• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
Nevertheless people feeling uncomfortable should not be dismissed. I have heard a number of men declaring quite vehemently that the idea of a woman entering the gents' while they are using the urinal fills them with horror.
Click to expand...

I can imagine such a scenario:

Belz...: Holy smokes! I think you've taken a wrong turn, ma'am.
Woman: Sorry all the stalls are taken in the women's room and I really need to go!
Belz...: Fine, knock yourself out.
Woman: (sheepishly walks buy, looking away)
 
Belz... said:
I can imagine such a scenario:

Belz...: Holy smokes! I think you've taken a wrong turn, ma'am.
Woman: Sorry all the stalls are taken in the women's room and I really need to go!
Belz...: Fine, knock yourself out.
Woman: (sheepishly walks buy, looking away)
Click to expand...


It happens. I remember a tour guide urging the women to get in there and use the gents or we were all going to miss some connection or other. Some of the men looked a bit embarrassed. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it?
 
Rolfe said:
It happens. I remember a tour guide urging the women to get in there and use the gents or we were all going to miss some connection or other. Some of the men looked a bit embarrassed. But that's not really what we're talking about, is it?
Click to expand...

Nope. We're not talking about the same kind of feeling at all.
 
Perhaps trans activists should focus more on insisting that trans men use men's spaces, including communal locker rooms and prisons, even when they have not medically transitioned. If they focused more on that, then they might hear more objection to it.

Since biology doesn't matter, only identity, a prisoner with female appearance and anatomy who identifies as a man belongs in the men's prison, right?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Pay no attention to the constant theme of sex perverts and rapists when discussing trans issues, it's just a coincidence and certainly not the sign the clear animus of "gender critical" feminism.
Click to expand...

The constant theme of sex perverts and rapists is certainly not coincidence. The reason for the existence of sex segregated spaces is to protect people from sex perverts and rapists, especially protecting female people from male sex perverts and rapists.


It's not that simple. There's a whole raft of social conventions that exist to support those efforts, but at the core, that's what it's all about, so of course the themes of sex perverts and rapists will be present in any such discussion. Some of it will be the general feeling of "modesty", but that's related.
 
Elaedith said:
Perhaps trans activists should focus more on insisting that trans men use men's spaces, including communal locker rooms and prisons, even when they have not medically transitioned. If they focused more on that, then they might hear more objection to it.

Since biology doesn't matter, only identity, a prisoner with female appearance and anatomy who identifies as a man belongs in the men's prison, right?
Click to expand...

I've followed the case of Alec McKinney, one of the shooters at the STEM school in Colorado. The person killed in that shooting was a Robotics team member, so it got a lot of press in Robotics circles. Alec is a female bodied young transman, and was recently sentenced to life in prison, which I believe will be served in a male facility.

What could go wrong?
 
d4m10n said:
Well, they are radical feminists after all, centering and prioritizing the needs of women like themselves.

To the extent that feminists take an interest in men's spaces at all, it's b/c they'd rather have access thereto.
Click to expand...

Plenty of feminists have no trouble at all treating trans women as women. That's the distinction. TERFs, as far as I can tell, are a vocal minority of the feminist population.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
And yet all of their efforts seem to be directed towards excluding trans women. The reasoning may be due to their view that denies the legitimacy of all transgender identity, but the effect is almost entirely focused on transwomen.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you read Rolfe's post. Or perhaps you didn't follow the intent. She said "Not because some of them are trans, but because all of them are male." Yes, it seeks to exclude tanswomen. Not because they are trans, but because they are males. It's not "trans-exclusionary", it's male-exclusionary.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm not sure you read Rolfe's post. Or perhaps you didn't follow the intent. She said "Not because some of them are trans, but because all of them are male." Yes, it seeks to exclude tanswomen. Not because they are trans, but because they are males. It's not "trans-exclusionary", it's male-exclusionary.
Click to expand...

Kind of like how banning same sex marriage was not discriminating against homosexuality it was against anyone who wanted to marry someone of the same sex.
 
Meadmaker said:
I've followed the case of Alec McKinney, one of the shooters at the STEM school in Colorado. The person killed in that shooting was a Robotics team member, so it got a lot of press in Robotics circles. Alec is a female bodied young transman, and was recently sentenced to life in prison, which I believe will be served in a male facility.

What could go wrong?
Click to expand...

That's a horrible idea.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Kind of like how banning same sex marriage was not discriminating against homosexuality it was against anyone who wanted to marry someone of the same sex.
Click to expand...

The question becomes, should we be catering towards any sincerely held anti-trans animus in these government run shelters?

I'm sure there were people during the gay panics that honestly felt it was unsafe for their children to have gay teachers or gay sport coaches, given the widely held belief that gay men were all sex perverts and pedophiles.

Should society have catered to that sincerely held animus in the name of perceived safety? The answer seems obvious to me.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity that some women might have when they express anti-trans opinions, though I do doubt that these sentiments are more common than not. I just don't see the existence of sincere anti-trans animus as sufficient reason to discriminate against trans-women as a category.

I see no downside to making accommodations towards trans-bigoted women that might feel unsafe, so long as those accommodations don't interfere on the ability of trans-women to access these facilities. Obviously, blanket exclusion of trans-women is a non-starter.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Is that a standard you apply in other circumstances?
Click to expand...
I try to, yes.

Would you be so equivocating if a flat earther was trying to elide their ideological roots by refusing categorization?
Click to expand...

What I am asking for is the opposite of equivocation. If someone says they believe the earth is flat, we can have a conversation about what they believe without ever bringing up categories.

Same thing here. You don't need to talk about the TERF category to talk about whatever specific ideas or issues you want to talk about in that category. Since debating the category definition is tangential anyway, why don't you just talk about the specific items you have in mind?

Why all these pointlesss digressions?
 
theprestige said:
I try to, yes.



What I am asking for is the opposite of equivocation. If someone says they believe the earth is flat, we can have a conversation about what they believe without ever bringing up categories.

Same thing here. You don't need to talk about the TERF category to talk about whatever specific ideas or issues you want to talk about in that category. Since debating the category definition is tangential anyway, why don't you just talk about the specific items you have in mind?

Why all these pointlesss digressions?
Click to expand...

Meta discussions are sometimes instructive. How many times are you willing to have the same tedious debate about the same flat earther ideas, just repackaged under new names and under new terms?

It strikes me that TERF ideology is trying to rebrand itself to avoid its rightly earned negative reputation. Much like the creationists tried to repackage their brand of evangelical "science" in order to evade court decisions and bad PR, or how white supremacists tried to market themselves to today's youth as the "alt right", TERFs are scrambling to repackage the same old ideas in order to evade losing battles both in the courts and the public opinion sphere.

As with many bigoted causes, the constant re-branding or resistance to categorization is an attempt to avoid rightly earned stigma.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Plenty of feminists have no trouble at all treating trans women as women. That's the distinction. TERFs, as far as I can tell, are a vocal minority of the feminist population.
Click to expand...
I'd be fascinated to see the breakdown on specific questions, e.g. Should Seani use the ladies room?
 
Meadmaker said:
To me, a lot of this discussion of TERF has devolved into the oh so common forum activity of determining whether or not someone actually said something. Here's my take on the whole thing.

When discussing the topic of transgenders, their identity, and their place in society, you can engage with arguments, or you can call people names. I prefer the former.
Click to expand...

SuburbanTurkey said:
The question becomes, should we be catering towards any sincerely held anti-trans animus in these government run shelters?

I'm sure there were people during the gay panics that honestly felt it was unsafe for their children to have gay teachers or gay sport coaches, given the widely held belief that gay men were all sex perverts and pedophiles.

Should society have catered to that sincerely held animus in the name of perceived safety? The answer seems obvious to me.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity that some women might have when they express anti-trans opinions, though I do doubt that these sentiments are more common than not. I just don't see the existence of sincere anti-trans animus as sufficient reason to discriminate against trans-women as a category.

I see no downside to making accommodations towards trans-bigoted women that might feel unsafe, so long as those accommodations don't interfere on the ability of trans-women to access these facilities. Obviously, blanket exclusion of trans-women is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

In an attempt to steer you toward the former option (from my post quoted above), I would like to understand how you would answer a question.

I am going to reference a nearly 10 year old case, but the circumstances have occurred again. There was a swimming facility at a community college in Washington. The facilities were accessible to students at the community college, and they were also used as the practice facility for a high school girls' swim team. There were men's and women's locker rooms, and there was also a smaller, rarely used facility where people could change. (I believe it was also a locker room. i.e. it had the usual lockers, showers, toilets, etc. often found in a locker room, but I don't know why it existed or its usual purpose. I know it was small, but I don't know how small.)

One of the students at the school was a 40ish transwoman. (I don't know the exact age) who went by the name Colleen Brenna. (The legal name of the transwoman at the time was the male name that the transwoman had been given at birth.) At the time, Colleen Brenna had not taken any hormone treatments or any other steps toward physical transition. Ms. Brenna was also a self-identified lesbian. Ms. Brenna wore stereotypically female clothing in public.

Ms. Brenna frequently used the women's locker room at the same time as the high school swim team, and she made no effort to conceal any part of her anatomy (that means penis and scrotum for you not getting the sense of the sense of this.) The girls on the swim team expressed discomfort at changing in the presence of Ms. Brenna. Ms. Brenna was offered the use of the smaller facility, but she refused. The girls and their parents complained, but the facility ownership said that Ms. Brenna had the right to use the women's locker room. Eventually, the girls' swim team used the smaller facility, but they couldn't all fit at once, so that cut into some of their practice t me.

Would you describe the girls on the team, and/or the parents of the girls on the team who supported their objections to changing in the presence of the transwoman, as "trans-bigoted"?
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
snipped for brevity

Would you describe the girls on the team, and/or the parents of the girls on the team who supported their objections to changing in the presence of the transwoman, as "trans-bigoted"?
Click to expand...

Assuming there was no deliberately lewd or harassing behavior on the part of Ms. Francis, I see no reason why she should not be able to use the women's facilities. Whether or not the reaction of the people calling the police was rooted in bigotry or ignorance is unclear to me.

I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt given that it is only recently the existence and legal acceptance of trans people is becoming common knowledge.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Assuming there was no deliberately lewd or harassing behavior on the part of Ms. Francis, I see no reason why she should not be able to use the women's facilities.

snip for focus
Click to expand...

Do you see any reason why an adult cisman should not be able to use the women's facilities during the same times that the female high-school swim team was using them, assuming he doesn't engage in any deliberately lewd or harassing behavior?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Do you see any reason why an adult cisman should not be able to use the women's facilities during the same times that the female high-school swim team was using them, assuming he doesn't engage in any deliberately lewd or harassing behavior?
Click to expand...

Someone who does not sincerely identify as a woman should be denied entry. I admit that this could be tricky to nail down in practice.

I suppose someone could try to take advantage of this, as people can take advantage of anything.

Despite fearmongering, i see no evidence that these things actually happen frequently enough to justify blanket exclusion of trans women. And this example shows that the fear is not the disingenuous men that are often suggested, but ordinary trans women like Ms. Francis.

It would probably be wise for laws to be changed such that trans people can have their official gender ID changed easily, in order to protect against the hypothetical gender grifter.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
I'm interested in getting an answer to my good question, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...

That is my answer. Sex segregated facilities assumes that separating the sexes guarantees a lust-free environment, which we know isn't true. Your line of inquiry has me questing the assumption that there even should be sex segregated facilities.

I think there is legitimate interest in privacy in places of undress. Perhaps these facilities should be modified to provide real privacy instead of sex segregated communal rooms. At least, privacy stalls for dressing, with communal facilities for less sensitive behavior.

The dorms in my college had private shower stalls. There was no need for people walking around naked.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
I'm not sure you read Rolfe's post. Or perhaps you didn't follow the intent. She said "Not because some of them are trans, but because all of them are male." Yes, it seeks to exclude tanswomen. Not because they are trans, but because they are males. It's not "trans-exclusionary", it's male-exclusionary.
Click to expand...

His accusations of anti-trans bigotry and "TERFs" have been demonstrated again and again to be groundless at best and plain false at worst yet he simply repeats them ad nauseam. If the rape shelter in question was run by "trans-exclusionists" who are driven by "anti-trans bigotry" we would see the following:

1. If a cisgender male and a transgender male show up, only the transgender male would be refused entry because the cisgender male isn't trans. Yet we clearly see that cisgender males are refused too.

2. If a cisgender female and a transgender female show up, the transgender female would be refused entry and the cisgender wouldn't. Yet we clearly see that the transgender females are not refused entry.

It's patently obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the property on which the exclusion criterion is based is not transgender identity but sex, as if that wasn't obvious already from the "single-sex service" description. So either SuburbanTurkey does not have a functioning brain or he is arguing in bad faith.

Which is all the more surprising given how easy it is to test his claims, so one wonders why he doesn't just do so and present the results. Here is but one test: He could send an email to the shelter telling them that he is male and ask whether he can use their services. If his claim is correct the response should be something like: "We do not have enough information to answer your question, could you tell us your gender identity first?" If his claim is wrong then the response would be a simple: "No our services are not available to males."

Of course, again, anyone with a functioning brain will already know that the response will be the latter and not the former, but since this seems to come so difficult to some people perhaps he should just put his claims to the test.
 
caveman1917 said:
His accusations of anti-trans bigotry and "TERFs" have been demonstrated again and again to be groundless at best and plain false at worst yet he simply repeats them ad nauseam. If the rape shelter in question was run by "trans-exclusionists" who are driven by "anti-trans bigotry" we would see the following:

1. If a cisgender male and a transgender male show up, only the transgender male would be refused entry because the cisgender male isn't trans. Yet we clearly see that cisgender males are refused too.

2. If a cisgender female and a transgender female show up, the transgender female would be refused entry and the cisgender wouldn't. Yet we clearly see that the transgender females are not refused entry.
It's patently obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that the property on which the exclusion criterion is based is not transgender identity but sex, as if that wasn't obvious already from the "single-sex service" description. So either SuburbanTurkey does not have a functioning brain or he is arguing in bad faith.

Which is all the more surprising given how easy it is to test his claims, so one wonders why he doesn't just do so and present the results. Here is but one test: He could send an email to the shelter telling them that he is male and ask whether he can use their services. If his claim is correct the response should be something like: "We do not have enough information to answer your question, could you tell us your gender identity first?" If his claim is wrong then the response would be a simple: "No our services are not available to males."

Of course, again, anyone with a functioning brain will already know that the response will be the latter and not the former, but since this seems to come so difficult to some people perhaps he should just put his claims to the test.
Click to expand...

The Vancouver Rape Relief center did not provide aid to transwomen. Did you miss that part?

You are aware that your view of men and women, as defined through strictly biological terms, is not how many view the matter of gender and gender discrimination right? Is the entire nation of Canada brain damaged or engaged in bad faith?
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Assuming there was no deliberately lewd or harassing behavior on the part of Ms. Francis, I see no reason why she should not be able to use the women's facilities. Whether or not the reaction of the people calling the police was rooted in bigotry or ignorance is unclear to me.

I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt given that it is only recently the existence and legal acceptance of trans people is becoming common knowledge.
Click to expand...

All right. So, they might have been bigoted, or they might have been ignorant. You are willing to "extend the benefit of the doubt" to them, and assume that it was ignorance, based on the time at which the incident described occurred.

I'm guessing that more recent incidents, such as the case I frequently refer to in Palatine, Illinois, from just a couple of years ago, could only be explained by bigotry. (That was the case where the 17 year old asked, "Can she put the towel over her eyes?") After all, it was much more recent, and since it involved a controversy over an extended period of time, a discussion at a school board meeting, and an actual lawsuit, there can be no doubt that the position of the school board was explained sufficiently that there could be no excuse for continued ignorance.

To my way of thinking, a high school girl who didn't want to take off her clothes when the person next to her has a visible prick might be more accurately described as "normal".
 
Meadmaker said:
All right. So, they might have been bigoted, or they might have been ignorant. You are willing to "extend the benefit of the doubt" to them, and assume that it was ignorance, based on the time at which the incident described occurred.

I'm guessing that more recent incidents, such as the case I frequently refer to in Palatine, Illinois, from just a couple of years ago, could only be explained by bigotry. (That was the case where the 17 year old asked, "Can she put the towel over her eyes?") After all, it was much more recent, and since it involved a controversy over an extended period of time, a discussion at a school board meeting, and an actual lawsuit, there can be no doubt that the position of the school board was explained sufficiently that there could be no excuse for continued ignorance.

To my way of thinking, a high school girl who didn't want to take off her clothes when the person next to her has a visible prick might be more accurately described as "normal".
Click to expand...

I am sympathetic to this. I just don't think excluding trans women is a morally or practically acceptable option. There are plenty of sincere trans women who have not and have no intention to surgically transition. Some trans women have dicks, and throwing them into men's rooms or some other room doesn't strike me as acceptable.

the more I think about this, the more I think it's time to do away with communal sex-segregated undressing areas.

Ordinary bathrooms could remain the same, since stalls provide privacy already. i don't see how this is an issue with women's shelters, unless there's some element of communal nakedness there I'm not aware of.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
To my way of thinking, a high school girl who didn't want to take off her clothes when the person next to her has a visible prick might be more accurately described as "normal".
Click to expand...

And when it is a high school boy for the gay man next to him? No one wants homosexuals in the locker rooms, yet saying that is taken as some crazy kind of discrimination for no logical reason.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The Vancouver Rape Relief center did not provide aid to transwomen. Did you miss that part?
Click to expand...

And yet you choose to highlight point 2 of my post, which does not deal with transwomen, but with cisgender and transgender females. The point which deals with transwomen is point 1, which deals with cisgender and transgender males. Did you miss that part?

You are aware that your view of men and women, as defined through strictly biological terms, is not how many view the matter of gender and gender discrimination right?
Click to expand...

And yet I did not use the terms "men" or "women" but "male" and "female" - you know, biological terms with actual proper definitions. Your ad populum is of course rejected out of hand: many people believe all sorts of dumb crap, as if the fact that many people share a certain belief somehow makes that belief more correct.

Is the entire nation of Canada brain damaged or engaged in bad faith?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not. Your apparent inability to even highlight the correct point which deals with transwomen in my post (that would be point 1 and not point 2) can tell us something about your claims though. And yes, you are the one making claims about that rape shelter being "trans-exclusionary" or driven by "anti-trans bigotry" so it is up to you to demonstrate them and it is up to you to defend your claims against criticism. Criticism which has been leveled again and again in this thread by multiple people. Simply ignoring criticism and counterargument and just repeating your claims ad nauseam does not an argument make.
 
caveman1917 said:
And yet you choose to highlight point 2 of my post, which does not deal with transwomen, but with cisgender and transgender females. The point which deals with transwomen is point 1, which deals with cisgender and transgender males. Did you miss that part?



And yet I did not use the terms "men" or "women" but "male" and "female" - you know, biological terms with actual proper definitions. Your ad populum is of course rejected out of hand: many people believe all sorts of dumb crap, as if the fact that many people share a certain belief somehow makes that belief more correct.



Perhaps, perhaps not. Your apparent inability to even highlight the correct point which deals with transwomen in my post (that would be point 1 and not point 2) can tell us something about your claims though. And yes, you are the one making claims about that rape shelter being "trans-exclusionary" or driven by "anti-trans bigotry" so it is up to you to demonstrate them and it is up to you to defend your claims against criticism. Criticism which has been leveled again and again in this thread by multiple people. Simply ignoring criticism and counterargument and just repeating your claims ad nauseam does not an argument make.
Click to expand...

it would literally kill you to just call them trans women, wouldn't it?

Yes, I'm being the unreasonable one here, please do tell.

The rape shelter is trans exclusionary in the plainly understood way that TERFs are. TERFs deny the validity of gender transition. To them, transwomen are men (thus ineligible for entry) and trans men are women (thus welcome).

No one has claimed here that TERFs exclude all trans people as a separate 3rd class. This is an incredibly tedious straw man.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I am sympathetic to this. I just don't think excluding trans women is a morally or practically acceptable option. There are plenty of sincere trans women who have not and have no intention to surgically transition. Some trans women have dicks, and throwing them into men's rooms or some other room doesn't strike me as acceptable.

the more I think about this, the more I think it's time to do away with communal sex-segregated undressing areas.

Ordinary bathrooms could remain the same, since stalls provide privacy already. i don't see how this is an issue with women's shelters, unless there's some element of communal nakedness there I'm not aware of.
Click to expand...

Should a trans man who has not medically transitioned (but has previously identified as a man) be denied access to a woman's shelter on the grounds of being a man?

Should a trans man prisoner who has not medically transitioned be placed in a men's prison on the grounds of being a man?
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
The Vancouver Rape Relief center did not provide aid to transwomen.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear in the example given that a transgender female is a transman. Person who is female bodied and identifies as a man by gender.


SuburbanTurkey said:
You are aware that your view of men and women, as defined through strictly biological terms, is not how many view the matter of gender and gender discrimination right? Is the entire nation of Canada brain damaged or engaged in bad faith?
Click to expand...
No... he's viewing male and female through biological terms, not gender. Gender is not sex, sex is not gender, remember?
 
Elaedith said:
Should a trans man who has not medically transitioned (but has previously identified as a man) be denied access to a woman's shelter on the grounds of being a man?

Should a trans man who has not medically transitioned be placed in a men's prison on the grounds of being a man?
Click to expand...

I would say yes to both unless there was evidence showing that doing so placed these people in unusual danger, which I assume might be a serious problem.

The fact that men's prisons have rampant sexual violence that society just treats as par for course is a disgrace. Likewise for the lack of social services for men fleeing domestic abuse situations.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
That is my answer. Sex segregated facilities assumes that separating the sexes guarantees a lust-free environment, which we know isn't true. Your line of inquiry has me questing the assumption that there even should be sex segregated facilities.

I think there is legitimate interest in privacy in places of undress. Perhaps these facilities should be modified to provide real privacy instead of sex segregated communal rooms. At least, privacy stalls for dressing, with communal facilities for less sensitive behavior.

The dorms in my college had private shower stalls. There was no need for people walking around naked.
Click to expand...

I'll mark you down as being in support of adult males being allowed into the locker rooms of underage females.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'll mark you down as being in support of adult males being allowed into the locker rooms of underage females.
Click to expand...

Yes, mark me down as treating trans women as women.

Should I mark you down as one of the people avoiding public resources because you can't bear to share it with transwomen?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I am sympathetic to this. I just don't think excluding trans women is a morally or practically acceptable option. There are plenty of sincere trans women who have not and have no intention to surgically transition. Some trans women have dicks, and throwing them into men's rooms or some other room doesn't strike me as acceptable.
Click to expand...

It would seem a lot more sympathetic if your responses didn't so often include insinuations of bigotry and hate.

I am very genuinely curious about something. I tried to get some clarity from Squeegee, but he never did answer. So I'm looking for your perspective, your personal view on this.

I have no objection to a person who hasn't yet surgically transitioned.
I have no objection to a person who would like to surgically transition but can't afford it.
I can even give some leeway to a person who doesn't want to surgically transition because it's awfully permanent and invasive and any surgery has risks.

But there are also people who have said that they don't want to transition at all, in any way. They are content to continue having a full beard, masculine appearance, and unquestionably masculine body... but who want to be considered women. They view themselves as being transwomen, and want everyone else to recognize them and treat them as they would any other woman.

What does the term "transwoman" even mean for a person who has no intention or desire to appear feminine in any way at all?

What does the term "woman" mean when it includes people who are clearly and incontrovertibly male in every way that any other human can tell?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
it would literally kill you to just call them trans women, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Oh please, as you can easily see I've called them transwomen many times in this thread. In this case I decided to use precise language to distinguish gender from sex, because that's the entire point: that the exclusion criterion is sex and not gender identity. But that's all you do, right? Making groundless accusations and when called out on it just making up a bunch more. Leading me to believe that in your case it is bad faith and not just the result of postmodern brain rot.

Yes, I'm being the unreasonable one here, please do tell.
Click to expand...

You object to precise language making the distinction between gender and sex so yeah, you're the one being unreasonable.

The rape shelter is trans exclusionary in the plainly understood way that TERFs are. TERFs deny the validity of gender transition. To them, transwomen are men (thus ineligible for entry) and trans men are women (thus welcome).
Click to expand...

Define "validity." Oh right, you can't, because it means jack ****. And don't think that your attempt to substitute gender (the "validity of gender transition") for sex is going unnoticed. Transwomen are male (thus ineligible for entry in a female single-sex service) and transmen are female (thus welcome in a female single-sex service).

No one has claimed here that TERFs exclude all trans people as a separate 3rd class. This is an incredibly tedious straw man.
Click to expand...

So they're not TERFs (trans-exclusionary) but MERFs (male-exclusionary) and the exclusion criterion is sex and not transgender status. Glad we cleared that up, I look forward to your usage of MERFs instead of TERFs henceforth.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom