or steers . Not technically correct, totally get where you're coming from, but common.

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).

Nobody in the US uses oxen to refer to cattle. Up until I was in my 30s, I assumed an ox was an entirely different animal, more closely akin to a musk ox.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

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

No kidding. If I ever get into a serious head-on collision, the seat belt is likely to snap my neck. I'm short for a female, thus far shorter than the design for seat belts. It crosses my neck on the left side, and exits stage right above my breasts. So yeah - it'll keep me from flying through the windshield, but it's not gonna be great for me.

Most chairs are designed to be comfortable for the average male height... which means my heels don't reach the ground. I end up with a backache and migraine if I sit in one too long. Trying to do dishes at normal counter height means I am trying to bend in the upper thoracic region rather than the upper lumbar, and that hurts after a relatively short period of time. I can't clean a tub without climbing into it, because I can't reach all the way across. Most of the power tools in the house are too big for my hands to reach around. Even RC truck controllers end up requiring me to hold them awkwardly because the grip is just too wide for me to reach the trigger.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

How the hell is that materially different than "male with a transgender identity" or the even shorter "transgender-identifying male"?

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.

That's an outright false statement by you. In other words, you're a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lying liar, Thermal. For someone who spends so much time calling other people liars, I'd think you'd take pains to avoid doing so yourself.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Which rights do we need to protect?

The right to fair consideration in housing, employment, and law - I'm with you 100%.
The right of males to enter female spaces where females are partially or completely nude or particularly vulnerable? Not so much.
The right of males to compete on female sports so that they feel affirmed in their subjective identity, regardless of the impact it has on females? Nope.

Which rights are important to you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

There ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ already is! Or have you missed all the many cases of males who discover their true transgender souls once they've been arrested, proceed to coerce the entire justice system to honor their preferred pronouns including forcing their rape victims to refer to them as "she", and get placed in female prisons?

FFS, there are several prisons in the US right now that have explicit policies to place prisoners in accordance with whatever the prisoner claims their gender identity to be!

 

[Emily's Cat]

It does, if the goal was what you claimed. But that's not the goal.

No, there may be an issue with adequately defining who is trans or non-binary (and agreed, there is), but the housing is not offered to anyone who "wants to and says words". The housing is to protect people who profess certain identities. The loophole gained by lying is a seperate matter, although one that should be closed via assessment for veracity, as NJ does.

Eta: the law cites a Cali study than indicates transgender prisoners were sexually assaulted at a rate 13x higher than cis prisoners. That's who they are trying to protect.

MoETA: the law also specifies that the correctional facility can DENY the housing of the inmates preference upon their review. Kinda blows a hole in the magic words posit, dunnit?

Hey lookitthat... Males need to be protected from other males by subjecting females to increased risk! Sounds like a fantastic plan for males. Sounds like nobody gives a flying crap about females.

 

[d4m10n]

You keep treating this as if male access to female spaces is just some preference, and all preferences are equivalent.

Those of us with male privilege will find that sometimes we have to yield to feminine demands. If you want to take female preferences on board then you may want to consider that the gender gap in voting indicates they are the sex which did the most to put these reforms through.

The safety reasons are mostly a side-effect of the world being designed for men.

Until the world is redesigned to fit women and children, we're still going to need those minimum height requirements.

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

Declaring that something is incontrovertibly a slur is not the argument you might think.

Here is the question you skipped over: Considered by whom?

(I ask because maybe they made an argument in lieu of a declaration.)

In order to demonstrate that some given phrase is a slur, typically what we do is show that it is typically (or at least often) used in a hateful way.

 

[Ziggurat]

Those of us with male privilege will find that sometimes we have to yield to feminine demands. If you want to take female preferences on board

I don't want to take female preferences on board, nor do I want to take male preferences on boards. I want to consider the safety and dignity of females, which isn't the same thing.

then you may want to consider that the gender gap in voting indicates they are the sex which did the most to put these reforms through.

I don't interpret the popularity of TRA positions among women the same way you do. I see it as part and parcel of the left wing radicalization of young women. Just like the Gays for Palestine, or the communist revolutionaries who were immediately lined up against a wall after the revolution was won, they don't understand what they are doing and what their victory would mean.

We have failed a generation of women who have been miseducated into a deep, deep misunderstanding of how the world actually works.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't interpret the popularity of TRA positions among women the same way you do.

I don't need to interpret it in order to respect it. If women generally want to allow males in their spaces, I'm not going to tell them that they need my approval in order to protect their dignity.

We have failed a generation of women who have been miseducated into a deep, deep misunderstanding of how the world actually works.

We?

 

[Emily's Cat]

If women generally want to allow males in their spaces, I'm not going to tell them that they need my approval in order to protect their dignity.

Women generally DON'T want to allow males in our spaces.

Please stop this disingenuous framing. More females support it than males support it, but that does NOT mean that more females support it than females oppose it. Additionally, the last time the view among females could reasonably be considered generally supportive was a decade ago... and views have shifted massively since then.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't need to interpret it in order to respect it. If women generally want to allow males in their spaces, I'm not going to tell them that they need my approval in order to protect their dignity.

But you are going to tell the women who don't want men in their space that they have to put up with it because they got outvoted, apparently. Not sure there's actually a lot of respect involved here.

We?

The figurative we, as in society at large. Not you and me personally. Was that not obvious?

 

[d4m10n]

But you are going to tell the women who don't want men in their space that they have to put up with it because they got outvoted, apparently.

Unlike most social justice activists (and not a few gendercrits) I'm not arguing that the voters should decide this issue for everyone. If it were up to me, women could keep their own spaces and those who would prefer to attend trans-inclusive spaces would have that option as well. There would be female-only gyms and festivals, and also places which pitch themselves to the entire LGBTQ+ menagerie.

Women generally DON'T want to allow males in our spaces.

Can post a recent poll in support of this claim? I don't find capitalization persuasive. I've no doubt that your claim is true in some places and times, but I'm deeply skeptical whether it is true in major urban centers where people are building new gyms and spas and whatnot.

Please stop this disingenuous framing.

Please stop making claims without being willing to post at least some evidence.

...views have shifted massively since then.

Outside of the UK? I doubt it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unlike most social justice activists (and not a few gendercrits) I'm not arguing that the voters should decide this issue for everyone.

Then why do you keep appealing to what voters think?

 

[Rolfe]

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.

Like I said, Americans are weird.