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

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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

Nobody - that one's been tried and failed.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/08/66559...egal-age-to-49

You'll just have to keep lying.

[Aber]

And in UK news; gender is not fixed

Quote:

Eddie Izzard to use the pronouns 'she' and 'her'
Stonewall praises comedian for her bravery after announcement on Sky Arts show

Eddie Izzard has adopted the pronouns “she” and “her”, saying she wants “to be based in girl mode from now on”.

The actor and comedian made the announcement during an appearance on the Sky Arts series Portrait Artist Of The Year last week in which she described herself as gender-fluid, prompting the LGBT charity Stonewall to praise her for her bravery.

Izzard said it was the first time she had asked to be referred to with exclusively she/her pronouns while making a television programme and “it feels great”, adding: “One life, live it well.”

Izzard, 58, has previously spoken about her gender-fluid identity and having modes. Earlier in her career she identified as a transvestite, saying she felt like “a complete boy plus half a girl” and referring to herself as “a lesbian trapped in a man’s body”.

In 2017, she told the Hollywood Reporter: “I am essentially transgender. I have boy mode and girl mode. I do feel I have boy genetics and girl genetics.”

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...ns-she-and-her

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by Aber

And in UK news; gender is not fixed



https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...ns-she-and-her

Sorry but this is going to sound very name drop.

I have meet Eddie a few times in my past and think he might be taking the ****

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Sorry but this is going to sound very name drop.

I have meet Eddie a few times in my past and think he might be taking the ****

I've never met him, but I was almost completely sure that that's what he was doing right away.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Sorry but this is going to sound very name drop.

I have meet Eddie a few times in my past and think he might be taking the ****

Aaaaaand........ therein lies one of the (many) problems in the way cisgender people assess trans-identity: holding the opinion that transgender people (especially intelligent and well-informed ones) might well be playing some sort of bizarre game. As opposed to holding real, valid, lived, totally sincere beliefs that they do not identify as the gender which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.

As a general observation, I wonder if this is borne perhaps of some kind of "logic" along the lines of:

1) I, an intelligent and well-informed person, am a male and I'm also (obviously, as far as I'm concerned) a man;

2) It's obvious (to me) that all males are men - it would be unthinkable (to me) that someone like me (a male) could rationally identify as anything other than a man;

therefore

3) any intelligent, well-informed man who announces an intention to identify as a woman (or as anything other than a man) may well be doing so as some sort of game or trick. This explanation makes it easier for me to accept and get my head round the situation - after all, how can any intelligent, well-informed male sincerely believe his gender identity to be anything other than a man. Like me.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

I've never met him, but I was almost completely sure that that's what he was doing right away.

Oh yes, me too.



Not.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Hopefully someone will have a go this time.





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

To be precise: what they have in common is that they identify as women.


And what that means in practice is that they identify with the kinds of expectations, attitudes, roles and other personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to "woman".



(It's perhaps useful and instructive that the current DSM fully understands and recognises gender identity - as a separate construct from biological sex - in these sorts of terms. But I'm always happy to help with information for those who are too lazy or too blinkered to go and look for the information themselves )

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Holy cow, they already do. They already have.

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

Well maybe it would advance the dialogue here if you were able to provide reliable evidence to show that they already do.

Oh, and you've created a tasty strawman of your own with your incorrect and somewhat nasty claim that "I don't give a crap about the safety of females".

(And as I said already: cismen can already walk straight into women's changing rooms in places such as sports centres. That's a problem which is present regardless of the transgender issue. You need to provide evidence that the risks to females would rise if transwomen are allowed to use women's changing rooms)

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

To be precise: what they have in common is that they identify as women.


And what that means in practice is that they identify with the kinds of expectations, attitudes, roles and other personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to "woman".

It seems to me that you are saying that someone who doesn't identify with the expectations, etc isn't a woman.

That seems problematic to me, and I'm pretty sure even more problematic to a lot of women.

[Meadmaker]

Carrying the thought from the previous post a little farther. Perhaps, my earlier interpretation is not correct. The question was what the two groups, women and transwomen, had in common. The answer was identification as women, and further clarified that in practice that meant the conformance to societal expectations of women. However, perhaps that last part only applied to biological males who wish to be identified as women.

So, all biological females have the option to identify as women. They don't have to conform to societal expectations of women. Those females who conform to societal expectations of men, could identify as men. A biolgical male who wishes to identify as female has to conform to the personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to women.


As an aside, one of the societal expectations of men is that they open jars for women. This could be problematic if that's a criteria for being a trans-man.

[Meadmaker]

One more thought. I noticed in my own post that I mixed up "identify as" with "be identified as".

I would think that the conformance to societal expectations would really only be necessary for the "be identified as" aspect. In other words, someone can identify with whatever they want, but in order for other people to recognize that identification, the person wishing to be identified in a certain way has to conform to societal expectations.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Aaaaaand........ therein lies one of the (many) problems in the way cisgender people assess trans-identity: holding the opinion that transgender people (especially intelligent and well-informed ones) might well be playing some sort of bizarre game. As opposed to holding real, valid, lived, totally sincere beliefs that they do not identify as the gender which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.

As a general observation, I wonder if this is borne perhaps of some kind of "logic" along the lines of:

1) I, an intelligent and well-informed person, am a male and I'm also (obviously, as far as I'm concerned) a man;

2) It's obvious (to me) that all males are men - it would be unthinkable (to me) that someone like me (a male) could rationally identify as anything other than a man;

therefore

3) any intelligent, well-informed man who announces an intention to identify as a woman (or as anything other than a man) may well be doing so as some sort of game or trick. This explanation makes it easier for me to accept and get my head round the situation - after all, how can any intelligent, well-informed male sincerely believe his gender identity to be anything other than a man. Like me.

In this particular case, the logic is more like:

1) Celebrities often do dramatic things aligning with current trends in order to garner attention and praise;

2) Eddie Izzard is a celebrity;

3) Declaring unconventional gender identity and new pronoun preferences is a dramatic thing aligning with current trends;

4) Eddie Izzard has in fact garnered attention and praise by so doing;

therefore

5) Eddie Izzard was likely motivated by a desire for attention and praise to do said thing.


Likewise, I'm quite capable of doubting whether the latest highly-hyped celebrity marriage will last, without calling into question the existence of lasting marriages.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

One more thought. I noticed in my own post that I mixed up "identify as" with "be identified as".

I would think that the conformance to societal expectations would really only be necessary for the "be identified as" aspect. In other words, someone can identify with whatever they want, but in order for other people to recognize that identification, the person wishing to be identified in a certain way has to conform to societal expectations.

Possibly a useful term to refer to that is to discuss how someone "presents". That's a description of behavior rather than self-identification.

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Oh yes, me too.



Not.

Maybe I should have added that I've seen just about all his stuff and my jumping to that conclusion was based on what he's shared about himself before.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

As opposed to holding real, valid, lived, totally sincere beliefs that they do not identify as the gender which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.

Except that was NOT what Eddie Izzard was saying.

Quote:

“I am essentially transgender. I have boy mode and girl mode. I do feel I have boy genetics and girl genetics.”

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Marcus

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

I try not to let my irritation get out of hand. I don't think I'm actually misandrist, but I am definitely human, so... sorry. I rather fancy men, and I am well aware that there are several social institutions that disadvantage males in some ways too.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Sorry but this is going to sound very name drop.

I have meet Eddie a few times in my past and think he might be taking the ****

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

I've never met him, but I was almost completely sure that that's what he was doing right away.

I don't know. It's entirely possible (comedian, so yeah). It does seem like an odd shift for someone who was fairly confident and clear that transvestites are males who like female clothing and makeup, and that most transvestites fancy girls.

Originally Posted by Eddie Izzard

Because we all know one of the main factors of war is the element of surprise. And what could be more surprising than the First Battalion Transvestite Brigade? Airborne Wing.

The airborne wing parachuting into dangerous areas with fantastic make-up and a fantastic gun. The opposing force is going, "******* hell, look at these guys. "Look at that."

"They've got guns! Jesus, where's my gun? Ah, bugger. I was so surprised."

Quote:

I'm an action transvestite really, so it's running, jumping, climbing trees... putting on make-up when you're up there!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Aaaaaand........ therein lies one of the (many) problems in the way cisgender people assess trans-identity: holding the opinion that transgender people (especially intelligent and well-informed ones) might well be playing some sort of bizarre game. As opposed to holding real, valid, lived, totally sincere beliefs that they do not identify as the gender which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.

So Zuby is serious then?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

To be precise: what they have in common is that they identify as women.

Females don't "identify as women". We ARE women. I no more "identify as a woman" than I "identify as brunette."

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And what that means in practice is that they identify with the kinds of expectations, attitudes, roles and other personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to "woman".

I call ******** on this. Your explanation is that transwomen "identify with" the restrictive, demeaning stereotypes that society places on females, and which act as barriers to women.

By your logic, tomboys aren't women. Gals who dislike pink and hate makeup aren't women. Or at least, they're "less of a woman" than a transwoman is, because the transwoman "identifies with" the pretty, pink, docile, polite, subservient, caring, crapola role that society forces on females without their goddamned consent!

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

If a white man identifies with the expectation of being aggressive, violent, criminal, physically strong, under-educated, and inferior... would you say that that white man's claim to identify as a black man is valid and real and should be respected?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Well maybe it would advance the dialogue here if you were able to provide reliable evidence to show that they already do.

Already have done, you ignored it and dismissed it. Like you do with ANYTHING that demonstrates male predators taking advantage of females due to loopholes, and transwomen displaying the same pattern of male violence as natal males.

I've provided this evidence multiple times. Each time you either dismiss it out of hand as "transphobic propaganda" which doesn't address the problem, or you just ignore it and stop responding to me for a few pages as if that makes it not exist.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I'll try to address this, then.

An awful lot of these moving things around in conversations comes from people seizing on incomplete or general statements and finding some apparent inconsistencies and declaring that since one side or the other cannot cover every possible case in complete detail, we get to make up whatever we want. If we say anatomy, someone will point to someone who has suffered an injury with a hand grenade, and then somehow get from there to the idea that Colleen Brenna can use the girls' locker room and Jonathan Yaniv ought to be able to demand ball waxing. So much is just word games.

However, the underlying biology really exists, and at the level of gamete production, it's clear.

In reality, we don't separate locker rooms based on gamete production, because we have no way of verifying whether someone is actually producing gametes, and we are not all that concerned anyway. It gets driven to that by playing along with the word games that people use to dodge the issue.

What we are truly concerned with is something that is very, very, closely correlated with gamete production. What we are truly concerned with is the manner in which one would engage in sexual intercourse. That is the actual basis of the segregation. If the people involved are actually producing gametes, then the consequences of that sexual intercourse are even more significant, but people will react to the possibility of intercourse even when the absence of gamete production would make pregnancy impossible.

Your comments about people not getting pregnant from using the toilet are just a diversion, because it is not actually using the toilet that is the issue, it is that partial disrobing and exposure is necessary during the course of using a toilet. One could question whether it is wise or sensible to feel anxious about exposure of genital areas, and we could discuss whether that anxiety is a consequence of social conditioning or is instinctive, but no sane person would doubt that it is very real and very common.

This is an interesting position not one that I would necessarily agree with in total but its not one that is consistent with reducing biological sex to the binary of gamete production.

It opens up a lot of grey areas and in betweens that I am possibly perfectly happy to embrace but not if you are going to throw them all away and say that the only thing that matters is gamete production again when it comes to making decisions.

Im curious about the exposing of genitals when you use the toilet... are you sure that you know how toilets work?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Carrying the thought from the previous post a little farther. Perhaps, my earlier interpretation is not correct. The question was what the two groups, women and transwomen, had in common. The answer was identification as women, and further clarified that in practice that meant the conformance to societal expectations of women. However, perhaps that last part only applied to biological males who wish to be identified as women.

So, all biological females have the option to identify as women. They don't have to conform to societal expectations of women. Those females who conform to societal expectations of men, could identify as men. A biolgical male who wishes to identify as female has to conform to the personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to women.


As an aside, one of the societal expectations of men is that they open jars for women. This could be problematic if that's a criteria for being a trans-man.

Okay then, let's narrow the scope a bit further.

What do a butch dyke and a 'straight' transwoman (thus being attracted to males) have in common that a natal male and a natal female do not?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Paul2

I'm not sure that we can isolate and wall off such a fundamental biological factor as sex so that it is only relevant to reproduction,

Well thats exactly what you did to make it a nice near clear binary.

Quote:

as complex as human behavior is. The fact of sexual reproduction has innumerable ripple effects throughout human culture. That doesn't mean that biology determines culture, but it certainly influences it, so when a cultural or psychological question arises, you can't automatically dismiss the influence of a biological reality.
Maybe I don't. But when discussions about bathrooms, and sports, and children transitioning, etc., arise, and people use in their arguments about those issues statements like "I am just as much of a woman as you are" (referring to biological women), the fact of sexual reproduction is now relevant.
Explicitly, sure. But implicitly, of course it is. And it may also be due to things other than their gametes, too, like their gender. Things can have multiple causes.

So other things matter as well as gamete production? Great. I think we agree. Now about that nice neat clear binary....

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Im curious about the exposing of genitals when you use the toilet... are you sure that you know how toilets work?

Are you sure you know how females work?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

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

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

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

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

Please don't assume what 'everyone' thinks or agrees. Express your own opinions.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I drew?

Been drinking?

draw verb
...
2: to cause to go in a certain direction (as by leading)
...
3d: to bring out by way of response : ELICIT
...
5a: to extract the essence from

draw/make an analogy between idiom
...
to compare so as to find a likeness

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Marcus

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

It's always fun when an oppressor claims to be the victim

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Aber

Except that was NOT what Eddie Izzard was saying.

That is what he was saying.

You know I think sometimes the issue is that the good old 'skeptics' have an issue with just saying 'i don't know'

I have no idea what Eddie izzard actually means when he says he has a girl mode and a boy mode. but given that i have no expertise in the matter I don't feel like i am in a position to dispute it. I'll leave that to the people who study it

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

This is an interesting position not one that I would necessarily agree with in total but its not one that is consistent with reducing biological sex to the binary of gamete production.

No, but it is so incredibly close to being the same thing, not just consistent, but exactly the same, that one could be used as a standin for the other. And indeed, the only reason that the two are even mentioned is that people keep trying to pin down the sealions who are pretending to have a good faith conversation, but aren't.

Quote:

It opens up a lot of grey areas and in betweens that I am possibly perfectly happy to embrace but not if you are going to throw them all away and say that the only thing that matters is gamete production again when it comes to making decisions.

It opens up damn few grey areas. It's really, really, close to binary.

There's a tiny bit of grey area. Caster Semenya and people like her. That's a pretty grey area. Jonathan Yaniv? Not a grey area. Guy who had impromptu surgery from a hand grenade? Not a grey area. Person who is in the process of physical transformation? Grey area. Person who has completed transformation? Not a grey area. (i.e. for the purposes of locker room use, darned near no one would say that a surgically altered person ought to use use the facilities of their birth sex.)

The number of people in the grey area is incredibly small, and no amount of self identification would shift someone into the grey area, regardless of whether we are talking about gamete production or the means available to engage in sexual intercourse.

Quote:

Im curious about the exposing of genitals when you use the toilet... are you sure that you know how toilets work?

And...more sealioning. Yes, I have seen both men and women use the toilet. Far more men than women I might add, but you probably already guessed that. In the course of that observation, I have seen the genitals of both men and women. Of course it's true and you know it, and it's obvious.

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Aaaaaand........ therein lies one of the (many) problems in the way cisgender people assess trans-identity: holding the opinion that transgender people (especially intelligent and well-informed ones) might well be playing some sort of bizarre game. As opposed to holding real, valid, lived, totally sincere beliefs that they do not identify as the gender which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.

As a general observation, I wonder if this is borne perhaps of some kind of "logic" along the lines of:

1) I, an intelligent and well-informed person, am a male and I'm also (obviously, as far as I'm concerned) a man;

2) It's obvious (to me) that all males are men - it would be unthinkable (to me) that someone like me (a male) could rationally identify as anything other than a man;

therefore

3) any intelligent, well-informed man who announces an intention to identify as a woman (or as anything other than a man) may well be doing so as some sort of game or trick. This explanation makes it easier for me to accept and get my head round the situation - after all, how can any intelligent, well-informed male sincerely believe his gender identity to be anything other than a man. Like me.

It is kind of more the fact he has always been open about things, he knows dudes are dudes and women are women, and he has a very funny/odd sense of humour and it wouldn't surprise me if he was jerking peoples chain.

My favourite.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

It's perhaps useful and instructive that the current DSM fully understands and recognises gender identity - as a separate construct from biological sex - in these sorts of terms.

It would perhaps be even more useful and instructive if it wasn't so viciously circular.

What is a woman? Someone who identifies as such.

What is gender identity?

Quote:

[A] person’s basic internal sense of being a man, woman, and/or another gender.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

...what that means in practice is that they identify with the kinds of expectations, attitudes, roles and other personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to "woman".

Some of us don't think it's particularly healthy to identify strongly with the expectations of either masculinity or femininity, because these expectations are deeply rooted in millenia of patriarchal thinking (at least in the Anglophone world) and haven't yet had enough time to be readjusted in the parts of the world where monster trucks and recreational shooting remain popular to this day.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

This is an interesting position not one that I would necessarily agree with in total but its not one that is consistent with reducing biological sex to the binary of gamete production.

There's nothing wrong with reductionism in certain situations. The binary of gametes is the only necessary and sufficient characteristic that defines sex in biology. That's a good thing.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

It opens up a lot of grey areas and in betweens that I am possibly perfectly happy to embrace but not if you are going to throw them all away and say that the only thing that matters is gamete production again when it comes to making decisions.

I don't think anyone has argued that. I think we can let that one go until someone actually makes that argument.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Well thats exactly what you did to make it a nice near clear binary.

When did I do that? Can you cite a post of mine.

There is a distinction between saying that gametes are the only thing necessary to define sex in biology and saying that gametes are only relevant to biological sex.

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

So other things matter as well as gamete production? Great. I think we agree. Now about that nice neat clear binary....

If I understand your point here, it hinges on the point in what is directly above, so I'll let that stand in for any other specific reply right here.

[Butter!]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

It's always fun when an oppressor claims to be the victim

There can be more than one oppressed group, jesus christ, you really do sound like a misogynist. I'm assuming it's not intentional, but so many of your posts about women's concerns just drip with it.

It seems to me like you believe that women who have these concerns are making them up, or stating them disingenuously, because... well, I'm still not sure of the because. They just don't want anybody else joining the elite female club, I guess?

When some nasty far-right wingnut preacher starts expressing "concerns" about women's sport, then yeah, I can understand why people might question the motivation. But what possible reason would otherwise liberal (non-radfem) women have for wanting to "oppress" trans people? They're just not that shocking or offensive. As so many in this thread have pointed out, they've always been around. But now we're trying to nail down some solid policies (which is a good thing for trans-people), and there's going to have to be discussion. It's not bigotry to have concerns. We're changing major social norms, here.

All you have by way of reply is snark, and it's so tiring to read everybody snarking at each other. This stuff is a big deal, and the way people approach talking about it is aggravating, unproductive, and upsetting.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

To be precise: what they have in common is that they identify as women.


And what that means in practice is that they identify with the kinds of expectations, attitudes, roles and other personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to "woman".

That's clear enough, but hardly seems like something that should be binding on anyone else or deserving of a public policy change.

There are lots of people who identify as part of a group they're not actually a part of. There are people who identify as black who are not black. There are people who identify as veterans who are not veterans.

People think all sorts of things about themselves that are either untrue, or not binding on anyone else, or both.

If the only thing transwomen have in common with women is that they say they're women, then so what? Why shouldn't a man who says he's a woman not be in exactly the same situation as a man who say's he's Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico?

It's true that a lot of people who legitimately belong to an identity group claim that identity for themselves. But claiming the identity is itself not sufficient for membership in many groups.

Self-ID is almost never sufficient by itself for membership in anything. You don't have ADHD or paranoid schizophrenia just because you say you do. Someone else has to examine the other evidence and sign off on your self-diagnosis.

You don't get membership in a social group or club just because you say you're a member. The group or club actually gets to decide if you meet their criteria for membership.

If the only justification for accepting transwomen as women is because they say so, then there's no justification at all. At least, not in terms of public policy and generally-accepted norms about gender identity. Boudicca's "I'm a woman because I say I'm a woman" is trumped by Elliot's Cat's "As an actual woman I say you're not."

In every case where someone's identity is recognized as legitimate, it's always because there's something else, something more to support their claim to that identity.

Even gender dysphoria requires an actual diagnosis by an actual medical professional. You don't have it just because you say you have it.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I don't know. It's entirely possible (comedian, so yeah). It does seem like an odd shift for someone who was fairly confident and clear that transvestites are males who like female clothing and makeup, and that most transvestites fancy girls.

Yeah. Eddie Izzard used to use the word “transvestite”, but in more recent years (I think as an example on the Joe Rogan podcast perhaps or certainly around that time) as “transgender” or maybe as just “trans”. I don’t think it is a piss take at all nor a mere publicity stunt. This is what Eddie Izzard believes.

[gnome]

I think the key question is whether something external to self-identification has a reason to be verified and enforced.

I can't identify as a minor because I have legal responsibilities as an adult that I should not be able to abdicate with a mere declaration.

I can't identify as a veteran because they receive benefits and honors that I have not earned by serving in the armed forces.

I can't identify as someone with an M.D. because if I were to attempt to practice medicine my qualifications must be real in order to perform the task safely and effectively.

When it comes to gender we should be asking the same thing: what's at stake? What are we protecting by finding self-identification insufficient--and is there a reasonable approach which accomplishes that protection? There may be different answers in different contexts--for example, for bathrooms I happen to think it scarcely matters. For gendered sports it might.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by gnome

I think the key question is whether something external to self-identification has a reason to be verified and enforced.

You've given a couple examples of when self-identification isn't sufficient to be perceived as a member of a group (minor, veteran) and I'm wondering what would be a good example of when self-identification is indeed sufficient. Fanhood, perhaps? Certain religious sects?

[gnome]

Those might be good examples. I propose that "sufficient" is when there is no compelling interest at stake, or when requiring something external does not protect that interest either.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Already have done, you ignored it and dismissed it. Like you do with ANYTHING that demonstrates male predators taking advantage of females due to loopholes, and transwomen displaying the same pattern of male violence as natal males.

I've provided this evidence multiple times. Each time you either dismiss it out of hand as "transphobic propaganda" which doesn't address the problem, or you just ignore it and stop responding to me for a few pages as if that makes it not exist.

Please would you just provide links to a few reliable news reports which describe cismen pretending to be transwomen in order to enter women-only spaces and offend against ciswomen.


ETA: Maybe this paper from November 2019 will help you along:

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/conten...e%2BReview.pdf


Exctract from that paper:

This literature search did not identify any evidence supporting a link between women-only spaces being inclusive of transgender women, and non-trans men falsely claiming a trans identity to access these spaces and commit sexual violence. Other sources included in this search reiterate a lack of any evidence to support this claim.


So I guess that those who conducted this literature search were as inept as I apparently must be: both they and I have tried and failed to find any reliable evidence of cismen claiming to be transwomen in order to access women-only spaces and offend. Stupid us