Continuation Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

It's nothing personal, I just don't answer that question at all.

It's been my experience that people trying to demand that we transpeople define what it is to be a "man" or "woman" just want to inevitably twist and turn it against us. It's a trap that I'm not stepping into.

There is no possible answer that satisfies anyone, so I just don't answer the question.

There's a reason that it doesn't satisfy people.

When a suburban white woman loudly proclaims "I'm just as much a black woman as you are" there's going to be some pushback. Especially if the suburban white woman is completely unwilling or unable to explain what the hell she means by "black" in the first place, and in what way it applies to her.

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Okay. I officially self-identify as a man. I want you all to call me "Eric's Cat" from here on out. I know why I'm just as much a man as Meadmaker or Darat or Archie, but it may be different from what another person considers a man to be.

Prove me wrong.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I've longed dismissed arguments when they are either "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" arguments or "I say I have 8 fingers and two thumbs, you say we have 10 fingers" arguments.

I'll be good and goddamned if I'm going to be called a bigot because nobody will clarify "How many legs does a dog have if you call a thumb a finger?"

For all your whinging, it might be worth a second of your time to review the last three volumes of this thread and note that you haven't been called a bigot.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by cullennz

A bit like down here what americans call a chicken sandwich (chicken in a burger bun), we just call a chicken burger.

Now you could get all sensitive and say yanks are breadfillingacists or flourycistic against chicken, but it actually comes down to straight what is a burger.

The meaty bit or the bunny bit, or the whole thing.

Sorry, that was an odd post, my mind wondered

I always assumed "burger" applies to the meaty bit, and requires it to be ground meat. Thus, a round bun with a patty made of ground chicken in it would be a "chicken burger", but a round bun with a slab of steak in it would be a "sandwich".

But I can see either argument, and as long as we can define the terms in ways that we both understand, then a meaningful discussion about tasty-meat-things-in-bread-like-substances can commence!

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

...snip...

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

...snip...

We only have the rights that society gives us, you don’t have the rights you want, they will only become rights once society agrees.

You are not in the near future going to get everything you want, one would suggest (going from the many examples through history of campaigns for rights) you start with what you can get, then continue campaigning. But you need to be resigned to it being a combination of small steps with what will sometimes feel as 2 steps forward one step back.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

For all your whinging, it might be worth a second of your time to review the last three volumes of this thread and note that you haven't been called a bigot.

But don't you see that he identifies as a victim of an unfair stereotype, and that's what matters?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I wasn't that angry before, but I'm certainly getting that way when people like you won't listen to what I say.

Sweetheart, that would be because you're not saying anything that communicates a meaning. I get that you're angry - so am I. It happens. But if you want people to listen to what you say, you've really got to say something coherent that they can relate to.

You declaiming that you're "just as much a female as a biological female in any way that matters" is meaningless, because objectively, you aren't like a biological female in any of the ways that distinguishes biological females from biological males.

Decrying that you're just as much a woman as any natal woman is incoherent when females can identify and share the elements of their existence that they view as part of "woman" (ignoring the trite adult human female bit), and you cannot.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by cullennz

And realise people wouldn't be asking if they had no desire to understand your points.

Good point. ISF is not Twitter.

[Lithrael]

You do keep quoting gross explicit language from like literally a couple of Twitter posts from nobodies on the internet and speaking as though they represent mainstream TRAs. It would be really great if they didn’t say those things, and it would also be really great if you would stop quoting their explicit outbursts in here. I don’t go repeatedly quoting explicitly gross things people say about trans women and it’s not because nobody says anything explicitly gross about trans women on the internet.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

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

I want:

• Transgender people to be free from discrimination in employment, housing, and medicine
• Transgender people to have access to reasonably priced and accessible medical care specific to their unique needs
• Transgender people whose diagnosis of dysphoria cannot otherwise be alleviated to have a reasonable and unobstructed pathway to legal recognition of their necessary treatment to live and present as the other sex
• Protection of females from exposure to predatory males in areas where they are particularly vulnerable, such as changing rooms and showers, prisons, and rape & domestic violence shelters, and for the management of those venues to have the ability to make exceptions for individual transwomen on a case by case basis
• Transgender to be a separate recognized class when it comes to affirmative action, and short-lists and quotas to be set aside for transpeople that do NOT reduce representation of females in leadership and politics.
• The right for females to organize and petition for policies that support the equality of females in society and to reduce discrimination against females
• Reasonable restrictions for transwomen and transgirls who wish to compete against females in athletics, to ensure fairness and equitability, while also allowing transpeople the right to form their own leagues exclusive to rules they choose to implement
• Recognition that names and pronoun usage is a matter of courtesy, and should not be treated as a hate-crime issue

Some of us have told you what we want - and told everyone else for that matter.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Yes. It appears that in this thread (and in real life) there's this big "reefer madness"-style fear being spread around that straight cismen are going to start self-ID'ing as women in order to be able to infiltrate women-only spaces and (presumably) say or do things to harm the ciswomen within those spaces.

Holy cow, they already do. They already have.

FFS, stop pretending like it doesn't exist! We all get that you don't give a crap about the safety of females. Fine, but own your views man! Don't try to gaslight us with this rhetoric.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Sweetheart

A wee bit sexist Eric's Dog.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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?

I think the UK has basically banned puberty blockers for under 16s at the moment. Which I do think is a good thing. They can decide gender after they have gone through puberty first. Social media has a lot to answer for.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

*Looks to my left... looks to my right...*

Oh you're talking to me. I'm really confused because I've never said anything even resembling anything like that.

Originally Posted by cullennz

Sorry

It is my fault. This whole thread combined is getting a bit complicated.

Lol

In this thread, it's not that difficult. If the post is made by JoeMorgue, just mentally interpret it as "Oh woe is me, no matter what I do I end up the bad guy, and my needs should be centered here!"

Joe, I know that's a bit harsh, and it doesn't apply in any other topic. But you do seem to approach this topic from the perspective of how unfair the debate between transwomen and females is to you personally.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If a therapist said to a lesbian "Have you considered trying to accept yourself just as you are at present?" that would be very nearly the precise opposite of conversion therapy.

True. And oddly enough, therapists are saying "since you're attracted to females, have you considered that you might be transgender? Here, let's start some puberty blockers while you think about it, and you should change your name and try on some boy clothes too."

Which somehow, magically, is NOT viewed as conversion therapy (and sterilization, btw) for homosexuals.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by cullennz

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

I completely fail to see the difference, so maybe the trans issue is really a mental illness issue after all?

I've asked several times how wanting to cut your dick off differs from people who want to cut their legs off and nobody's been able to give an answer.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

It actually follows directly from what you said.

Transwomen don't have the experience of the threat of being involuntarily impregnated. You raised this as an important difference and a reason for not allowing them to represent women.

Infertile women lack exactly this same threat.

If the lack of this threat is reason to exclude a transwoman it is also reason to exclude an infertile woman.

Of course you don't like that idea so you pretend it doesn't. But that's only because you are prejudiced against transpeople. Which is evident from all of your posts here.

You don't actually have an argument all you have is 'I don't like it and I'm gonna keep moaning about it'

How about "you have a dick and are capable of raping someone"? Is that a good enough reason to exclude someone in certain circumstances?

[Emily's Cat]

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.

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?

The only justfications for these social exclusions are based on all the stuff you threw away in order to come up with a nice binary definition of biological sex.

Have you heard of this crazy new theory called "Evolution"? Particularly, these really cool newfangled ideas about "survival of the fittest" and "sexual selection"? I think you might find them really interesting. Because it kind of touches on the whole concept of why someone with large immobile gametes who bears the entire cost of reproduction might want to exclude a person with small mobile gametes who bears no cost of reproduction (and who is also physically stronger and more aggressive) from areas where they might be vulnerable to... oh... let's euphemistically call it forced sexual selected upon.

Then there's that whole thing about sexual orientation being tightly tied to reproduction, enough so that a wash of hormones at a particular stage of fetal development ingrains the appropriate physical responses to the other sex that create receptiveness to reproduction and sexual attraction in the first place... and you know, how when that happens incompletely or at the wrong time, it produces sexual receptivity responses of the other sex, leading, essentially, to homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

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

I'm very curious to hear what you think sexism is due to.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

What is clear is that the Bruce Jenner who won decathlons would not meet the criteria to legally self-ID as a woman and would legally be a man.

Which criteria are those?

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I completely fail to see the difference, so maybe the trans issue is really a mental illness issue after all?

I've asked several times how wanting to cut your dick off differs from people who want to cut their legs off and nobody's been able to give an answer.

Totally agree it is a mental issue, but as long as some people go on about humans magically changing sex, and it being some normal, "finding you inner self" **** rather than someone having a disorder, as it is a bit too touchy, you kind have to just roll with it.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

True. And oddly enough, therapists are saying "since you're attracted to females, have you considered that you might be transgender? Here, let's start some puberty blockers while you think about it, and you should change your name and try on some boy clothes too."

Which somehow, magically, is NOT viewed as conversion therapy (and sterilization, btw) for homosexuals.

As per my previous post, I think the relative authorities are realising that puberty blockers are a big no no, it's causing more problems because as the puberty blocker kids are hitting adulthood, they are actually feeling as if they were conned, some feel they would have been better off without.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I'm not challenging the idea here that gamete production defines biological sex. What I am asking is that if, as argued, we have to remove everything else BUT gamete production to define biological sex then why should I care about biological sex at all?

I'm going to attempt a ham-handed analogy here, to illustrate.

I'm not challenging the idea that melanin production defines race. What I am asking is that if, as argued, we have to remove everything else (slavery, jim crow, economic oppression, lack of political representation, and persistent discrimination) BUT melanin production to define race... then why should I care about race at all?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Paul2

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 and ensuring that an accurate and appropriate diagnosis is made, rather than accepting the WebMD self-diagnosis that the patient came in the door with?

Added a line

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

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?

Yep. yep, yep.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I'm not challenging the idea here that gamete production defines biological sex. What I am asking is that if, as argued, we have to remove everything else BUT gamete production to define biological sex then why should I care about biological sex at all?

Biological sex is characterized by a lot more than just gamete production, but gamete production is an adequate proxy for all the other characteristics. So it's a sufficient definition of biological sex by itself.

As for why you should care about biological sex... Probably for the same reason you should care about biological facts in general. Biological sex tells you whether to consider pregnancy in a patient reporting abdominal pain. Biological sex tells you whether to be checking for prostate cancer or ovarian cysts.

Not only that, but biological sex has been the basis for the social construct of binary gender and gender roles for pretty much all of recorded human history. If you're going to ignore biological sex, then why have gender roles at all? Why is your answer to trans-activists, not simply "biological sex doesn't matter; gender roles aren't real; get over it"?

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

What I am asking is that if, as argued, we have to remove everything else BUT gamete production to define biological sex then why should I care about biological sex at all?

Shouldn't the question be why do you?

As the answer to your question is you personally don't have to. no one does. It is a question based on presumption

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by cullennz

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.

I don't hate men, and I certainly didn't intend to come across that way. I very much appreciate your (and other men in this thread's) support.

Yes, I know that men can get breast cancer, although it's quite rare in males. I was speaking in terms of secondary sex characteristics. Males don't develop boobies unless they take cross-sex hormones (or have the misfortune of some particular testicular cancers, which arguably isn't "natural").

In the US, prostate exams and colonoscopies are considered preventive wellness benefits for males, and are covered free-of-charge to the patient.

Oddly, and here's some screwy US health care stuff... if a woman goes in for a "wellness checkup" and has no indication or suspicion of breast cancer, their mammogram is free to the patient. If, however, the doctor suspects cancer, the woman has to pay for the mammogram. That happened to me a couple of years ago. I mean, shouldn't it be free if there's a suspicion of cancer too?

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Oh. I suppose it's possible, but based on the content of posts, I was under the impression that JihadJane is female. Now I'm curious.

[theprestige]

The more I think about it, the more I think that transwomen can't be women (nor transmen, men). Not in terms of biological fact, and not in terms of lived experience. (In terms of lived experience, Rachel Dolezal probably has more claim to being black, than Boudicca has claim to being a woman.)

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I don't hate men, and I certainly didn't intend to come across that way.

Yes, I know that men can get breast cancer, although it's quite rare in males. I was speaking in terms of secondary sex characteristics. Males don't develop boobies unless they take cross-sex hormones (or have the misfortune of some particular testicular cancers, which arguably isn't "natural").

In the US, prostate exams and colonoscopies are considered preventive wellness benefits for males, and are covered free-of-charge to the patient.

Oddly, and here's some screwy US health care stuff... if a woman goes in for a "wellness checkup" and has no indication or suspicion of breast cancer, their mammogram is free to the patient. If, however, the doctor suspects cancer, the woman has to pay for the mammogram. That happened to me a couple of years ago. I mean, shouldn't it be free if there's a suspicion of cancer too?

That is pretty weird!

As an aside I am happy with women getting free screening here btw, in fact I support anything that helps. It isn't some nag, just pointing out in some places it isn't all one sided to the bloke.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I am a woman as much as Emily's Cat, Rolfe, JihadJane, and the rest of the cisgender TERFs on this board.

Yeah, but are you a woman as much as Caster Semenya?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

You do keep quoting gross explicit language from like literally a couple of Twitter posts from nobodies on the internet and speaking as though they represent mainstream TRAs. It would be really great if they didn’t say those things, and it would also be really great if you would stop quoting their explicit outbursts in here. I don’t go repeatedly quoting explicitly gross things people say about trans women and it’s not because nobody says anything explicitly gross about trans women on the internet.

I see your point. I will try to refrain.

I'd be a bit happier if some of the very dedicated TRAs here would acknowledge that these things do get said, by a surprisingly large number of netizens, and at least sympathize with females that they're gross and terrifying, and something females shouldn't have to tolerate. I'm very happy to say that the gross exaggerations of transpeople made by lunatics on the internet are disturbing and wrong, and that transpeople shouldn't be subjected to it. I just don't really feel that misgendering, deadnaming, and recognizing that biological sex is real and important is really comparable to some of the really abhorrent things directed at women.

The fringe people out there who are genuinely transphobic and hateful are just that - transphobic and hateful. I don't pretend they don't exist, and I very definitely disagree with their views.

The fringe transwomen and allies out there who are violently misogynistic shouldn't be allowed cover either.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by p0lka

A wee bit sexist Eric's Dog.

OMG, that made me laugh so hard!

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Added a line

That's a friendly amendment.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by p0lka

As per my previous post, I think the relative authorities are realising that puberty blockers are a big no no, it's causing more problems because as the puberty blocker kids are hitting adulthood, they are actually feeling as if they were conned, some feel they would have been better off without.

In the UK, yes. In the US, we're behind the ball. We're just now passing legislation that bans any kind of "conversion therapy", and they're including anything other than completely affirmation approaches for children who think they are transgender in that bucket. We're essentially outlawing anything other than puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

It's state by state though, so maybe we'll catch it before it gets too far down the rabbit hole.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by cullennz

That is pretty weird!

As an aside I am happy with women getting free screening here btw, in fact I support anything that helps. It isn't some nag, just pointing out in some places it isn't all one sided to the bloke.

I edited above to add appreciation. I've been remiss on that, and I very much appreciate the support of many of the men in this thread, including yourself.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

In the UK, yes. In the US, we're behind the ball. We're just now passing legislation that bans any kind of "conversion therapy", and they're including anything other than completely affirmation approaches for children who think they are transgender in that bucket. We're essentially outlawing anything other than puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

It's state by state though, so maybe we'll catch it before it gets too far down the rabbit hole.

Surely no one is old enough to choose to not go through puberty, it's like a contradiction in terms. Ask them about how they feel about gender after puberty, not before.
Puberty blockers etc were a wrong road to go down, they need to stop.

At one point one of my kids was attempting to pursue that just because they heard about it on the internet. One year later and they don't remember it at all.
If as a parent we had went with it then how the kid be feeling now.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by p0lka

Surely no one is old enough to choose to not go through puberty, it's like a contradiction in terms.

I don't consent to getting old. Who do I complain to?

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't consent to getting old. Who do I complain to?

Well don't get old then, just get more wrinkly on the outside.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

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.

Quite right. Your posts on this thread and its progenitors have been very informative. While I wouldn't deny that a bit of misandry may appear occasionally, in general your logic is unassailable.

[d4m10n]

Hopefully someone will have a go this time.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

What do women have in common with transwomen that they don't have in common with the human race as a whole?

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

...what are the attributes or characteristics that ciswomen and transwomen have in common, that make them parts of the set of women, but which are not shared with either cismen or transmen (and vice versa).

Bearing in mind this is a skeptic forum, useful answer(s) should be observable and demonstrable in order to convince those who remain on the fence.