Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I actually thought the prisons issue would be the one that would peak most people.

//nitpick// pique

Originally Posted by Rolfe

But hey, out of sight out of mind. It seems to be the sports issue that's getting the most traction in public discourse.

People are a lot more passionate about sport than prisoners' rights, so use sport as the lever to gain traction on other areas. The premise is the same - putting blokes in women-only places is a stupid, misogynistic and illogical move.

Also, if blokes are allowed to play women's contact sports, you're going to see a lot more physical and emotional harm done to women than could ever happen inside jails. A lot more women play rugby than are in jail.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I think it's fair to say some parents would still complain if a cisgender female wore those things while teaching a class.

The real question is for how long such complaints will be tolerated.

We're already at the point where trans folks can wear novelty prosthetic genitalia without censure in law or policy. It's part of the expression of their valid lived identity, and is therefore untouchable. What if a woman made the same claim?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

//nitpick// pique

No. I didn't mean "pique", that's why I didn't write it.

"Peak" used as a verb is a neologism, short for "peak-transing" someone. It's the term for the moment you were at your most supportive towards trans people, then the scales fall from your eyes and you see what's really going on. It's all downhill from then on, hence "peak".

Happened to me in September 2018.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

//nitpick// pique

//nitnitpick// peak

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...m=peak%20trans

Quote:

Most commonly used by feminists and allies to refer to the particular event or person that caused someone to lose sympathy with transgenderism.

[Rolfe]

I'm slightly curious about the game plan of the teacher with the outsize boobs. What was he thinking when he decided to go to work like that for the first time? He can't, surely, have been certain that he'd get away with it, that there wouldn't be the discreet call to see the head and a quiet "you can't come into work looking like that, go home and change."

If that had happened, would he have quietly complied, or would he have started making a fuss, demanding he be allowed to express his gender identity, and called the head a transphobe?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The real question is for how long such complaints will be tolerated.

I'm not sure such complaints will be tolerated in Canada in 2022. That said, not my problem.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

No. I didn't mean "pique", that's why I didn't write it.

"Peak" used as a verb is a neologism, short for "peak-transing" someone. It's the term for the moment you were at your most supportive towards trans people, then the scales fall from your eyes and you see what's really going on. It's all downhill from then on, hence "peak".

Well that's something I learned today!

[Rolfe]

This is a very interesting blog article by a lawyer.

Why single sex female spaces are not for biological males

Quote:

The moment you say that it’s not proportionate or legitimate to exclude even one solitary biological male from your single sex service, then at that exact moment your service ceases to be a single sex service, and you lose your whole justification for excluding any male from that service. When you admit a biological male to what was a single sex female service, you are admitting in terms that you no longer have legal justification for your single sex service. You are now a mixed sex service.

The previous post is also informative, discussing the fairly sensible law from 2004, which confirmed that nobody could actually change sex but set out legal processes designed to make life easier for people (mostly men, then) with severe gender dysphoria, and how the hell we got from there to here.

With thanks to the Frontline Feminists

Quote:

The treatment of this condition depends upon its severity and the circumstances of the individual. In severe cases conventional psychiatric treatment is inadequate. Ultimately the most that medical science can do in order to alleviate the condition is, in appropriate cases, to rid the body of its intensely disliked features and make it accord, so far as possible, with the anatomy craved. This is done by means of hormonal and other treatment and major surgery, popularly known as a ‘sex change’ operation. In this regard medical science and surgical expertise have advanced much in recent years. Hormonal treatment can change a person’s secondary sexual characteristics. Irreversible surgery can adapt or remove genitalia and other organs, external and internal. By this means a normal body of one sex can be altered so as to give the appearance of a normal body of the other sex. But there are still limits to what can be done. Gonads cannot be constructed. The creation of replica genital organs is particularly difficult with female to male gender reassignment surgery. Chromosomal patterns remain unchanged. The change of body can never be complete.

Again, there is no suggestion here that the condition of being “transsexual” is something to be validated or celebrated. Rather, everything described by the court as “treatment” is designed only to “alleviate the condition” and to do so, where appropriate, by increasingly drastic steps.

It all started with a legal ruling that so-called "sex change surgery" did not turn a man into a woman, and the recognition that to comply with human rights legislation it was necessary to work out some form of legal fudge to permit a transsexual man to marry another man, and to be regarded as a woman for the purposes of social security and pensions legislation.

[stanfr]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There are topics that we have discussed ad nauseum in this thread, and which many of us get tired of having to reiterate. But I'll give it another go.

Females that identify as transmen and take hormones pass significantly better as men than the other way around. Testosterone is a one-way street. It causes physiological changes that cannot be undone. Muscle mass is the very least of it, and the only thing that is somewhat "reversible" if a female stops taking testosterone. Facial hair, on the other hand, does not go away. Once the biological switches have been tripped, even if a female stops taking testosterone, they will not stop producing facial hair. Similarly, once their voice drops - which is a result of testosterone - it will never rise again. These changes are permanent in females.

Males that identify as transwomen and take hormones almost never pass even a little bit unless they have considerable cosmetic surgery. Estrogen alone will result in a repositioning of fat on the body, leading to marginally softer hips and face, as well as deposits of fatty tissue in the breast. But estrogen will not stop a male from growing facial hair, nor will it raise their voice, nor will it alter their skeletal structure. If a male stops taking estrogen, they will revert back to a male-typical muscle and fat distribution in relatively short order. The visual changes caused to a male by taking exogenous estrogen are not permanent.

In humans, females are better at sexing other humans than males are, although both are very good at it. Shown faces alone, in monochrome, without hair or make-up or clothing indicators, females correctly sex an unaltered human about 98% of the time, and males do so about 90% of the time. I have my speculations about why that is, but it's a bit off topic.

Facial hair is a strong indicator of sex in humans, as it's an element that is dimorphic in all but extremely rare cases of female hirsuitism. If a person has a beard, we will - all of us - assume they are male and rarely look closer.

The net result of all of these factors is that females who identify as transmen are less likely to be accurately sexed by cursory glance than are males who identify as transwoman.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On the topic of females who identify as transmen being required to use the single sex spaces of their biology... well, to be frank, most of us don't care which spaces they use. Some males would undoubtedly be put out by the presence of a female body being naked in their presence, and I can definitely empathize with that.

But the situations are not parallels.

I know some people don't want to admit it, but statistically males are materially more likely to be aggressive and violent, and to be sexual predators than females are. So there's an element of agency and risk involved in which spaces a transgender person uses, dependent on their sex.

I'll attempt a poor analogy here. Let's make the illustrative assumption that males are foxes and females are hens. If a hen decides that they are a "fox in spirit" and decides to go visit the fox's den... well, that's on them. They are the one who is accepting the known risk to themselves. The foxes may not like the hen in their den... and the foxes are completely capable of forcing that hen to either leave or face the easily foreseeable consequences of their presence.

On the other hand... if a fox decides they are a "hen in spirt" and decides to wander on into the hen coop... well that's something altogether different, isn't it? The hens are certainly not a threat to the fox, even if they greatly outnumber the fox. A single fox in a henhouse could cause immense harm if they so desired. And despite there being many hens to only one fox, it is the fox that represents the threat.

To break this analogy down to its salient point: When a female that identifies as a transman enters a male-only space, they are willingly accepting a risk to themselves. When a male that identifies as a transwoman enters a female-only space, they are imposing a risk on everyone except themselves.

Thanks for that thoughtful response, I respect it and appreciate you taking the time to spell it out again. To me, that is a lot more reasonable than this:

Originally Posted by Rolfe

....snip....
When I was younger, adults told us we could be what we wanted to be, and our sex shouldn't dictate our life choices. Now, the slightest sign of a "wrong" toy preference and girls are being told they're really boys and need puberty blockers, testosterone and a mastectomy. It's horrific.

Which to me (even if it is supposedly hyperbole) comes off as bigoted and delusional. And that's what bothered me to start posting here.

[Rolfe]

It's a mild exaggeration. If you think a mildly exaggerated account of what is actually happening is bigoted and delusional, I suggest that's your problem, not mine.

Have you actually looked at what is being done to these children? They're being encouraged to believe it's actually possible to change sex, that they can have an operation that will do that for them, when they're too young to understand that that isn't possible. They're being "affirmed" into the obsessive belief that all their problems - not fitting in, being bullied, being same-sex attracted, hating the thought of their bodies maturing - will be solved by "transitioning", and that anyone who tries to help them explore their feelings and question whether major disfiguring surgery is really their "true self" hates them and wants them dead.

They're being deprived of puberty. Have you really thought about what that means? It's not just about the maturing of our sex organs, it's a whole-body process that encompasses skeletal maturation and brain maturation. The puberty these poor girls are fleeing from is the very thing that will sort out their confusion and discomfort.

Anyone who has been given puberty blockers before they have experienced an orgasm will never experience an orgasm. Have you thought about what that means? These children are being turned into non-functional cosmetic facsimiles of the sex they aren't.

If adults, with mature brains and mature bodies, want to transition and are sure about what they're getting into, good luck to them. (But you still do not have legal right of entry to the intimate spaces of the sex you aren't.) Men and women who transition after puberty retain sexual function and are capable of going on to have reasonable sex lives. Puberty-blocked children will never do that. The adults who are encouraging this believe that cosmetic result is everything, and if a boy looks convincingly like a woman that's the best result, even if what he really is is a castrated male with an artificial cavity which he certainly won't get any pleasure out of. Maybe think about the mind-set of the people who think this result is a success?

What is being done to these children is an abomination, an abhorrence. It's right out of the Mengele playbook. It makes breast ironing, foot binding and infibulation look positively civilised.

[Matthew Best]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/every-t...hare_permalink

The number of young Americans who describe themselves as “transgender” has exploded over the past decade, increasing by a factor of 20 to 40, according to gender clinic referral data and a recent Williams Institute report based on surveys by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[Rolfe]

Oh but it's not social contagion, how dare you suggest such a thing. Everyone knows their own gender and they can't be wrong. Even when they keep changing their mind about it. It's all about greater social acceptance so people who would have stayed in the closet are coming out.

We must clamp down on this rampant transphobia that causes the huge suicide rates in trans youth and mourn all the transphobia-fuelled murders that afflict this, the most marginalised group in society.

No, me neither.

[Rolfe]

Look at this. She's "really supportive" of unisex (mixed sex) changing rooms, because it "makes everyone feel included."

https://twitter.com/mummabeeblu/stat...90566889570307

Does it look like she's included? She's never going in there again unless she can have a friend with her, and she'd rather pay for the clothes and take them home to try on in private.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Look at this. She's "really supportive" of unisex (mixed sex) changing rooms, because it "makes everyone feel included."

I imagine when she says everyone she means, like, non-binary females rather than the bros who walked in on her.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[theprestige]

She's mouthing the party line even as she's dissenting from the party line. Sometimes a conservative really is just a liberal that got mugged by reality.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I imagine when she says everyone she means, like, non-binary females rather than the bros who walked in on her.

I'm not sure she could clearly explain what she meant by that. Or understand that she does not feel included, therefore everyone is not included.

[Aber]

UK Crown Prosecution Service is consulting on revised guidance on sex by deception.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/d...exual-offences

It looks a bit of a mess

Quote:

If a suspect genuinely perceives their gender identity to be different to their birth assigned sex or if their gender identity is in a state of flux and/or emerging, this may be evidence there was not a deliberate deception.

[Rolfe]

Not half. This will not end well.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Aber

UK Crown Prosecution Service is consulting on revised guidance on sex by deception.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/d...exual-offences

It looks a bit of a mess

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Not half. This will not end well.

What's a mess and what won't end well?

I've read the guidance and it is sensible and reasonable and as narrow as any such guidance can be.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by Darat

I've read the guidance and it is sensible and reasonable and as narrow as any such guidance can be.

But with a presumption that the issue with sex via deception is the gender identity of the assailant, not their sex.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Aber

But with a presumption that the issue with sex via deception is the gender identity of the assailant, not their sex.

That sounds like you've not read the guidelines in full as either gender or sex could be grounds for a charge of deception in the matter of consent.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Darat

That sounds like you've not read the guidelines in full as either gender or sex could be grounds for a charge of deception in the matter of consent.

An issue presents when protracted court proceedings concerning a man raping a man are reported as a woman raping a man.
This is a current New Zealand case.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Samson

An issue presents when protracted court proceedings concerning a man raping a man are reported as a woman raping a man.
This is a current New Zealand case.

That wouldn't fall under the proposed revised guidance we are currently discussing.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Darat

That wouldn't fall under the proposed revised guidance we are currently discussing.

I cite the case because I read an early edition with surprise, and a later edition where the facts were more clear. It was a man identifying as a woman.
This told me that reporting is no longer reporting facts but a quest to keep one's job.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by Darat

That sounds like you've not read the guidelines in full as either gender or sex could be grounds for a charge of deception in the matter of consent.

True, except that key paragraphs are all about gender

Quote:

If a suspect genuinely perceives their gender identity to be different to their birth assigned sex or if their gender identity is in a state of flux and/or emerging, this may be evidence there was not a deliberate deception.

Quote:

Prosecutors should consider the complainant’s particular characteristics and life experiences, and how these may have impacted on their relationship with the suspect and their understanding of the suspect’s gender.

Quote:

If a complainant is deceived and did not consent, it is crucial to consider whether the suspect reasonably believed in consent to sexual activity. Again, an offender-centric approach should be adopted, and the focus should be on the actions of the suspect before, during and after the alleged assault

And

Quote:

However, there may be very limited circumstances where, despite the suspect deceiving the complainant, the defendant reasonably believes the complainant consents to the activity. For instance, the suspect may believe that the complainant is initially deceived as to the suspect’s gender but, because of the long passage of time between the initial deception and the sexual activity, during which the suspect and complainant meet and interact on numerous occasions, by the time the sexual activity takes place the suspect reasonably believes that the deception no longer operates on the complainant

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Samson

I cite the case because I read an early edition with surprise, and a later edition where the facts were more clear. It was a man identifying as a woman.
This told me that reporting is no longer reporting facts but a quest to keep one's job.

Which has nothing to do with the proposed revised guidelines.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Aber

True, except that key paragraphs are all about gender







And

But what is "a mess" about that?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Darat

But what is "a mess" about that?

Darat, can you say what it means to be a woman? To be treated like a woman?

Of course not.

The only time "gender" has any concrete, comprehensible meaning at all is when it is clearly and explicitly a synonym for sex.

[Rolfe]

Which it never was until some people started saying gender when they meant sex, and look where that got us.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Darat, can you say what it means to be a woman? To be treated like a woman?

Of course not.

The only time "gender" has any concrete, comprehensible meaning at all is when it is clearly and explicitly a synonym for sex.

Fortunately the actual experts in the relevant fields - who have vastly more knowledge, understanding and experience than you (or me) - now know that transgender identity is real and valid. The fact that you are either unable or unwilling to understand it yourself (complete with your dismissive “of course not” hand wave) is of no importance.

[Rolfe]

Since you can't quote these supposed experts, and we have no idea at all what either you or they mean by "real and valid", you could have saved yourself the bother of typing that.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Fortunately the actual experts in the relevant fields - who have vastly more knowledge, understanding and experience than you (or me) - now know that transgender identity is real and valid.

I wonder what sort of experiments they ran to sort the fictional invalid identities from the real and valid ones.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Fortunately the actual experts in the relevant fields - who have vastly more knowledge, understanding and experience than you (or me) - now know that transgender identity is real and valid. The fact that you are either unable or unwilling to understand it yourself (complete with your dismissive “of course not” hand wave) is of no importance.

Still a meaningless non sequitur, just like the first hundred times you brought it up.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Fortunately the actual experts in the relevant fields - who have vastly more knowledge, understanding and experience than you (or me) - now know that transgender identity is real and valid.

No. That is your inference from the decision to consider gender identity without distress to not be a disorder in the DSMV.

Gender identity without distress is no more real or valid than a fursona without distress, or a drag character without distress. And no more needing of accommodations or entitlements in public policy than either of those identities.

Quote:

The fact that you are either unable or unwilling to understand it yourself (complete with your dismissive “of course not” hand wave) is of no importance.

The perceptions of the voting public are of substantial importance.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Fortunately the actual experts in the relevant fields - who have vastly more knowledge, understanding and experience than you (or me) - now know that transgender identity is real and valid.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I wonder what sort of experiments they ran to sort the fictional invalid identities from the real and valid ones.

For example, if Kayla Lemieux were to proclaim, "My identity is that of a woman cursed blessed with preternaturally large breasts!" would we be able to tell whether that identity is "real and valid" according to the experts invoked by LondonJohn? I am quite skeptical that we could, but would be quite interested in hearing how it would be sorted out.

[theprestige]

LondonJohn, you've had literally years to explain what it means to be a woman, or to be treated like a woman. All you've come up with so far is increasingly empty, and now quite stale, rhetoric. My inability to understand it seems no greater than your own.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by LondonJoh[HILITE

n;13912286] Fortunately the actual experts in the relevant fields - who have vastly more knowledge, understanding an[/hilite]d experience than you (or me) - now know that transgender identity is real and valid. The fact that you are either unable or unwilling to understand it yourself (complete with your dismissive “of course not” hand wave) is of no importance.

Like Tavistock?

[Rolfe]

Seen on Twitter. A girl of 17 with multiple mental health issues declaring that she's suicidal because of the changes her voice underwent as a result of taking testosterone.

https://twitter.com/BillboardChris/s...93598230372353

Oh but practically nobody regrets transitioning! That'll be why online support groups for ROGD girls who realise they made a huge mistake are mushrooming?

I don't know whether it's even possible to tell which girls are going to be happy with their decision and which are going to regret it bitterly, but they have to do better than this "immediate affirmation, hormones tomorrow surgery the day after" schtick.

(The first Swedish Trans Train documentary featured a woman in the same position who was having singing lessons to use her baritone voice at its new pitch. I wonder if that would help this girl?)

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm slightly curious about the game plan of the teacher with the outsize boobs. What was he thinking when he decided to go to work like that for the first time? He can't, surely, have been certain that he'd get away with it, that there wouldn't be the discreet call to see the head and a quiet "you can't come into work looking like that, go home and change."

If that had happened, would he have quietly complied, or would he have started making a fuss, demanding he be allowed to express his gender identity, and called the head a transphobe?

Presumably the teacher has a set of balls to match the size of the boobs.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Presumably the teacher has a set of balls to match the size of the boobs.

Maybe those are his balls.