Continuation Transwomen are not women - part 13

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by theprestige

There's a sex-segregated restroom right there. If all they're trying to do is take a much-needed piss, that's a solved problem.

What's a transwoman (i.e., a male who claims "woman" as their gender identity), trying to do when faced with these sex-segregated spaces?

What is a transwoman trying to do, when faced with sex-segregated prisons?

What is a transwoman trying to do, when faced with sex-segregated sports?

What do you think public policy about sex-segregated spaces should do, in each of those scenarios, when faced with a transwoman?

Still waiting for answers, TurkeysGhost.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Still waiting for answers, TurkeysGhost.

You have yet to engage with my point that trans people cannot use these sex segregated spaces without drawing huge amounts of attention to themselves simply by existing while trans.

A bearded trans man using the women's restroom and getting the cops routinely called on them is not a "solved problem", it's you simply refusing to engage with the problem.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't think anyone denies that. But that's not the question. Do we categorically deny parents authority over their children because a few parents misuse that authority? That's stupid. Especially since no substitute authority has any better track record of acting in the best interest of the child than parents do. And why would you expect them to? Nobody has more skin in the game than parents. There's a bloody good reason the basic family structure has continued through thousands of years of human social evolution. We have yet to improve upon it.

Playing the odds, I'd pick the parents over the school/government any day of the week. It should take specific, demonstrable and severe problems to ever substitute the authority of the latter for the former. The mere fact that a child wants to transition doesn't suffice.

I'm not talking about custody disputes, which are complicated for exactly the reasons you state.

On the other hand, adults have unilateral authority about who they maintain relationships with, and I am merely pointing out that going down the anti-trans rabbit hole is a great way to make sure your adult trans children never call.

Parents often do horrible things to their children under the misguided belief that it's for their own good. I hope confused parents would look at these stories of anti-trans parents permanently estranging themselves from their children as a cautionary tale, not one to emulate.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I'm not talking about custody disputes, which are complicated for exactly the reasons you state.

On the other hand, adults have unilateral authority about who they maintain relationships with, and I am merely pointing out that going down the anti-trans rabbit hole is a great way to make sure your adult trans children never call.

Parents often do horrible things to their children under the misguided belief that it's for their own good. I hope confused parents would look at these stories of anti-trans parents permanently estranging themselves from their children as a cautionary tale, not one to emulate.

If your child falls victim to a harmful cult, you do everything you can to free them. Protecting your children from the evils of the world is the most fundamental charge of a parent.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Trausti

If your child falls victim to a harmful cult, you do everything you can to free them. Protecting your children from the evils of the world is the most fundamental charge of a parent.

Is going to a the tabloid press and trash talking your child an effective way to get people out of cults?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

On the other hand, adults have unilateral authority about who they maintain relationships with, and I am merely pointing out that going down the anti-trans rabbit hole is a great way to make sure your adult trans children never call.

That seems like it should be their business. Not yours. Not the state's.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by theprestige

That seems like it should be their business. Not yours. Not the state's.

Didn't realize that the Daily Mail was their private correspondence.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by TomB

If it's OK to be trans, then being "outed" should not be a bad thing.

Is this some kind of typo or specialized context or something? I'm having a hard time understanding how someone could think this way. The reason a trans person might not want to be outed is the same reason a homosexual might not want to be outed, even though it's "OK". Because enough people to be a threat or cause unwelcome distress may disagree, even irrationally or unjustly.

[theprestige]

This discussion would be very different if it were actually about people who are trying to pass and succeeding, who are worried about being outed if they use the correct sex-specific facilities.

I think the real solution to "outing", long-term is to de-stigmatize genderqueer expressions, and criminalize persecution of people who choose genderqueer expressions.

It should be okay for a dude in a dress to use the men's restroom, regardless of whatever gender he identifies as.

---

ETA: It would also be a very different discussion, if it were actually about protecting the fragile mental health of people who will become suicidal if they can't use the sex-segregated bathroom of their choice.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by gnome

Is this some kind of typo or specialized context or something? I'm having a hard time understanding how someone could think this way. The reason a trans person might not want to be outed is the same reason a homosexual might not want to be outed, even though it's "OK". Because enough people to be a threat or cause unwelcome distress may disagree, even irrationally or unjustly.

I don't think it's possible to be transgender without being "out".

The whole point of transgenderism is to express a gender construct that is at odds with the gender construct society normally prescribes for your sex. The essence of transwomanhood is saying, "I know you see me as male, but I want you to think of me, treat me as a woman."

Yes, some men can pass as women, with effort, favorable conditions, and a friendly (or at least indifferent) audience. But that's not really who we're trying to solve for, here.

ETA: And it certainly doesn't help that trans rights activists cold suck at explaining what "treated as a woman" is supposed to mean - other than the very concrete, very binary, "treated as a biological female" scenarios.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I'm not talking about custody disputes

Neither am I. Did you forget about schools transitioning children without their parent's consent?

Quote:

On the other hand, adults have unilateral authority about who they maintain relationships with, and I am merely pointing out that going down the anti-trans rabbit hole is a great way to make sure your adult trans children never call.

I'm not sure what you think the "anti-trans rabbit hole" is, or who exactly you think is advocating it. But parents who put the brakes on transition do not always regret that. You seem to be ignoring the cases where the child is grateful that the parent did.

Quote:

Parents often do horrible things to their children under the misguided belief that it's for their own good.

So do doctors.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Yes, some men can pass as women, with effort, favorable conditions, and a friendly (or at least indifferent) audience. But that's not really who we're trying to solve for, here.

That people who pass aren't the source of the dispute doesn't mean they won't be collateral damage of an "outing" policy. Not to mention, people that are "out" in one context or group do not necessarily want to be "out" in another.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Neither am I. Did you forget about schools transitioning children without their parent's consent?

I apologize if I'm digging up something that was already gone over, being that the thread is so deep and I discuss the topic elsewhere.

What actions constitute a school "transitioning" a child? That's a rather active verb.

[JoeMorgue]

Again this is what I mean when "trans" covers far too broad of a topic and we really should be clarifying are we talking about:

Since non-traditional sexed people will die if they don't use the phrase "spectrum" every 3 seconds it's weird that everyone is just "trans" when it describes multiple, different things.

1. A biological X who simply wants to be "thought of" as the other sex but has no intentions of doing any medical transitioning.

2. A biological X who wants to transition.

3. A biological X who is transitioning.

4. A biological X who has transitioned to the other sex as much as modern science will allow.

These are not all the same thing.

[Matthew Best]

In the olden days we had transexuals and transvestites, and the two were completely different. Nowadays they are all considered transgender.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again this is what I mean when "trans" covers far too broad of a topic and we really should be clarifying are we talking about:

Since non-traditional sexed people will die if they don't use the phrase "spectrum" every 3 seconds it's weird that everyone is just "trans" when it describes multiple, different things.

1. A biological X who simply wants to be "thought of" as the other sex but has no intentions of doing any medical transitioning.

2. A biological X who wants to transition.

3. A biological X who is transitioning.

4. A biological X who has transitioned to the other sex as much as modern science will allow.

These are not all the same thing.

And different public policy considerations might have to be taken into account for the above, times the possible arenas (changing rooms, sports, public schools, bathrooms, grants, statistics, prisons, etc.) times adults vs. children.

[Elaedith]

Nonsense' of gender data collected by public bodies set for review (UK)

'The Science Secretary will on Tuesday unveil a review into the “utter nonsense” of public bodies being urged to collect data on self-identified gender rather than biological sex.'

'The review will last six months and be headed up by Prof Alice Sullivan, the head of research at UCL’s Social Research Institute. It will analyse the collection of research and statistics by all public bodies on sex and gender, with specific recommendations to be made at the end.'

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Here's a concept I'd like enlightened liberals to keep in mind: Sorting males like Lia Thomas and Laurel Hubbard into male sports leagues and record books is not driven by bigotry, but by actual, testable, demonstrable differences between the two sexes in terms of athletic performance. Sometimes one's sex really does matter more than one's subjective sense of self. If you cannot wrap your head around this, do not claim to be driven by skepticism and a dedication to following the evidence wherever it leads.

Spot on.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by p0lka

Hehe yeah. I do stick to what i said though, as i have one kid that transitioned as an adult when they knew what they wanted, and another kid that wanted puberty blockers and was really confused at a younger age. But saying 'no wait till you're older' worked for them, because they ended up growing out of the confusion they had and are content now. I think.

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Hard to argue that these parents don't know what choice they're making at this point. They are choosing to be estranged by their trans children by acting like this.

Or... they're being responsible parents who are invested in their child's long term well being. Crazy idea, I know... but it seems to have worked quite well for p0lka.

Or do you think their younger child just lacks the backbone to ostracize p0lka?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Wait, what? It is totally possible for hunter gatherer societies to recognize a third gender like fa'afafine.

Mmm.... Let's add some clarification here.

Some societies, particularly societies with extremely rigid sex-based social roles, recognize a category for people who don't adhere to their rigid roles. Those are almost always categories for male people who don't fit the rigorous confines of a male within that society. And they are almost always relegated to a secondary status with in the social hierarchy... below that of conforming males, and above that of females.

There is, to my knowledge, only one example of a culture that allows females to take on a male-like role. And those are required to remain unmarried and to not have children... just so they can inherit property when there are no males to inherit it. But note that because they aren't allowed to have kids, the property will ultimately be inherited by a male along a different family branch.

And although I'm sure some pakeha or other will be alone shortly to tell me that I'm wrong, and that the perspectives of maori people that maoris are telling me are all lies... a lot of fa'afafine aren't there because they really, really, truly feel like they should have had a female body. There is a not insignificant number who are pressed into that role by their families, because there are no female children. And there are some chores and roles that can only be done by females... so if a family has all male children, well, tough luck. One of them gets to be fa'afafine whether they want to or not.

Now let's circle that back to the actual point. People with the mental disorder of dysphoria who have a particularly severe case do certainly exist in nature, at least among humans. What does not exist in nature is anyone actually being in the wrong body. People with a variety of mental health disorders do exist in nature; none of that means that their brain's misunderstanding of the nature of reality is true.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again my issue is we could be having this exact same argument about anything; height, weight, eye color, blood type with the same "My internal self image doesn't match reality" and we just... aren't.

Why does everyone's actual real world height that actually exists in the real objective world never clash with their "subjective internal self image of self" so that we have to have SOME version of the "Okay the are 5 foot 5... but they see themselves as 6 foot and we have to acknowledge that in some way?"

These are not questions we are bigoted simply for asking.

Why only sex/gender? Why does literally no other objective, real world biological variable demand accomodation for an internal sense of self?

Oh, oh oh! I actually do have a disconnect on my height! I'm 5'2" in the real world. My brain however, thinks that I'm about 4 inches taller than I am. I'm nearly 50, and I am still constantly surprised that I can't reach things. My brain is absolutely convinced that I can reach it, I'm tall enough. And I just keep being surprised that I can't.

Emotionally, it would be awesome if everyone else in the world perceived me as being 5'6". It would be great if they treated me like I was taller. I would love it.

But... and here's the kicker... I *still* won't be able to reach that shelf. Because wishes don't alter reality. And I'm smart enough and self-aware enough to recognize that my brain is wrong.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Considering it's only recent history that "left-handedness" has been de-stigmatized, I would not rush to assume that trans identity is unique in this way.

Gender expression, even for cis-gendered people, has long been a contentious topic. Trans people are only the most flagrant transgression against conservative gender roles, but it's part of a larger context.

I call BS.

Go look at the 80s and 90s.

We have regressed since then.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because you don't know how to argue without calling people Terf's and claiming the moral high ground as your total argument and this is no longer my problem to solve.

The complete picture of who we are consists of two things. Who we are and what we want to be.

Only with transgenderism does it manifest as this weird, line straddling "What I want to be IS what I am" way.

Being 5 foot 5 but WANTING to be 6 foot doesn't make you sorta 6 foot or a kind of 6 foot or 6 foot in certain situations.

When I close my eyes and picture "myself" I don't see exactly what the real world sees. This is true for everybody and there is absolutely nothing wrong with. Only with transgenders do we expect it to matter in this specific way.

Keep pretending it's super hard to understand because you can't function in an argument without a softball opponent you can call and Terf and wipe your hands of.

Technically, it's more than three. When we're talking psychological identity, it's three core elements: How we perceive ourselves, how we believe other people perceive us, and how we wish for others to perceive us. Note that in this context, "perceive" incorporates both somatic and psychological attributes. It's not just how we perceive our bodies, how we believe others perceive our bodies, and how we want others to perceive our bodies. It's also the content of our character. For example, TG seems to clearly want all of us to perceive them as being a noble, caring person willing to fight for what's right, and to stand up to injustice. Unfortunately for TG, as well as all other humans... how people actually perceive us (both somatically and psychologically) is beyond our control. I certainly don't perceive TG to be any of those character attributes listed.

Both the somatic and the psychological aspects of that identity are correlated with mental health disorders where the desire and the reality are out of alignment. On the somatic side, one of the most obvious examples is eating disorders, particularly anorexia. The patient perceives themselves to be fat; they believe that other people perceive them to be fat; they wish for others to perceive them as thin and fit. In reality, however, other people perceive them as being dangerously and unhealthily skinny. That departure from reality is a hallmark of the disorder. On the psychological side, you get into the various disorders that involve an element of delusion. That includes of course schizophrenia and psychosis, but it's also an element of both bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder.

There's another aspect to identity however, that being objective identity as opposed to psychological identity. This is the means by which other people recognize you and verify that you are you. This is very largely based on our physical attributes, because nobody can read your mind. Think of the items on your drivers license or passport. For people who know you well, it can also incorporate particular behaviors. And in some cases, it will incorporate things like manner of speaking. For example, there are some authors who have a very particular and recognizable "voice" - their style of writing is highly unique, and is something by which many people would recognize them. Similarly, there are some singers or actors who have unique vocal characteristics that make their voices identifiable characteristics.

Part of the frustration with the current transgender activism is the conflation of these two different types of identities. It's the push for everyone to accept the individual's psychological construct of themselves... over and above our actual perceptions of them, and in contradiction to objective identifiers.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

The biological reality of sex is pretty straightforward like you say, but I don't see how that negates that gender, being a social construct, is complicated and nuanced. The meaning that people derive from biological differences is entirely what is in question in these broader debates about gender roles, and this has implications far beyond trans people.

This is at the very core of this discussion, and it's the piece that you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

Nobody in this thread cares about anybody's preferred gender role. Not one of us gives a flying **** how someone wants to present. We're all pretty much in support of males wearing frilly dresses and lipstick, we support females wearing overalls and steel toed boots with a buzz cut. We. Don't. Care.

Gender *IS* a social construct. And it is literally NOTHING MORE THAN A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

But sex is real.

The problem, the entire heart of this discussion, lies in the fact that sex is a material reality.

Nobody gives a crap how anyone chooses to dress, or what career they want to pursue or if they want to be a homemaker. Nobody cares who wears makeup and who shaves their head, who grows their hair out long and who wears cargo shorts. We don't ******* care at all.

But we *do* care when someone tries to turn reality on it's head and essentially says "This male likes to wear lipstick and heels, therefore this male should use the female restroom and compete against females in sports and be housed with females in prisons". That's when we care.

And we care because these are situations where sex - actual objective biological ******* sex - matters. And it makes zero sense at all for anyone anywhere to try to wish into existence that a person's entirely socially constructed identification with stereotypes and gender roles be treated as sacrosanct and more important than the reality of sex.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Are you assuming that "simpler" is the desired end goal? Why?

Some things are just complicated. Gender roles are definitely complicated.

Gender roles aren't complicated. They're regressive ********.

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

There's plenty of well reasoned and well articulated writing on the subject. It's complicated, but not impenetrable. It's out there if you are really curious, Judith Butler's work is generally well regarded.

Judith Butler's work is only well regarded by true believers in the church of gender identity. If you've actually read Butler's work, you would be able to admit that their writing is entirely impenetrable and is absolute horse-****.

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Left-handed people were routinely harangued into being right handed. Probably an interesting parallel there.

And yet somehow, we've never had an era of right handed people insisting that everybody else ignore that they do everything with their right hand, and give them a left-handed desk and left-handed scissors and put them in the left-handed hall of fame because they *identify* as left-handed.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

We can, but we don't. Society has decided gender is something that is very important whether individuals like it or not.

No, you're wrong. Society has acknowledged that SEX is something very important. SEX not gender. FFS, stop conflating the two!

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Trans people have to live in the world that exists now, not the post gender utopia of the future.

Is it your view that gender is not something that is socially coded with huge practical implications?

An obvious example of this is race. Race pretty much doesn't exist in any objective sense, it's entirely socially imagined. That doesn't make it any less "real". It's real because society has made it real.

None of us give a **** about gender. We care about sex.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Judith Butler's work is ****. Yes, it's well regarded, but that's a damning indictment of the field, rather than proof of quality. And Butler is anything but coherent. She falls very much into the Foucault mold of writing in deliberately opaque ways to try to sound more meaningful than she actually is.

Bombastic.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I don't think it's contradictory to condemn anti-trans bigots in the sternest possible terms while also admitting that I am not the best and most coherent explainer of the entire trans "controversy".

I'm a spectator as much as you are.

It's entirely contradictory to condemn people with actual rational and well-thought out concerns and arguments as "anti-trans-bigots" so you can get your hate-on and walk around telling yourself how progressive and awesome you are while not having a single coherent argument of your own.

Your entire schtick is well poisoning and name calling.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Perhaps they are right, absent good moderation of this website, quarantining all the anti-trans freaks into a single thread seems like the least-bad option.

Tell you what. You explain exactly what we have said that you view as being both "anti-trans" and "freakish", with an explanation of why you believe those labels are appropriate.

Then maybe we can talk.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Ok, but do you not find the privacy concerns for trans people at all compelling?

Do you not find the privacy concerns for female people at all compelling?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Academic writing is frequently quite dense and not particularly enjoyable to read. Butler is usually not writing for a general audience and it definitely shows.

Butler is writing in a style that intentionally confuses and makes their points opaque. In my opinion, that's because they don't have a point, or at best they have an extremely weak point. But they figure if they use a lot of big words and complicated run-on sentences, everyone will just quit bothering about halfway through and assume Butler makes sense.

It's entirely self-servingly bombastic ********.