Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

Boudicca has previously indicated that she fancies men, so I doubt she's given it much thought really.

This statement is almost beyond ignorant and unpleasant. Disgusting.

 

[LondonJohn]

Boudicca90 lives in CA which is tolerant if not welcoming of trans and similar. Those attitudes displayed are safe in that world. Probably common.

As displayed here on the forum we encompass a much wider view from tooth gritting acceptance to full acceptance of diversity.
At that we even pick and choose what won't be accepted.

Also the range of places we all live will determine how openly diversity can be displayed even if it's accepted.

No one could act on how boudicca90 wants in that rant where I am. Not because of me, but society here wouldn't tolerate boys on a girl's team. On a mixed team without question, but that wouldn't give any desired affirmation of what trans types want.
Telling the girls to toughen up when they get trounced by a trans team wouldn't go far.

I see you chose to address just one out of the several points Boudicca90 made. Do you agree or disagree with all of the non-sports-related points she made in that post?

As a generalised point (not aimed at what you wrote here), it's extremely interesting and illuminating to see just how many "sceptics" on here are contorting themselves into expressing views along the lines of "oh yes, obviously I support transgender identity....... but.......", immediately followed by a reactionary rejection of one area of transgender identity.

And IMO it's not wrong to see it as akin to those bygone reactionaries who made claims like "Oh, of course I'm not a racist.....but....." or "Oh, of course I support gay rights..... but....."

(Though of course, and utterly predictably, those following the same pattern wrt transgender rights will a) make enough rationalisations to convince themselves that their views don't fall into this same pattern, and b) pipe up immediately to proclaim loudly that their views don't fall into this pattern )

 

[LondonJohn]

Boudicca, you chose your path in life. And some really tough choices along the way.

Openly gay in a military uniform was one you mentioned. Doesn't take a genius to say that was going against the grain of military society. Then after getting out of that you decided to be trans when being just gay out of the military would have gone unnoticed.
Don't blame the rest of us you want to stand out from the crowd. Not only that but try to make us agree a self admitted male turned trans is now somehow female, or woman.
Our eyes can't see what's in your head. We see what stands in front of us. Figuratively in this case.

Your reality isn't ours. Nobody hates you for that. Still, we aren't going to toss out our reality to appease you.
Do what everyone else is trying to do and make a life for yourself where you can be happy. Don't try to fix the rest of the world to your ideas along the way.

Wow.
"You decided to be trans"?

And "You want to stand out from the crowd"?


You very obviously have no understanding whatsoever about gender dysphoria and transgender identity. And the views you've expressed here are contemptible and shameful.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree but think the whole issue with these threads is it comes down to some people not understanding/ignoring/refuse to admit/try to blur/try to change the fact gender and sex are two different things

Yes.

A bit like the disgraceful and uninformed/misunderstood way in which many people used to assume that sex and sexuality were two different things - i.e. that, for example, all males were sexually attracted to females. And that any males who declared that they were sexually attracted to males were either deluded or lying, and that they were candidates for "curing".

But it's hardly as if regular posters within this thread haven't had it patiently explained, probably dozens of times now, that sex and gender are separate things. "Sceptics' forum" LOL.

 

[cullennz]

Wow.


"You decided to be trans"?



And "You want to stand out from the crowd"?





You very obviously have no understanding whatsoever about gender dysphoria and transgender identity. And the views you've expressed here are contemptible and shameful.

So just to make it clear. You agree with Boudicca's post/rant that got half censored?

 

[cullennz]

Yes.



A bit like the disgraceful and uninformed/misunderstood way in which many people used to assume that sex and sexuality were two different things - i.e. that, for example, all males were sexually attracted to females. And that any males who declared that they were sexually attracted to males were either deluded or lying, and that they were candidates for "curing".



But it's hardly as if regular posters within this thread haven't had it patiently explained, probably dozens of times now, that sex and gender are separate things. "Sceptics' forum" LOL.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Sex and gender are different things.

You seem to keep trying to equate sex to psychological.

It ain't.

Gender, sexuality are.

And I haven't seen anyone on the thread say anyone is lying.

I have seen deluded with Boudicca's rant about being biologically a woman with a dangle

 

[lionking]

This is on topic as this thread grew out of the (over)reaction to JK Rowling’s book about the cross dressing murderer. I decided to see what the fuss was all about and purchased all Cormoran Strike detective novels.

A few points. They are really good crime novels. Secondly, I’m pleased I’m enriching her. Thirdly, I’m up to the evil novel in question. If you take offence at this, stop reading for good. Books aimed at pre-schoolers are more offensive.

 

[Matthew Best]

The TV shows are really good too, lionking. I wonder if they've made it to your part of the world?

 

[lionking]

The TV shows are really good too, lionking. I wonder if they've made it to your part of the world?

Yes I’ve been watching the TV series too. I read the books first and what was striking (pun intended) was how well the characters in print were depicted on screen. Strike was exactly as I imagined him.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

//I know this is a heated discussion, but hopefully you can respect that this isn't 100% easy to put into words, fair enough? If I say something that sounds off please do me the courtesy of asking for clarification before assuming nefarious intent, okay?//

Not sure what you mean here. I was replying to your statement not assuming nefarious intent.

What I mean is that at the most basic level every version of this comes down to "I want to be able to things without having a gender role defined for me." And I think that most basic of starting points gets us to more reasonable; not necessarily correct or valid or true but reasonable, places then it seems at first.

I'm saying if someone starts at:

"I'm what is traditionally thought of as this gender but I do not have this traditional characteristic of the gender" then

"Therefore gender doesn't exist"
"Therefore I'm the other gender"
"Therefore gender is socially created"
"Therefore that traditional characteristic doesn't apply to that gender"
"Therefore that traditional characteristic applies to the other gender"
"Therefore that traditional characteristic is gender neutral"
"Therefore I'm a special sub-category of the traditional gender"

Are all ways that someone would could honestly mentally process that initial thought further.

Again I'm not arguing the factual correctness or moral right or wrong of any specific answer, I'm saying that more of the social problem is categorization and defining the terms then the core, base, real problem really is.

If that makes any sense.

ETA: Added a bit in the first paragraph. Hit post before finishing a thought.

The people (or at least the ones I have seen) who say gender doesn't exist are genuinely saying gender doesn't exist. That it isn't a thing. That all that matters is biological sex. And that there is nothing else.

Some people seem to say that gender does exist but it's a social construct overlaid on top of biological sex. In that sense it isn't something 'real' it's just an idea.

Other people say that gender identity is something 'real' that lives in the brain.

I think there is some overlap between the last two positions because to some extent a gender identity could be an internalisation of a social construct. And there are probably multiple nuanced variations of the above as well. I don't think the list here is exhaustive but I think it distills down 3 distinct positions which cover a broad area of views.

I think there are real differences and real implications for these positions.

I find the first one untenable as it would suggest that all discrimination against women is based on their genitalia and reproductive organs and the like. It would also lead to the conclusion that you cannot be transgender as there is no such thing as gender. There seem to be a number of posters here who come very close to this position if not stating it explicitly.

The second option tends to lead to the position which I think you might hold that since gender is a construct then all we are talking about is whether we comply with the rules and roles society set out for us and our genders. So if a man likes to wear a dress and take care of babies and watch soaps and other stereotypically 'female' things then it doesn't mean he's female he's just a man who likes to do those things. Equally a woman who likes to fix cars and watch sports isn't a man, just a woman who likes to do those things.

The third option goes beyond that and says that it isn't just about how you act and what your interests are but a more deep-seated sense of self identity. You are not a man who likes to do girly things. But a woman. Who happens to have male biology through an accident of nature.

Personally I find the first position to be unsustainable and overly reductionist. We are more than just our equipment and our meat. Our minds and psychology matter to who we are and our sense of self. I don't agree with the idea that a woman is just a biological baby making machine and a man a biological impregnation machine.

From that I reach the conclusion that there is such a thing as gender and that there is a mental element to it. And from that I accept that if there is a mental element to it then it is possible for there to be a disconnect between the physical and mental. That gender dysphoria is a real thing. In that I seem to be in agreement with the vast majority of people who study the topic and in disagreement with a number of TERFs and posters to this thread who seem to argue that gender dysphoria isn't a real thing at all.

If we accept that gender dysphoria is a thing then we are left with two options really. Treat it as a mental illness and try to get the mental to line up with the physical (again it seems some posters here advocate that) or alternatively to accept the gender identity and allow the person to live as the gender they identify as and possibly align the physical with the mental through surgery if that's considered beneficial. Again most experts seem to believe this latter approach is best.

I hope that helps. That's the best I can do in outlining my understanding of what you seem to be struggling with.

 

[Manger Douse]

This statement is almost beyond ignorant and unpleasant. Disgusting.

Is it any better than "women just don't train hard enough at sports to win?"

 

[Ziggurat]

And IMO it's not wrong to see it as akin to those bygone reactionaries who made claims like "Oh, of course I'm not a racist.....but....." or "Oh, of course I support gay rights..... but....."

(Though of course, and utterly predictably, those following the same pattern wrt transgender rights will a) make enough rationalisations to convince themselves that their views don't fall into this same pattern, and b) pipe up immediately to proclaim loudly that their views don't fall into this pattern )

Of course you want to see it that way. That is utterly predictable. You want to use an analogy which dispenses with the need to argue your position on its own merits. It’s infinitely easier to borrow the merits of a different position.

But if you really want to play that analogy game, you’re essentially arguing that it’s racist to say black people don’t get sunburns as easily as white people, or that they are more likely to have vitamin D deficiency. There are in fact some things for which skin color does matter.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yep, it's the official party line to replace female representation with representation for males who feel as if they're women.

Well, the transphobes will always have the Tory party.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well, the transphobes will always have the Tory party.

Even the Tories were fairly progressive on a lot of these things. Don't forget it was the Tories that were looking to update the GRA in the first place. It's just the current lot of Brexiteers, Christians and Swivel-Eyed Loons that seem to have been given prominence of late.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the swing to lunacy also ushered in more anti-trans thinking.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Even the Tories were fairly progressive on a lot of these things. Don't forget it was the Tories that were looking to update the GRA in the first place. It's just the current lot of Brexiteers, Christians and Swivel-Eyed Loons that seem to have been given prominence of late.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the swing to lunacy also ushered in more anti-trans thinking.

I have to admit I'm not too familiar with UK politics, but I am still failing to understand why it's supposed to be shocking that the Labour party, the more liberal party in the country, has a policy of explicit trans inclusion. Supporting LGBT rights is pretty standard for most liberal parties these days.

Surely there's plenty of places where reactionary transphobia is still welcome. There's a whole world of right wing reactionary politics waiting to accept the transphobes with open arms. TERFs are in a tough spot in that they are otherwise quite liberal, but they have their one bigotry that they won't let go.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In response to Emily’s Cat and anyone else who finds themselves *less* supportive of trans rights after having discussed the topic at length (including hearing from a transwoman), if you have a moment, check out this video by Magdalen Berns. It’s 11 minutes and 29 seconds and in my opinion, well worth watching in its entirety. I don’t completely agree with every single point but she definitely changed my view of feminism and I no longer support the idea of “intersectional feminism”, as the term is commonly used today.

As to the relevance to this particular thread, the discussion of trans rights and how they intersect (or don’t intersect) with the rights of biological women, there are references scattered throughout. This video is actually a response to a video made by another youtube feminist. Berns deconstructs, virtually line for line, the definition and flawed philosophy of inclusive, “neo” feminism which seems to be heavily focused on trans issues in particular (as well as a smattering of others).

Highlights:
3:29 to 6:38
7:13 to 9:27

1 Reason Everyday Feminism Is Bad For Women

Description:
In this video Magdalen Berns will present a critique of "Everyday Feminism"’s neoliberal re-branding of feminism as a "movement to end all oppression" rather than a movement for women’s liberation.

That was a good (and entertaining) video. She makes some pretty good points in there too. Thanks for the tip!

I can't decide if her Sarcastic Stoner delivery is a feature or a bug.

Neither - she had a brain tumor a couple of years ago which resulted in some lingering side effects. If you look at her videos from about 4 years ago, you can see the difference.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I absolutely am. Genetics say nothing about sex and gender. Being genetically XX doesn't determine if someone is female just like being XY doesn't determine if someone is male. And none of it is binary at all, sex and gender is a spectrum we can find ourselves on at any point.

Gender and sex live in the brain, not what chromosomes we ended up with. It is influenced by a mix of biology, psychology, and social experience. I ended up female, biologically female at that, just as much as Emily's Cat. But sometimes a person's sex, gender, and biology don't line up properly.

I am a biological woman as much as any ciswoman. And I'm not going to give in to the fear and hatred of us by ciswomen any more. I'm done trying to spare their feelings. And I don't give a crap if you or any other person on this board considers me delusional.

I am a biological woman, that is a fact.

This is a completely irrational, anti-science belief. This is the biological equivalent of being a flat-earther.

Sex does NOT live in the brain, and genetics ABSOLUTELY determines sex.

Or are you somehow under the misguided notion that humans are super-duper special and our brains make our realities in a way that is completely different from every other sexually dimorphic creature on the planet? Did god give you this ability to alter reality so it fits with your fantasy?

Boudicca, I know it hurts your fragile heart to hear it, but you ARE biologically male. There isn't any gray area in this one at all, not in actual reality. You can no more change your biological sex than you can change the hair follicles created by your scalp, or change the color of your irises, or change your foot size. It's a part of you - your body IS you, and you are your body. Your brain is a part (an important one, definitely) of your body. But the things your brain thinks about your body don't actually change your body.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, hardly anybody in here supports our right to be fully accepted as the sex and gender we are.

This is true, in the sense that hardly anybody in here supports your right to be fully accepted as the species you believe yourself to be either.

You can be whatever gender you feel yourself to be, I have no objection to that. You cannot be whatever sex you errantly believe yourself to be, because sex is not a social construct, it is not a nebulous definition - it is an objective physical reality.

Demanding that society accept you 100% as female, when you are NOT female, is tantamount to demanding that society accept you as 100% fennec fox. It's soo far beyond irrational that the appropriate terms for it can't be used in the spirit of civility that this site embraces.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So...uhhh...what are your plans, then?

I'm guessing barbed-wire wrapped baseball bats and rats nailed to the doors of heretics.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This is true, in the sense that hardly anybody in here supports your right to be fully accepted as the species you believe yourself to be either.

You can be whatever gender you feel yourself to be, I have no objection to that. You cannot be whatever sex you errantly believe yourself to be, because sex is not a social construct, it is not a nebulous definition - it is an objective physical reality.

Demanding that society accept you 100% as female, when you are NOT female, is tantamount to demanding that society accept you as 100% fennec fox. It's soo far beyond irrational that the appropriate terms for it can't be used in the spirit of civility that this site embraces.

Man, it must really cause you great distress that most parts of the civilized world are seeing growing trans acceptance and that the TERFs are increasingly fighting a losing battle.

How long do you really think is left before the transphobes are fully repudiated within liberal circles? A decade? 50 years? Surely not much longer.

Seems to me that transphobes will soon have no political home outside the reactionary right. They'll probably have to dump the feminism if they want to be accepted by their new friends though.