Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Elaedith

Illuminator
E
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
3,116
Continued from here. As is usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from previous parts of this thread. But please use your best endeavours to stick to your MA when composing and submitting your posts.
Posted By: Agatha







Meadmaker said:
T As a result, they got rid of the question, and because they got rid of the question, they had to get rid of the answer.
Click to expand...

Apparently the interviewer wanted to substitute a different question while keeping the answer, and was unable to see any problem with that. The mind boggles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Probably need to qualify this middle statement, as it varies quite a bit depending on who you're talking to
Click to expand...

That's true of this entire discussion. But at least one side, wrong as they are, isn't demanding the major variable they are arguing for remains forever undefined.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
If you read the vice article, they also refused to run a follow-up interview question about TERFs aligning themselves with the far right Heritage Foundation, which illustrated the same point without the complexities of the Wi Spa case.



Seems to me that the editors had lots of options short of just avoiding the issue. They easily could have just added an editor's note and/or follow-up question and response, for example, rather than yanking this part of the interview entirely.
Click to expand...

So, Gleeson offered to revise history by rewriting the interview to include things that didn't actually happen in the interview.

ETA: Or, as Elaedith put it, the mind boggles.
 
JoeMorgue said:
That's true of this entire discussion. But at least one side, wrong as they are, isn't demanding the major variable they are arguing for remains forever undefined.
Click to expand...

Drawing hard, clear lines that are needlessly cruel and motivated by animus is often a very simple thing to do.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
An awfully strong stance considering the allegations against this person remain unsubstantiated. Criminal charges means we'll likely learn more in time.
Click to expand...
Nope, he's already registered as a sex offender. These are entirely substantiated allegations. You're really doubling down on the "pretend he's not real" strategy?
 
theprestige said:
Nope, he's already registered as a sex offender. These are entirely substantiated allegations. You're really doubling down on the "pretend he's not real" strategy?
Click to expand...

I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Given a prior history of similar crimes, I would agree it seems likely, perhaps even most likely, that the allegations against this person are more or less correct.

What exactly does a repeat criminal committing a crime say about the broader debate? If anything, the prior convictions for the same crime from before trans-inclusive laws were in effect show that such laws had little impact.
 
theprestige said:
You know you don't need to align with "fascists", just to align against a serial sexual assaulter.
Click to expand...

The sex related charges against Merager all are related to exposure, not assault. (Assuming I didn't miss anything in the news.)

He (or whatever) was also convicted of burglary.

Basically - 2002 and/or 2003 (can't remember exactly), conviction for indecent exposure. I have seen no information regarding the nature of these incidents. i.e. was it classic "flashing", or was it being nude in a female facility where nudity would be expected, as in the Wi Spa case.

2008 - Conviction for not registering as a sex offender.

2014 - Conviction for burlary.

2018 - (I think) charges of indecent exposure. I don't know why those haven't been resolved. Numerous reports of other indecent exposure incidents.

2021 - Wi spa incident.

The burglary charges were actually quite prominent, and got a lot of press. The victim was an extremely wealthy and well known hedge fund manager, and Merager et. al. broke into his house and stole expensive art. It was noted in one not very trans friendly publication I read about that in none of the 2014 stories were any pronouns other than "he" used to describe Merager, and there was no mention of transgender issues.

ETA: And the above is all from memory. I'm confident I got the "big picture" accurate, but I might be off on a few details.
 
Meadmaker said:
The sex related charges against Merager all are related to exposure, not assault. (Assuming I didn't miss anything in the news.)

He (or whatever) was also convicted of burglary.

Basically - 2002 and/or 2003 (can't remember exactly), conviction for indecent exposure. I have seen no information regarding the nature of these incidents. i.e. was it classic "flashing", or was it being nude in a female facility where nudity would be expected, as in the Wi Spa case.

2008 - Conviction for not registering as a sex offender.

2014 - Conviction for burlary.

2018 - (I think) charges of indecent exposure. I don't know why those haven't been resolved. Numerous reports of other indecent exposure incidents.

2021 - Wi spa incident.

The burglary charges were actually quite prominent, and got a lot of press. The victim was an extremely wealthy and well known hedge fund manager, and Merager et. al. broke into his house and stole expensive art. It was noted in one not very trans friendly publication I read about that in none of the 2014 stories were any pronouns other than "he" used to describe Merager, and there was no mention of transgender issues.

ETA: And the above is all from memory. I'm confident I got the "big picture" accurate, but I might be off on a few details.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I withdraw my exaggerated allegations.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Drawing hard, clear lines that are needlessly cruel and motivated by animus is often a very simple thing to do.
Click to expand...
If we're going to have spaces/leagues segregated by gender (instead of sex) we're still going to need some clear lines drawn.

I don't think there is *any* way to draw those lines which won't make anyone feel like they've been hard done by.
SuburbanTurkey said:
Interesting coincidence with the linked author's first name, or are you just quoting yourself here?
Click to expand...
Not quoting anyone; just providing a specific example of the level of evidence I would personally bring to the table before throwing around accusations of fascism.
 
Last edited:
Earthborn said:
Emily's Cat said:
The first two occur if and only if the transwoman in question takes cross-sex hormones.
Click to expand...
Which is very often true of individuals known to be trans.
And since hormone treatment is not required to be considered transgender under the new criteria of self-declaration only...
Click to expand...
Just because someone is transgender does not necessarily mean they are a transwoman.
So let me be more clear: What characteristics are shared by pre/non-op, pre/non-HRT transwoman and females, and which are NOT shared by pre/non-op, pre/non-HRT transwomen and males?
Click to expand...
The term "transwoman" implies that the person involved is in some sense a "woman", they have taken some steps to transition.
It does not usually include persons with a feminine gender identity who remain closeted. When deciding who goes in which prison, we are talking about individuals who are known to be trans.
Relatively effeminate males are also at risk of being raped (by males, mind you) when thrown into a male prison.
Click to expand...
Which just shows that segregation based on biological sex isn't really a solution to anything. Just fix your prison system first.
Click to expand...


So... If Eddie Izzard and Alex Drummond were to commit crimes that land them in jail... would you argue that they be placed in the male prison or the female prison? Both have declared themselves to be transwomen, both identify as women, neither have had (nor plan to have) any hormone therapy, neither have had (nor plan to have) any surgical alterations. Yet neither is closeted.

Do they count as "women" to you? Do they gain access to female spaces, honors, shelters, and prisons as a right?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The plural of anecdote is not data.

The whole "trans crime of the day" bit is very tired. Reminiscent of white supremacists who love to pluck outrageous stories of "black crime" in their campaign of bigotry.
Click to expand...

There is a pattern here.

ST: That never happens, it's all propaganda!
EC et all: It happened here (provides reference)
ST: That's just an anecdote, it doesn't count. Where's the massive number of instances?
EC et all: Well, there's, this and this and this and this and this (supplies multiple references)
ST: <crickets>

~~~ Days pass~~~

ST: That never happens, it's all hysterical overreacting propaganda and animus!
 
I am perturbed by the number of journalists, editorial authors, self-proclaimed "influencers", and other devout followers who are still defending Merager and casting the female adults and children subjected to Merager's genitals against their will as being evil bigots.
 
Meadmaker said:
So, Gleeson offered to revise history by rewriting the interview to include things that didn't actually happen in the interview.

ETA: Or, as Elaedith put it, the mind boggles.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's not that surprising considering that the truth of the claims is irrelevant to those who are pushing the narrative.
 
New Research Shows a Vast Majority of Cis People Won't Date Trans People

I feel like this is kind of a No ****, Sherlock sort of a study. The author seems surprised by these findings, which boggles my mind. The vast majority of people on the planet are attracted to people whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics are in alignment with each other. We're wired that way, we're a sexually dimorphic species that reproduces via two distinct and different sexes. Why on earth would anyone be surprised that this holds true? It's up there with doing research and being surprised to find out that water is wet.

This part also reinforces to me the willful ignorance and fantasy involved:

Surprisingly, among the 127 participants open to dating a trans person, almost half selected a trans person of a gender incongruent with their stated sexual orientation. For example, 50% of the trans-inclusive straight women and 28% of the trans-inclusive gay men were willing to date a trans woman, even though one wouldn’t expect either straight women or gay men to be attracted to women. Similarly, 50% of trans-inclusive straight men and 69% of trans-inclusive lesbians said they’d date a trans man, even though both groups are presumably only attracted to women.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when someone somewhere tries to redefine sexual orientation to be "gender identity orientation" instead. Then you end up with researchers being surprised that gay males are attracted to other males, regardless of their presentation, and that gay females are attracted to other females.

Their conclusion really hammers home the lack of rational thought involved.

The high rates of trans exclusion from potential dating pools are undoubtedly due in part to cisnormativity, cissexism, and transphobia — all of which lead to lack of knowledge about transgender people and their bodies, discomfort with these unknowns, and fear of being discriminated against by proxy of one’s romantic partner. It is also possible that at least some of the trans exclusion is due to the fact that for some people, sexual orientation might be not (just) about a partner’s gender identity, but attraction to specific body types and/or judgment of reproductive capabilities.
Click to expand...

They're concluding that exclusion of transgender people is transphobia, as opposed to basic sexual function. But hey, at least they consider it a *possibility* that some people are attracted to a sex as opposed to a gender identity.
 
Emily's Cat said:
New Research Shows a Vast Majority of Cis People Won't Date Trans People

I feel like this is kind of a No ****, Sherlock sort of a study. The author seems surprised by these findings, which boggles my mind. The vast majority of people on the planet are attracted to people whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics are in alignment with each other. We're wired that way, we're a sexually dimorphic species that reproduces via two distinct and different sexes. Why on earth would anyone be surprised that this holds true? It's up there with doing research and being surprised to find out that water is wet.

This part also reinforces to me the willful ignorance and fantasy involved:



This is what happens when someone somewhere tries to redefine sexual orientation to be "gender identity orientation" instead. Then you end up with researchers being surprised that gay males are attracted to other males, regardless of their presentation, and that gay females are attracted to other females.

Their conclusion really hammers home the lack of rational thought involved.



They're concluding that exclusion of transgender people is transphobia, as opposed to basic sexual function. But hey, at least they consider it a *possibility* that some people are attracted to a sex as opposed to a gender identity.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's possible, but all we have is 1.2 billion years of sexual reproduction on earth. Do we really think that any of that has anything to do with why actual people - not the species homo sapiens, but people like you and me - are attracted to someone?

/s

It's the blank slate phenomenon ( Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate), which ignores that we are animals and are part of the animal kingdom, all species in which have evolved, as if our brains are somehow exempt from the influence of that 1.2 billion years.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's funny now until not dating a transperson is seen as transphobic.

Which will happen.
 
Paul2 said:
Sure, it's possible, but all we have is 1.2 billion years of sexual reproduction on earth. Do we really think that any of that has anything to do with why actual people - not the species homo sapiens, but people like you and me - are attracted to someone?

/s

It's the blank slate phenomenon ( Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate), which ignores that we are animals and are part of the animal kingdom, all species in which have evolved, as if our brains are somehow exempt from the influence of that 1.2 billion years.
Click to expand...

The underlying basis of gender identity ideology is rooted in denial of objective material reality. All phenomena are socially constructed and can be deconstructed by changing language.

Somewhere on twitter, somebody used the analogy that if the earth were going to be hit by an asteroid, you could solve the problem by redefining 'earth' as 'something that cannot be hit by asteroids' (or redefining an asteroid as something that cannot collide with a planet). Of course, this also means having to silence anyone who speaks the wrong narrative.
 
Maybe the thread title needs a change?

surely it has been established by now that transwomen are women if they want that gender role, but they aren't female?

Buck angel isn't male, they are very manly though so yeah take the role.

Gender is like deciding who you want to play in a rpg.

Go for it, I love people being able to be themselves without societal pressure.

Gender change is fine by me, you can't deny reality though.
 
Emily's Cat said:
New Research Shows a Vast Majority of Cis People Won't Date Trans People

I feel like this is kind of a No ****, Sherlock sort of a study. The author seems surprised by these findings, which boggles my mind. The vast majority of people on the planet are attracted to people whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics are in alignment with each other. We're wired that way, we're a sexually dimorphic species that reproduces via two distinct and different sexes. Why on earth would anyone be surprised that this holds true? It's up there with doing research and being surprised to find out that water is wet.

This part also reinforces to me the willful ignorance and fantasy involved:



This is what happens when someone somewhere tries to redefine sexual orientation to be "gender identity orientation" instead. Then you end up with researchers being surprised that gay males are attracted to other males, regardless of their presentation, and that gay females are attracted to other females.

Their conclusion really hammers home the lack of rational thought involved.



They're concluding that exclusion of transgender people is transphobia, as opposed to basic sexual function. But hey, at least they consider it a *possibility* that some people are attracted to a sex as opposed to a gender identity.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

They just need more practice. They will master it eventually,
 
p0lka said:
Maybe the thread title needs a change?

surely it has been established by now that transwomen are women if they want that gender role, but they aren't female?

Buck angel isn't male, they are very manly though so yeah take the role.

Gender is like deciding who you want to play in a rpg.

Go for it, I love people being able to be themselves without societal pressure.

Gender change is fine by me, you can't deny reality though.
Click to expand...
That has not been established at all.
A Woman is an Adult, Human, Female. All three criteria need be met.
 
Insane propagandists said:
Surpisingly Unsurprisingly, among the 127 participants open to dating a trans person, almost half selected a trans person of a gender incongruent with their stated sexual orientation. For example, 50% of the trans-inclusive straight women and 28% of the trans-inclusive gay men were willing to date a trans woman, even though especially because one wouldn’t expect either straight women or gay men to be attracted to women. Similarly, 50% of trans-inclusive straight men and 69% of trans-inclusive lesbians said they’d date a trans man, even though especially because both groups are presumably only attracted to women.
Click to expand...

There, fixed for us rational folks.
 
Distracted1 said:
That has not been established at all.
A Woman is an Adult, Human, Female. All three criteria need be met.
Click to expand...

I disagree,
from what I can work out, woman is a gender label so rpg it, whatever.
Human? Won't anyone think about the A.I's?

Female is a physical description, I don't think that can rpg'ed at all.

A female is a female, a male is a male, everything else seems to be a variable.
 
Emily's Cat said:
They're concluding that exclusion of transgender people is transphobia, as opposed to basic sexual function. But hey, at least they consider it a *possibility* that some people are attracted to a sex as opposed to a gender identity.
Click to expand...

If being a little bit squicked out by the prospect of cock-sex with someone in the uncanny valley between male and female makes me a transphobe, then a transphobe is what I am.

Heterosexuals don't have to apologize to anyone for their sexual turn-ons and turn-offs. Homosexuals don't have to justify their sexual attractions to any damn person. Transsexuals don't have to apologize. Why should cissexuals have to?
 
p0lka said:
Maybe the thread title needs a change?

surely it has been established by now that transwomen are women if they want that gender role, but they aren't female?

Buck angel isn't male, they are very manly though so yeah take the role.

Gender is like deciding who you want to play in a rpg.

Go for it, I love people being able to be themselves without societal pressure.

Gender change is fine by me, you can't deny reality though.
Click to expand...

I want to roleplay as a very, very manly woman.
 
p0lka said:
Maybe the thread title needs a change?

surely it has been established by now that transwomen are women if they want that gender role, but they aren't female?
Click to expand...
This has been established and disestablished, stipulated and rejected, multiple times throughout the several installments of this thread.

Me, I've mostly come around to the conclusion that gender roles are a stalking horse for transcending sex-based segregation. So, in the only way that anyone is willing to define, the only way that has concrete practical applications, transwomen (i.e., males) are not women (i.e., females). Everything else is jiggery-pokery dancing around this basic truth and its opponents.
 
p0lka said:
I disagree,
from what I can work out, woman is a gender label so rpg it, whatever.
Human? Won't anyone think about the A.I's?

Female is a physical description, I don't think that can rpg'ed at all.

A female is a female, a male is a male, everything else seems to be a variable.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and being female is just as much a component of being a "Woman" as being an Adult, or being a Human is.
If all three conditions are not met- the person is "presenting as", or "believing themselves to be" or even "pretending to be" a Woman. Which is fine by me. But they are not, objectively, a "Woman" unless they are Female, Adult, and Human.
 
p0lka said:
I disagree,
from what I can work out, woman is a gender label so rpg it, whatever.
Human? Won't anyone think about the A.I's?

Female is a physical description, I don't think that can rpg'ed at all.

A female is a female, a male is a male, everything else seems to be a variable.
Click to expand...

If you define woman as a gender role, does that mean a female person who doesn't perform that gender role isn't a woman?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom