Trans Women are not Women

[JoeMorgue]

The biological construct of sex is binary, with a few scattered and statistically insignificant exceptions.

The social construct of gender is a fluid spectrum and shouldn't exist.

There's not a magical grey area of a "gender/sex soul that you know is true in your heart of hearts" between those two.

 

[caveman1917]

Come on that is not even remotely true. Lots of factories were full of women and children since the start of the industrial revolution. Industrial jobs tended to be sex segregated but there were always lots of women working. I guess it doesn't really count as they were not in the classes that count or something.

Single women tended to work (about 70% of them) but married ones tended not to work (about 10% of them). Furthermore a lot of the ones that did work worked from home or in small workshops near home. But sure, I'll grant that there were women who worked alongside men, but nowhere near the levels that we have since the middle of the 20th century.

 

[Darat]

It is for trans people and not for cis people so it certainly does when it is a 3rd or 4th option. To make straights feel safe we could make it legally mandated for the whole LGBT+ community.

Personally a don't give a **** about where I take a **** as long as it is clean and in a designated area, not going to go in the middle of street!

 

[Belz...]

The biological construct of sex is binary, with a few scattered and statistically insignificant exceptions.

The social construct of gender is a fluid spectrum and shouldn't exist.

I don't know. The latter seems to be mostly a recent redefinition. It still seems pretty binary.

 

[Belz...]

Single women tended to work (about 70% of them) but married ones tended not to work (about 10% of them). Furthermore a lot of the ones that did work worked from home or in small workshops near home. But sure, I'll grant that there were women who worked alongside men, but nowhere near the levels that we have since the middle of the 20th century.

Sure, but they probably didn't go out in the street to have a pee.

 

[Darat]

May I ask how you reach that conclusion? Seems to me like it was just plain old racism and not wanting to share life with black people.







Wait, what? Where did they do before?

In the UK it took primary legislation to force people to if they wanted to build male only toilets build toilets of the same size for women.

 

[caveman1917]

Why would racists not want to share their spaces with the *******? Gee I don't know, racism maybe?

Yeah, because currently there no handism or hairism.

Argument by assertion doesn't fly. You didn't answer the question: Why is there racism but not, say, handism or hairism?

Because of widespread racism. You don't need a more complex conspiracy.

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

So they'd just go outside of their workplace on the street, find a bush and urinate there? I doubt that.

At least some would use the men's facilities at the workplace. But outside of that going in the bushes was the way to go if they had to be out for longer than they could hold their bladders.

And yet they pretty much didn't. Who said they were supposed to?

The dominant ideology in the Victorian era said so.

 

[d4m10n]

But you have to ignore the consequences too or they will accuse you of calling them bigots for thinking their decisions are hurting people. How do you focus on the ideas and consequences that make up their bigotry without addressing the bigotry and them feeling called out as bigots?

[Off-topic example snipped]

Several examples come to mind. Instead of calling someone transphobic, you could point out that their proposed policy of allowing only 46,XX individuals (and possibly others with total androgen insensitivity) to join a certain sports league has the foreseeable consequence of preventing transwomen from getting the chance to compete in a setting which matches their sense of self.

Instead of taking this consequentialist approach, what I usually see these days is a public display of virtue-signaling / vice-shaming, e.g.

https://twitter.com/GodlessCranium/status/1139918100508348417

 

[JoeMorgue]

Argument by assertion doesn't fly. You didn't answer the question: Why is there racism but not, say, handism or hairism?

Jesus Christ we're not going to break down the entire human concept of bigotry and the entire scope of psychological reasons for it just to discuss one topic.

BTW handism most certainly was a thing until very recently historically speaking.

 

[theprestige]

Well sex is a spectrum as well but we ignore that for some reason.

It's like the round Earth: We ignore it because for almost everyone, almost all the time, it doesn't matter. As a social construct, binary gender accommodates almost everything, with some amount of variation within the two main categories, that varation itself varying from culture to culture.

And unlike the round Earth, there's no scientific or commercial pressure to treat the observable physical reality as a practical everyday reality. It's purely a social question. "I'm slightly less of a dude than what most of us think of as a dude most of the time give or take" doesn't really add anything useful other than the already-accepted "don't stereotype me, bro".

 

[Belz...]

Argument by assertion doesn't fly. You didn't answer the question: Why is there racism but not, say, handism or hairism?

Of course I answered the question. The idea that 'negroes' were inferior to Europeans was rooted in centuries of pseudo-science. It wasn't the case for these other things you mentioned. So of course this racism would bleed into legislation. I don't see what's complicated here.

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

You.

At least some would use the men's facilities at the workplace. But outside of that going in the bushes was the way to go if they had to be out for longer than they could hold their bladders.

No bushes in the city, sir. And I doubt they had to hold it all day.

The dominant ideology in the Victorian era said so.

Argument by assertion doesn't fly.

 

[GlennB]

Single women tended to work (about 70% of them) but married ones tended not to work (about 10% of them). Furthermore a lot of the ones that did work worked from home or in small workshops near home.

That changed dramatically with the industrial revolution.

"In the 1840s, in Lancashire alone, a survey of 412 cotton factories found that just over half of the 116,300 workers were female. Around 10,700 of them were married women.
...
By 1873, over 26 per cent of women working in cotton mills nationally were married, three quarters of whom were of childbearing age. "

From A (Working) Woman's Place

 

[caveman1917]

Of course I answered the question. The idea that 'negroes' were inferior to Europeans was rooted in centuries of pseudo-science. It wasn't the case for these other things you mentioned. So of course this racism would bleed into legislation. I don't see what's complicated here.

You keep begging the question. Why was there a pseudo-science trying to prove that negroes were inferior to Europeans but not a pseudo-science trying to prove the same things for handedness or hair colour? Why was, out of all possible properties of humans to discriminate on, it skin colour in particular which became institutionalized? The same could be asked regarding sexism btw.

You.

Not at all.

No bushes in the city, sir. And I doubt they had to hold it all day

Argument by assertion doesn't fly.

ref

But for the most part, public facilities in Western nations were male-only until the Victorian era, which meant women had to improvise. If they had to be out and about longer than they could hold their bladders, women in the Victorian era would urinate over a gutter (long Victorian skirts allowed for some privacy). Some would even carry a small personal device called a urinette that they could use discretely under their skirts and then pour out, Cavanagh said. Strangely, these urinettes were sometimes shaped like the male genitals. [How Much Urine Can a Healthy Bladder Hold?]

This lack of female facilities reflected a notable attitude about women: that they should stay home. This "urinary leash" remains a problem in some developing nations, said Harvey Molotch, a sociologist at New York University and co-editor of "Toilet: The Public Restroom and the Politics of Sharing" (New York University Press, 2010). Women in India today, for example, often have to avoid eating or drinking too much if they have to be out in public, because there is no place for them to go, Molotch told Live Science.

 

[caveman1917]

Jesus Christ we're not going to break down the entire human concept of bigotry and the entire scope of psychological reasons for it just to discuss one topic.

You should.

BTW handism most certainly was a thing until very recently historically speaking.

How so?

 

[d4m10n]

How so?

Ask any lefty over, say, 40.

 

[caveman1917]

Ask any lefty over, say, 40.

Oh I'm aware of how, for example, schools taught to write with the right hand even for left-handed people and things like that. But I don't think that there was institutionalized handism in the sense that there was a clear power structure with right-handed people on top and left-handed people on the bottom like there was and is for race or sex.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jesus Christ why does it matter?

Do you think racism is going to go away because you aren't satisfied with it's character arc?

This is Bob level trolley problem nonsense again, another case of "We aren't going to implement any real world solutions to real world problems until I've sufficiently hand wrung my theoretical hair splits enough."

 

[caveman1917]

Jesus Christ why does it matter?

Do you think racism is going to go away because you aren't satisfied with it's character arc?

This is Bob level trolley problem nonsense again, another case of "We aren't going to implement any real world solutions to real world problems until I've sufficiently hand wrung my theoretical hair splits enough."

How would you expect your "real world solutions" to make racism go away if you refuse to analyze where racism comes from?

 

[Belz...]

You keep begging the question.

I keep begging the question???

Why was, out of all possible properties of humans to discriminate on, it skin colour in particular which became institutionalized?

Because it's possible to use race and culture as 'explanations' as to why a people is inferior. And because you can make them into an out group. The best they came up with for lefties is that it was the devil's hand, shorthand for "90% of people are right handed and we'd like 100% of people to be right-handed". Again, I have no idea why we have to explain to you why water is wet, here.

The same could be asked regarding sexism btw.

No, it couldn't. That's a completely different kettle of fish.

Not at all.

Yeah you did. Right here:
I regard racial segregation in American history as an attempt by the ruling class to pit two parts of the working class against each other so as to ensure their own continued rule. Divide et impera.

That's a conspiracy.

ref

Took you long enough.

 

[Belz...]

Oh I'm aware of how, for example, schools taught to write with the right hand even for left-handed people and things like that. But I don't think that there was institutionalized handism in the sense that there was a clear power structure with right-handed people on top and left-handed people on the bottom like there was and is for race or sex.

They didn't just teach to write with the right hand. They would beat you up if you didn't.