Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[shuttlt]

I thought this might be interesting to you good people:
https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/2...-erase-womens-sports-it-wants-to-erase-women/

The key part is this to my mind is this:
"This liberal hesitance arises from more than just the intimidation wielded by the trans movement. Rather, discussing any limits on gender or sexuality opens an awkward can of worms for them. Acknowledging that human embodiment and sexual dimorphism require restraining desire and claims of subjective identity could roll back a lot more than Lia Thomas’s swim career.

For instance, if the differences between men and women are real and important, that might suggest that having two daddies is not interchangeable with having a mother and a father. If the differences between men and women matter, then an economic system that sees men and women as interchangeable units of labor is deeply flawed and anti-human. If the differences between men and women matter, then how they are united matters, which means that a sexual culture ordered toward the indulgence of desire may not be ordered toward human flourishing.

Thinking seriously about embodiment and the differences between men and women challenges the preconceptions of many on the modern left. It also reopens a multitude of questions that cultural liberalism thought it had settled on its terms. Thus, although many liberals are discomfited by the Lia Thomas saga, they are at a loss as to how to respond.

The thing about slippery slopes is that they’re slippery, and it’s hard to stop after picking up speed. But unless the left is comfortable with abolishing women, they’re going to need to find some brakes, and some balls."

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't know.
My first opinions in this ever ever so long thread were 'transwomen were not women but I would treat them as such as it makes people happier',

Which people does it make happier? Does it make ALL people happier, or only a specific subset of people? What if it makes some people - a lot of people - unhappy?

That's a lot of the crux of this topic. It makes gender dysphoric males happier to be 'treated as women' and granted entrance to female-specific spaces, roles, and awards. But it does NOT make females happier to have those gender dysphoric males invading their spaces. It does NOT make females happier when the "woman of the year" or "first woman XXX" is a gender dysphoric male.

We now have dysphoric males being 'treated as women' and placed in female-only prisons. We have dysphoric males being 'treated as women' and winning female sports positions, pushing other females out of their own sex-sepcific sport. We have dysphoric males being 'treated as women' and walking around nude spas with their erect penises visible to females and young children, and the females who are upset by it are told that THEY are the ones in the wrong and should 'look away' because it's rude to look at someone else's genitals in a nude spa. We have dysphoric males winning awards for female artists and authors and musicians. We have dysphoric males being celebrated as the 'first female admiral'. We have dysphoric males leading 'Women's Committees" and taking political positions reserved for females.

These are things that make dysphoric males happier. Do you genuinely think they make females happier?

Some of those things exclude females from participation in society, economics, and politics. Some of those literally put females at risk of assault, and definitely place females in a position where we lose the right to refuse consent to someone else's voyeurism or exhibitionism. It's a clear violation of female physical and sexual boundaries.

Why do you hold that the feelings of dysphoric males are more important than the rights, safety, and dignity of females?

 

[Emily's Cat]

My natural honest answer was 'female',

Who are you?
Are you like my aunty or something with your 'you have been told multiple times!' stuff?
I love it, be my aunty please

How do you know that person is your 'aunty'? Maybe that person is your 'uncle'. Or does your aunty perhaps have an Adam's apple and a full beard?

 

[shuttlt]

And the Scottish government have just been told by a court that that's the way it has to stay. (They're making noises about trying to change the definition ot "female" next, but the witches have their number.)

It's like Scottish independence, the stars only have to align once for them to win. Our strategy is to just keep frustrating them. Their victory, if it comes, will be final, any victory for us is only temporary.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think if people (especially young people) were allowed to "present" any way they liked without any pressure to conform to a gendered stereotype then a lot of them would be a lot happier. If we understood that how you dress or whether you put on makeup or what toys or hobbies you like does not define you as one sex or the other, and doesn't change your sex either.

I think that is a good approach for the treatment of young males. For the most part, females can dress in trousers and boots and have short hair, and society as a whole doesn't (or maybe didn't) view them as not-female. We even had a handy term which was widely used and accepted: Tomboy. Young males have never had that freedom though. If a young male wished to wear a frilly dress and patent leather mary-janes, they faced considerably more criticism and censure.

I would *love* for society to allow people to dress however they please and wear make-up and jewelry and pain their nails, and essentially express themselves how they like (within the reasonable bounds of it being appropriate for the venue). I think it would be very freeing for males to have that freedom.

On the other hand... I don't know that this is a solution to much of the driving forces behind young females identifying as non-binary or as transmen. I don't think that expressive liberty combats the over-sexualization and the pornification of female bodies, nor does it combat the tendency of fully grown males to ogle the budding breasts of pubescent females as if they're growing boobs just for the purpose of titillating middle-aged dudes. It think that needs a different solution.

 

[Meadmaker]

Inor does it combat the tendency of fully grown males to ogle the budding breasts of pubescent females as if they're growing boobs just for the purpose of titillating middle-aged dudes. It think that needs a different solution.

That isn't the purpose. It's just a side effect.

But I don't think it has a solution.

 

[shuttlt]

Which people does it make happier? Does it make ALL people happier, or only a specific subset of people? What if it makes some people - a lot of people - unhappy?

That's a lot of the crux of this topic. It makes gender dysphoric males happier to be 'treated as women' and granted entrance to female-specific spaces, roles, and awards. But it does NOT make females happier to have those gender dysphoric males invading their spaces. It does NOT make females happier when the "woman of the year" or "first woman XXX" is a gender dysphoric male.

Has it been shown that all of this is actually making trans-women as a class, happier. Not all of them share the politics of the trans-activists. There are ones out there who wouldn't necessarily disagree with Rolfe, and don't want the concept of "woman" deconstructed into nothing.

Supposing that trans-activists do represent something like the "will of the [trans] people", does that mean it is making them happy? There are certainly mental illnesses out there that humouring them wouldn't be the kind thing to do. My impression is that trans-activism has succeeded in raising a lot of womens hackles and who, rather than maybe being seen as unfortunate individuals who an accommodation can be negotiated with, but instead are becoming seen as the vanguard of a militant political movement that cannot be negotiated with. Does this make the life of the average trans-woman better?

 

[shuttlt]

That isn't the purpose. It's just a side effect.

But I don't think it has a solution.

Puberty blockers to stop the buds forming? I understand they are harmless and reversible.

 

[905]

Puberty blockers to stop the buds forming? I understand they are harmless and reversible.

Best swallowed down with a cup dipped in the fountain of youth.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I really think you are sawing away at the branch you are sitting on here. You want people to be able to define themselves, and not have these gender categories policed so that nobody bats an eye at a man in a tutu, since there is no association between tutus and any particular sex.... but you want to maintain a hard line where penises are concerned.

I think you're missing the objective here.

A male who dresses in a tutu would not be considered any less of a 'man' and would still be recognized (appropriately) as being just as male as the one in the lumberjack outfit.

Give it some thought. Do you, personally, think that a female that exclusively wears trousers and doesn't shave their armpits is 'less female' than one that wears dresses and lots of make-up? Do you, personally, think that a male that enjoys sewing and caring for children is 'less male' than one that works in a law firm and hires a nanny?

The idea is to deconstruct the socially-enforced roles and expectations of presentation... while still retaining the fundamental reality of biological sex and sexual dimorphism.

Males will always be more aggressive on average than females, and will probably always be more prone to vocations involving physical strength, and will probably always have a higher propensity for physical competition than females. Females will always be more collaborative, and will probably always be more prone to vocations involving cognitive organization, and will probably always have a higher propensity for care-giving. Those are evolutionary adaptations of a highly dimorphic species.

But none of those evolutionary tendencies requires false eyelashes or high heels, or fingernail polish, or trousers, or neck ties. Those trappings are entirely social.

Some of those trappings serve as sexual signals. A lot of the make-up that females tend to wear mimic physical expressions of ovulation and youth. Much of our clothing accentuates physical characteristics that signal fitness as a mating partner. As long as humans have a drive to continue our species, some of that will remain - it's in our interests to be sexually attractive to a potential sexual partner.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I agree

over time though, assuming the first part that I agreed with, would there even be such a thing as a female single-sex space?

Yes! SEX is a biological reality, and no matter how we alter the trappings of social expression and roles, males will still be more aggressive, and will still present a risk to females.

Deconstructing socially enforced ROLES and EXPRESSIONS doesn't actually change SEX.

To justify eliminating female single-sex spaces, you're going to need to figure out how to make males of the human species sexually non-aggressive. That's something very different from allowing males to wear dresses.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think it's pretty clear where you draw the line Rolfe, I'm just not sure that it will practically work. I think that if men dressing as women, and acting as women, is normalised you make it much, much harder to keep them out of changing rooms. It feels like you are pulling in two directions at once.

Why do you think this?

Do you believe that females who see a butch lesbian wearing trousers and steel0-toed boots with a buzz-cut are unable to recognize them as being female? Do you think that clothing style alters anatomy? Do you genuinely think that if a male puts on a dress and make-up... their adam's apple, facial hair, shoulder breadth, and carriage is magically transformed?

That's part of the objection that females have to this gender ideology: Changing how you dress, and even taking hormones, doesn't actually change your sex... and in the vast majority of cases WE CAN STILL TELL THAT A MALE IS A MALE.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In Germany and Scandinavia nude saunas are, I think, relatively common. I went to Bavaria and there was a mixed, nude, outdoor hot tub on the first floor of some kind of health club that I drove past each day. I kept getting stabbed in the eye by potbellied Bavarian men's penises and Bavarian women's breasts. Well, quite a lot of the men had breasts as well.

Yes, there are limited social situations in which mixed sex nudity is acceptable and commonplace. Nude beaches in France, for example. But even in Germany and Scandinavia, even in France, toilets and locker rooms and prisons are still single-sex.

Having some spaces that are defined as mixed sex, and which are entirely voluntary is a very different thing from forcing all spaces to be mixed sex without the agreement and consent of the participants. Giving females the option to go to a nude sauna with the full knowledge that there will be penises there as well is not the same as forcing all females to allow nude penises into their spaces whether they want them there or not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The existence of nudist areas is often cited as reason not to believe that modesty is instinctive, but I think it's a misinterpretation of the behavior. What I actually think is that display of genitals is programmed as a sexual signal. Possibly, simply the display of "something forbidden" is a sexual signal. Culture influences what is forbidden. Women, especially, are careful of the circumstances where they make such displays. Some people insist that nudists are unconcerned, free, not sexual, just enjoying nature, etc. I don't believe it. My experience with clothing optional areas in my youth was that they were very much a sexually charged atmosphere.

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of those mixed-sex nude spaces have extremely strict social taboos against sexual behavior in those spaces. There's a relatively normal and benign acceptability for responses to attractiveness - a female might find their nipples involuntarily erect when meeting an attractive male, and a male might partially tumesce as a physical response. But in those mixed-sex nude areas, a male with a fully erect penis would be asked to leave, and female who started fondling themself would as well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What I think is interesting is how close to the surface the reasoning actually is. To my mind it's the same as we saw with the conservative Muslim parents protesting about their kids being taught LGBT+ positive lessons by their gay activist teacher.

There is an anchoring assumption that there is an inclusive and tolerant utopia out there in which everybody is free to live as they want and respects everybody's culture and religion. How long has that idea driven progressive-liberal thought? 80 years? Longer? It's too politically useful an idea to give up even if it's been obviously false since the beginning.

Ultimately they have an idea of what the people in their utopia will be like, but if they straight out told Rolfe that women in the sense that she understands them won't really exist in the utopia, then Rolfe probably wouldn't be too happy with them. The same with the Muslim parents if it was straightforwardly stated that the idea was to convert their kids to liberal ideas and liberal expectations. So instead they pretend that if only everybody was considerate enough about everybody else's feelings the problem would go away and wait for a new generation to grow up educated to believe these things.

Bit of an aside... this is very similar to the fundamental problem I have always had with communism as an economic policy. It's a wonderful idea... but it relies entirely on humans ceasing to have human reactions and motivations. IF everyone in society cared just as much about every other person as they did about themselves and their loved ones, communism would work great. But that "IF" is a pipe-dream. We're evolutionarily programmed to care more about our own survival and the survival of our offspring and those of our "tribe" above the survival of "others". That's not going to change - if it did, it would lead to the extinction of our species.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I see McKinnon/Ivy has won another race designated for "elite women" while carrying the sort of lard that would see him panting in last in male company.

Yeah, I saw that. The willful blindness involved in it baffles me. McKinnon is an overweight, middle-aged, out of shape male... and is winning female competitions against young, incredibly fit females in prime conditioning.

And some people argue that this is "fair" because McKinnon is a "woman". It's so far beyond rational and sensible that I end up thinking it's some sort of game being played.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Increasing numbers of us in the UK feel politically homeless because of this issue. The Lib Dems and the Greens are appalling. The Tories – let's just say I'm not a natural Tory – have been the only party taking what amounts to a stand in biological reality; to the extent it's a cynical move doesn't concern me. You take what you can get.

Trans issues didn't show up on my radar until a few years ago. Like many who consider themselves liberal+progressive, and without any real skin in the game (outing myself as male), my first take was more #BeKind than not, e.g., try to use the right pronouns. I was never full on TWAW, but Trans Women Are Trans Women seemed fair enough.

I'm now completely Trans Women Are Men. TWAW is a foundational lie which makes all the other lies and nonsense possible, and the middle way doesn't help the cause either, as it still uses the W word where it doesn't belong. I do however dabble in a bit of cognitive dissonance myself: I'm unlikely to put my money where my mouth is in a social situation, except for chancers like Veronica Ivy or Riley Dennis, neither of whom I'm likely to meet anyway.

I sometimes wonder where I'd be on this issue if I hadn't moved to the UK from the US long before all this kicked off. I'm now grateful to live on TERF Island: at least we're getting this right, or trying. Speaking of which, something else to do a search on until my linking privileges kick in - "Mumsnet trending on twitter". Hilarious and horrific.

Watching events unfold in the UK and CA has been pivotal for me. I also started out with "be nice" as a general approach... and have really backed away from that. It's giving a mouse a cookie, it's the thin end of the wedge.

But yeah... right now there's a limit to what I can do. I cannot be out and proud, no matter how much I want to pick up a banner. Doing so would put my livelihood at risk, and as I'm the sole breadwinner in my household, as well as a member of a fairly small career field... that's a risk I can't take. And that's only considering it from the perspective of a loss of employment and economic stability. That's not even considering the risk of harassment and threats that I would likely face.

So anonymous is about as good as I can get right now. I work to spread the word to friends and acquaintances as much as I can. I try to bring up the most egregious and obviously harmful situations that I can without sticking a toe too far into the raging river. Sports and prisons seem to be the best starting point so far.

There are a huge number of people out there who simply do not know what's going on. Even on this site there are a lot of posters who don't know the extent of it... and some that aren't willing to look.

 

[shuttlt]

I think you're missing the objective here.

A male who dresses in a tutu would not be considered any less of a 'man' and would still be recognized (appropriately) as being just as male as the one in the lumberjack outfit.

Who says that is how it would work? All these years of feminism and 50 Shades of Grey was crazy successful. The things we find desirable in the opposite sex are rooted in things that predate the evolution of man. What on Earth makes you think that the world can be remade in this way? Obviously tutus are just a product of culture, but a world where masculinity and femininity doesn't have specific cultural representations is impossible.

Give it some thought. Do you, personally, think that a female that exclusively wears trousers and doesn't shave their armpits is 'less female' than one that wears dresses and lots of make-up?

Yes. Those are some of the physical manifestations of femininity in our culture. They could be different, but those are the ones in our culture. I would say that the connection of shaved armpits to cleanliness, grooming, purity and beauty is kind of bound up with something quite fundamental to the deep, primal concept of femininity.

Do you, personally, think that a male that enjoys sewing and caring for children is 'less male' than one that works in a law firm and hires a nanny?

Yes, obviously. If man and woman means anything at all it means things like this. There are masculine ways of looking after children, but they are different to feminine ones and the idea of protecting and providing for the family is clearly more central to masculinity. We aren't blank slates that can just be rewritten to fit some ideal of how the world should be. Men and women are different and are attracted to the things that are different about each other, and need the differences that the other provides to form a working whole.

The idea is to deconstruct the socially-enforced roles and expectations of presentation... while still retaining the fundamental reality of biological sex and sexual dimorphism.

Males will always be more aggressive on average than females, and will probably always be more prone to vocations involving physical strength, and will probably always have a higher propensity for physical competition than females. Females will always be more collaborative, and will probably always be more prone to vocations involving cognitive organization, and will probably always have a higher propensity for care-giving. Those are evolutionary adaptations of a highly dimorphic species.

But none of those evolutionary tendencies requires false eyelashes or high heels, or fingernail polish, or trousers, or neck ties. Those trappings are entirely social.

Yes, that's the same reality denying anti-human project the trans-activists are part of just not so far down the the rabbit hole. You can go along way to implementing it, obviously just like the trans-activists can get trans-women into women's changing rooms and women's sports, but it's still an ideological utopian mission to reject reality.

Some of those trappings serve as sexual signals. A lot of the make-up that females tend to wear mimic physical expressions of ovulation and youth. Much of our clothing accentuates physical characteristics that signal fitness as a mating partner. As long as humans have a drive to continue our species, some of that will remain - it's in our interests to be sexually attractive to a potential sexual partner.

Yes, sure... which is why men attempting to mimic ovulation isn't going to be greeted with the same reaction as when women do it. Clothing, makeup and all the various things that get attached conceptually to different genders are not an arbitrary assignment of random objects that can be disconnected from their association with a particular gender to fit some ideological mission.

 

[shuttlt]

Bit of an aside... this is very similar to the fundamental problem I have always had with communism as an economic policy. It's a wonderful idea... but it relies entirely on humans ceasing to have human reactions and motivations. IF everyone in society cared just as much about every other person as they did about themselves and their loved ones, communism would work great. But that "IF" is a pipe-dream. We're evolutionarily programmed to care more about our own survival and the survival of our offspring and those of our "tribe" above the survival of "others". That's not going to change - if it did, it would lead to the extinction of our species.

That is one of the reason lots of communists became fascists in the 20s and 30s. Fascism had many socialistic elements, but instead built on that basic structure of family, community, people that you can get some level of natural loyalty and sacrifice out of.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hmmm.....has anyone noticed we've never seen Julia Hartley Brewer and Rolfe in the same picture? Just saying.....


In all seriousness, I think Julia is right. I, personally, am willing to go along, for three years on the internet, sometimes accepting statements for the sake of argument, sometimes going along out of politeness, sometimes just exploring positions. However, in the end, no matter what words you use, there really is a fundamental difference between male and female, and that difference matters. I think Julia could have been more diplomatic in the exchange, but I can definitely understand her perspective, including, at the end, when she says "I think we should have very heated discussions about this."

In all honesty, I think diplomacy has run its course on this topic. "Be Kind" is not, and will never work.