Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[The Atheist]

You missed the entire point* of my post. Mate.

Classic!

The old "I meant something completely different to the words I carefully chose to write" routine.

Seems legit. Have you thought about applying for a Tui ad?

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/32699420/Tui

 

[lionking]

Can’t see how anyone can validate Izzard’s gender identity as he changes it literally every time he changes his underwear.

 

[Nick Terry]

At this stage, I can only conclude that this is a brilliant exercise in performance art.

/sarcasm, yes?

 

[Cain]

There is of course another type of 'trans' today, and that is people (mainly adolescents) who probably don't have gender dysphoria or a fetish, but identify as trans because they are gender non-conforming or reject sex stereotypes, and the prevailing ideology redefines 'not identifying as the gender assigned to you' as being trans.

A common "theory" among young people for why their peers (mostly biological females) identify this way is because they're sexually less desirable. It's probably better to be picked on for being gender-questioning than being ugly.

 

[shuttlt]

A common "theory" among young people for why their peers (mostly biological females) identify this way is because they're sexually less desirable. It's probably better to be picked on for being gender-questioning than being ugly.

All I can say is that that is not my experience based on my kids school. Self IDing as trans or non-binary gets you status amongst the girls. A bunch of girls do it who are certainly not troubled by getting attention. You then maybe have one or two gender non-conforming girls who would have had a hard time regardless of what label you put on them. They tend not to be the ones lecturing people about pronouns on class WhatsApp groups, perhaps because their status remains low. It strikes me as somewhat analogous to stolen valour.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

There is of course another type of 'trans' today, and that is people (mainly adolescents) who probably don't have gender dysphoria or a fetish, but identify as trans because they are gender non-conforming or reject sex stereotypes, and the prevailing ideology redefines 'not identifying as the gender assigned to you' as being trans. Although activists often deny that gender non-conformity is being redefined as trans, if GD is not needed to be trans, or if GD is just attributed to 'minority stress', then logically the only difference between a gender-non-conforming who identifies as trans and one who does not is their philosophical or ideological interpretation of what gender non-conformity means.

I'm going to disagree with you, but only from my own anecdotal evidence - the "alphabetisation" of LGBTQA+ gives kids a lot of different labels to use and try out and to "identify" with, T is not unique in that mess of letters. The "Q" is getting a hell of a lot of claimants because it lets them "be" something without it being really defined what that is. Similarly "A" can chosen by some kids who probably want to shy away from or are scared of their burgeoning sexuality. I think "trans" is likely to be less interesting to many adolescents because of the implications around sex.

 

[Nick Terry]

A succinct rebuttal to an evidently common mischaracterisation of the gender critical position
https://www.ebswa.org/post/a-reply-to-eric-banks-mischaracterisation-of-the-gender-critical-position

Why is it a problem to conflate the transgression of gender norms (and/or the idea of a sexed soul) with literally being the opposite sex, rendering sex irrelevant and inconsequential? Why is it a problem reorganizing law, social policy and life around this understanding? Simplistically this conflation is the aim of queer theory, the driver of “gender identity” ideology. The problem with the ideology, liberatory though it sounds, is that it ends up tying the sexes to gender stereotypes and is therefore sexist. We’ve all heard evidence of children being told that because they don't like/conform to the toys; clothes; hair styles; activities and behaviours associated with their “gender" that they might in fact be the opposite sex. The implication for a girl is - if you don't conform to femininity, you're not a girl, ergo girl = femininity. This increases and enhances the gendered expectations applied to the sexes! Is it any wonder that girls especially are seeking to “escape” their sex through transition?

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think that's an attempt to quote a trans-activist, I think it's an account of the reality of what the children are being told.

 

[Rolfe]

Whatever words are used, the reality is that children are being told that if they display gendered behaviour that doesn't match that expected for their sex, they are actually the opposite sex.

 

[theprestige]

I'm going to disagree with you, but only from my own anecdotal evidence - the "alphabetisation" of LGBTQA+ gives kids a lot of different labels to use and try out and to "identify" with, T is not unique in that mess of letters.

One way that the T is unique in that mess of letters is in the demands trans places on others to validate and enable the self-identification.

You don't have to know or care about whether someone is gay. If they think they're gay, that's their business. If they can't get it up with a same-sex partner, that information properly stays between the two of them.

But trans identity only works if you see it, acknowledge it, and play along with it. And that's exactly what we see in public policy. Homosexual rights boil down to just leaving people alone to do as they please, with consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But transgender rights entail all sorts of mandatory compromises of fairness and safety, that the rest of us must submit to or be deemed "transphobic".

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm bringing back one of my old favorites... the concept of a double blind, or at least something close to it if not a technically correct double blind.

You tell me that you were an X but now identify as a Y and, the right (moral, social, legal, whatever, version of right you want to use) thing to do is to now treat you like a Y.

What would an outside observer see me doing differently if they had were no aware of what difference you had imposed on me?

(Purely semantic distinctions like pronouns do no count.)

 

[Aber]

I don't know where theprestige lives, but in the UK, the actual wording of the Equality Act of 2010 recognises sex-segregated spaces, especially those for women, as a right - they are exempted from other provisions in the EA regarding discrimination. By extension, those who are not legally considered women (at this time, Gender Recognition Certificates turned a few thousand men into women, legally, as a fiction) are not entitled to enter, i.e. they have no right to enter.

It's not clear that a GRC over-rides single sex space rules. eg

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-provisions-equality-act

 

[theprestige]

I'm bringing back one of my old favorites... the concept of a double blind, or at least something close to it if not a technically correct double blind.

You tell me that you were an X but now identify as a Y and, the right (moral, social, legal, whatever, version of right you want to use) thing to do is to now treat you like a Y.

What would an outside observer see me doing differently if they had were no aware of what difference you had imposed on me?

(Purely semantic distinctions like pronouns do no count.)

They'd see you granting access to sex-segregated spaces, contrary to the established conventions of sex exclusion.

 

[theprestige]

I don't know where theprestige lives

I live in the US. When I say that there is no right to access sex-segregated spaces on the strength of fiat self-ID, I am indeed implying the concept of natural rights.

But I am not introducing the concept of natural rights for debate about whether they exist or how they might be applied here. I'm stating an axiom of my belief system. It's a premise from which I will argue against certain policy proposals and legislative acts.

If someone wants to debate whether the premise is valid, they're welcome to start a thread for that philosophical discussion. Which I will probably ignore. If they want to debate it in this thread, I will certainly ignore it.

However, if they believe such a right exists, whether axiomatically or by derivation from first principles, and they wish to argue for a specific implementation that they believe is humane and ethical, that would interest me very much.

 

[Darat]

Please then explain the dick pic phenomenon - is this rooted in an innate biological urge of men now expressed through smartphones because of advances in technology, or something that is unrestrained because of a lack of socialisation or lack of consequences?

Before smartphones and the internet, teenage boys and adult men weren't as far as I'm aware using Polaroid cameras to photograph their penises to send the photos to girls and women, or apparently engaging in flashing and exhibitionism on the scale reported by girls and women who have been exposed to dick pics.

Just to calibrate what you mean by saying you're not a social constructivist.

They were, but of course the technology drastically limited the practice, but the behaviour was there and expressed. It was there as soon as photography started, one of the reasons why photography for quite some time had a sniff of "immorality" about it.

 

[Nick Terry]

It's not clear that a GRC over-rides single sex space rules. eg

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-provisions-equality-act

It arguably doesn't, but only a few thousand ever took up GRCs, and this reflects a smaller number of trans-identified individuals circa 18-20 years ago, who therefore weren't causing great stirs when entering the 'wrong' bathrooms. Rolfe has described the old live-and-let-live, turn-a-blind-eye approach in women's toilets from back then a few times now.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A lot of this (from many different points of view in this discussion) is (somewhat) understandable if you take a step back and remember we are in a world where expectations of privacy are... well let us be charitable and just say "changing at a rapid pace."

I am trying to make allowances for the fact that I my pyschosexual formative years were not in a world where literally every human within a rounding error was carrying around a high quality camera/camcorder and the ability to share images with... everyone in the world basically with minimal effort.

 

[Darat]

It's not clear that a GRC over-rides single sex space rules. eg

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-provisions-equality-act

This is when definitions have to be very clear. In the equality act trans women are not necessarily people who have used a GRC to change their official "sex", the act talks about "gender reassignment" which is viewed as a personal choice not a medical process.

I'd be interested to know if we have any case law dealing with a trans person who has got a GRC and been denied access to a sex segregated space matching their official documentation. I.e. a trans woman with a birth certificate which shows them as female being denied access to a sex segregated changing room for females.

 

[Nick Terry]

They were, but of course the technology drastically limited the practice, but the behaviour was there and expressed. It was there as soon as photography started, one of the reasons why photography for quite some time had a sniff of "immorality" about it.

Flashing has been a not uncommon behaviour for generations - I take your point that some boys would have extended that to Polaroids and indeed ordinary cameras before that. Presumably there were suburban dads who got their dick pics developed in labs or did it themselves if the labs had stricter policies, from as far back as mass cameras were available, alongside the amateur pornographers taking pics for 'readers' wives' columns in adult mags and so forth.

But this wasn't a mass phenomenon. The practice grew exponentially after smartphones came along. I assume it's also a practice in gay culture, but when it's boys and men sending pics to girls and women, the impact and intention is rather different, since it seems unlikely that a quarter or more of a cohort (going by polls and surveys suggesting large numbers have done this) think this is an effective heterosexual courtship technique.

A similar contrast can be made between the analogue world of writing letters to newspapers or organisations, and the digital world of posting anonymous comments or sending DMs and PMs, with a remarkable upsurge in death threats aimed at anyone, but especially at women online, and threats of rape aimed at women. Online misogyny and other forms of violent rhetoric delivered through back channels have been normalised.

 

[shuttlt]

But I am not introducing the concept of natural rights for debate about whether they exist or how they might be applied here. I'm stating an axiom of my belief system. It's a premise from which I will argue against certain policy proposals and legislative acts.

I agree that this is how it is in practice. They are claiming a different set of natural rights. Arguing about whether or not sex pests and so forth are going to abuse that right is irrelevant. That is why that argument never, ever goes anywhere.

In many ways you are saying about natural rights being axioms is the same as an idea in counter enlightenment and dissident right wing circles, that you need to hold your core beliefs outside of rational questioning. Religion, Natural Rights... whatever it may be. The foundation can't be questioned otherwise the whole thing falls down.