Moderated: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

How do you, personally, distinguish between a transwoman who isn't passing and a cisman?

A trans woman who isn't passing is still a trans woman, that's the point I made before.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

A trans woman who isn't passing is still a trans woman, that's the point I made before.

I know that's the point you made there.

Instead of answering the question, you made a point.

How do you, personally, distinguish between a transwoman who isn't passing and a cisman?

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I know that's the point you made there.

Instead of answering the question, you made a point.

How do you, personally, distinguish between a transwoman who isn't passing and a cisman?

It depends.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

It depends.

Be honest. In general, you cannot.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Hilarious. You clearly don't understand what transphobia is. And "transsexual" is an outdated term, fyi.

Feel free to correct my terminology while you answer my questions.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Be honest. In general, you cannot.

I certainly can, I'm just not playing the games you people want to play.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I certainly can, I'm just not playing the games you people want to play.

Games, like defining terms, answering questions, or getting to the actual issues that are required in order to make policy that actually works.

Well, that sort of thing isn't everyone's cup of tea.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Feel free to correct my terminology while you answer my questions.

Transphobia (in practice): Disagreement with tenets of gender identity ideology on logical, practical, philosophical or scientific grounds. See heresy, blasphemy, etc.

Surely being suspicious of somebody claiming to be a transwoman and not wanting them in a female single-sex space because they don't look female enough would not qualify.

For example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1663

In this case I'm guessing that having a moustache is not making enough effort.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I certainly can, I'm just not playing the games you people want to play.

You keep claiming to be able to do things that you refuse to do.

I think you are lying.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And also - just for information dontcha know (since anything more than this would be an improper appeal to authority ) - it's probably worth noting that within the understanding of DSM5, the WHO, the UN and many major World governments, trans women are women. The only issue to sort out is quite how that rather intangible and metaphysical concept is applied in practice.

Ok. But I will tell you that the more I read about 'trans women' the more I question using that term to describe those ALL born male, who desire to have or already have, gone through some process to develop female gender expression. Many are genuinely dysphoric, seek a level of social and medical transition they need to get on with their lives, and then they do just that as best they can. No issue with these persons being considered women, with some exceptions, like sports and statistics.

However, there is that other side that is so so prevalent now that I would not call 'women'. It is a more sexualized expression of a fetish. No issue with anyone having a fetish of dressing as a sexy woman and having certain fantasies about it, but they aren't 'women'. You could still call them transwomen, since they are often doing the same procedures, but I consider them now to be more of a sex impostor or female LARPer (and still, nothing wrong with it if that is your thing!). These are the ones who do not belong in female spaces. Trans women should not want them there either.

All the authoritative agencies and governments on the globe saying 'trans women ARE women' doesn't address how to tell the difference. There are no qualfiers left other than someone says it is true for them.

But I am not the grand poohbah of who gets through that female door. and I would not even want the job. But I can see huge gaping differences no matter how it has all been repackaged. The honest and sometimes long and difficult transition process to alleviate sincere dysphoria has simply broadened too wide.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And also - just for information dontcha know (since anything more than this would be an improper appeal to authority ) - it's probably worth noting that within the understanding of DSM5, the WHO, the UN and many major World governments, trans women are women. The only issue to sort out is quite how that rather intangible and metaphysical concept is applied in practice.

Nowhere at all within the DSM-V, WHO, or major world government is any such assertion supported.

You've "interpreted" this as being true, but it is not stated, nor even directly suggested as truth by any of those sources.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You keep claiming to be able to do things that you refuse to do.

I think you are lying.

Well, to be fair, I think it is difficult to nail down and somewhat akin to that court ruling on what is obscene.
"I know it when I see it".
A sort of non-rational argument but one people sort of 'get' when they hear it because that is how we assess all kinds of things as individuals

Quote:

(Justice Stewart) I shall not today
attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be
embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never
succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the
motion picture involved in this case is not that.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Issues like these have to do with the behavior of the perpetrators, what genitals they have is irrelevant. Actions like rape or invasion of privacy are wrong no matter who does it.

Go back and re-read my post.

This isn't a case of some random person "invading privacy" This is a bunch of minor females being told that they have no right to visual privacy from the opposite sex.

For this topic, I don't care how you want to define "sex". Imagine if you were in a changing room, naked, and a man came in - a cisman for argument's sake. Let's say you complained that you were not comfortable having a cisman in the room with you, you didn't want him looking at you while you're naked.

But the judge - the actual law - told you that you have no right to not be looked at while naked, that you have no right to expect visual privacy.

Do you think that you would feel harmed by the policy that allows cis-men to come into the changing room while you're naked and see you naked without your consent?

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

As far as female inmates being subjected to rape by transwomen with PENISES, I think the genitalia matters a whole ******* lot. This hand-waving away of the actual literal reduction in rights, the removal of protections, and the literal subjecting of females to harm directly caused by penises being forced in to their presence without their goddamned consent - with the law ******* backing it - is HARM.

So please, take your "oh these policies are good for transwomen and they don't hurt females at all *blink blink* BS and reconsider your position.

Because I for the life of me cannot figure out why the **** you think you have a right to OBLIGATE every ******* female in the US to bend to your wishes and your desires while simultaneously dismiss the actual harm occurring to them as a result of your positions...while claiming whit a straight face that your borderline misogyny makes you "just as much of a woman as any female"!

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

A trans woman who isn't passing is still a trans woman, that's the point I made before.

Going forward, is it ever okay to question whether someone belongs in a given restroom or changing room?

If Seani belongs in the ladies room, how dare we ask anyone to leave?

ETA: To be clear, I don't particularly mind if all restrooms are for everyone going forward, I just want to know what the general consensus is supposed to be.

ETA2: I still think the best rule is currently "Use the room where you'll raise the fewest eyebrows."

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I would certainly view someone making no attempt at passing with skepticism (like the Jude Law example), it depends on the situation.

But "isn't passing" is different than making no attempt at it. I have many older trans female friends who don't pass because they waited too long to transition. They still make an attempt to pass, but it is still clear that they are transgender. They shouldn't be discriminated against just because HRT can only do so much and they are too poor to afford surgeries.

So... how do you tell the difference between one of your unfortunate friends in a tough position... and a random cisman who threw on a dress with intent to do harm?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Hilarious. You clearly don't understand what transphobia is. And "transsexual" is an outdated term, fyi.

You dodged the question, you didn't answer it at all.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I certainly can, I'm just not playing the games you people want to play.

That would be because it's not a game, and you very well know it.

You know very well that there is no way at all for anyone to tell the difference. But because you insist that all transwomen of every sort must be entitled to all female spaces and all female services, you can't admit that. It shines the light on the giant gaping hole in the entire premise.

By forcing females to allow any and all self-declared transwomen into their spaces with no questions and no criteria, you know goddamned good and well that this also lets in any cisman who wants to be there and there's not a ******* thing that females can do about it.

And you also know that this will absolutely increase the risk of harm to females. But you don't care. Let me say that again: You do not care if females are hurt.

The actual real harm and the actual real reduction in rights that females suffer is just not important to you. Females are disposable to you. As long as your feelings are affirmed and your desires are fulfilled, the harm that befalls females just doesn't ******* matter to you.

Which is misogynistic and remarkably inhumane.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Go back and re-read my post.

This isn't a case of some random person "invading privacy" This is a bunch of minor females being told that they have no right to visual privacy from the opposite sex.

For this topic, I don't care how you want to define "sex". Imagine if you were in a changing room, naked, and a man came in - a cisman for argument's sake. Let's say you complained that you were not comfortable having a cisman in the room with you, you didn't want him looking at you while you're naked.

But the judge - the actual law - told you that you have no right to not be looked at while naked, that you have no right to expect visual privacy.

Do you think that you would feel harmed by the policy that allows cis-men to come into the changing room while you're naked and see you naked without your consent?

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

As far as female inmates being subjected to rape by transwomen with PENISES, I think the genitalia matters a whole ******* lot. This hand-waving away of the actual literal reduction in rights, the removal of protections, and the literal subjecting of females to harm directly caused by penises being forced in to their presence without their goddamned consent - with the law ******* backing it - is HARM.

So please, take your "oh these policies are good for transwomen and they don't hurt females at all *blink blink* BS and reconsider your position.

Because I for the life of me cannot figure out why the **** you think you have a right to OBLIGATE every ******* female in the US to bend to your wishes and your desires while simultaneously dismiss the actual harm occurring to them as a result of your positions...while claiming whit a straight face that your borderline misogyny makes you "just as much of a woman as any female"!

But we aren't talking about cis men here, we are talking about transgender women, who are female. So it's not "the opposite sex" as you claim.

There is no more harm than normal in these kinds of situations, these would be issues if a cisgender woman were guilty of them as well. Again the problem is the behavior, not the gender or sex of the perpetrators.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That would be because it's not a game, and you very well know it.

You know very well that there is no way at all for anyone to tell the difference. But because you insist that all transwomen of every sort must be entitled to all female spaces and all female services, you can't admit that. It shines the light on the giant gaping hole in the entire premise.

By forcing females to allow any and all self-declared transwomen into their spaces with no questions and no criteria, you know goddamned good and well that this also lets in any cisman who wants to be there and there's not a ******* thing that females can do about it.

And you also know that this will absolutely increase the risk of harm to females. But you don't care. Let me say that again: You do not care if females are hurt.

The actual real harm and the actual real reduction in rights that females suffer is just not important to you. Females are disposable to you. As long as your feelings are affirmed and your desires are fulfilled, the harm that befalls females just doesn't ******* matter to you.

Which is misogynistic and remarkably inhumane.

Believe what you want, you and the others in this thread are so blinded by transphobic beliefs and TERF ideology that nothing I say will matter. Keep labelling people who support trans rights as "misogynistic" if you want. I don't care.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

But we aren't talking about cis men here, we are talking about transgender women, who are female.

Hate to be pedantic (LOL) but what exactly should "female" be taken to mean herein the thread?

I thought females were born with ova and uteri and such like...?

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Hate to be pedantic (LOL) but what exactly should this term be taken to mean?

I thought females were born with ova and uteri and such...?

Not necessarily. Sex is more than chromosomes and reproductive organs.

[theprestige]

The more I think about it, the more I think that a transwoman cannot be a woman, both in terms of biology and in terms of valid lived experience.

If she transitions in adulthood, then all of her formative experiences, all of her socialization from childhood to maturity, was based on a male social paradigm. She was not raised under the influence of social stereotypes and expectations for girls and women. She was not grouped with other girls and sharing experiences with them from a girl's perspective. She did not experience puberty as a woman. She did not experience the onset of menses - an experience almost all born women have in common.

She experienced childhood, puberty, and coming-of-age as a male. Likely a profoundly uncomfortable male. Likely unhappy in their own skin. But these are not a female's experiences. A transman has no way of knowing how a woman feels, or that their own feelings are the feelings of a woman. And the more I think about it, the more I think that a transwoman's feelings cannot be the feelings of a born woman.

I can believe I'm Napoleon all I want. I can insist all I want that my Napoleonity is a valid lived experience. But unless I was born in Corsica, gave revolutionaries a taste of the grapeshot, invaded Russia and lived to tell the tale, conquered Spain, and lost to Wellington at Waterloo... I do not have a valid lived experience of being Napoleon. I'm sorry, but I just don't. I have a valid lived experience of something. But while it's real to me, it probably shouldn't be binding on society, nor entitle me to any rights or privileges.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Transphobia (in practice): Disagreement with tenets of gender identity ideology on logical, practical, philosophical or scientific grounds. See heresy, blasphemy, etc.

Surely being suspicious of somebody claiming to be a transwoman and not wanting them in a female single-sex space because they don't look female enough would not qualify.

For example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1663

In this case I'm guessing that having a moustache is not making enough effort.

That isn't exactly a "Didnt bother shaving the last few days" sort of mustache though.

But for most, it must take some significant time and effort just to leave the house.

I don't think I'd make it as a trans woman. Way too much work. Or I'd go 'guy mode' most of the time. But then I wouldnt really be living as a woman. Would I count still?
I didn't even brush my hair today...just tied it up in a messy knot.
I plan to shave my legs in April. That's my level of 'don't care' time management these days.

What do the lazy trans women do?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Not necessarily. Sex is more than chromosomes and reproductive organs.

Is it?

ETA: I'm aware of secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics, but they seem less important than primary ones, hence the nomenclature.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The more I think about it, the more I think that a transwoman cannot be a woman, both in terms of biology and in terms of valid lived experience.

If she transitions in adulthood, then all of her formative experiences, all of her socialization from childhood to maturity, was based on a male social paradigm. She was not raised under the influence of social stereotypes and expectations for girls and women. She was not grouped with other girls and sharing experiences with them from a girl's perspective. She did not experience puberty as a woman. She did not experience the onset of menses - an experience almost all born women have in common.

She experienced childhood, puberty, and coming-of-age as a male. Likely a profoundly uncomfortable male. Likely unhappy in their own skin. But these are not a female's experiences. A transman has no way of knowing how a woman feels, or that their own feelings are the feelings of a woman. And the more I think about it, the more I think that a transwoman's feelings cannot be the feelings of a born woman.

I can believe I'm Napoleon all I want. I can insist all I want that my Napoleonity is a valid lived experience. But unless I was born in Corsica, gave revolutionaries a taste of the grapeshot, invaded Russia and lived to tell the tale, conquered Spain, and lost to Wellington at Waterloo... I do not have a valid lived experience of being Napoleon. I'm sorry, but I just don't. I have a valid lived experience of something. But while it's real to me, it probably shouldn't be binding on society, nor entitle me to any rights or privileges.

Trans women were/are always women, that's what you don't understand. I was a woman who was assigned a male gender/sex based on my genitals and the attempt was made to socialize me as a male, but it was a failure because I never accepted it.

By transitioning I'm simply correcting an error that was made early on in my life.

[theprestige]

Actually I'm beginning that secondary and tertiary characteristics are much more important, for applying social norms. Historically we haven't needed to codify explicit rules for allowing or blocking access. It turns out that we're actually pretty good at distinguishing a man in a dress from a woman in trousers.

And yes, a dedicated disguise artist could certainly pass. But I mean, really pass. Like if can slide into the women's locker room without triggering an uncanny valley reaction, more power to you. You're an honorary woman until you get caught.

And yes, some people just don't have distinctive secondary and tertiary characteristics. Sometimes they end up "passing" by accident. Some, like Twiggy and David Bowie, put their androgyny to work.

What Boudicca is calling for is ongoing segregation, but the erasure of every sex-derived indicator our society has evolved to make that segregation possible. And with nothing at all to replace it.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Not necessarily. Sex is more than chromosomes and reproductive organs.

Is this a popular opinion?
I cannot find anything that would support it.

The science hasn't found anything as yet in trans human development that matches 'female'. There may be some things unique or common to trans women....but not an actual 'this part is the female part" type of thing- sex determinate genetics, hormone imbalances, or anything else.

If you have the normal XY instructional DNA that developed your body, then the body cannot be the a-typical part in the process. Something else interferes.

Hormones in-utero was my last guess since males need 4 or 5 'timed bursts' of testosterone. Females don't have anything like that. We are sort of the 'absence' of it. So the default is female, but the XY triggers changes in gene expression to be male. You and I have few differences in total genes present, but there would be large differences in gene expression. (30% or so if I recall)

What's your theory?

[The Common Potato]

I think I want to kill myself. Nah, not really. It's quite easy to call trans-men or -women by whatever they wish. It ought to be equally easy to accept that trans-men or -women have not always been such, and that they ought to be okay with that, too.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Trans women were/are always women, that's what you don't understand.

Is the current world record holding women's decathlete Austra Skujytė (8,358 points) or Caitlyn Jenner (8,618 points)?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Trans women were/are always women, that's what you don't understand. I was a woman who was assigned a male gender/sex based on my genitals and the attempt was made to socialize me as a male, but it was a failure because I never accepted it.

By transitioning I'm simply correcting an error that was made early on in my life.

I know a guy who's been diagnosed with schizophrenia, by more than one doctor. He's convinced they're wrong, and refuses treatment. To him, their diagnosis is a failure because he doesn't accept it.

I've known more than one person who suffers from bipolar disorder. When they're Up, they're convinced that the diagnosis is mistaken, and that they're fine without medication. I lost a friend to suicide that way..

Besides, there's still the problem of your valid lived experience. Whatever it is, it isn't the experience of a born woman. However you were socialized, it wasn't as a woman. Some of those core formative experiences aren't yours, and never could be. Puberty, menses, the soft bigotry of low expectations for women - these will never be part of your history. You have your own struggles, but they are not the valid lived struggles of born women. It's kind of offensive for you to claim solidarity with a group of people who have literally nothing in common with you.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I know a guy who's been diagnosed with schizophrenia, by more than one doctor. He's convinced they're wrong, and refuses treatment. To him, their diagnosis is a failure because he doesn't accept it.

I've known more than one person who suffers from bipolar disorder. When they're Up, they're convinced that the diagnosis is mistaken, and that they're fine without medication. I lost a friend to suicide that way..

Besides, there's still the problem of your valid lived experience. Whatever it is, it isn't the experience of a born woman. However you were socialized, it wasn't as a woman. Some of those core formative experiences aren't yours, and never could be. Puberty, menses, the soft bigotry of low expectations for women - these will never be part of your history. You have your own struggles, but they are not the valid lived struggles of born women. It's kind of offensive for you to claim solidarity with a group of people who have literally nothing in common with you.

I don't give a **** what you find "offensive". This isn't the first time you've compared being transgender to a mental illness and I find that offensive.

[The Common Potato]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I don't give a **** what you find "offensive". This isn't the first time you've compared being transgender to a mental illness and I find that offensive.

I might have the wrong person, Boudicca90, but wasn't it you that went all toxically masculine a while back? You make it clear that you don't give a toss. Good. Didn't you also admit to being a bit mentally up the creek a while back. Also good.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Hate to be pedantic (LOL) but what exactly should "female" be taken to mean herein the thread?

I thought females were born with ova and uteri and such like...?

At this point I'm pretty sure that Boudicca would prefer that there be no word to distinguish biological sex from psychological or social gender. A society cannot have a a concept if they have no word for that concept. I'm pretty sure that's the TRA endgame, here.

I wouldn't be surprised if we were to find this principle elucidated in Orwell's playbook. In Goebbles' playbook, too.

[The Common Potato]

... but what exactly should "female" be taken to mean herein the thread?

Restart the thread!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I don't give a **** what you find "offensive". This isn't the first time you've compared being transgender to a mental illness and I find that offensive.

Dude. You have XY genes and SRY expression. This is a hard binary divide.. My opinion isn't your problem. The opinion of your own biology is your problem.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Common Potato

... but what exactly should "female" be taken to mean herein the thread?

Restart the thread!

Boudicca is trying to do a fringe reset on ten thousand years of human civilization. I doubt it will take.

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Dude. You have XY genes and SRY expression. This is a hard binary divide.. My opinion isn't your problem. The opinion of your own biology is your problem.

No, transphobes like you and the others in this thread are my ******* problem, "dude"!

I don't care what you think of me because we will win out in the end. You can either accept it or get run over by social progress like all the other bigots throughout history, your choice.

I am a woman and I am female and more and more governments are agreeing with me and giving us equal rights to cisgender people, deal with it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

No, transphobes like you and the others in this thread are my ******* problem, "dude"!

I don't care what you think of me because we will win out in the end. You can either accept it or get run over by social progress like all the other bigots throughout history, your choice.

I am a woman and I am female and more and more governments are agreeing with me and giving us equal rights to cisgender people, deal with it.

Name one thing you have in common with born women, other than your conviction that you're a born woman.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Not necessarily. Sex is more than chromosomes and reproductive organs.

Apparently it isn't "more" than that, in your view of things. It's other than that. The ova and uteri aren't really significant, as best as I can tell from your statements. It's the internal concept that matters. Right?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Trans women were/are always women, that's what you don't understand. I was a woman who was assigned a male gender/sex based on my genitals and the attempt was made to socialize me as a male, but it was a failure because I never accepted it.

By transitioning I'm simply correcting an error that was made early on in my life.

Your view isn't shared by others in this thread, including people who are staunch supporters of transgender rights. Earlier I was told that gender and gender identity, which are the definitive characteristics of womanhood and manhood, can change. A person can be a man, then a woman, then a man again.

For those people, it wasn't a mistake that was made. It was a condition that changed.

Or so I'm told.