Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Aber]

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

So what are you doing to oppose indirect sex discrimination, now that we've agreed what it is?

 

[smartcooky]

Because trans identifying females don't pull the sort of ◊◊◊◊ that trans identifying males pull.

This discrepancy should also give you a hint that this isn't actually being driven by animus towards trans people. But it doesn't.

The discrepancy also has some obvious roots that he remains entirely oblivious to..

1. Males don't generally require privacy in the men's room... evidence urinals - you don't see benches where a row of women can all sit down side-by-side to pee in full view of each other in the ladies' loo!!

2. Men are unlikely to suffer a biological emergency involving blood and a cleanup job.

3. transgender identifying females are female. There isn't anywhere near the history of female-on-male violence that there is male-on-female violence.

But since he doesn't give a rat's arse about the welfare of women, why should any of this even occur to him?

 

[John Freestone]

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.

This is what I haven't understood yet and need educating on: how is the 'gender stuff' (AKA 'gender bollocks') 'rational'? Maybe it would help if we return to my earlier question, How do you define 'gender' (with or without referring to sex)?

Let me try to help meet you somewhere on this. If by 'gender' you mean males and females choosing to adopt behaviours, dress, names, etc., independent of their sex (usually called 'gender expression') and both sexes feeling free to be 'gender non-conforming' ('feminine' males or 'masculine' females), then I agree completely. This view also fits with your wish for gender and sex to be separate and those words to mean separate things.

My only reservation in agreeing entirely is in that I see a danger in using 'gender' as a personal attribute that people claim as theirs. Again, I feel this should conform to some of your statements about it being bollocks, actually irrelevant (not asking prisoners about it), and wanting it to go away (iirc).

On the other hand, what I can't understand is anyone at the same time saying males can be 'women'. That seems to be a case of identifying the male's choice of gender - that 'woman' and 'man' are gender labels - and to me seems one of the best ways of helping people do the thing you don't want, conflate sex and gender, because unlike you the vast majority of humanity don't consider 'woman' to be a choice of gender expression, it's not the definition in dictionaries (that haven't recently been cry-bullied by a militant minority into switching it), and the correct biological definition has always been 'an adult human female'.

You are colluding with the language of the gender ideologues while you want gender to go away.

 

[John Freestone]

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.

Hell, that's awful. Not to undermine the political point, with which I agree, please do look into possible fixes for some of these, particularly the seatbelt, for your health and safety. It's wrong that you should need to, but maybe a cushion on the car seat and/or a bracket that fits on the upper mounting point of the seatbelt to lower it.

As a short man, 5'6", I also find the dishes do my back in, and you've made me wonder if a low step of some kind might help.

 

[John Freestone]

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

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.

Oh ◊◊◊◊, I forgot to make that explicit already! I declare it is my intent to be sadistic in order to make my point. There, I'm all caught up.

 

[John Freestone]

The loophole gained by lying is a seperate matter, although one that should be closed via assessment for veracity, as NJ does.

Interesting. How do they do that, with a lie detector or a multitasking test? Maybe ask them to parallel park a truck?

 

[p0lka]

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.... (snipped) ...

Yeah I agree. I think we all have to accept what society is doing and make labels accordingly.

 

[Thermal]

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

By the recipients, and pretty much anyone who reads it who does not seek to torment trans people.

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

You could consult the online definition I provided earlier, or any trans discussion where the term is considered. Multiple Reddit threads have quite a bit to say on how rubbing "male" in the face of a transwoman who is very likely struggling with their gender identity is just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mean-spirited. Do we have to run a class here in how we don't repeatedly address people as crippled or deformed or fat, no matter how "scientifically accurate" you might claim you're being?

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.

Ok. I'll ask you the same question I posed to Ziggurat that went unanswered: do you generally call black people you dont know 'negros'? Do you request documentation or statistics on whether the term is considered intentionally offensive in casual speech, or perhaps do you get it without needing sources cited?

 

[Thermal]

Interesting. How do they do that, with a lie detector or a multitasking test? Maybe ask them to parallel park a truck?

Don't be silly. You tell the inmate to report to their new cell. Then you note if they go while refusing to ask for directions, or if they say they are not good at spatial relations.

 

[Ziggurat]

By the recipients,

They aren't recipients, they are referents. More importantly, I'm not convinced all of them find it offensive, though. Nor do I find that determinative of whether or not I should consider it offensive.

and pretty much anyone who reads it who does not seek to torment trans people.

That's some nice well poisoning you've got there. I don't seek to torment trans people, and I don't consider it offensive.

You could consult the online definition I provided earlier, or any trans discussion where the term is considered. Multiple Reddit threads have quite a bit to say on how rubbing "male" in the face of a transwoman who is very likely struggling with their gender identity is just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mean-spirited.

First off, I note your little goalpost move of "rubbing in the face" rather than just referring to them as male. I don't generally rub any label in anyone's face, even their preferred one. Second, if they're offended by the reality that they are male, that's not my fault and it's not my problem. If they know they are male, why should reality offend them? If they don't know they are male, if they actually think that transitioning has changed their sex, catering to that delusion isn't actually kindness.

Ok. I'll ask you the same question I posed to Ziggurat that went unanswered: do you generally call black people you dont know 'negros'?

Both the NAACP and the UNCF use "negro" and "colored" terms, and people don't seem to mind. Are they racist? I don't use those terms, but whether or not they're offensive is a bit more nuanced than you are suggesting. And that's even leaving aside whether or not these are actually equivalent to "trans identifying male". Which I don't think they are.

 

[Thermal]

I don't seek to torment trans people, and I don't consider it offensive.

What can I tell you. Empathy appears not to be your strong suit.

First off, I note your little goalpost move of "rubbing in the face" rather than just referring to them as male.

There's no difference. Referring to someone as male, who is clearly struggling with their gender identity versus their sex, is just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mean.

if they're offended by the reality that they are male, that's not my fault and it's not my problem. If they know they are male, why should reality offend them?

Is this a joke? Do you genuinely not understand the whole issue of struggling with an inconsistent identity?

If they don't know they are male, if they actually think that transitioning has changed their sex, catering to that delusion isn't actually kindness.

Jesus man, it's not a 'delusion'. They know they cannot literally change their sex, and whatever they do is just to have their body not be so incongruous with their inner workings. A transwoman knows they cannot get pregnant. Continually referring to this as a delusion is equally mean spirited. They are not under a delusion, or they wouldn't call themselves trans-anything.

Both the NAACP and the UNCF use "negro" and "colored" terms, and people don't seem to mind. Are they racist?

Can't believe you actually tried the UNCF. They were founded and named in 1944, when the word had little negative association. But according to their Wiki page, "In 2008, reflecting shifting attitudes toward the word Negro in its name, the UNCF shifted from using its full name to using only its initials, releasing a new logo with the initials alone and featuring their slogan more prominently."

UNCF - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't use those terms

Probably because you like your teeth where they are, yes.

but whether or not they're offensive is a bit more nuanced than you are suggesting.

Of course it is, but the point is clear enough.

And that's even leaving aside whether or not these are actually equivalent to "trans identifying male". Which I don't think they are.

Of course you don't. You'd be acknowledging something pretty unflattering if you did. In any comparison, you don't need perfect 1:1 correlations in each and every detail to see the similarities, though, and you know that.

 

[Matthew Best]

A 'Skeptic' on Finding the Truth | The Brian Lehrer Show | WNYC

Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, offers advice for evaluating information and sources and argues that getting to the truth is still possible.

www.wnyc.org

Michael Shermer appeared on this short radio phone-in show. The host, and some of the callers, found what he said about the trans issue to be rather upsetting.

 

[Ziggurat]

What can I tell you. Empathy appears not to be your strong suit.

More personal attacks. I thought you said you didn't like those.

There's no difference. Referring to someone as male, who is clearly struggling with their gender identity versus their sex, is just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mean.

Why is it mean to tell the truth? You still haven't articulated a reason behind this.

Is this a joke? Do you genuinely not understand the whole issue of struggling with an inconsistent identity?

Isn't gender supposed to be different than sex? Are they struggling with their sex, or their gender?

Jesus man, it's not a 'delusion'.

It's a delusion if they think they changed their sex, that they're no longer male. I addressed this as one possibility in order to cover all the bases, not because I think any significant proportion of trans people are delusional. I explicitly addressed the case of them not being delusional, somehow you didn't touch upon that. Why?

Can't believe you actually tried the UNCF. They were founded and named in 1944, when the word had little negative association.

There we have it: the reason that the word isn't equivalent to "trans identifying male". The problems with it are tied to its long history, a history that "trans identifying male" doesn't have.

Do you actually understand why it's problematic now when it wasn't back then? Because I don't think you do.

Probably because you like your teeth where they are, yes.

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't use "trans identifying male" because I might be physically assaulted by a trans identifying male? That wouldn't be very feminine of them.

And once again, you seem to have a rather unhealthy relationship with violence.

 

[Thermal]

More personal attacks. I thought you said you didn't like those.

It's not an attack at all. It's a neutral observation. You know, like calling a transwoman wrestling with their identity a male. I thought you said you liked that.

Why is it mean to tell the truth? You still haven't articulated a reason behind this.

I have, and repeatedly.

Isn't gender supposed to be different than sex? Are they struggling with their sex, or their gender?

Both, and the incongruity between them. Why do we have to keep repeating this? For you and I, they are the same thing. For them, they are not. This ain't Riddle of the Sphinx territory, bub.

It's a delusion if they think they changed their sex, that they're no longer male.

Such people basically don't exist.

I addressed this as one possibility in order to cover all the bases, not because I think any significant proportion of trans people are delusional. I explicitly addressed the case of them not being delusional, somehow you didn't touch upon that. Why?

I did, and have done so many other times at length.

There we have it: the reason that the word isn't equivalent to "trans identifying male". The problems with it are tied to its long history, a history that "trans identifying male" doesn't have.

We are not looking for equivalency. We were demonstrating how you can understand that a word can become tainted without seeking data to support it, and you do so effortlessly every day, with no feigned befuddlement.

Do you actually understand why it's problematic now when it wasn't back then? Because I don't think you do.

I do. I also understand that you are tapdancing around the point.

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't use "trans identifying male" because I might be physically assaulted by a trans identifying male? That wouldn't be very feminine of them.

And once again, you seem to have a rather unhealthy relationship with violence.

Guess we can add "intentionally feigning befuddlement about common figures of speech" to the ever growing list of neutral observations.

 

[Louden Wilde]

A 'Skeptic' on Finding the Truth | The Brian Lehrer Show | WNYC

Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, offers advice for evaluating information and sources and argues that getting to the truth is still possible.

www.wnyc.org

Michael Shermer appeared on this short radio phone-in show. The host, and some of the callers, found what he said about the trans issue to be rather upsetting.

Shermer did OK, but could have responded better to the what about "intersex" people tactic. That is, he should have pointed out female and male are functional definitions. It was a reminder that there are good chunks of the left-leaning population that are myopic in regard to this topic. I wish Shermer had more explicitly pointed that there is no objective assay to determine who is "true trans" and I suspect we will never have one (nor will one be advocated for by trans-activists).

 

[theprestige]

Shermer did OK, but could have responded better to the what about "intersex" people tactic. That is, he should have pointed out female and male are functional definitions. It was a reminder that there are good chunks of the left-leaning population that are myopic in regard to this topic. I wish Shermer had more explicitly pointed that there is no objective assay to determine who is "true trans" and I suspect we will never have one (nor will one be advocated for by trans-activists).

I really wish more people would respond to the "what about 'intersex'" tactic by pointing out that the policy debate would be very different if it were actually about finding the right accommodations for "intersex" people. It's a total red herring, and Shermer should have dismissed it outright.

 

[Louden Wilde]

It's not an attack at all. It's a neutral observation. You know, like calling a transwoman wrestling with their identity a male. I thought you said you liked that.



Such people basically don't exist.

Such people (who claim they have changed sex & vehemently object to being termed male) do exist - in what numbers we don't know, but they've made their voices heard loudly on social media. Whether it's lying, delusion, wish fulfillment fantasy or combinations of these, we don't know ( I suspect the latter is the most common). That being said, it is clear that the trans-movement has worked hard at weakening the concept of sex and its status as binary (again see this essay and the links therein). If you think sex is a spectrum and based on many characteristics, the (faulty) logic is that you can move along that spectrum via hormones, surgery. Sadly, we have dysphoric/autistic/troubled kids who believe this.

 

[Thermal]

Such people (who claim they have changed sex & vehemently object to being termed male) do exist - in what numbers we don't know, but they've made their voices heard loudly on social media. Whether it's lying, delusion, wish fulfillment fantasy or combinations of these, we don't know ( I suspect the latter is the most common)

Very much agreed. I think they know it is not and cannot be so, but like I've said, I think they desperately want to feel right in their own skins. It's a position I am very sympathetic towards, and maybe I'm being overly abrasive in this thread because of it.

That being said, it is clear that the trans-movement has worked hard at weakening the concept of sex and its status as binary (again see this essay and the links therein). If you think sex is a spectrum and based on many characteristics, the (faulty) logic is that you can move along that spectrum via hormones, surgery. Sadly, we have dysphoric/autistic/troubled kids who believe this.

I hear this, which is why I think we should lean towards compassionate discussion rather than debate. But maybe it's too hot button an issue? I dunno.

 

[Louden Wilde]

I really wish more people would respond to the "what about 'intersex'" tactic by pointing out that the policy debate would be very different if it were actually about finding the right accommodations for "intersex" people. It's a total red herring, and Shermer should have dismissed it outright.

Fair. I think they - and Lehrer in this case - are insinuating that being trans is form of "intersex". I occasionally have seen that argument explicitly made (e.g. female brain in a male body), but I suspect most on the pro-trans/TRA side realize it's best left as suggestive.

 

[Myriad]

You could consult the online definition I provided earlier, or any trans discussion where the term is considered. Multiple Reddit threads have quite a bit to say on how rubbing "male" in the face of a transwoman who is very likely struggling with their gender identity is just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mean-spirited. Do we have to run a class here in how we don't repeatedly address people as crippled or deformed or fat, no matter how "scientifically accurate" you might claim you're being?

I certainly know from personal experience how mean-spirited and hurtful it feels having terms like "low-income" rubbed into my face while I'm struggling with the distressing mismatch between my bank balance and my true identity as a billionaire.

Nonetheless, I resent any implication that I'm at all delusional about my actual economic situation, when what I'm actually claiming is that my material wealth simply shouldn't matter when there's expensive stuff I want to own.