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

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That is one gem of a paper. I think it is worth a read for everyone. Here's my favorite excerpt.

"There is limited research from which to draw any conclusion about whether or
not transgender people have an athletic advantage in competitive sport."


I don't have sufficient time to detail all of my thoughts on the research presented in that paper.

This page seems relevant to the discussion...I haven't fact checked it

https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/...-rooms-schools

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by TomB

Here's another incident of a cis-male disguising himself as a woman:
https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenew...ry-5297665.php

Cant seem to access that here

Quote:

To be clear, my position is not that trans-women are a danger to cis-women in bathrooms and locker rooms. My position is that access to these spaces via non-falsifiable criteria (self-ID alone) with no documentation creates a loophole that makes it easier for cis-men to enter these spaces with ill-intentions. Primarily, I think those ill intentions would be voyeurism or exhibitionism.

These are things men already do.

Voyeurism is commonplace enough that it's a theme in things like the Porky's movie and Dwight Twilley's video for "Girls." It's kind of been treated as a joke.

There are already men sneaking into bathrooms to plant cameras and such. Self-ID makes it so that you can't really challenge anyone's access to a space, which makes it easier to get away with and harder to discourage.

This again seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what Self-ID laws mean and what is and isn't currently possible anyway. People don't get checked for gender when they enter the toilets right now.

Quote:

Articles pointing out that incidents increase in unisex spaces are relevant for the same reasons. They demonstrate that a reduction of hurdles will increase incidents of voyeurism. I would expect that because access is even more open in unisex facilities, the increase would be greater there, but it demonstrates an extreme.

But what reduction of hurdles are we talking about? Because there aren't really any hurdles to anyone going into a toilet at the moment.

[quote]Now, should trans-women be punished for the actions of cis-men? No. Of course not. [quote]

But that is exactly what is being proposed.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I have used toilets for well over 2 score years and have NEVER seen a woman's genitals during the process. What the hell are you guys doing over there?

Camping.

With close friends.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I thought you might have been interested in this one:

‘It
may be possible to protect cisgender women’s sense of security without excluding
trans persons

(Emphasis added)


That whole section is an amazing exercise in doublespeak and missing the point.

Originally Posted by cullennz

Good quote : )

It is pretty funny how some people miss the bleeding hole in their own arguments.

Heh. I read that as, "‘it's a lot easier to justify accommodating transsexuals once you realize that cisgender women are often hysterical."

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

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

Again the "I'm a citizen, not an expert" cop-out.

Public policy is the responsibility of every citizen. You don't get to abdicate that responsibility to the experts. You have to form your own opinion and cast your own vote. You vote for a law. Or you vote for a democratically-elected representative who will make a law. And then you will either re-elect or replace that representative based on your judgement of the law they made. And you don't get to avoid responsibility for your votes. You don't get to say, "I'm not an expert, I just elected the guy!"

When it comes time to decide what should happen when an apparent cisman shows up at a women's locker room and says "I'm in a girl mode today, you have to let me in"... That's not something you can leave to experts. That's a public policy question you'll have to answer for yourself, as a citizen.

That's the question you, and John, and Boudicca, keep avoiding.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

But the question at hand is whether allowing transwomen to use female spaces is going to worsen the situation. Because that is the claim that is being made by those who oppose allowing transwomen access to female spaces.

I think most people here are happy to have trans women access female spaces. But they want that access conditional. For example, one condition is that they actually be transwomen.

But I keep hearing that having any condition at all is a form of oppression.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

...snip...

When it comes time to decide what should happen when an apparent cisman shows up at a women's locker room and says "I'm in a girl mode today, you have to let me in"... That's not something you can leave to experts. That's a public policy question you'll have to answer for yourself, as a citizen.

That's the question you, and John, and Boudicca, keep avoiding.

You go into whichever toilet matches your gender as listed on official documents.

Obviously if you were a transwoman and you had a penis and started exposing your penis in the toilet you would be treated like anyone else exposing their penis in such a place*. If you were harassing or being a "peeping tom" that is also covered in laws about that type of behaviour that we've had longer than we've had laws ensuring women have access public toilets.

*ETA: That behaviour is also not permitted in male toilets, using a urinal is quite different to exposing yourself in a toilet.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I think most people here are happy to have trans women access female spaces. But they want that access conditional. For example, one condition is that they actually be transwomen.

But I keep hearing that having any condition at all is a form of oppression.

So?

[gnome]

Originally Posted by theprestige

When it comes time to decide what should happen when an apparent cisman shows up at a women's locker room and says "I'm in a girl mode today, you have to let me in"... That's not something you can leave to experts. That's a public policy question you'll have to answer for yourself, as a citizen.

That's the question you, and John, and Boudicca, keep avoiding.

It's funny you should mention locker rooms. That is an area of greater sensitivity because somehow communal showers are common. I can understand someone being uncomfortable if someone who looks like the wrong gender views them unclothed--or if someone doesn't want to see opposite sex anatomy.

You know what? I felt equally uncomfortable being exposed or seeing people of the same sex. There isn't anything magical about same-sex bodies that makes locker rooms less awkward places to be, just that more people are willing to tolerate apparent same-sex company, possibly because they're just used to it more. It's clear enough that for establishing the comfort of occupants, assigning exclusive male-female spaces doesn't do the job anymore, and possibly was never doing very well in the first place. The obvious solution is the option for greater individual privacy, not contending over whose comforts are catered to and whose are not.

For that matter, consider bathrooms--it was mentioned about people peeping on adjoining stalls. Who decided on American bathroom stall design? It's terrible for privacy. There are gaps everywhere, including in the door and at the feet. Some corrections there could make secret surveillance much less feasible.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by gnome

...snip...

For that matter, consider bathrooms--it was mentioned about people peeping on adjoining stalls. Who decided on American bathroom stall design? It's terrible for privacy. There are gaps everywhere, including in the door and at the feet. Some corrections there could make secret surveillance much less feasible.

For convenience when cleaning and so you can see if more than one person is in a stall.

[Abooga]

It reminded me of this discussion .

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Darat

For convenience when cleaning and so you can see if more than one person is in a stall.

Technology could solve that too. Make it buzz or something if it detects two people. I bet there's some practical solution that would allow better privacy. Is it like that around the world? What do they do in other countries to serve the same need?

But it's an interesting point, because we have privacy concerns pushing on one side, and intentional exceptions for preventing undesired behavior on the other.

[Butter!]

I think focusing on bathrooms is silly, personally. That's the issue of least concern here.

I'm hung up on all this "sex doesn't exist and isn't binary" business. That's the exact point at which I lose my ability to go along with the whole thing. And I disagree that it makes me transphobic, because I know at least two transpeople who have no desire to deny that sex is binary and actual.

I'm going to be really honest right now. I'm starting to see the denial of sex and the push to change words referring to it as just another segment of this scary anti-intellectual trend that's been growing around us for years. It's what brought me to this forum in the first place - most of the people around me in real life were reality-deniers. "I don't care what your study says, it's all been covered up, I know vaccines cause autism. I know 9/11 was an inside job." It all seemed like a big deal then, but I now long for those simpler days. Because things have gotten WAY worse. People just make up their own realities with impunity now, like the millions who think Trump really won the election. Reality doesn't matter in the slightest, because people seem to have stopped agreeing that it matters. Debunking is useless; we might as well all be living in separate little worlds.

Up until this point, the kind of stuff I'm referring to seemed like mostly a right-wing, conspiracy-oriented phenomenon (with a few REALLY far-left moonbats thrown in on the holistic healing end of things, perhaps). But now, the mainstream left is starting to take up this rallying cry, and I'm fine with it up to the point where I'm being screamed at for saying that men and women are real, definable things. Change your gender, call yourself a woman, I'm not bothered. Come in and get naked in front of me, wave whatever you've got around like a prize (to paraphrase cullennz's terms). I really don't care (though I'm not disregarding the feelings of women who do). But if you're going to tell me that there is no such thing as a woman, I'm going to start seeing you as crazy and disingenuous. I can't understand what the angle is there. How does that help anybody? If there's no such thing as sex, then what are trans-people changing to?

I thought it was gender they were changing, and sex was different, and that made sense to me - but the terms are being used interchangeably now, and it's making me feel like no one even cares about reality or making sense.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by gnome

Technology could solve that too. Make it buzz or something if it detects two people. I bet there's some practical solution that would allow better privacy. Is it like that around the world? What do they do in other countries to serve the same need?

But it's an interesting point, because we have privacy concerns pushing on one side, and intentional exceptions for preventing undesired behavior on the other.

I hadn't thought about it before, but I wonder how Europeans feel when travelling here. I think in most European public toilets I've used there is more privacy, such as doors that go all the way down. When Europeans come here do they make fun of our toilets, or complain about lack of privacy?

I've never been to a gym or workout facility in Europe, either. I wonder how expected privacy levels differ there for showering and such. I tend to think of Europeans as more open, with public nudity and mixed sex saunas and such, and yet there are certain areas where more privacy seems demanded.

I've noted frequently how in modern construction and use, there is a lot more privacy in male locker rooms than I grew up with, and even than when I started going to gyms as an adult. Once I realized the change, it struck me as odd. I tended to think that we lived in a much more open, non-judgemental, hangup free world than those repressive days in the '70s when I went to school, and yet people are bent out of shape about being seen naked. I don't get it, but that's the way it is.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Butter!

I think focusing on bathrooms is silly, personally. That's the issue of least concern here.

I'm hung up on all this "sex doesn't exist and isn't binary" business. That's the exact point at which I lose my ability to go along with the whole thing. And I disagree that it makes me transphobic, because I know at least two transpeople who have no desire to deny that sex is binary and actual.

I'm going to be really honest right now. I'm starting to see the denial of sex and the push to change words referring to it as just another segment of this scary anti-intellectual trend that's been growing around us for years. It's what brought me to this forum in the first place - most of the people around me in real life were reality-deniers. "I don't care what your study says, it's all been covered up, I know vaccines cause autism. I know 9/11 was an inside job." It all seemed like a big deal then, but I now long for those simpler days. Because things have gotten WAY worse. People just make up their own realities with impunity now, like the millions who think Trump really won the election. Reality doesn't matter in the slightest, because people seem to have stopped agreeing that it matters. Debunking is useless; we might as well all be living in separate little worlds.

Up until this point, the kind of stuff I'm referring to seemed like mostly a right-wing, conspiracy-oriented phenomenon (with a few REALLY far-left moonbats thrown in on the holistic healing end of things, perhaps). But now, the mainstream left is starting to take up this rallying cry, and I'm fine with it up to the point where I'm being screamed at for saying that men and women are real, definable things. Change your gender, call yourself a woman, I'm not bothered. Come in and get naked in front of me, wave whatever you've got around like a prize (to paraphrase cullennz's terms). I really don't care (though I'm not disregarding the feelings of women who do). But if you're going to tell me that there is no such thing as a woman, I'm going to start seeing you as crazy and disingenuous. I can't understand what the angle is there. How does that help anybody? If there's no such thing as sex, then what are trans-people changing to?

I thought it was gender they were changing, and sex was different, and that made sense to me - but the terms are being used interchangeably now, and it's making me feel like no one even cares about reality or making sense.

To that I would just say don't let extremists push you either way. Figure out your own take, adapt it to new information or understanding as needed. For example, someone too zealous about a Star Trek show doesn't mean I have to like it or dislike it more in response.

Responding more specifically to the "reality" question--I perceive differently. I don't see that the biological differences are being literally denied--instead I see it promoted that the non-biological components of gender, the ones we socially interact with most, are of greater consequence.

Which is to say, not that biology is wrong, but that it is less relevant to the discussion of how to work with gender in societal norms. I think it's sometimes true and sometimes not.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Butter!

...

I thought it was gender they were changing, and sex was different, and that made sense to me - but the terms are being used interchangeably now, and it's making me feel like no one even cares about reality or making sense.

This post was really hitting the crux of the matter.

I dive into the details about bathrooms or locker rooms or sports, because that is where the philosophy intersects with the real world, but the underlying philosophy has to conform with reality, or the results will inevitably be messed up.

If you start from a premise that a man can give birth to a baby, then any public policy based on that premise is just going to end up weird.

[8enotto]

You are correct on the conclusion Butter! .

It's not about any reality. It's about indulging the dysphoria and allowing it to deep further every " advance " that is made.

Step one was find the softest target. Women were chosen. Now get hate crimes equated with discrimination and then pull it as far as possible in legal systems.

Yes, the societal abnormal suffer under the worst of any organized society. But we should be supressing the hate in the old definition and not giving the abnormal minorities free rein to declare anything they want, no matter how delusional, and get others fired or jail time.

Napoleon complex is no different than what Boudicca90 claims. Anyone suffering either needs help even if they are convinced they don't. Not enablers with an agenda muddying up everything to where we have to question something as clear as two distinct sexes, with the possibility of genetic errors.

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by Butter!

I'm going to be really honest right now. I'm starting to see the denial of sex and the push to change words referring to it as just another segment of this scary anti-intellectual trend that's been growing around us for years. It's what brought me to this forum in the first place - most of the people around me in real life were reality-deniers.

Thanks, well said. That's where I am too. The problem is that accusations of bigotry are so powerful currently that they can be effectively used to silence a lot of people who might otherwise question the narrative, even in the face of this absolute denial of reality being advocated. It's better to be silent than lose your livelihood.

Hopefully, a few years after we go through an emperor's new clothes moment again, many people in this thread will look back on this time and cringe and wonder how they could ever have been so gullible.

We went through it with e.g. repressed memories and satanic panic a few years ago. I hope, though I'm by no means sanguine, this will happen with this nonsense too.

[Upchurch]

I have been in a band that includes several trans men and the occasional trans woman for nearly two decades now. I've only ever known some of them in their post-transition state. I've played on the same stage with them, sometimes closely (it's a large band). I've shared bathrooms with the trans men.

From the nature of this thread, I think some might be surprised how little the contents of one's pants effects daily interactions. Even in bathrooms, I can count on zero hands how many times other people's junk has been of my concern*.

If I had to guess, all the pearl clutching is being done by people who are not, themselves, familiar with trans people. When I see Lee, for example, I don't see short dude who used to be a girl. I see a short dude who is a great sax player, smokes too much, and takes good care of his wife's medical issues. In fact, when a former co-worker announced her transition recently, it took me a minute to remember that Lee helps people go through the transition process in order to make a recommendation.

I don't know, maybe try to be more concerned about treating people decently than concerned about what people have under the hood?



* with the exception of dealing with my infant kids and bathroom changing tables, but thankfully, those days are long behind me.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

So?

I do not know what you are asking, and therefore cannot give a useful answer. If you actually want a useful answer, ask a useful question.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I have been in a band that includes several trans men and the occasional trans woman for nearly two decades now. I've only ever known some of them in their post-transition state. I've played on the same stage with them, sometimes closely (it's a large band). I've shared bathrooms with the trans men.

From the nature of this thread, I think some might be surprised how little the contents of one's pants effects daily interactions. Even in bathrooms, I can count on zero hands how many times other people's junk has been of my concern*.

If I had to guess, all the pearl clutching is being done by people who are not, themselves, familiar with trans people. When I see Lee, for example, I don't see short dude who used to be a girl. I see a short dude who is a great sax player, smokes too much, and takes good care of his wife's medical issues. In fact, when a former co-worker announced her transition recently, it took me a minute to remember that Lee helps people go through the transition process in order to make a recommendation.

I don't know, maybe try to be more concerned about treating people decently than concerned about what people have under the hood?



* with the exception of dealing with my infant kids and bathroom changing tables, but thankfully, those days are long behind me.

Yes--thank you that is a good point. The push to de-emphasize biological sex in policy making and informal rules is exactly that--a movement to realize how infrequently the nature of our usually covered bits is important.

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

From the nature of this thread, I think some might be surprised how little the contents of one's pants effects daily interactions. Even in bathrooms, I can count on zero hands how many times other people's junk has been of my concern*.

But I don't think there's much of a debate on that aspect here at all, really.

I think the only pushback is occurring when we're asked to accept that e.g. transwomen really ARE women in all respects and cannot be differentiated in any way, which obviously flies in the face of reality.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

But I don't think there's much of a debate on that aspect here at all, really.

I think the only pushback is occurring when we're asked to accept that e.g. transwomen really ARE women in all respects and cannot be differentiated in any way, which obviously flies in the face of reality.

Are you genuinely being asked to accept that? Or to accept that such differences as exist usually don't require different treatment?

[Butter!]

Originally Posted by gnome

Yes--thank you that is a good point. The push to de-emphasize biological sex in policy making and informal rules is exactly that--a movement to realize how infrequently the nature of our usually covered bits is important.

Sports and jail keep coming up, though, as well as medical settings. These are areas where it is much more likely to matter, and instead of trying to work out a compromise, everyone just gets upset. This makes everything worse. The general dialogue becomes unsalvageable.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Butter!

I think focusing on bathrooms is silly, personally. That's the issue of least concern here.

I'm hung up on all this "sex doesn't exist and isn't binary" business. That's the exact point at which I lose my ability to go along with the whole thing. And I disagree that it makes me transphobic, because I know at least two transpeople who have no desire to deny that sex is binary and actual.

I'm going to be really honest right now. I'm starting to see the denial of sex and the push to change words referring to it as just another segment of this scary anti-intellectual trend that's been growing around us for years. It's what brought me to this forum in the first place - most of the people around me in real life were reality-deniers. "I don't care what your study says, it's all been covered up, I know vaccines cause autism. I know 9/11 was an inside job." It all seemed like a big deal then, but I now long for those simpler days. Because things have gotten WAY worse. People just make up their own realities with impunity now, like the millions who think Trump really won the election. Reality doesn't matter in the slightest, because people seem to have stopped agreeing that it matters. Debunking is useless; we might as well all be living in separate little worlds.

Up until this point, the kind of stuff I'm referring to seemed like mostly a right-wing, conspiracy-oriented phenomenon (with a few REALLY far-left moonbats thrown in on the holistic healing end of things, perhaps). But now, the mainstream left is starting to take up this rallying cry, and I'm fine with it up to the point where I'm being screamed at for saying that men and women are real, definable things. Change your gender, call yourself a woman, I'm not bothered. Come in and get naked in front of me, wave whatever you've got around like a prize (to paraphrase cullennz's terms). I really don't care (though I'm not disregarding the feelings of women who do). But if you're going to tell me that there is no such thing as a woman, I'm going to start seeing you as crazy and disingenuous. I can't understand what the angle is there. How does that help anybody? If there's no such thing as sex, then what are trans-people changing to?

I thought it was gender they were changing, and sex was different, and that made sense to me - but the terms are being used interchangeably now, and it's making me feel like no one even cares about reality or making sense.

Another minor aspect of this anti-intellectual and anti-reality trend is the idea that people are blank slates with no inborn tendencies that might play out in cultural or mental or social arenas. This attitude denies that we are animals, and that we are bodies (as opposed to having a body), and that our biological reality, while not destiny, may well influence us. It's just that those influences can be so subtle to figure out, given that our behavior is run through our incredibly complex brains.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Butter!

Sports and jail keep coming up, though, as well as medical settings. These are areas where it is much more likely to matter, and instead of trying to work out a compromise, everyone just gets upset. This makes everything worse. The general dialogue becomes unsalvageable.

I think it may help to stick to the specifics of the situation. For example, for jails we don't need to figure out "are trans women real women?" we need to figure out whether and when there is a problem sharing cell space and addressing the medical needs, and what to do about it.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I have been in a band that includes several trans men and the occasional trans woman for nearly two decades now. I've only ever known some of them in their post-transition state. I've played on the same stage with them, sometimes closely (it's a large band). I've shared bathrooms with the trans men.

From the nature of this thread, I think some might be surprised how little the contents of one's pants effects daily interactions. Even in bathrooms, I can count on zero hands how many times other people's junk has been of my concern*.

If I had to guess, all the pearl clutching is being done by people who are not, themselves, familiar with trans people. When I see Lee, for example, I don't see short dude who used to be a girl. I see a short dude who is a great sax player, smokes too much, and takes good care of his wife's medical issues. In fact, when a former co-worker announced her transition recently, it took me a minute to remember that Lee helps people go through the transition process in order to make a recommendation.

I don't know, maybe try to be more concerned about treating people decently than concerned about what people have under the hood?



* with the exception of dealing with my infant kids and bathroom changing tables, but thankfully, those days are long behind me.

I don't think Andraya Yearwood, all time record holder and regional New England girls' track champion, is treating people decently. I'll forgive her because of her youth. She is getting bad advice and being encouraged by people who are old enough to know better, but the result is that people are not being treated decently.

I don't think Colleen Brenna was treating people decently.

I don't think Fallon Fox was treating people decently.

I don't think Jonathan Yaniv was treating people decently.

I think there is an awful lot of mistreatment going on in these situations.

Going back to Butter's point, the thing about all of those people above is that they are all male. Really. Sex is a real thing, and those people are all male, and pretending they aren't does have some intersection with the real world, and when that happens, other people end up mistreated.

And trans rights supporters really, really, want to talk about bathrooms whenever they possibly can, and never want to talk about the other issues, and what's up with that?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by gnome

I think it may help to stick to the specifics of the situation. For example, for jails we don't need to figure out "are trans women real women?" we need to figure out whether and when there is a problem sharing cell space and addressing the medical needs, and what to do about it.

I think this is exactly correct. The problem is that if people start with the assertion that trans women are really women, they feel that it trumps whatever problems might come up when sperm producers and egg producers are in close proximity under certain situations.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

But I don't think there's much of a debate on that aspect here at all, really.

I think the only pushback is occurring when we're asked to accept that e.g. transwomen really ARE women in all respects and cannot be differentiated in any way, which obviously flies in the face of reality.

Woman is a category. Trans-woman is a sub-category of woman. Cis-woman is a sub-category of woman.

Are trans-women really women? Yes.
Are cis-women really women? Yes.
Are trans-women really cis-women? No.
Are cis-women really trans-women? No.

What's the problem?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by gnome

Are you genuinely being asked to accept that?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

As a transgender woman, I am just as much of a woman as you (yes, even with a dick) and I deserve the same access and use of women's restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, prisons, opportunities, etc. as you have, with no restrictions. The genitals I have are of no interest to you or anyone else, as I am a biological woman as much as you.

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Woman is a category. Trans-woman is a sub-category of woman. Cis-woman is a sub-category of woman.
What's the problem?

Failed at the first hurdle. Trans-woman is a sub-category of MAN. Also, "cis" is a useless prefix.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

Failed at the first hurdle. Trans-woman is a sub-category of MAN. Also, "cis" is a useless prefix.

Ah, I see your problem. You have a difficult road ahead of you if you choose to hold on to your mistakes instead of learning from them.

Tell me, do you have any close friends or family who are trans?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Are trans-women really women? Yes.

At least one of the lines in your sig is very appropriate in relation to this statement.

But I suspect we would disagree about which one.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Woman is a category. Trans-woman is a sub-category of woman.

That depends on what "woman" means. Under the traditional definition of "adult human female", that is not true. Under an alternative definition, it may well be true.

But what exactly is that alternate definition? I've never gotten a coherent answer from anyone on this. And assuming I get one, why is that definition preferable to the traditional one?

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

From the nature of this thread, I think some might be surprised how little the contents of one's pants effects daily interactions. Even in bathrooms, I can count on zero hands how many times other people's junk has been of my concern*.

* with the exception of dealing with my infant kids and bathroom changing tables, but thankfully, those days are long behind me.

On that specific note, if/when you had a younger daughter out with you and they needed to use the bathroom, did you ever find yourself in a situation where you did the 'check to see if anyone was in the ladies room' and let them go in while standing at the door? I don't think that is an uncommon scenario from my experience. Now imagine a non-transitioned man was casually attempting to go in. Would you ask what he is doing? Would the answer of, "oh I am a woman" be sufficient to alleviate any concern? Would you follow in just to hurry her up or check in from the door?

If such a situation would cause a bit of anxiousness or concern on my/your part, I think it's obvious we should take seriously the feelings of women that this would impact most. While the bathroom/locker room situations can take a larger portion of conversation in these discussions, I don't see why that should minimize it entirely.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Butter!

If there's no such thing as sex, then what are trans-people changing to?

Absolutely nailed.

Irony goes over a lot of heads these days.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Ah, I see your problem. You have a difficult road ahead of you if you choose to hold on to your mistakes instead of learning from them.

Tell me, do you have any close friends or family who are trans?

I know for my part my son's best friend in school was trans. I also know Emily's Cat has a trans niece (previously nephew). A good friend of mine recently came out as trans, although I haven't seen them (to use their newly preferred pronoun) in person since the beginning of the pandemic. She came out since then. I don't actually know if she has declared herself to be a man, or gender-neutral, or non-binary. I know she cut her hair in a much more boyish look.

The idea that we are somehow unfamiliar with trans people and thus wallowing in ignorance is just nonsense.



(And I am not going to habitually use "them" when I actually do see her, or him, as the case may be. There may be some doubt about whether she's a man or a woman, but I'm absolutely certain there's only one of her.)

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That depends on what "woman" means. Under the traditional definition of "adult human female", that is not true. Under an alternative definition, it may well be true.

But what exactly is that alternate definition? I've never gotten a coherent answer from anyone on this. And assuming I get one, why is that definition preferable to the traditional one?

Manhood and womanhood are cultural ideas. We can know this because the idea of what makes a good/strong man or a good/strong woman varies from culture to culture and from time to time. In our own culture, traditionally, gay men were not considered "real men", were they? And, yet, that has changed as the culture changed.

Do you agree or do you believe that there is something inherently intrinsic to what makes a "good man" or a "good woman"?

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Ah, I see your problem. You have a difficult road ahead of you if you choose to hold on to your mistakes instead of learning from them.

Tell me, do you have any close friends or family who are trans?

Feelings don't enter into a discussion about factual reality. We'll see which of us sounds like an idiot in a few years.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I do not know what you are asking, and therefore cannot give a useful answer. If you actually want a useful answer, ask a useful question.

I was asking what your statement lead you to.