Continuation Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I absolutely have an answer. I know why I'm a woman, but it may be different than what another person considers a woman a woman. The goal of a question like that is to argue that we aren't who we say we are.

The goal is to debate whether you're entitled to certain privileges and accommodations, as a matter of public policy, based on your idea of what a woman is.

As you say, your idea of why a woman is a woman may be different from why another person thinks a woman is a woman.

Whose idea should prevail? Not yours by default. Perhaps not yours at all. But the vast majority of people, me included, seem to be more than willing to meet you halfway. The question is, halfway to where?

Quote:

I'm not giving anybody any ammunition against me.

Oh, that ship has already sailed.

Quote:

So sorry, but find another way to dissect me.

I'm sorry you have to put this in personal terms. Nobody wants to dissect you. We are, however, interested in dissecting your public policy proposals and the basis for them.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TomB

On a recreational level, sure. Who cares, they are all there to have fun, right? But planning a park district recreational program that served as many women as men would be a little challenging.

On a recreational level, there's still issues of safety and of player satisfaction.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by qayak

I've brought up the point before, why not just put all trans-athletes in with men.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Because then you don't accept trans-women as "REAL WOMEN (Trademark, Patent Pending)" and that's a problem.

As Joe says. The point of trans-athleticism is to solve for trans, not to solve for athleticism.

Quote:

But again the more we discuss this the less I know what anyone involved actually wants.

As far as I can tell, trans-activism sees sports as performative, rather than competitive. The transwoman athlete doesn't want to put her mind and body to the test against other people of similar capability, conditioning, and motivation. The transwoman athlete wants to perform sports as a woman.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by qayak

Maybe you missed it. I don't and it's not a problem.

It's a problem in the sense of trying to find a public policy compromise that's acceptable to all parties. I don't think transwomen are women*, but I'm willing to compromise on a lot of policy points with people who do.

I agree with your idea, but as an actual solution to the problem of trans-athletes, it's probably going to be an unacceptable compromise for the trans-athletes.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I absolutely have an answer. I know why I'm a woman, but it may be different than what another person considers a woman a woman.

Of course it's different than what some other people consider a woman. We all know that, that's not the point.

Quote:

The goal of a question like that is to argue that we aren't who we say we are.

No, it isn't. You're a woman, for certain definitions of woman. You're not a woman, for certain other definitions of woman. We all know that too.

What we don't know is what your definition actually is.

Quote:

I'm not giving anybody any ammunition against me.

Defining your terms only gives ammunition to others if your definition is bad. What you really want is a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. You want to be able to use a term but not define it, so that you alone can say whether or not it's being used correctly.

Why would anyone else want to accept those terms of debate?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's a problem in the sense of trying to find a public policy compromise that's acceptable to all parties. ...snip....

You are not going to get one as the extremists’ goals are incompatible, they will continue to campaign no matter what. But that isn’t a problem, that’s just the way it is in a free(ish) society, and it’s the same for pretty much all public policy.

I actually think we aren’t far from what will settle down to be the “compromise” position in our (UK) public policies.

That will mean for example trans folk are protected from discrimination in housing, employment, education and so on. (Because those areas should be gender neutral anyway.)

The one area that I think we will struggle with is what are now “women only” services but only in specific areas - such as say a shelter for women seeking respite from abuse. Or in employment areas which can at the moment discriminate based on gender - religion, acting and so on. I suspect that even with some of these areas the generations that are youngsters today will grow up with very different attitude to gender than folk of my generation did and some of the problems we perceive won’t be seen as a problem by the time they are “in power”.

I think other areas aren’t an issue apart from silliness in threads such as this and the extremists of the extremists, so no gynaecological examinations for a trans-woman, no screening for prostrate cancer for a trans-man. Sport will remain as it is, I.e. sporting bodies will set the criteria for participation.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I was going to give you answers to these questions but since they seem to confuse you I will try your tactic of just asking a tangentially related question as if it somehow matters.

Why do you think any human being is ALLOCATED to any other?

In a literal sense, no one is. In a figurative sense, that's how the analogy you drew works.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Dismember

You, and TRAs, are being disingenuous here with the term “conversion therapy”.

Spending some time with a neutral therapist for the purpose of exploring other possible reasons for dysphoria and considering if there are other, less invasive effective treatments before jumping straight to drugs and an operating table is NOT “conversion therapy”.

It bears zero resemblance to actual conversion therapy inflicted on the gay/lesbian population.

Yes.

Is anyone here willing to speak against a therapist or doctor exploring the pros and cons of all potential therapies and approaches for a patient, and then helping the patient find the right approach for that particular patient, which would include identifying the potential pros and cons with transitioning?

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I think you may have missed my point. I'm not trying to challenge your binary. I'm not sure I accept it fully but I'll go with it for now.

What I am saying is that if your definition of biological sex is only about which gametes people produce then it has no relevance to anything outside of reproduction.

I'm not sure that we can isolate and wall off such a fundamental biological factor as sex so that it is only relevant to reproduction, as complex as human behavior is. The fact of sexual reproduction has innumerable ripple effects throughout human culture. That doesn't mean that biology determines culture, but it certainly influences it, so when a cultural or psychological question arises, you can't automatically dismiss the influence of a biological reality.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

So unless you want to make offspring with someone then their status as trans or cis, male or female shouldn't be an issue.

So why on earth would you want to deny someone access to a bathroom based on their gametes?

Maybe I don't. But when discussions about bathrooms, and sports, and children transitioning, etc., arise, and people use in their arguments about those issues statements like "I am just as much of a woman as you are" (referring to biological women), the fact of sexual reproduction is now relevant.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Both, I think. I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your question.

Let's take an example of workplace sexism... women not being listened to in meetings. Nothing to do with their gametes.

Explicitly, sure. But implicitly, of course it is. And it may also be due to things other than their gametes, too, like their gender. Things can have multiple causes.

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by Paul2

Is anyone here willing to speak against a therapist or doctor exploring the pros and cons of all potential therapies and approaches for a patient, and then helping the patient find the right approach for that particular patient, which would include identifying the potential pros and cons with transitioning?

I should hope not. I don’t think it’s any mainstream groups’s opinion that it’s bad to have honest counseling to discuss a kid’s feelings and suss out details like, have you explored a couple of niches, it’s a big thing and you don’t want to fall into a transgender identity out of coincidence or convenience - and I know there’s nothing convenient about a trans identity but I DO know that a kid’s idea of conviction can have a lot to do with the first interesting box they see - so let’s explore how you feel about genders and gender expressions and orientations first, because for starters if you mostly feel ****** about how other people view your current gender, that’s a strong and easily misdirected peice of kid baggage.

But!

I can also see a mistrust there that ‘honest exploration’ isn’t what you’re going to get. That in practice sometimes what you get is the trans version of ‘so you want an abortion? Here’s your Mandatory Sonogram And Aren’t Babies Wonderful and Some People Say That’s Murder You Know, And That Would Kind Of Make You A Baby Murderer’ ********.

You don’t want people leaning on kids to get them to give up genuine convictions about their identity, but you also don’t want cis gay kids or low-esteem-tied-to-gender kids mistaking their quest for comfort in their corner of society for transgenderism. Or even just ‘Im not really dysphoric, I just don’t identify with my gender and I feel like life would be better for me as the other gender!’ kids not making thoroughly informed choices. And I know that’s not common or anything but there ARE kids like that.

But you don’t need to beat up on the psyche of kids who like, knew since age five that they really ought to be (gender).

So yeah, counseling good, but conversion therapy masquerading as counseling bad. Rubber-stamping probably also bad. How do we assure ourselves of which is going on?

[The Atheist]

If you can change your gender, there's surely no impediment to changing race.

https://eurweb.com/2020/06/25/transr...-racism-video/

[qayak]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's a problem in the sense of trying to find a public policy compromise that's acceptable to all parties. I don't think transwomen are women*, but I'm willing to compromise on a lot of policy points with people who do.

I agree with your idea, but as an actual solution to the problem of trans-athletes, it's probably going to be an unacceptable compromise for the trans-athletes.

Like anything else there is no compromising with rabid dogma. There are only 3 solutions; join the men, join the women, create another category. Two are fair, one is not. TRAs will not compromise, fairness doesn't matter to them.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If you can change your gender, there's surely no impediment to changing race.

https://eurweb.com/2020/06/25/transr...-racism-video/

Could only put up with watching the first few minutes and that was only by a slight interest in how low Captain Jacks career has dipped, but have to say that was weird.

Would be quite funny if the woman wasn't so obviously suffering from some serious mental issues.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If you can change your gender, there's surely no impediment to changing race.

https://eurweb.com/2020/06/25/transr...-racism-video/

I think this comparison, which is made frequently, is kind of funny.

Of course everyone agrees that it makes no sense to self identify as white, if you are clearly black, of substitute other races if you like. And yet, race has no underlying biological definition. It's a vague notion that is some combination of physical traits that suggest a certain ancestry, but it isn't purely defined. People can be "mixed race", and it really is a spectrum, to the extent it's defined at all. However, a black person who proclaims that they are white is ridiculed.

Sex, on the other hand, does have a biological definition, but people can claim to be of a sex they aren't, and this is accepted, at least by some, or perhaps they say that they are a different "gender", but not a different sex.

I wonder if the issue is that race is based on things one can see at all times, whereas it is generally impossible to see that thing that defines what sex you are.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by qayak

Like anything else there is no compromising with rabid dogma. There are only 3 solutions; join the men, join the women, create another category. Two are fair, one is not. TRAs will not compromise, fairness doesn't matter to them.

Forgive my "dim", but which two are fair to you?

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think this comparison, which is made frequently, is kind of funny.

Of course everyone agrees that it makes no sense to self identify as white, if you are clearly black, of substitute other races if you like. And yet, race has no underlying biological definition. It's a vague notion that is some combination of physical traits that suggest a certain ancestry, but it isn't purely defined. People can be "mixed race", and it really is a spectrum, to the extent it's defined at all. However, a black person who proclaims that they are white is ridiculed.

Sex, on the other hand, does have a biological definition, but people can claim to be of a sex they aren't, and this is accepted, at least by some, or perhaps they say that they are a different "gender", but not a different sex.

I wonder if the issue is that race is based on things one can see at all times, whereas it is generally impossible to see that thing that defines what sex you are.

It is a bit of an odd one.

One of my mates growing up was Maori.

Palest dud you ever saw. Didn't make him not Maori. If you meet his dad you would wonder how they were related (Yes it was his actual dad biologically).

The mums genes must have just won the battle for his features.

His older brother was the complete opposite

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by qayak

Like anything else there is no compromising with rabid dogma. There are only 3 solutions; join the men, join the women, create another category. Two are fair, one is not. TRAs will not compromise, fairness doesn't matter to them.

I tend to agree. But you did ask:

Originally Posted by qayak

why not just put all trans-athletes in with men

And I guess the answer to "why not" comes down to "rabid dogma" dominating the policy discussion from the pro-trans side.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

I should hope not. I don’t think it’s any mainstream groups’s opinion that honest counseling to discuss a kid’s feelings and suss out details like, have you explored a couple of niches, it’s a big thing and you don’t want to fall into a transgender identity out of coincidence or convenience - and I know there’s nothing convenient about a trans identity but I DO know that a kid’s idea of conviction can have a lot to do with the first interesting box they see - so let’s explore how you feel about genders and gender expressions and orientations first, because for starters if you mostly feel ****** about how other people view your current gender, that’s a strong and easily misdirected peice of kid baggage.

But!

I can also see a mistrust there that ‘honest exploration’ isn’t what you’re going to get. That in practice sometimes what you get is the trans version of ‘so you want an abortion? Here’s your Mandatory Sonogram And Aren’t Babies Wonderful and Some People Say That’s Murder You Know, And That Would Kind Of Make You A Baby Murderer’ ********.

You don’t want people leaning on kids to get them to give up genuine convictions about their identity, but you also don’t want cis gay kids or low-esteem-tied-to-gender kids mistaking their quest for comfort in their corner of society for transgenderism. Or even just ‘Im not really dysphoric, I just don’t identify with my gender and I feel like life would be better for me as the other gender!’ kids not making thoroughly informed choices. And I know that’s not common or anything but there ARE kids like that.

But you don’t need to beat up on the psyche of kids who like, knew since age five that they really ought to be (gender).

So yeah, counseling good, but conversion therapy masquerading as counseling bad. Rubber-stamping probably also bad. How do we assure ourselves of which is going on?

Agreed, we have to have professionals act professionally. That's above my pay grade at the moment.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

This feels a bit to me like trying to back into a definition of sex that IS binary so we can claim 'aha look it's binary and now we have a reason to discriminate against transpeople'

This biological reductionism tends to lead me down the road that ends with 'if that's really all that defines the difference then why should I even give a **** about biological sex at all?' I couldn't care less which gametes you produce unless I am trying to reproduce with you, could you?

Honestly if that is your definition of biological sex then it's only gender (which presumably must account for everything else) that really makes any difference socially

Do you even science?

Sex is dimorphic, as well as being binary. Secondary sex characteristics show great variety within each characteristic, but no overlap. There's great variety in size and shape of breasts... but the chests of males do no naturally have breasts at all, of any size or shape. There's great variety in size and shape of penises, but females do not have penises of any size or shape.

We already know that YOU don't care about sex. Your lack of care, however, promotes and reinforces sexism and misogyny. You pretend that thousands of years of oppression and discrimination aren't based on sex when you insist that it doesn't matter. That's tantamount to insisting that hundreds of years of slavery and oppression doesn't matter when the topic is black people, because YOU don't care about race.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Of course Caitlyn Jenner was never woman of the year. She was one of one magazine's Women of the Year. One of 25 I believe. Of course nobody remembers the other 24 because they didn't get a host of TERFs berating them and telling them they weren't really women.

That would be because the others were actually females, the sex formerly known as women.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

If you are defining sex as only to do with biological reproduction in order to make it binary then to argue that it is the defining factor in why women have been oppressed defies logic and evidence.

Woman aren't discriminated against because they produce eggs.

Okay, this is an interesting take.

Why do YOU think that females are discriminated against?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And within this post of yours, you're only further reinforcing my position wrt your toxic beliefs. I'm alright thanks, "buddy".

Alright then. This weirdly puts YOU in the position of claiming that a fellow poster wants to force people to have sex with them regardless of their orientation, but you do you, I guess.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Paul2

First, one quick note about the binary: anything outside of the binary of two different sexes based on the type of gamete isn't even the type of thing that we're talking about in this thread anyway. Your garden-variety trans person still has one of the two types of gametes in the bimodal distribution.

To be more precise, sex isn't bimodal, it's straight up binary. There is no "in-between" gametes.

Some physical characteristics are sexually dimorphic along a spectrum and bimodal - overall size, size of hands and feet, presence and amount of facial hair, body hair, shape of cheekbones, orbital sockets, brow ridge, pitch of voice, etc. These are strongly peaked in a bimodal distribution, but "in-between" states do actually exist, although they are relatively rare.

Other physical characteristics are sexually dimorphic along a spectrum but are NOT bimodal - size and shape of breast tissue, size and shape of penis, uterus, testicles, mobility of sperm cells, number of egg cells, etc. Those exhibit a spectrum of size/shape/coloration/etc., but only do so within a given sex, barring disorders of sexual development.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by qayak

I fully support her decision to live her life as she wants, until it takes resources allotted women. I don't worry about celebrities like Elliot Page taking resources from men. We have plenty to go around.

That's kind of the crux of the problem, isn't it?

Transwomen's desires take resources and rights away from ovarians. But they don't care, and they seem to think that it's fine if females end up suffering. They are imposing themselves on females, in places that females are vulnerable, in places that females are underrepresented and don't have equitable representation, and in ways that make females less safe and increase their risk. But transwomen, and their activist allies, have decided that the affirmation of the internal identity of male-born transwomen are more important than the real costs to females. And they, being male, generally have the physical strength and power to dominate and harm females. They seem to believe that females should de-prioritize their own needs and objectives, and instead should center the feelings of male-born people as paramount.

Transmen, on the other hand, present no risk to natal males. They aren't usurping the resources of a disadvantaged group of people in any way. They do not present any physical risk to males, nor do their requests present loopholes by which malicious females can abuse and endanger males. They aren't jeopardizing male access to sports scholarships, and they aren't dropping male representation in leadership and politics even further below a proportional level.

The things being asked for by TRAs do not present a risk or a loss to males in any way. They do, however, present a risk and a loss to females. Unfortunately, they also frequently express their belief that the risks and the losses faced by females simply don't matter to them, and they seem to think that they *shouldn't* matter to females either.

One can only surmise that it's because females, as a whole group of people, don't matter to them.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Do you even science?

Sex is dimorphic, as well as being binary. Secondary sex characteristics show great variety within each characteristic, but no overlap. There's great variety in size and shape of breasts... but the chests of males do no naturally have breasts at all, of any size or shape. There's great variety in size and shape of penises, but females do not have penises of any size or shape.

We already know that YOU don't care about sex. Your lack of care, however, promotes and reinforces sexism and misogyny. You pretend that thousands of years of oppression and discrimination aren't based on sex when you insist that it doesn't matter. That's tantamount to insisting that hundreds of years of slavery and oppression doesn't matter when the topic is black people, because YOU don't care about race.

Far out Emily. I agree with some stuff you say, but the man hate thing is a bit grating. Maybe you haven't noticed, but a lot of dudes here agree with you with female rights.

As for the highlighted, still a lot of dudes get breast cancer.

Women get free smear tests and breast exams for cancer here. Dudes have to pay for a doctor to thrust their finger up our **** for prostrate.

Yeah, it is all one sided to help men.

Edit: Not every dude is out to ruin your place in life.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Can I just take the time to point out, that I have high hopes and a good feeling this 5th massive forum thread repeating the same things as the other thousands and thousands of posts on the other 4 will be the winner. The one that sorts it once and for all.

I don't think continuations of this thread is going to change the minds of those entrenched in their views. On the other hand, however, these threads have shifted the views of some posters who are either on-the-fence or who haven't been exposed to the breadth of this topic.

I'm not willing to be silenced. If we stop fighting, this misogynistic agenda will win. I'm no more going to surrender and roll-over on this than I would expect a black man to stay silent in threads where a racist was insisting that their struggles aren't important, the disadvantages they face aren't a big deal, and they should reframe their values to center white people instead.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Hmmmmmm.

"I fully support the decision of gay men to live their lives as they want, until they take resources allotted straight guys".

S. M. H.

I just can't get over the narrative underhandedness of constantly framing females as the great oppressors of males. I don't even have words for the weaseliness of constantly pretending that females are to males as white supremacists are to black people, and as religious zealots are to homosexuals.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Just because everything is on a spectrum (sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation), doesn't mean there aren't people like me who still find ourselves on the ends of that spectrum. And gender dysphoria is not a "condition", it is our reaction to not being able to live as the sex/gender we truly are. It comes from society's expectations of us to adhere to gender norms meant for cispeople.

Sex does not exist on a spectrum.

And if the source of your gender dysphoria diagnosis (which you insist doesn't need to be diagnosed) is on the basis of not adhering to social gender norms... then FIGHT THOSE GENDER NORMS along with the rest of us who are harmed by them, Stop trying to insist that everyone else in the world needs to pretend that reality doesn't exist so that you can try really, really hard to conform with a gender norm that actively harms females!

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

This is not a compromise at all. How it should be:

1) "Gender Recognition Certificates" should be done away with in favor of Self ID.
2) People should be able to use the facilities that best fit them, regardless if the government things you are "official" or not. And no limitations.
3) Discrimination of us by gender in any way is unacceptable. I can understand not waxing a woman's penis because they haven't been trained for it. But if you do offer that service, you offer it to everyone.
4) Discrimination of us in sports in any way is unacceptable, as is hormone level requirements of us.
5) Transgender kids/teens should be able to start HRT when during puberty and not have to either delay their development with puberty blockers or have to suffer going through physical changes that can be devastating to them.

This is where I stand. No compromise on our rights here.

Okay. So... have you changed your view from when you first joined this thread? Or were you being disingenuous at the beginning?

I also really want to know how you can be so sanguine about pushing an agenda that literally allows any male to "self identify" and gain access to vulnerable females. Under your approach, any male prisoner can literally just claim to be trans, and gain access to females who cannot get away from him. Under your approach, any male who isn't competitive against other males can just "self-identify" and trounce female competitors. Under your approach, many children - especially children struggling with homosexuality - will be sterilized and become permanent patients, with many of them mutilating their perfectly healthy bodies.

You approach supports the subordination and oppression of females, and the eugenics of homosexuals - do you realize that?

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Speaking as a former 'gay man', he is exactly right. I have said many times how the same arguments against us now have been used against me in the past. Transphobia is just repackaged homophobia.

Gender Affirmation Only from therapists is repackaged conversion therapy for young homosexual people.

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

As I am a woman, if I did fill a position meant for a woman, there is nothing being taken away there. I am a woman as much as Emily's Cat, Rolfe, JihadJane, and the rest of the cisgender TERFs on this board.

I don't know how many times I've asked this, and you still haven't answered.

In what way are you as much a woman as me, Rolfe, and JihadJane?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I agree with 1 out of 3 of your examples.

Which one?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Butter!

This seems pretty borderline.

Terf just means bitch now. Convince me otherwise. Meadmaker has said all the same stuff as EC, but somehow he didn't make the list.

I get that you were trying to draw a parallel between yourself and other women posting, but you could have just said cis-women in this context. You went with terf. I'm getting kind of suspicious of the way that word's being thrown around lately. The discussion here is extremely tame, for the most part.

TERF is a slur, and holds no meaning. It's nothing more than an attempt to intimidate and silence females.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Which one?

I am not absolutely certain, but I think JihadJane is male, in every sense. If I'm wrong, she can correct me.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Butter!

This seems pretty good to me, just as a basic starting point. I don't think it would be seen as acceptable by large portions of this issue's debaters, though.

That's not even a problem. We should have lots of debates. None of this stuff has an easy solution that could possibly please everyone. The problem is when you're declared en-terfened just for wanting to have any debate at all. That's what's freaking me out.

Actually, I'm pretty much okay with it, for the most part. Especially with the inclusion of "some exceptions may apply" that Darat has up there.

That listing is how things used to work, and they worked pretty well for a long time. Females in lockers, changing rooms, etc. engaged in the polite fiction that transsexuals were women, and accepted them into our spaces as a vulnerable group of people who should be protected from the risk of predatory males*.

It really is the 1) self-identification alone and 2) medicalization of children aspect of the current push that is objectionable.

Oh, also the abhorrent prevalence of death and rape threats against any uppity females who won't stay silent and center the desires of males above their own needs. That is a sticking point as well.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Butter!

Discussed/discussing stuff with my former squeeze who later came out as trans. (Mentioned in a previous section of this megathread, I'm pretty sure.) Some examples of her views -

She thinks that sports leagues should be redefined based on skills or hormone levels, as opposed to biological sex or gender. I'm not much of a sports follower, so I don't know if that would be a workable solution or not. I have thought that would be a good solution myself, along the way.

She does not agree with self-ID, but she also thinks the legal/medical procedures should be somewhat simplified in order to minimize trauma and humiliation to patients seeking gender confirmation. So, none of that "you must live two years as a woman" stuff, but also no same-day walk-in changes with no discussion whatsoever. Find a happy medium.

Finally, she does not see herself as identical to a female born female, but she does think of herself as a type of female. She's fine with the cis-women trans-women distinction being drawn, especially in medical contexts. She is not okay with being referred to as any type of male or man. She has no problem with cis-women talking about their vaginas, breasts, or other indicators of womanhood by their usual names. She does not personally see her penis as a female penis because she prefers not to think about her penis at all. She is planning bottom surgery. She emphasized that transitioners who choose not to undergo bottom surgery for whatever reason are just as legitimate as those who do.

That's as much as I'm willing to bug her about (though I did suggest she sign up here if she ever wants a calmer debate than one might find on Twitter). The point I'm trying to make is that, even among individual trans people, the debate can vary wildly. This is why we should at least try to assume good faith from each other when discussing this issue. I think people have a tendency to automatically assume bad faith.


ETA - By the way, I am in no way trying to deflect any criticism of my own views or questions by posting this. I am not pulling a "some of my best friends are black" ruse, so please do not think that. I just wanted to note that there's a lot of variation in positions, and I have the benefit of getting another viewpoint from a single trans individual. She only speaks for herself.

Most females also think there is a reasonable compromise available in there somewhere. Your friend's starting point is a good jumping-off spot.

Unfortunately, a lot of TRAs (which does not by any means include all transwomen) has boiled down to essentially "Give us everything we want or we'll rape you with our barbed-wire wrapped baseball bats".

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think you would find that this solution seems pretty good to a lot of people who are not sports fans.

Even a fair number of female athletes are willing to allow hormone levels in many sports. Some of them it's not as necessary... but in others, even lowering hormone levels isn't sufficient to offset the strength and power differences. But for a lot of sports, it could be reasonable.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

It's like how to most current, really outspoken feminists the "Patriarchy" is no longer a male-dominated society but all unfair power structures and responsible for everything up to and including the eventual heat death of the universe.

Mmmm... not really. There's a pretty big schism in feminism at the moment, and you've got outspoken and well-known people on either side.

One side sticks with the "patriarchy" argument, and centers the equality of females (the group formerly known as women) in their objectives and undertakings. The other side has subscribed to some sort of "trickle-down" equality theory in which centering the needs of every group except females will somehow magically result in females no longer experiencing discrimination and inequality.

The former side, however, ends up being threatened, deplatformed, and silenced by the other side along with their TRA allies.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"Because it makes sports fans unhappy" is not something we should be using to judge this on.

How about "Because it ***** over all the females"?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I am not absolutely certain, but I think JihadJane is male, in every sense. If I'm wrong, she can correct me.

Ironically, I think JihadJane is female, in every sense that's applicable here: Anonymous Internet entity with a femme handle. Even if the person on the other side of the screen is indeed a person and not a dog, it still makes sense to refer to the femme "Jane" with feminine pronouns.

Not that it matters.

Anonymous Internet discussions are one place gender and pronouns really don't matter at all.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I don't care about fraudulent claims. They are rare and shouldn't affect the laws that affect us. They will be dealt with if they come up. Otherwise it is just not an issue big enough for me to bother with.

You don't care about it, because you aren't the one facing the risk and the harm that comes from fraud! You're not the one being raped in prison by the male-bodied person who "self identifies" as a woman! You're not the one who has a 40-something be-penised person creeping on your 12 yo daughter in the locker room! You're not the one losing athletic scholarships to a "self-identified" male who takes advantage of the lack of requirements to clinch an easy win against females!

You don't care about females. End of story.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TomB

It's possible that the patient is not actually trans and that transitioning is not the appropriate treatment. In that case, hormones or surgery could do lasting damage.

Now, is that to say that doctors should try to "convert" trans people? No. It means that before they treat them through chemical or physical transition, they need to be sure that they are treating the correct condition. This may include trying some therapies in another direction as well. Failed treatments are diagnostically useful, even if they can be frustrating for patients.

That was exactly my point, and exactly my ask. Not a complete ban on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for kids, but a tightening of treatment, and a bit more therapy and waiting.

How much you want to be that you don't get called a TERF for having the same view though?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Paul2

On the one hand, there's something silly about not answering a question posed by A because you've answered B about the same question. I didn't see your earlier answer. How difficult is it to just type an answer? It doesn't have to be - in fact, shouldn't be - a dissertation, or even a paragraph.

IIRC, her position is that she has explained herself to other people not on ISF at other times prior to posting on this topic at ISF, therefore she doesn't need to explain herself here.

Somehow dictating that she's "just as much of a woman" as a natal women is supposed to quell all disagreement because... I dunno why.

I don't accept "because I say so" from any other debate opponent. I don't know why anyone should accept it here.