Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

You're being beyond petty now. When you duck the point of the discussion to complain and harp about precision in irrelevant terms is beneath you, man.

You brought up science, not me. You tried to make an argument from authority using science as the justification, not me. You made science relevant, not me. Which makes your fundamental misunderstanding of what science is relevant as well.

The term transwoman is free of any perticular ideology.

Even if I agreed with that, so what? That doesn't oblige me to use the term.

To advocate a longer clunkier term (like transgender identified female for transman) that doesn't even substantialy clarify anything is also petty.

As has been pointed out before, some people do in fact get confused by the terms "transwoman" and "transman". And so what if it's clunkier? If I'm willing to type out the extra letters, what's it to you? You aren't complaining on the basis that the longer phrase slows your reading. Your objections to the term have surely wasted far more time than the lengthier phrase itself could have cost any of us.

I've got The Pass, because I am a vocal anti-basher. Sin is in the intent.

You don't get to tell me what my intent is. That's not how it works.

 

[Ziggurat]

Any. Reader. In. This. Website. can see the bashing. You use their lingo, you wear their colors.

Who is "they"?

The gender critical folks. It's their lingo. And why is it considered bashing? Because being gender critical is considered offensive. Just holding gender critical views is considered hateful.

◊◊◊◊ that. You want to join in on that sort of fascism, be my guest. I'm not playing along. And I'm not apologizing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

So what you're saying is that if we don't give males with transgender identities what they want, they'll use violence to force us to?

Makes me feel so much safer and more comfortable with letting males into spaces where I'm vulnerable. Clearly, they're delicate wilting violets who pose no risk to females at all...

 

[Thermal]

Do you not think there's a bit of a problem with a group of people demanding that everyone else has to use language that affirms their false belief in order to avoid causing offense? If people with transgender identities cannot hear reference to their objective and real sex without having distress, that speaks to a severe mental health disorder - one that needs treatment not coddling. Otherwise, you're essentially requiring that everyone play along with their desire and ignore reality to bolster their feelings. You're requiring that nobody can say that the emperor is naked.

While we've moved a bit away from saying "crippled", we're not being asked to pretend that a disabled person is normally abled. We're not being asked to say that a person in a wheelchair has a lovely walk, or to affirm how graceful their dancing is. And while it's certainly polite to not call obese people "fatty fatty boomballatty" or similar, but we're also not expected to laud them for being thin and svelte either.

So why should we be expected to only refer to males with transgender identities in terms that implicitly include granting them recognition as "women" when they are nothing of the sort?

We don't call them "women". If that were the argument, I'd agree with you. As I've told you multiple times, I agree with the thread title's position, with the caveat that I will generally treat them as women until sex becomes an overreaching concern (changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc).

I know this doesn't meet with much agreement here, but I read 'transwomen' as explicitly reading 'not women'.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

As a 6'4" tall man, I have to bend over considerably to do dishes, I can't do them with a remotely straight back, which is indeed tiring. Not sure a step would really help you much.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

And once more, Myriad for the win.

You don't always post a lot, but when you do *chef's kiss*.

 

[Ziggurat]

We don't call them "women".

Maybe you don't, but the people who say "trans women are women" absolutely do.

If that were the argument, I'd agree with you.

It is one of the arguments.

As I've told you multiple times, I agree with the thread title's position

But some people don't.

I know this doesn't meet with much agreement here, but I read 'transwomen' as explicitly reading 'not women'.

That won't meet with much agreement from the TRAs either.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And I very much resent young hotties not treating me like an irresistible young stud, and pointing out that I am in fact a middle aged dad, albeit remarkably good looking and replete with boyish charm. Were they to consistently refer to me as 'wretched old coot', knowing I am sensitive about it, some would think that unnecessarily mean, scientificaly accurate or not. YMMV.

Hmm. But do you get deeply offended and distressed if they refer to you as middle-aged?

 

[d4m10n]

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

It was intended to reference all the disadvantages of mixing the sexes in those sorts of spaces.

I'm arguing for an acknowledgement that allowing men into the women's bathroom is a bad policy.

It is a policy with both advantages and disadvantages. Whether the latter outweigh the former depends on the values of the theatergoers, including those who've recently opted out on account of the new policy. I disagree with those who believe there is an outside view to be had here which would tell us the policy is unequivocally good or bad, that is metaphysical thinking at best.

 

[Thermal]

Who is "they"?

The gender critical folks. It's their lingo. And why is it considered bashing? Because being gender critical is considered offensive. Just holding gender critical views is considered hateful.

Don't know where you got that idea. I'm very critical of the whole gender brouhaha, but I'm more critical of bashing. The two are not the same.

◊◊◊◊ that. You want to join in on that sort of fascism, be my guest. I'm not playing along. And I'm not apologizing.

So I see. Which is fine, but stop acting surprised when people think your good luck symbol means something else.

 

[Thermal]

Maybe you don't, but the people who say "trans women are women" absolutely do.

They are not taking part ITT.

It is one of the arguments.

Not ITT.

But some people don't.

Ibid

That won't meet with much agreement from the TRAs either.

Babe...
I got you babe...
I got you babe..

 

[Emily's Cat]

It is fairly easy to argue that this specific term has already fallen off the euphemism treadmill, there is even a paragraph on the relevant wiki:

Another example in American English is the replacement of "colored people" with "Negro" (euphemism by foreign language), which itself came to be replaced by either "African American" or "Black". Also in the United States the term "ethnic minorities" in the 2010s has been replaced by "people of color".
I'm not arguing that anyone here needs to drop "negro" though, because I do not accept that this sort of linguistic treadmill is actually helpful or healthful, though it does seem to be inevitable.

Alternatively, you can adopt clinically neutral language... like "people with high melanin content". Because to me, that's pretty much all it is. Some people have straight hair, some people have loose curls, some have tight curls, some have teensy springs (which are kinda awesome). Some people look like they've been dipped in glow-in-the-dark paint, some are pinkish, some are olive, some are mahogany, and some look like they're carved out of ebony. It's superficial differences devoid of any deeper meaning.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If women choose voluntarily to join a trans-inclusive inclusive gymnasium or spa or soccer league or music festival, then those women are going to have to deal with the disadvantages incurred by making those spaces inclusive of certain males—disadvantages which you might well characterize as indirect sex discrimination.

I trust women to make this call on their own, so I'm not about to white knight into the tiltyard in an effort to save them from their own choices.

Just out of curiosity, what happens when those businesses all adopt trans-inclusive approaches, and there are no places where females can be ensured of a male-free space?

Do you think females should just throw up their hands and stay out of society at large? Self-exclude from everything?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You say this as if the choice to not do certain things is essentially cost-free, but it isn't. Women who choose to self-exclude are paying a price for this choice. It may well be the right choice, and the price might not be life-or-death stakes, but it's not fair that they have to pay that price. So to just appeal to the fact that they have the choice to self-exclude in order to claim that there's no problem is a copout.

This brings us back to one of the earlier chapters of this discussion: sports. For a good while there were many people who argued that if females object to having males in their sports, then they should stop playing sports. On the surface, it makes it sound like it's equivalent to a strike or a boycott. But the reality is that those females pay a heavy price if they refuse to participate - and we've seen that in the last five years or so as coverage has grown. Female teams that refuse to play against males forfeit - which means they forego the opportunity to win or place, and that has consequences. Females who refuse to participate cannot participate. Some were threatened with loss of scholarships if they spoke out or complained, being kicked off the team, and other forms of punishment.

There's a really big price to self-exclusion. It makes it impossible for females to participate in society as equals when we are forced to either opt out or surrender our boundaries and forego consent.

 

[d4m10n]

It's superficial differences devoid of any deeper meaning.

I'd say that the differences matter inasmuch as we choose to invest them with meaning.

Just out of curiosity, what happens when those businesses all adopt trans-inclusive approaches, and there are no places where females can be ensured of a male-free space?

That does happen in places like with gender identity antidiscrimination laws (e.g. CA, NJ) but I've yet to hear of it happening spontaneously in places where business owners remain free to sort their spaces as they see fit.

Do you think females should just throw up their hands and stay out of society at large?

Again, you pretend that females generally share your own values despite knowing that they've done more than anyone else to push gender-inclusive policies forward by electing political parties which prioritize empathy over systemization. Females who do not share your values will (of course) happily patronize trans-inclusive businesses rather than throwing their hands up in despair.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

"Transwoman" isn't a medical term. It never has been.

 

[Thermal]

Hmm. But do you get deeply offended and distressed if they refer to you as middle-aged?

Constantly? Making a point of saying do either every interaction? Yeah, that would be fairly rubbing in the face and mean-spirited. A neutral observer might suggest a less judgemental moniker

 

[Ziggurat]

They are not taking part ITT.

So? You value their opinion about the offensiveness of terms. Why are they irrelevant when we're talking about other issues that they weigh in on?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I don't use the term "transwoman" because on ISF, I don't use the term "woman" in conversation without quotes. Specifically because of the FORCED ideological component involved, I stick with the scientifically accurate terms male and female. When we're talking about a male who has a transgender identity in order to be specific, that's what I ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ say: males with transgender identities.

I don't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ giggle about it, and it's clearly not intended to be offensive. So you taking deep offense on behalf of people who aren't here to get their panties in a wad about it is both irrational and poorly thought out. It's also disingenuous, because there's a LOT of very intentionally insulting and degrading language that is regularly used on ISF about other groups of people, and you don't seem to have a problem with that. So far as I can tell, the ONLY group of people you feel the need to defend who aren't present are people with transgender identities. And in that case, you take neutral language and have an entire meltdown about it, and feel the need to twist that into slurs and try to shove them into other people's mouths.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't know where you got that idea.

Gee, I wonder.

So I see. Which is fine, but stop acting surprised when people think your good luck symbol means something else.

I've never been surprised by that. That was never the question. The question was whether or not I should play along. You think I should. I see no reason to.