Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

You're basically admitting that you're insulting me, because you do think it's an insult to call a transwoman male, and you're equating these two things.

Wrong. It's not insulting to call a transwoman a male, standalone or in certain contexts. It's intended to be offensive when you lobby to change the medical term in use for generations to a confusing alternative, for no other apparent reason than to be offensive.

It's not the word itself that's the problem, it's what it might indicate about the person saying it.

Oddly, this is the main point, and it cuts both ways (which I'm sure didn't occur to you). When you guys do your giggling TIM and TIF, it's exactly what it says about the person saying it that makes it offensive. The medical community doesn't use it. Society as a whole doesn't use it. The only ones using it are... let's say those who are not exactly empathetic to the cross-dressing pervs...er, I mean violent sex criminals, er I mean... oh look, science!

It's about the fact that I won't be bullied into denying reality, and not speaking the truth even if people find it uncomfortable.

And this is the flip side of the 'We're the science guys' coin. Your argument is not about truth in any way. 'Transgender' is not a reading of the Articles of Faith. It's a term, originating from the German meaning 'transvestite', then morphing through transsexual and eventually transgender (I cited the etymology up thread in case you forgot). In all medical usages, it was 'trans to the other', so transgender was trans to the other gender. But your dickhead term is in the reverse, trans from male. Yet you still needed the 'trans identified' part to make the TIM and TIF giggle fest work, so you set on a poorly structured and ambiguous term, just to be dicks.

And no amount of playing Thomas Dolby blinding me with science is fooling a goddamned single person. We can see what you are doing, and why, and that your 'we are the guardians of Truth' is world class bull ◊◊◊◊. You do it for the exact same reason that a white guy would walk up to a black guy and say 'you're not african-american, you're a ne-gro.' While that may be scientifically accurate, not a single mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊ in the world believes the white guy is just being true to science. Exact same issue here. You can repeat it a thousand times, and the fig leaf grows not even a little.

And I should have said this sooner, but this is all (g)you directed. You, personally, are far less of an offender and use the term 'transwoman' pretty freely. I don't consider you to be hateful, as you claimed. I think you have strong traditional conservative values far more than any variety of transhate.

 

[Thermal]

You seem to be piling in on the joke that was at your expense. Maybe that's progress. I expected an explanation (of sorts) of how the NJ justice system tests whether a self-id-tranny is true-tranny or fake-tranny. But your gender identity is clearly troll, and all you saw as an off ramp was to pretend to enjoy being a laughing stock.

You are one weird poster.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oddly, this is the main point, and it cuts both ways (which I'm sure didn't occur to you). When you guys do your giggling TIM and TIF, it's exactly what it says about the person saying it that makes it offensive.

You're correct about that. But what does it say?

It says that the speaker doesn't accept trans ideology. That's it, that's all it says. That's the entire basis for the term being offensive. And not accepting trans ideology is offensive to those who do accept trans ideology. That's offensive to you too, even though you claim to not accept trans ideology. But since I don't accept trans ideology, why should I care? If you're offended by what I think, why does that mean I should stay silent?

The medical community doesn't use it.

So what? The medical community, much to its shame, has largely subscribed to trans ideology.

Society as a whole doesn't use it.

Society as a whole doesn't tend to really care about the issue, and can be scared away by loud noises.

And this is the flip side of the 'We're the science guys' coin. Your argument is not about truth in any way.

My arguments are not only about truth (because values always depend on more than just truth), but truth is absolutely part of my argument. You have no claim to the contrary.

 

[John Freestone]

That's a reference to the disadvantages to the people running those spaces (ie, a loss of customers).

Ziggurat, I didn't read it that way myself.

No. You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying. When Rolfe (I think it was Rolfe, if it was someone else, that's not actually important here) says she has self-excluded from a theater because of its trans-inclusive bathrooms, and I say that this theater should not allow males in the women's bathroom, I'm not seeking to protect Rolfe from her choice to self-exclude. She doesn't need protection from her choice, because that choice is likely optimal under the circumstances. I'm seeking to protect Rolfe from the theater's choice, one which I think is decidedly NOT optimal. Do not conflate Rolfe's choice with the theater's choice. That's not my duty as a man, that's my duty as a person who understands why allowing males into the women's bathroom on the basis of self-ID is a bad idea.

You've objected to using government force to make the theater prohibit men. But I'm not actually arguing for that here. I'm arguing for an acknowledgement that allowing men into the women's bathroom is a bad policy. Even if you don't want to use government force to prevent that, why are you so hesitant to even say that it's bad policy, that they shouldn't do that?

I held back from weighing in on this, because I couldn't construct a reason to object, and let better minds respond. I agree that, on the face of it, from my perspective, not separating on 'gender' choice is 'bad policy', but I also can't gainsay the argument that some other people might want that, or raise a reasoned argument why they should not have what they want. As I say, on the face of it. In the singular case, and assuming there are other places where sex segregation is the rule, I feel individual choice wins. My argument is that there's more at stake than the particular case, even if that is idealised (for instance, even if we imagine the sex-segregated option is easier to reach and has more to offer). My argument - and I'm not 100% sure of it either - is that choices like this affect overall social norms, in particular influencing children and vulnerable adults.

I was thinking about the UK ban on smoking in public indoor places, like bars and pubs, shops and cafés, and trying to figure this out. AFAIK, we don't have licensing for some pubs to claim their traditional style requires allowing smoking, and if people don't want second hand smoke they should stay out of there and all is well. But again I find it hard to construct a reason to disallow it, in this case even on the social-contagion basis, since people can smoke outdoors, or in their houses, to their hearts' content.

 

[Thermal]

You're correct about that. But what does it say?

It says that the speaker doesn't accept trans ideology. That's it, that's all it says. That's the entire basis for the term being offensive. And not accepting trans ideology is offensive to those who do accept trans ideology. That's offensive to you too, even though you claim to not accept trans ideology. But since I don't accept trans ideology, why should I care? If you're offended by what I think, why does that mean I should stay silent?

So what? The medical community, much to its shame, has largely subscribed to trans ideology.

Why do you keep doing this backwards? The medical community studied and labeled transgenderism decades before there was a TRA. The term transwoman and the rest were in use many years before the first TRA appeared.

So it remains science that you are denying, full stop. Your rewriting of history and apparent belief in time travel are not convincing. You could stop a moment to at least identify these spooky faceless invisible TRAs with MKULTRA powers and exactly who they influenced, and how. Hold on, I'll need my tin foil hat for this one.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you keep doing this backwards? The medical community studied and labeled transgenderism decades before there was a TRA. The term transwoman and the rest were in use many years before the first TRA appeared.

Are you under the impression that I am objecting to the term "transwoman"? Because I'm not. I'm just refusing to be bullied into using that term rather than trans identifying male. Nobody objects to that term because it's scientifically inaccurate.

So it remains science that you are denying, full stop.

Science is a process, it is not an institution. Your conflation of the two is not an indication that you support science. It is in fact an indication that you don't even properly understand what science is.

And the medical institutions have proven themselves very bad at sticking to the science as well, as the frequently repeated lie from supposed experts and professionals that puberty blockers are reversible demonstrates. Which is one of the reasons to not simply accept their expertise or authority uncritically.

 

[smartcooky]

You are one weird poster.

Pot, meet kettle!

 

[Ziggurat]

I was thinking about the UK ban on smoking in public indoor places, like bars and pubs, shops and cafés, and trying to figure this out. AFAIK, we don't have licensing for some pubs to claim their traditional style requires allowing smoking, and if people don't want second hand smoke they should stay out of there and all is well. But again I find it hard to construct a reason to disallow it, in this case even on the social-contagion basis, since people can smoke outdoors, or in their houses, to their hearts' content.

The justification for smoking bans is that smoking in enclosed spaces produces external harms, ie, harms to people other than the smoker. Smoking outdoors doesn't pose the same risks because smoke concentrations dilute much more rapidly outdoors (although in the US at least, smoking is often prohibited near building entrances/exits). Smoking in your home arguably creates external harms to your children (who had no choice in the arrangement), but not to third parties. So it's harm to third parties which is used to justify such smoking bans. Preventing that harm is the benefit of such bans. The cost is reduced personal freedom, possible economic losses from smokers boycotting smoke-free venues, and even just the enforcement cost. The arguments against these bans can mostly be split into two kinds: that benefits of bans is lower than claimed, or that the costs of bans is higher than claimed.

A hard-core libertarian might argue that the government has no authority to make such rules in the first place (which is essentially a form of the second argument against bans: the cost of banning is too high), but that argument doesn't gain any significant political traction nowdays. Laws frequently restrict personal freedom in order to reduce or prevent external harms. This principle is essentially universally accepted nowdays as acceptable. What we argue about isn't the principle itself, but the particulars of how much harm we're preventing and at what cost.

One can make the same basic argument regarding self-ID bathroom policies. When an obviously male person enters a women's bathroom, that can cause distress to women in the bathroom. That's an external harm: someone other than the male choosing to enter the bathroom has been negatively affected by that choice. Prohibiting that choice prevents that harm. There's a cost to doing so: the male person is deprived of his preference. If it's a law rather than a choice by the property owner, then the property owner has had his freedom to set policy reduced. There may be enforcement costs as well. But the idea of a reduction in freedom of choice in order to reduce or prevent harm isn't fundamentally different than, say, a speed limit. It's really just a question of how big you think the benefits are, and how big you think the costs are. And in this calculus, there is no objective scale. There are some objective facts which might help to inform your evaluation (such as, how many trans identifying males are there? How often do they make women uncomfortable by being in the bathroom? Etc), but how you weigh different costs against each other always come down to a value judgment, which must always be subjective.

 

[p0lka]

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)?

As soon as someone is told by society to fit into a role because of their sex and they don't want to, is the moment gender as a concept arises.

Some people want to switch the role that society is enforcing on them because of their sex, and choose a gender role that isn't their present one.

They are still conforming to societal pressure to conform to a gender role though.

Some people just look on at the problems society pressure and gender as a concept has caused and go hmm.

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.

Yes that is what is happening at the moment in various societies.

Me saying that gender and sex should be separated isn't a wish, it's an observation about the problems with public/private spaces and how they should be correctly and clearly labelled and thus solve the problem.

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'.

Hey, I didn't create gender as a concept, I'm just dealing with what is going on and trying to find a solution haha.

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

Thanks, I'm going to think about that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Some people want to switch the role that society is enforcing on them because of their sex, and choose a gender role that isn't their present one.

Good for them.

But the bathroom you should use isn't a function of your gender role. It's a function of your sex. We don't separate male and female bathroom use because one bathroom is for nurturing and sensitive people and one bathroom is for competitive risk-takers. Taking on a feminine gender role doesn't actually require you to use the women's bathroom, nor does it exclude you from using the men's bathroom.

 

[p0lka]

Good for them.

But the bathroom you should use isn't a function of your gender role. It's a function of your sex.

Exactly. Maybe it should be labelled so?

We don't separate male and female bathroom use because one bathroom is for nurturing and sensitive people and one bathroom is for competitive risk-takers. Taking on a feminine gender role doesn't actually require you to use the women's bathroom, nor does it exclude you from using the men's bathroom.

society keeps moving forward, maybe we need clearer signs in the future?

 

[Pixel42]

Hampstead ponds trans access challenge dismissed by High Court

The current policy is that trans men and trans women are entitled to use the pond of their choice.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[p0lka]

I don't accept the societal pressure to pick a gender/sex role as I think it's all nonsense, but I live in a society where everybody else does so just have to go with it. It's like religion, in that people believe stuff you just don't accept, but we have all got to get on.

 

[Thermal]

Are you under the impression that I am objecting to the term "transwoman"?

No, and I already said exactly that (you accidentally took the extra time to snip it out).

Because I'm not. I'm just refusing to be bullied into using that term rather than trans identifying male. Nobody objects to that term because it's scientifically inaccurate.

To refresh your memory, we were talking about the offensiveness of the alternate term. Science labeled them first, and with short terms. The alternates (TIM and TIF) are no clearer, and reverse the "trans to" order capriciously. That the term is used only in... non-trans-supportive... communities solidifies its usage as not exactly meant neutrally.

Science is a process, it is not an institution. Your conflation of the two is not an indication that you support science. It is in fact an indication that you don't even properly understand what science is.

You reject the medical science on political/ideological grounds, not citing any superior evidence to allow science to self-correct. That's anti-science, and my usage is appropriate.

And the medical institutions have proven themselves very bad at sticking to the science as well, as the frequently repeated lie from supposed experts and professionals that puberty blockers are reversible demonstrates. Which is one of the reasons to not simply accept their expertise or authority uncritically.

The Cass Report and others show that science/institutions self correct. That changes nothing about what we were talking about. As a reminder it was the use and intent of the gratuitous rebranding.

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly. Maybe it should be labelled so?

It is labelled so. "Men" and "women" are sex labels.

 

[smartcooky]

No, and I already said exactly that (you accidentally took the extra time to snip it out).

To refresh your memory, we were talking about the offensiveness of the alternate term. Science labeled them first, and with short terms.

Utter bollocks - you're making stuff up out of whole cloth as you go.

The term "transwoman" did not originate with medical science or any other type of science. It had it's roots in the late 1960s with the the term "transgenderal", which was coined by the activist Virginia Prince, a transgender identifying male. He coined it to describe people who lived as women but did not necessarily seek surgical reassignment. This evolved over time into "transgender" which then further evolved into the separate terms "transwoman" and "transman".

The terms are lies... "transwomen" are not women, they are males, and "transmen" are not men, they are females. These are untruths in any reasonable interpretations of the language.

 

[Ziggurat]

To refresh your memory, we were talking about the offensiveness of the alternate term. Science labeled them first, and with short terms.

Again, you continue to conflate the process of science with institutions nominally engaged in that process. Science didn't label jack ◊◊◊◊. People and institutions did. And why am I bound by their choice? And why do you continue to misunderstand what science is? Your combination of arrogance and ignorance in this regard is rather staggering.

You reject the medical science on ploical/ideological grounds

The choice of terms isn't science.

The Cass Report and others show that science/institutions self correct.

No. The Cass Review is not an example of self correction, it's an example of institutions responding to external pressure. They were right to do so, because that pressure was justified, but the idea that this was a self correction is wrong.

That changes nothing about what we were talking about. As a reminder it was the use and intent of the gratuitous rebranding.

The intent of my use is to signal that I don't accept trans ideology. Apparently you find that offensive, but that's on you, not me. If I actually wanted to cause offense, I'd use the term that you have used: tranny. But I believe the only time I've ever used that term in this thread is in reference to YOUR unprompted use.

 

[smartcooky]

The intent of my use is to signal that I don't accept trans ideology. Apparently you find that offensive, but that's on you, not me. If I actually wanted to cause offense, I'd use the term that you have used: tranny. But I believe the only time I've ever used that term in this thread is in reference to YOUR unprompted use.

Indeed, he is the only poster here routinely using this type of term. Funny that!

 

[p0lka]

It is labelled so. "Men" and "women" are sex labels.

Then why did you post the below? That I was replying to.

Good for them.

But the bathroom you should use isn't a function of your gender role. It's a function of your sex.

Literally separating gender and sex once again, whilst not realizing one had done so.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then why did you post the below?

Do you misunderstand things on purpose, or are you really this confused?