Continuation [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Sounds like they're leaning towards a policy that treats trans children with dignity and respect.

I'm all for treating trans anybody (child or adult) with dignity and respect. But I'm also for treating females with dignity and respect too.

Allowing males, regardless of how they feel on the inside, access to female spaces and sports REMOVES dignity and respect from females. It removes the right of females to define our own boundaries. It makes females subordinate to males in terms of privacy and safety - the dignity and respect of females is deemed to be less important than the affirmation of males.

Suburban Turkey - why do you constantly and consistently dismiss the impact on females? Why do you persistently demean females who wish to define their own boundaries and have spaces safe from males?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm all for treating trans anybody (child or adult) with dignity and respect. But I'm also for treating females with dignity and respect too.

Allowing males, regardless of how they feel on the inside, access to female spaces and sports REMOVES dignity and respect from females. It removes the right of females to define our own boundaries. It makes females subordinate to males in terms of privacy and safety - the dignity and respect of females is deemed to be less important than the affirmation of males.

Suburban Turkey - why do you constantly and consistently dismiss the impact on females? Why do you persistently demean females who wish to define their own boundaries and have spaces safe from males?

In brief, because I find that these concerns are either misguided at best, bad faith at worst, and show a clear preference to preferring a status quo that is extremely detrimental to trans people.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

So they've got their priorities straight in order.

Nice!

Originally Posted by Butter!

Oh, I didn't realize sports was included.

Terribly worded and thought-through piece of legislation. It's basically removing women's sport entirely, so we won't need men's and women's events or competition in future.

Think of the money saved on Olympic medals alone!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

In brief, because I find that these concerns are either misguided at best, bad faith at worst, and show a clear preference to preferring a status quo that is extremely detrimental to trans people.

How about you elaborate on that? Because "I don't like it" isn't really an argument. You think it's misguided... why?

What is extremely detrimental to trans people? How is it extremely detrimental to trans people to retain sex-segregation in sports? How is it NOT extremely detrimental to females to replace sex-segregation with gender-identity-segregation in sports?

How is it extremely detrimental to trans people to not allow access to sex-segregated vulnerable spaces on the basis of their self-declaration? How is it NOT extremely detrimental to females to allow access to sex-segregated vulnerable spaces on the basis of self-declaration of internal feelings?

Transwomen commit violent and sexual crimes at the same rate as other males - a rate that is orders of magnitude higher than the rate at which females commit those types of crimes. How is it NOT extremely detrimental to females to place those violent people into female prison wards solely on the basis of their claimed gender identity?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

In brief, because I find that these concerns are either misguided at best, bad faith at worst, and show a clear preference to preferring a status quo that is extremely detrimental to trans people.

What's the extreme detriment to trans people that you feel is shown by restricting women's sports to biological females?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

How about you elaborate on that? snip for brevity

no, not really. I've already come to the conclusion that this extremely long running thread is hopeless. Those that see trans people unworthy of civil rights will not be dissuaded.

I mostly just pop in every once in a while to post stories that show that transphobes are losing and are becoming an increasingly fringe, dead-end alley in the larger reactionary, anti-civil rights project. Rattling the cage is fun way to pass the time.

Even a dinosaur like Biden can see which way the wind is blowing. The best hope for American transphobes is probably to throw in with the reactionary right, there is no future in liberal circles. Sucks to suck, I guess.

[Lithrael]

Still not understanding the depth of the negative reaction people have to being called or implied things like racist, terf, homophobic, transphobic. Whether you feel they’re accurately applied to you or not. These are dead common human traits and while they are not (IMO) desirable they also don’t make you a dumpster fire (or get you fired) all by themselves. Only extremists think so and those are the people we should not be paying attention to.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Imagine two roommates who kiss each other on the lips in public. Are they closeted? No, they are not.

I don't pay any attention to Izzard, so I cannot speak to the accuracy of this. But Emily explicitly stated that nothing about Izzard's behavior has changed. If that is correct (and I have no knowledge either way), that's a pretty strong indicator that there is no closet involved here, at least not one that Izzard has actually come out of. The whole point of coming out of the closet isn't to get people to change the labels they apply to you, it's so that you can act publicly the way you want to act instead of putting up a fake front. There's no point in "coming out" if you already act the way you want to OR you continue to put up a fake front.

This has relatively little to do with external observers' consideration of externalities.

It's perfectly conceivable (and in fact I suspect it's the case*) that for many years of his early adult life, Izzard considered herself to be a man who preferred to adopt many of the external presentations of a woman - in other words, a transvestite man. But that then, more recently, Izzard has begun to consider herself to be actually gender-fluid - in other words, moving away from cisman, in the direction of transwoman.

Just as in gender fluidity itself, one's own internalised understanding of oneself can also change over time. People who've considered themselves to be cismen for the first several decades of their lives (whether or not they've ever chosen to present themselves as transvestite cismen during that time) can - entirely justifiably and truthfully - later come to consider themselves as transwomen. One doesn't have to be effectively born with one's consideration of one's place on the gender spectrum.


* But, as I said before, the only way to gain any genuine clarity on this matter would be to solicit Izzard's own understanding - which she might or might not be ready/willing to share. It's not for outside observers to guess or presume.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Still not understanding the depth of the negative reaction people have to being called or implied things like racist, terf, homophobic, transphobic. Whether you feel they’re accurately applied to you or not. These are dead common human traits and while they are not (IMO) desirable they also don’t make you a dumpster fire (or get you fired) all by themselves.

They can get you fired from some places. I'm not worried about that in this context (I'm anonymous for a reason), but the entire point of calling someone these names is to indicate that they are a dumpster fire. That's what it's used to mean.

Quote:

Only extremists think so and those are the people we should not be paying attention to.

I'm sympathetic to the "sticks and stones" perspective, but it's still a pretty understandable reaction, even if not ideal. Nobody likes to be thought of as a fundamentally bad person, and that is what those words are intended to mean. Even if on an intellectual level we can recognize that an emotional response to an insult doesn't accomplish anything, that doesn't mean we can avoid the response.

There's a certain irony to it, though. The whole pronoun thing is based on the idea that we should be able to control the language that people use to describe us. But if you're throwing insults like "terf" and "transphobe" at people who don't embrace those labels, then you don't actually believe that people should be able to control the language that's used to describe them. Maybe it's one of those "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" things. The pigs don't drink milk because they like to, they need the nutrients, and they consume it for our benefit.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

It's perfectly conceivable (and in fact I suspect it's the case*) that for many years of his early adult life, Izzard considered herself to be a man who preferred to adopt many of the external presentations of a woman - in other words, a transvestite man. But that then, more recently, Izzard has begun to consider herself to be actually gender-fluid - in other words, moving away from cisman, in the direction of transwoman.

Sure, that's possible. But that isn't coming out of the closet. And given that there's apparently no behavioral change other than self-descriptive language, any such shift in self-conception is pretty abstract.

[Butter!]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Still not understanding the depth of the negative reaction people have to being called or implied things like racist, terf, homophobic, transphobic. Whether you feel they’re accurately applied to you or not. These are dead common human traits and while they are not (IMO) desirable they also don’t make you a dumpster fire (or get you fired) all by themselves. Only extremists think so and those are the people we should not be paying attention to.

I don't get this argument. If someone (especially someone you "know" and like from around the boards) mislabels you as a member of a group you literally hate, and then continues to insist that you are one even when you try to explain your questions, why can't you get upset?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Izzard was pretty open about his penchant for wearing women's clothing and make-up. There only closet involved is the one in which he kept his dresses. He did an entire comedy special dressed in a very flattering chinese-styled dress.

At the end of the day, Izzard is a penis-bearing adult male who dresses in clothing traditionally assumed to be worn by females of the species, and who adorns their face with make-up traditionally assumed to be used by females of the species. Izzard has stated no intention of undergoing any hormone therapy, nor of having any surgery at all.

The only difference is literally the label being used... and that NOW a pile of people would jump at the chance to demand that Izzard (who is sexually attracted to females) should have unfettered access to all women's spaces on the basis of his self-proclamation that he is now a woman.

I think Izzard is a great person. Funny and charismatic. But there's LITERALLY no difference between Izzard's prior behavior and comportment and Izzard's current behavior and comportment.

But somehow, with Izzard's claim to a specific label, the entire rest of humanity is expected to THINK differently about him, and to PRETEND that there's no difference between him and any other female person.

It's absurd to think that a personal proclamation dictates an obligation to the rest of society.

http://financialliteracy-phs.weebly....606203.jpg?458

Please don't tell me you're implying here that Izzard (or anyone else, for that matter) should still be considered as a transvestite man - rather than a transwoman - simply on the basis that he's not seeking (whether or not he's announced it to the world) hormone treatment or surgery.

And please don't tell me that simply because you don't observe any noticeable difference in Izzard's external presentation between (say) 10 years ago and today, this therefore implies that nothing about Izzard's own understanding of her gender fluidity can have changed either.


(To be clear, I think what you've written indicates pretty strongly that you are drawing those two inferences - it's just that I still retain some vestige of hope that someone with apparently a relatively good grasp of the issues and terminologies associated with this topic could know better than to think and state those things....)

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure, that's possible. But that isn't coming out of the closet. And given that there's apparently no behavioral change other than self-descriptive language, any such shift in self-conception is pretty abstract.

It's not abstract in the slightest - only in your own thinking.

But it's interesting and informative to witness how you and others here are focussing purely on observable externalities wrt this matter.

Let's try another approach:

Person A is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person A considers himself to be a man. Person A is a transvestite man.

Person B is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person B considers herself to be a woman. Person B is a transwoman.

Person C is a male who likes to wear jeans, t-shirts and Converse trainers in public. Person C considers herself to be a woman. Person C is a transwoman.


What you appear to be arguing is that Person A and Person B are effectively the same thing - purely on what you observe about their known biological sex and their external visual presentation to you.

And heaven knows what you consider Person C to be, on the same observational basis.


Yet it's entirely logical and feasible for somebody matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person B's characteristics. You, however, appear to be arguing that such a transition is more-or-less meaningless (to you, that is), purely on the basis that they "both look the same" to you.


It's also entirely logical and feasible, by the way, for someone matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person C's characteristics. Heaven knows what you'd make of that, though.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

no, not really. I've already come to the conclusion that this extremely long running thread is hopeless. Those that see trans people unworthy of civil rights will not be dissuaded.

I mostly just pop in every once in a while to post stories that show that transphobes are losing and are becoming an increasingly fringe, dead-end alley in the larger reactionary, anti-civil rights project. Rattling the cage is fun way to pass the time.

Even a dinosaur like Biden can see which way the wind is blowing. The best hope for American transphobes is probably to throw in with the reactionary right, there is no future in liberal circles. Sucks to suck, I guess.

On this, I'm in agreement.

And on Biden, there appears to have been a hysterical reaction in certain quarters to his having signed the trans-rights executive order* since assuming office. Most of it is (sad to say) highly reminiscent of reading certain bodies of work within this thread.


* I do, incidentally, happen to think that an executive order was probably not the right instrument/process for the new US Govt to have sought to pass this into law - I think it should have gone before Congress, where I'd like to think that (as with, for example, the UK Parliament) the legislature would be sufficiently well-informed, liberal and sensitive to have voted it into law in any case.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Only extremists think so and those are the people we should not be paying attention to.

Social change is generally pushed by a vocal minority that makes a strong effort to change the course of public opinion, or put pressure on policymakers, or both.

In this case, you're begging the question that the "extremists" represent a fringe element that nobody is paying attention to, rather than a core group of activists who are making progress towards a new normal where dissent from policy proposals is in fact persecuted as "racist, terf, homophobic, transphobic".

When SuburbanTurkey or LondonJohn calls me a transphobe, I don't push back because I'm concerned about the slings and arrows of outrageous extremists. I push back because they don't want that name-calling to be extreme. They want it to be the norm.

When you push the idea that their name-calling is no big deal, do you actually believe it's no big deal regardless? Or do you believe it would be a big deal if it ever got normalized? Because if you're worried about it ever becoming normalized, then you should totally understand pushing back against the people trying to normalize it.

Do you want it to be normalized? Is that why you're minimizing the objections raised?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I do, incidentally, happen to think that an executive order was probably not the right instrument/process for the new US Govt to have sought to pass this into law - I think it should have gone before Congress, where I'd like to think that (as with, for example, the UK Parliament) the legislature would be sufficiently well-informed, liberal and sensitive to have voted it into law in any case.

Executive orders are not an instrument or process for passing things into law.

This executive order was absolutely the right instrument/process for the new Executive Administration* to implement its desired policies within the bounds of the law already passed, and within the bounds of the authority of the Executive branch.

Executive orders are merely an instruction from the President, to the agencies under his authority, for how they are to interpret and apply the laws they are charged with interpreting and applying.

Passing things into law is an entirely separate process, over which the office of the President has very little influence or control.**
---
*Not "the new US Government", which is actually a tripartite system with each part renewing at different rates and to different degrees.

**The one thing the President can do about lawmaking, ex cathedra, is sign into law the bills passed by the legislature. This is a veto power, which the legislature can override with a supermajority.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

no, not really. I've already come to the conclusion that this extremely long running thread is hopeless. Those that see trans people unworthy of civil rights will not be dissuaded.

That's some downright propaganda BS right there. I am all for civil rights. That's not what's being asked for. Competing against females - which destroys women's sports and puts females at risk of significant injury - is NOT a civil right! Making sex-segregated spaces effectively open to EVERYONE and any male that wants to come in is NOT a civil right! All it does is put females at increased danger of assault and removes our right to define our boundaries and retain our dignity.

What the hell civil rights do you think are at stake here?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I mostly just pop in every once in a while to post stories that show that transphobes are losing and are becoming an increasingly fringe, dead-end alley in the larger reactionary, anti-civil rights project. Rattling the cage is fun way to pass the time.

So... trolling then.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Even a dinosaur like Biden can see which way the wind is blowing. The best hope for American transphobes is probably to throw in with the reactionary right, there is no future in liberal circles. Sucks to suck, I guess.

It's got to be gratifying to steamroll those pesky civil rights for females within the "party of equality", eh?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

This has relatively little to do with external observers' consideration of externalities.

It's perfectly conceivable (and in fact I suspect it's the case*) that for many years of his early adult life, Izzard considered herself to be a man who preferred to adopt many of the external presentations of a woman - in other words, a transvestite man. But that then, more recently, Izzard has begun to consider herself to be actually gender-fluid - in other words, moving away from cisman, in the direction of transwoman.

Just as in gender fluidity itself, one's own internalised understanding of oneself can also change over time. People who've considered themselves to be cismen for the first several decades of their lives (whether or not they've ever chosen to present themselves as transvestite cismen during that time) can - entirely justifiably and truthfully - later come to consider themselves as transwomen. One doesn't have to be effectively born with one's consideration of one's place on the gender spectrum.

So... it's not fixed and immutable, an inherent and unambigous truth of a person? It is something that can change over time?

Where does that put thopse who have detransitioned? Did they change their minds? Or did their gender shift over time from their natal sex to the opposite and then back again?

What are the consequences of gender NOT being fixed and immutable, when it comes to the current approach of gender-affirmation-only approaches by the medical industry, and the propensity to prescribe puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital surgery? If gender is NOT fixed and immutable, then these are approaches that can ostensibly cause significant bodily harm including sterility. Is it appropriate to pursue such irreversible and harmful approaches if one's gender identity can change over time?

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

* But, as I said before, the only way to gain any genuine clarity on this matter would be to solicit Izzard's own understanding - which she might or might not be ready/willing to share. It's not for outside observers to guess or presume.

The problem is that it puts an obligation on outside observers - who have zero insight into a person's mind - to change society and our own behaviors in order to accommodate this 100% internal thing.

It's tantamount to a devout christian saying that they know god is real in their hearts... and therefore all of the rest of us must convert to their belief and pray to their god.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Please don't tell me you're implying here that Izzard (or anyone else, for that matter) should still be considered as a transvestite man - rather than a transwoman - simply on the basis that he's not seeking (whether or not he's announced it to the world) hormone treatment or surgery.

And please don't tell me that simply because you don't observe any noticeable difference in Izzard's external presentation between (say) 10 years ago and today, this therefore implies that nothing about Izzard's own understanding of her gender fluidity can have changed either.


(To be clear, I think what you've written indicates pretty strongly that you are drawing those two inferences - it's just that I still retain some vestige of hope that someone with apparently a relatively good grasp of the issues and terminologies associated with this topic could know better than to think and state those things....)

Just to clarify... Your view here suggests that you feel that any male who proclaims themselves to be a woman must by obligation be accepted by their claim as being a woman, yes? That their claim alone is all it takes?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Person A is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person A considers himself to be a man. Person A is a transvestite man.

Person B is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person B considers herself to be a woman. Person B is a transwoman.

Person C is a male who likes to wear jeans, t-shirts and Converse trainers in public. Person C considers herself to be a woman. Person C is a transwoman.

A, B, and C are all MALE. Their own beliefs about themselves and their internal state doesn't change that in the least. How they dress makes absolutely zero difference to that.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

It's not abstract in the slightest - only in your own thinking.

But it's interesting and informative to witness how you and others here are focussing purely on observable externalities wrt this matter.

Let's try another approach:

Person A is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person A considers himself to be a man. Person A is a transvestite man.

Person B is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person B considers herself to be a woman. Person B is a transwoman.

Person C is a male who likes to wear jeans, t-shirts and Converse trainers in public. Person C considers herself to be a woman. Person C is a transwoman.


What you appear to be arguing is that Person A and Person B are effectively the same thing - purely on what you observe about their known biological sex and their external visual presentation to you.

And heaven knows what you consider Person C to be, on the same observational basis.


Yet it's entirely logical and feasible for somebody matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person B's characteristics. You, however, appear to be arguing that such a transition is more-or-less meaningless (to you, that is), purely on the basis that they "both look the same" to you.


It's also entirely logical and feasible, by the way, for someone matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person C's characteristics. Heaven knows what you'd make of that, though.

Why should he make anything of it?

Why should changes to your own perception of your "internal lived condition" be binding or even meaningful to anyone else? You're entitled to think of yourself however you want. And I'm entitled to think of you however I want.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Just to clarify... Your view here suggests that you feel that any male who proclaims themselves to be a woman must by obligation be accepted by their claim as being a woman, yes? That their claim alone is all it takes?

What's weird is that more and more, nobody cares how males dress. The biggest push for the importance of gendered wardrobes is coming from religious cranks... and trans-activists. Trans-activists who will tell you that gender presentation is a super-important part of avoiding extreme detriment to the mental health of transsexuals... Right up to the moment when they suddenly turn around and insist that gender presentation is totally irrelevant to being transsexual.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Social change is generally pushed by a vocal minority that makes a strong effort to change the course of public opinion, or put pressure on policymakers, or both.

Yep, and it looks like an incredibly small vocal minority has used that to enable a trampling of rights of 50% of the population.

And see my sig.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

So... it's not fixed and immutable, an inherent and unambigous truth of a person? It is something that can change over time?

Where does that put thopse who have detransitioned? Did they change their minds? Or did their gender shift over time from their natal sex to the opposite and then back again?

What are the consequences of gender NOT being fixed and immutable, when it comes to the current approach of gender-affirmation-only approaches by the medical industry, and the propensity to prescribe puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital surgery? If gender is NOT fixed and immutable, then these are approaches that can ostensibly cause significant bodily harm including sterility. Is it appropriate to pursue such irreversible and harmful approaches if one's gender identity can change over time?



The problem is that it puts an obligation on outside observers - who have zero insight into a person's mind - to change society and our own behaviors in order to accommodate this 100% internal thing.

It's tantamount to a devout christian saying that they know god is real in their hearts... and therefore all of the rest of us must convert to their belief and pray to their god.

No: it means that all of the rest of us must accommodate their belief and their right to observe their religion without discrimination.

Same applies to transgender identity. But the structural failure in your analogy does at least go further to expose some of the underlying issues informing your opinions on transgender rights.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why should he make anything of it?

Why should changes to your own perception of your "internal lived condition" be binding or even meaningful to anyone else? You're entitled to think of yourself however you want. And I'm entitled to think of you however I want.

And - where it comes to matters of gender identity - you're obliged to allow me to be treated as a person residing wherever on the gender spectrum I ask to be treated, without discrimination.

This really isn't too difficult.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

A, B, and C are all MALE. Their own beliefs about themselves and their internal state doesn't change that in the least. How they dress makes absolutely zero difference to that.

I have no idea what the (correct) observation that they're all male has to do with discussions about trans-identity (and more specifically, discussions about the differences between visual presentation and gender identity where it comes to transvestism vs transgenderism).

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Just to clarify... Your view here suggests that you feel that any male who proclaims themselves to be a woman must by obligation be accepted by their claim as being a woman, yes? That their claim alone is all it takes?

From where exactly in my post have you derived the inference that I blindly adhere to the concept of self-ID?

Because I most certainly made no such implication.

However, since you ask, I personally believe that some form of validation process would be a good thing going forward. I can also understand the wishes of the more hardline end of transactivism in calling for unfettered self-ID. But I personally think that some of the ramifications of editing or changing one's gender do probably call for a level of official recognisation (noting in the process that, for example, self-ID of sexuality carries nowhere near as many significant ramifications).

And I think that this issue - together with the issue of transwomen in elite women's sports - should probably be hills that transgender people and trans rights campaigners choose to surrender rather than die upon, at least in the short- and medium-term.


(Still wondering quite how you managed to see what you thought was my opinion on self-ID in that particular post...)

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Executive orders are not an instrument or process for passing things into law.

This executive order was absolutely the right instrument/process for the new Executive Administration* to implement its desired policies within the bounds of the law already passed, and within the bounds of the authority of the Executive branch.

Executive orders are merely an instruction from the President, to the agencies under his authority, for how they are to interpret and apply the laws they are charged with interpreting and applying.

Passing things into law is an entirely separate process, over which the office of the President has very little influence or control.**
---
*Not "the new US Government", which is actually a tripartite system with each part renewing at different rates and to different degrees.

**The one thing the President can do about lawmaking, ex cathedra, is sign into law the bills passed by the legislature. This is a veto power, which the legislature can override with a supermajority.

Ah OK - I didn't realise that US Presidential executive orders conveyed no legislative powers (we have nothing even remotely similar in UK). Thanks for educating me.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I have no idea what the (correct) observation that they're all male has to do with discussions about trans-identity (and more specifically, discussions about the differences between visual presentation and gender identity where it comes to transvestism vs transgenderism).

Apparently not even trans-activists have any idea what the correct observation of biological sex has to do with transsexuality. Not even when it's explained to them in plain language, repeatedly.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And - where it comes to matters of gender identity - you're obliged to allow me to be treated as a person residing wherever on the gender spectrum I ask to be treated, without discrimination.

This really isn't too difficult.

I'm sorry, "obliged to allow"? "Without discrimination"?

I think it really is kind of difficult, as this thread shows.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

No: it means that all of the rest of us must accommodate their belief and their right to observe their religion without discrimination.

Same applies to transgender identity. But the structural failure in your analogy does at least go further to expose some of the underlying issues informing your opinions on transgender rights.

That's the problem. And it's one you seem unable to see.

EVERYONE ELSE IS OBLIGATED TO ACCOMODATE THEIR BELIEF

Run that through your head for a bit, in different context of belief. Pick a different belief, and see how well that works.

If a person sincerely believes that women shouldn't show their hair in public... what does accommodating that belief mean? Does it mean that we allow women who adhere to that belief to cover their hair voluntarily? Well, yes, probably. Does it mean that we allow men who adhere to that belief to force women in their families to adhere to that belief and cover their hair whether those women believe that or not? That gets trickier, but in practice we often let that one slide. Does it mean that society as a whole must obligate all women to cover their hair? That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

Let's take it out of the realm of religion though, and substitute a different belief. If a person sincerely believes that they are disabled, should society as a whole accommodate their belief by allowing them to use disabled parking stalls and services? What if by doing so, that means that a person who actually IS disabled, rather than falsely believing themselves to be disabled, is denied a service? Would it be reasonable to accommodate their belief in such a way?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

However, since you ask, I personally believe that some form of validation process would be a good thing going forward. I can also understand the wishes of the more hardline end of transactivism in calling for unfettered self-ID. But I personally think that some of the ramifications of editing or changing one's gender do probably call for a level of official recognisation (noting in the process that, for example, self-ID of sexuality carries nowhere near as many significant ramifications).

And I think that this issue - together with the issue of transwomen in elite women's sports - should probably be hills that transgender people and trans rights campaigners choose to surrender rather than die upon, at least in the short- and medium-term.

Okay. Setting aside what other people might want, and looking at this only from your personal perspective: Why do you believe that some form of a validation process is appropriate?

[Rolfe]

Even John, who comes over as a hard-line trans-activist, proposes checks and balances and restrictions that the real trans-activists would vehemently insist were degrading, dehumanising and absolutely out of the question. It's quite the conundrum. He thinks he's on their side, and he vilifies women who raise the slightest protest against his own proposals, but the real trans-activists would most certainly revile him as a TERF.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And on Biden, there appears to have been a hysterical reaction in certain quarters

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

It's not abstract in the slightest - only in your own thinking.

You may be confused about what "abstract" means.

Quote:

But it's interesting and informative to witness how you and others here are focussing purely on observable externalities wrt this matter.

Let's try another approach:

Person A is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person A considers himself to be a man. Person A is a transvestite man.

Person B is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person B considers herself to be a woman. Person B is a transwoman.

Person C is a male who likes to wear jeans, t-shirts and Converse trainers in public. Person C considers herself to be a woman. Person C is a transwoman.


What you appear to be arguing is that Person A and Person B are effectively the same thing - purely on what you observe about their known biological sex and their external visual presentation to you.

Person A and Person B exhibit the same behavior, as described. If the only difference is their self conception, well, guess what? Self-conception divorced from behavior is abstract.

Quote:

Yet it's entirely logical and feasible for somebody matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person B's characteristics. You, however, appear to be arguing that such a transition is more-or-less meaningless (to you, that is), purely on the basis that they "both look the same" to you.

A change that only involves self-conception IS meaningless to me. It may not be meaningless to that person, but I have no actual access to that person's self-conception.

And you seem to have lost track of where this started. Emily said she couldn't see a rational difference between Eddie the transvestite and Eddie the transgender. You objected to this. But your objections have all fallen flat. There is no rational difference. There may be an arational (which is not the same as irrational) difference for how Eddie conceptualizes that, and it may matter to Eddie, but why would any of the rest of us care? Never once have you even suggested a reason, except to accuse others of bigotry and hatred. But it's not hatred to not care about abstract distinctions which don't describe any behavioral differences.

Quote:

It's also entirely logical and feasible, by the way, for someone matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person C's characteristics. Heaven knows what you'd make of that, though.

What would I make of that? I wouldn't care. Why should I? Why, according to you, must I?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Even John, who comes over as a hard-line trans-activist, proposes checks and balances and restrictions that the real trans-activists would vehemently insist were degrading, dehumanising and absolutely out of the question. It's quite the conundrum. He thinks he's on their side, and he vilifies women who raise the slightest protest against his own proposals, but the real trans-activists would most certainly revile him as a TERF.

We've already seen that, with Boudicca denouncing John earlier in the thread.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Even John, who comes over as a hard-line trans-activist, proposes checks and balances and restrictions that the real trans-activists would vehemently insist were degrading, dehumanising and absolutely out of the question. It's quite the conundrum. He thinks he's on their side, and he vilifies women who raise the slightest protest against his own proposals, but the real trans-activists would most certainly revile him as a TERF.

It pains me to say it, but I still think there's a subconscious bias in there that allows males to have partial support and still be viewed as allies, whereas females are required to roll over and take it completely or risk being labeled and vilified.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It pains me to say it, but I still think there's a subconscious bias in there that allows males to have partial support and still be viewed as allies, whereas females are required to roll over and take it completely or risk being labeled and vilified.

I think you're right, but the explanation may not be simply sexism (though that might contribute). I think there's an element that's similar to the vitriol that, say, black conservatives get above and beyond white conservatives.

If you're part of an in group that's supposed to support a specific ideology, then deviations from that ideology by members of that in group are treated as more of a threat than deviations by people not in that in group. The reasons for that are pretty obvious in terms of maintaining group cohesion to that ideology. Blacks are supposed to be Democrats. Women are supposed to fight against the patriarchy and sexual discrimination of any sort. They are in groups in regards to these ideologies. Your deviation is thus less tolerable than mine. It's not fair, but it's almost inevitable.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I think you're right, but the explanation may not be simply sexism (though that might contribute). I think there's an element that's similar to the vitriol that, say, black conservatives get above and beyond white conservatives.

If you're part of an in group that's supposed to support a specific ideology, then deviations from that ideology by members of that in group are treated as more of a threat than deviations by people not in that in group. The reasons for that are pretty obvious in terms of maintaining group cohesion to that ideology. Blacks are supposed to be Democrats. Women are supposed to fight against the patriarchy and sexual discrimination of any sort. They are in groups in regards to these ideologies. Your deviation is thus less tolerable than mine. It's not fair, but it's almost inevitable.

Good point. I'm going to have to go ahead and say that the TRAs are a bit wrong-headed about this. In your excellent analogy, black people who are conservative get crap because it is felt that they are betraying black people. If the same were applied here, one would say that women who don't kowtow to the trans agenda get crap because they aren't supporting other women.

And that's where it falls apart. A black conservative is still black, regardless of their politics and their value schema. But, as mentioned by the thread title... Transwomen are not women.

This whole situation is more like white democrats coming down on black democrats because the black democrats aren't being supportive enough of the feelings of white democrats.

[theprestige]

I think the calculus is that women are a minority, and should be helping lift up other minorities, not pulling up the ladder and saying "I got mine; up yours."