• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Right now they all think themselves entitled to vote on matters effecting both sexes, cross-sex i.d. wouldn't change anything.
Yes, but we're not talking about 'right now', are we? We're talking about a theoretical future, in which you want to see voting segregated by sex and subject.
Naughty shift of the goalposts, there, d4m10n. Presumably you did that because the idea of self-ID makes a mockery of your desired goal.
While I'm here, I do want to poke at your claim that violence against women does not affect men. That is quite obviously untrue. Many men will be affected by this- the husbands, partners, fathers, sons and friends of the victim, as will any concerned and sympathetic man not directly involved. All these partners and relatives will be affected by an attack on a loved one, and for you to claim otherwise is a deeply cynical and selfish thing to say.
 
Some time ago (March 2023) I listened to a podcast interview with JK Rowling, a person who has been vilified, victimized and threatened with violence and death for speaking objective scientific truth. I found the interview impactful. and have just found a partial transcript


Question: You have said that you respect trans people, you said that you would march with them, that you think the transition is right for some people, but you also say that there’s a real difference between biological women and trans women and a meaningful distinction between the two in their experiences. And I think some of your critics point to that and say, you’re essentially making trans women, second-class women, you know, like “you’re almost women,”” that despite all of their efforts to live in the world as women, as what feels right and authentic to them, you are essentially saying, “I’ll treat you as a woman, you are an honorary woman”, but this distinction that you are emphasizing, the biological distinction that you see as being so important, it can feel hurtful to them, like they are, you know, almost a thing, but not quite, like something is being held back. Can you understand the pain that that could cause?
Answer: Yes, is the short answer, yes, I can understand that hurt. The thing is women are the only group to my knowledge that are being asked to embrace members of their oppressor class, unquestioningly, with no caveat. Now, on an individual basis, and I think many people new to this argument would see it on that level, because many people of my generation particularly think that we’re talking about old-school transsexuals, people who’ve been through full sex reassignment because of profound gender dysphoria. And I feel 100% compassion for such people and I would absolutely respect their pronouns always have, always will, and would want, as I say them, to have comfortable, easy lives. This movement, though, is pressing for something different, very different.
This movement has argued, continues to argue, that a man may have had no surgery whatsoever, but if he feels himself to be a woman, the door of every woman’s bathroom, changing room, rape centre should be open to him. And I say no, I’m afraid I say no. And we are in a cultural moment where that individual’s hurt is being prioritised over the hurt of women whose rights and boundaries are under sustained assault, and I think it’s interesting to ask why the pain of one group is being prioritised over the pain of other groups.

And then what you could almost call precognition
Question: There are a lot of critics who say you and your comments are giving fuel to the right.
Answer: Well, my, my answer would be I think you're giving fuel to the right. This is, this is why many left wing feminists in particular are sitting with their head in their hands. The the right has wanted for years and years and years to, not all of the right, but certainly the further right and the religious right have wanted to castigate the lesbian and gay and bisexual movement as is inherently degenerate and part of the left's broader degeneracy. When you defend the placing of rapists in cells with women, you are handing the right a perfect opportunity to say you see, we told you the moral degeneracy that would result if you say homosexual relationships are ok. And I think for many leftists, for many feminists, we are despairing of the fact that people are in our view. Colluding with, and in, a deeply misogynist movement which is benefiting politically speaking the far right?
And I worry very deeply that as the left becomes increasingly puritanical and authoritarian and judgmental, we are pushing swathes of people towards not just the right, it's pushing them to the alt right. That's what scares me that particularly young men when they're being told everything in the world is their fault and they have no right to a voice and they are everything that is wrong with society. It is unfortunately a human reaction to go to the place where you will be embraced. And if the only place where you can make a joke or be accepted is a place that is full of poisonous ideas, then you're likely to go there, particularly when you're young.
So I think that the left is making a tremendous mistake in espousing this kind of, in my view, quasi religious, incredibly sort of witch hunting behavior because there will be people who will just feel when they've been shamed and abused and they feel it was unfair. Where are they going to go? You know, this, that worries me very deeply in my lifetime. We've seen such a shift on the left and I still would define myself as of the left. But, you know, I was born in the sixties when transgression really was the preserve of the left, you know, when challenging authority and then making the dark joke and then breaking societal norms was very much the preserve of the left. I've lived to see the left become incredibly puritanical and rigid and watching the alt. right. And this is a new phenomenon. The alt right is not the conservative right with whom I disagree on many, many, many things. But I'm just saying we're seeing the growth of something very much facilitated by the internet that, that alarms and disturbs me and it worries me that the left are absolutely playing into that demographics hands.
 
Yes, but we're not talking about 'right now', are we? We're talking about a theoretical future, in which you want to see voting segregated by sex and subject.
Naughty shift of the goalposts, there, d4m10n. Presumably you did that because the idea of self-ID makes a mockery of your desired goal.
While I'm here, I do want to poke at your claim that violence against women does not affect men. That is quite obviously untrue. Many men will be affected by this- the husbands, partners, fathers, sons and friends of the victim, as will any concerned and sympathetic man not directly involved. All these partners and relatives will be affected by an attack on a loved one, and for you to claim otherwise is a deeply cynical and selfish thing to say.
Indeed.

Anyone who considers that I am unaffected by the (separate) attacks on my two daugters can just ****-off. If they tried telling me that to my face, they might get a bunch-o-five for their trouble.

As I have posted before, this is my attitude towards biological males entering women's safe spaces

FB_IMG_1727094412494.jpg



Of course, d4m10n considers my concern for the safety of my family to be virtue signalling, patronising and putting my unwanted man's nose into women's business.

 
When it comes to children we should always er on the side of caution. We should not allow them to do these things to themselves until they are adults.
 
We're talking about a theoretical future, in which you want to see voting segregated by sex and subject.
We're talking about an inevitable future, in which men will decide the fate of women's spaces when this issue comes to a vote during the 119th United States Congress.
Naughty shift of the goalposts, there, d4m10n.
LOL wut.
Presumably you did that because the idea of self-ID makes a mockery of your desired goal.
Care to quote the part where I stated my desired goal?
 
One of the most common arguments made in support of transgender identified males being granted access to female single-sex spaces is that they don't feel safe in male single-sex spaces, and they need to be in the female spaces for their own safety.
I don't think anyone here has been arguing that we need to take this argument very seriously.

No evidence has been provided that non-passing trans women are in more danger in bathrooms than, say, on the street corner.
 
What do we think? To be fair, the story doesn't say "female" or "woman" anywhere, though it does use "she" and "her".

This seems to be the same Zoe Watts who was previously jailed for possession of weapons and explosives in 2021. It was reported at the time that Watts is transgender and the offences would be recorded as committed by a woman.
 
We're talking about an inevitable future, in which men will decide the fate of women's spaces when this issue comes to a vote during the 119th United States Congress.

If you say so: my crystal ball has gone missing, so I'll have to rely on your own predictive abilities.
My point still stands, though: if a man suddenly self-declares as a woman, will you be OK with them voting on women's spaces?
LOL wut.

Care to quote the part where I stated my desired goal?
Sure. Have you forgotten? Right here:
On issues that only effect one sex, I don't see any good reason to give the opposite sex a vote.
 
Well, you're no fun.
This seems to be the same Zoe Watts who was previously jailed for possession of weapons and explosives in 2021. It was reported at the time that Watts is transgender and the offences would be recorded as committed by a woman.
It may have been reported, but was not in the piece you linked to.

But you only have to look (and listen) to one of her videos to be sure.

 
My point still stands, though: if a man suddenly self-declares as a woman, will you be OK with them voting on women's spaces?
Do you believe that self-declaration actually makes one into the opposite sex?

(I should not have to point out that it does not, at least not on a discussion board about science and evidence.)
 
Assuming you are male, I don't see why you should have any say in this. Those spaces aren't for us.
I'm male, but if I say I'm a woman, then can those spaces be for me?

Moreover, you're just avoiding the question. Even if I agree that only females should have a say in this (which isn't a premise I agree with), those females are still faced with the question of what arguments they should take seriously for allowing males into their spaces.
 
Why shouldn't males have something to say about the behaviour of other males?
For the same reason that we don't get to tell other males whether or not they should enter a woman's apartment, having been invited in.

It's her space, she can invite in whomever she pleases.
 
Even if I agree that only females should have a say in this (which isn't a premise I agree with), those females are still faced with the question of what arguments they should take seriously for allowing males into their spaces.
I would say that they should take arguments seriously from other women (who know what those spaces are uniquely good for) such as Kathleen Stock or Mary Anne Case. It's not my place to make arguments about why males should be allowed in to spaces they do not fully understand.
 
I would say that they should take arguments seriously from other women (who know what those spaces are uniquely good for) such as Kathleen Stock or Mary Anne Case.
That’s a copout. Who is making the argument is separate from the validity of the argument. I don’t subscribe to this identity politics Bull ◊◊◊◊. And I don’t know why you expect me to.
 
For the same reason that we don't get to tell other males whether or not they should enter a woman's apartment, having been invited in.

It's her space, she can invite in whomever she pleases.
Not equivalent, because the bathrooms don’t only belong to the women who are happy to let the men in. Hell, legally speaking they don’t belong to women at all, they belong to the property owner. Who may very well be a man.
 
Hell, legally speaking they don’t belong to women at all, they belong to the property owner. Who may very well be a man.
Legally speaking Congress is entitled to say which Capitol Building spaces belong to whom; I do not believe that make their decisions either rational or ethical.
 
What if some women invite him in, while others say he's not welcome? Which ones should we defer to?
Well if you defer to the ones who do mind giving him entry then he'll be upset; if you defer to the ones who don't mind giving him entry the women who do mind will be upset. So I guess it depends on whether you think the feelings of any male should always take priority over the feelings of any number of females.
 
I'm pretty sure I agree with you, but you seem to have set aside the feelings of the women who say he is welcome.
That did cross my mind, but then you have to get into quantifying those feelings - I don't think the feelings of a woman who just doesn't have a problem with him coming in are likely to be as strong as those of a woman who does.

But the point I'm trying to make is that in the end it does all come down to feelings, and whose should be given priority.
 
What if some women invite him in, while others say he's not welcome? Which ones should we defer to?
The ones who win the vote, obviously.

If the majority of women want to open up women's spaces, it's not my place to protect them from themselves.
 
Now, how about you stop heading off on weird tangents, and actually address my points?
You really should go back and read what I was replying to before you went off on this tangent about self-declaration.

I didn't see "any good reason to give the opposite sex a vote" and then you came in with the idea that self-i.d. is somehow relevant to who gets a vote.
 
The ones who win the vote, obviously.

If the majority of women want to open up women's spaces, it's not my place to protect them from themselves.
Are there every any cases where a majority should not be able to impose its will on a minority?

Why isn't this one of those cases?
 
Why isn't this one of those cases?
Way to load the dice. Why on Earth would anyone assume this is one of those exceptional cases? Is some fundamental civil right in play here, one deeply rooted in American history and tradition?
 
Way to load the dice. Why on Earth would anyone assume this is one of those exceptional cases? Is some fundamental civil right in play here, one deeply rooted in American history and tradition?
American history and tradition? Try human history and tradition. Sex segregation when it comes to things that involve states of undress go way, way back. And yeah, I'd say there's a fundamental right to dignity and safety. You even conceded as much when you said that these were women's spaces in the first place. If women have a right to their own spaces, then one group of women cannot give away other women's rights to those spaces.
 
If women have a right to their own spaces, then one group of women cannot give away other women's rights to those spaces.
Rights are granted by laws or by rulings, they are not granted by gods and do not exist in a Platonic realm of ideas.
 
Rights are granted by laws or by rulings, they are not granted by god or self-existent in a Platonic realm of ideas.
You are completely inconsistent. If this is just about the law, then men absolutely have the right to weigh in on this question, because that's how the law works. You have argued that men shouldn't because of... well, you were kind of vague on that front. But it was an appeal to some sort of morality, which you're now dismissing. Your position has no logical coherence.
 
You have argued that men shouldn't because of...
See post #1780.

As I said there, men don't "know what those spaces are uniquely good for" and are thus underinformed when they make policy.

We've seen Rolfe list off several things that women do in those spaces on numerous occasions, such as help each other out with menstrual emergencies. Perhaps lawmakers should be made to read those posts.
 
Back
Top Bottom