Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
caveman1917 said:
That's internally contradictory. If it's segregated based on a person's sex (first highlight) then it isn't segregated based on a person's gender identity (second highlight). Gender identity is not the same as sex. Furthermore, the modern doctrine of gender ideology asserts that gender is a spectrum, so should we then have a spectrum of bathroom facilities? How would that work?
Click to expand...

Well sex is a spectrum as well but we ignore that for some reason. And of course any intersex condition is also legally required to use the freaks bathroom.
 
caveman1917 said:
I don't care how many of them there are. If a facility is segregated by sex then it is not the case that everyone is free to choose which facility to use. And if everyone is free to choose which facility to use then the facility is not segregated by sex.

A: "Don't you find it horrible that schools are still racially segregated?"

B: "Erm, schools haven't been racially segregated since the 1960's."

A: "Yes they still are. Look, people of all races are free to choose which school to attend. That means that schools are racially segregated."

B: "Erm, no, that means that schools are not racially segregated."

A: "But thousands of people agree with me. People of all races are free to choose which school to attend, schools are racially segregated. Are you going to disagree with thousands of people?"

B: "..."
Click to expand...

Look the courts ruled there is nothing wrong with racial motives for segregating schools.

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/28/526085092/despite-racial-motive-judge-allows-alabama-city-to-secede-from-school-district

"Near Birmingham, Ala., a mostly white town called Gardendale wants to break off from its more diverse school district. This week, a federal judge found that the move was racially motivated. She also said it would send messages of racial inferiority and exclusion that, quote, "assail the dignity of black schoolchildren." Nevertheless, the judge allowed the split to go forward."

We have just gotten better at feeling like we are not being racist while still being racist. Best of both worlds, you get to be all offended when someone claims you are racist and not have to deal with the blacks.
 
caveman1917 said:
Patron: "I identify as visually impaired and I identify my dog as a Seeing-Eye dog, so you must let my dog in."

Waiter: "Sir, your eye-sight is obviously fine and the dog is just a random dog, you don't even have it on a leash."

Patron: "Look, I just identified to you as visually impaired and my dog as a Seeing-Eye dog. Now may I please see the menu and order?"

Waiter: "The menu has really fine print, won't you have a problem reading it if you are visually impaired?"

Patron: "No that won't be a problem at all."

Waiter to manager: "Can't we challenge this?"

Manager: "No. You'd think there's some legal basis for challenging his claims, but turns out there isn't. Neither obvious observations by others that his eye-sight is perfectly fine nor even doctor's tests showing the same thing. There's just no way to challenge it."
Click to expand...

That is pretty much accurate, as for one no law only specifies seeing eye dogs but all assistance dogs and they are not strictly certified. So yes this really is exactly how the laws work.
 
Myriad said:
Good thing I didn't say few to none voted for it, then.
Click to expand...

You said that few to none publicly supported it. Granted, the ballot is secret so it doesn't constitute public support, but pre-referendum polls also show similar distribution. Granted, those are anonymous as well so don't constitute public support, but as this point for your claim to hold you'd have to argue that those people who voted No and said in the polls they would vote No would keep such intention private. Why would the voters for one side keep this private (ie not publicly support their vote) but the voters for the other side wouldn't?

Interesting graph, and highly applicable had the vote been for a Democrat candidate for the House of Representatives. (Though in that case, it would hardly have been surprising that with voting districts heavily gerrymandered all over the country, a Democrat both attracted more funding and won their race by a large margin in a Democratic district. Who'd have thought?)
Click to expand...

The relation holds generally and is supported by other evidence that doesn't rely on voting districts, that graph is just the clearest exposition of the effect that I could quickly find with a google search.

Why do you think the spending was so lopsided, though? Maybe all the churches, women's rights groups, women's anti sexual assault groups, and businesses that publicly supported the measure didn't have the money to secretly fund the other side.
Click to expand...

I don't know, you tell me. If 1/3 of the population is driven to keep their views to themselves and only express them in secret ballot whereas the other 2/3 freely supports their views in public then it stands to reason that this situation would also reflect itself in differential public funding campaigns between those two groups. The real question then is what creates such situation where one side is driven to keep their views to themselves.
 
Myriad said:
1. Do you regard racial segregation in American history as a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Moralizing is tedious and counter-analytic. 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.

2. Do you regard sex segregated rest rooms as a bad thing? That is to say, are you opposed to all "Men's" and "Women's" rooms and would prefer only unisex unrestricted rest rooms were ever available?
Click to expand...

Moralizing is still tedious and counter-analytic. I regard sex segregated rest rooms as a successful gain made by women, as an oppressed class under patriarchy, to conquer an equal place in pubic life - including things such as education.

Let me ask you the same question, do you regard sex segregated rest rooms as a "bad" thing? If yes, are you aware that in many third-world countries the implementation of sex segregated rest rooms is an important aspect to allow, among other things, girls to access education since the lack of such facilities leads to, among other things, girls skipping class when they have their periods? Or does your liberal wokeness stop at the borders of the USA?

I have to ask because I've read your posts in this thread back quite a few pages, and I haven't been able to glean from this what your actual position or opinion is on anything being discussed in this thread. I'm only seeing pot-stirring and policing of people's word choices. (Including, bizarrely, the Massachusetts state legislature's.) So I hope you can answer the above clearly, to help aid my obviously deficient reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Really? So you've not seen any of my posts on the relation between hormones and behaviour, on anthropological evidence of cultures with entirely different structures than our own in the relevant aspects of this thread, or indeed even on testing specific hypotheses made in this thread such as ThePrestige's hypothesis that transgenderism is the result of the social imposition of strict gender roles which can be tested by cross-cultural comparisons of Native American tribes? How could you possibly have missed all that?
 
caveman1917 said:
Moralizing is tedious and counter-analytic. 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.
Click to expand...

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.

I regard sex segregated rest rooms as a successful gain made by women, as an oppressed class under patriarchy
Click to expand...

Wait, what? Where did they do before?
 
ponderingturtle said:
We have just gotten better at feeling like we are not being racist while still being racist.
Click to expand...

Obviously. Which is one of the reasons that moralizing about specific symptoms of racism in society, such as segregation, will not lead to fundamental improvements. For that one would actually need to analyze the more foundational properties of society which lead to such things. Playing whack-a-mole with the symptoms leads nowhere except giving the people doing it that nice warm sense of wokeness and moral superiority.
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

In the earliest days there were several uprisings of the black and white underclass/slaves together. Subsequent to that the bourgeoisie and slave-owners instituted a system where black people were relegated to the underclass and white people were given crumbs in return for their support in continuing said system, for example white people were given functions of overseers or slave patrols. And institutionalized racism was born.

Wait, what? Where did they do before?
Click to expand...

They didn't, they stayed at home.
 
caveman1917 said:
In the earliest days there were several uprisings of the black and white underclass/slaves together. Subsequent to that the bourgeoisie and slave-owners instituted a system where black people were relegated to the underclass and white people were given crumbs in return for their support in continuing said system, for example white people were given functions of overseers or slave patrols. And institutionalized racism was born.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that blacks were brought to the continent as slaves and many Americans resented the idea of sharing society with them on equal terms?

They didn't, they stayed at home.
Click to expand...

You must be joking. Women could go out and do stuff. You know shop or, in many instances, work. Did they use the men's room?
 
Belz... said:
That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that blacks were brought to the continent as slaves and many Americans resented the idea of sharing society with them on equal terms?
Click to expand...

Why would they resent the idea of sharing with them on equal terms? Just because? There are plenty of red-heads yet there is no institutional hair colour segregation, there are plenty of left-handed people yet there is no institutional dexterity segregation, and so on and so forth. So why do we have institutional racism then? It's almost like there's more to the story than that Americans resented the idea of sharing with them because...well just because.

You must be joking. Women could go out and do stuff. You know shop or, in many instances, work. Did they use the men's room?
Click to expand...

Very few women worked before the 1900s. If they really did have to go out for longer than they could hold their bladder they went somewhere in the bushes or used something called a "urinette." The lack of women's facilities was mostly driven by the idea that women were supposed to stay at home, indeed the provision of public rest rooms for women was one of the demands of the earliest feminist movement so as to allow women to participate equally in public life. As I pointed out to Myriad, in many parts of the world it still is.
 
d4m10n said:
Helps us to focus on ideas/consequences instead of people.
Click to expand...

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 with out addressing the bigotry and them feeling called out as bigots?

"Oh your actions are disproportionately hurting the black community and the black community suffers from a lot of racism even when those engaging in it don't realize they are acting racist" that will get people all defensive. You simply can't address problems if people refuse to consider that they might be acting in a discriminatory fashion. But once they get a hint that you consider them acting in a discriminatory fashion they will say they couldn't possibly be such a bigot.
 
caveman1917 said:
No it isn't, there are no gametes in between sperm and ova. Sex is about as strict a binary as there ever was one. A binary which is a stable equilibrium at that, for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

OK then we are at the idea that there are three sexes, male, female and other. And of course after menopause women stop being female as there are no ova. Also before puberty, and as a result of injury or disease.

That does work but again see not binary. There is always the category of those who don't produce sperm or ova.
 
caveman1917 said:
Obviously. Which is one of the reasons that moralizing about specific symptoms of racism in society, such as segregation, will not lead to fundamental improvements. For that one would actually need to analyze the more foundational properties of society which lead to such things. Playing whack-a-mole with the symptoms leads nowhere except giving the people doing it that nice warm sense of wokeness and moral superiority.
Click to expand...

And does that actually work either? What are the foundational properties that lead to racism then and how do you address them?
 
caveman1917 said:
Why would they resent the idea of sharing with them on equal terms? Just because?
Click to expand...

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

There are plenty of red-heads yet there is no institutional hair colour segregation, there are plenty of left-handed people yet there is no institutional dexterity segregation, and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because currently there no handism or hairism.

So why do we have institutional racism then?
Click to expand...

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

Very few women worked before the 1900s. If they really did have to go out for longer than they could hold their bladder they went somewhere in the bushes or used something called a "urinette."
Click to expand...

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

The lack of women's facilities was mostly driven by the idea that women were supposed to stay at home
Click to expand...

And yet they pretty much didn't. Who said they were supposed to?
 
caveman1917 said:
Very few women worked before the 1900s. If they really did have to go out for longer than they could hold their bladder they went somewhere in the bushes or used something called a "urinette." The lack of women's facilities was mostly driven by the idea that women were supposed to stay at home, indeed the provision of public rest rooms for women was one of the demands of the earliest feminist movement so as to allow women to participate equally in public life. As I pointed out to Myriad, in many parts of the world it still is.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ponderingturtle said:
OK then we are at the idea that there are three sexes, male, female and other. And of course after menopause women stop being female as there are no ova. Also before puberty, and as a result of injury or disease.

That does work but again see not binary. There is always the category of those who don't produce sperm or ova.
Click to expand...

The category "other" is not a sex. The sex of an individual is the role played by that individual in sexual reproduction (hence "sex" as in "sexual reproduction"). For mammals, among which humans, there are only two roles an individual can play in sexual reproduction, namely provider of sperm (called the male sex) or provider of ovum (called the female sex). Those who don't produce either sperm or ova do not have a sex (they don't play any role in sexual reproduction). In other words, there are two sexes and some people who don't have a sex, sex is binary.
 
caveman1917 said:
In other words, there are two sexes and some people who don't have a sex, sex is binary.
Click to expand...

Even ignoring that, it's important to note that diformity is not a new sex, and that we're talking about a vanishingly small number of people. It's not like we need to upend our entire concept of sex here.
 
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.
 
ponderingturtle said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ponderingturtle said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
caveman1917 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure, but they probably didn't go out in the street to have a pee.
 
Belz... said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

The dominant ideology in the Victorian era said so.
 
ponderingturtle said:
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?
Click to expand...


[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
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Argument by assertion doesn't fly. You didn't answer the question: Why is there racism but not, say, handism or hairism?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Well sex is a spectrum as well but we ignore that for some reason.
Click to expand...

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".
 
caveman1917 said:
Argument by assertion doesn't fly. You didn't answer the question: Why is there racism but not, say, handism or hairism?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Argument by assertion doesn't fly.
 
caveman1917 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

ref

livescience said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
d4m10n said:
Ask any lefty over, say, 40.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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."
 
JoeMorgue said:
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."
Click to expand...

How would you expect your "real world solutions" to make racism go away if you refuse to analyze where racism comes from?
 
caveman1917 said:
You keep begging the question.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

Not at all.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Took you long enough.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
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.
Click to expand...

They didn't just teach to write with the right hand. They would beat you up if you didn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom