Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[JoeMorgue]

I've never really understood what living as a particular gender even means in a society in which gender based discrimination is illegal.

I asked this question so long ago, so many times, and gave up.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't see how it does that. How is it "dangerous" to afford healthcare to a prisoner on death row?

What you're doing here is intimating that bad people don't deserve legal protection. That's a very common and very toxic attitude. And it's always been the ACLU's task to combat it.

Elective cosmetic surgery isn't healthcare.

 

[Darat]

I mean, I got married without a court order or medical exam and I don't consider that "flippant".

Filing paperwork with the state is a non-trivial process.

In the UK there is official paperwork and declarations before you can marry (varies between the nations). There are many other areas of our "private life" that we ask the state to be involved in so I don't think there is anything wrong in principle on having procedures in place if you want to change your gender.

 

[Matthew Best]

I must have missed that citation.

I guess so.

“The Defendant stated that causing deliberate pain and fear would increase the flow of female bodily fluids which he needed for himself. The puncturing of Karen Slattery’s lung caused her to literally drown in her own blood."


https://thecoastalstar.com/profiles/blogs/should-mental-illness-spare-owen-from-execution

 

[Darat]

I'm not entirely sure where Samson got any of that, considering none of it appears in the article linked about a teacher getting fired for repeatedly and stubbornly misgendering a trans student, which has nothing to do with medical transition. The phrase "Chest binders" or "breast removal" appears 0 times. If I dismissed Samson's points out of hand, it was only because they seem to be entirely an ass-pull with no connection to reality.

14 year olds regularly consent to serious medical procedures. With proper guidance by a doctor, it's ridiculous to pretend it's impossible for an adolescent to take control of their own health.

The teacher went well beyond misgendering the student, they wouldn't use their name, they sought them out to explain to them their (the teacher's) religious beliefs, they lectured them against homosexuality and abortion and so on. I am astonished that they remained a teacher so long i.e. managed to qualify as a teacher.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It means they are advocating for a legal policy that permits them to be legally treated as women without diagnosis.

I've highlighted some important words.

You're sooooo close.

Go on then... what does that entail in actual policy and society?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I guess so.

“The Defendant stated that causing deliberate pain and fear would increase the flow of female bodily fluids which he needed for himself. The puncturing of Karen Slattery’s lung caused her to literally drown in her own blood."


https://thecoastalstar.com/profiles/blogs/should-mental-illness-spare-owen-from-execution

Sounds a lot like the oft quoted crap from "Fear and loathing in Las Vegas" about Adrenochrome which the Q nuts have adopted whole cloth as truth. Not sure where else someone would get the notion of having to harvest hormones from a living person.

 

[Darat]

Are any of these topics oven obliquely referenced in the article about the NZ teacher getting fired? No. Ass-pulls it is then.



Nothing in the articles you cited suggests that gender affirmation treatment increased mental health issues or indicated "regret".

Are you actually reading any of these things, or just wishcasting your own conclusions from them?

And from the article we know this wasn't some militant-in-yer-face-I-want-a confrontation kid. They were willing to ignore the misgendering and just asked the teacher to use their name.

Imagine a teacher not willing to use a kid's name!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok, you're opposed to the aims of unnamed parties in advocating for self-id laws (which has little to do with what might actually be passed).

How is that illustrated by the ACLU's complaint that Owen was not afforded necessary healthcare?

Just so you know where the actual state of things is...

Biden's administration has come out on multiple occasions in support of extending Title IX to treat "gender identity" as a replacement for sex, thereby requiring that schools receiving federal funding MUST treat transgender identified males as if they are indistinguishable from females.

That position on the extension of Title IX does not require any legal change of sex whatsoever. It is on the basis of self-proclaimed gender identity alone.

In addition, several states (WA, CA, OR, NV for a few) have already passed laws that allow any person to legally change their sex markers without any medical diagnosis, and with no requirement to demonstrate that their identification as the opposite sex is genuine.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. I think it's in your imagination that the ACLU's tweet in any way shape or form illustrates the dangers of unnamed parties aiming for hyper-permissive self-id.

This is just silly. ACLU has made multiple statements expressing their support and advocacy for completely unfettered self-id.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And from the article we know this wasn't some militant-in-yer-face-I-want-a confrontation kid. They were willing to ignore the misgendering and just asked the teacher to use their name.

Imagine a teacher not willing to use a kid's name!

That's why I scoffed at the notion that there is some generally accepted, baseline respect for trans people.

There's a significant and vocal minority that will make a point out of taking a maximalist denialist position at every opportunity, even when everyone else is more than meeting them halfway.

 

[Emily's Cat]

what is the danger, exactly?

The danger is that males with malicious intent can make a declaration out loud, and say they are "women". And by having done so, they are given the special privilege of ignoring sex-separated spaces, and the privilege by right to override the boundaries of females. It legalizes voyeurism and exhibitionism... as long as the male says some magic words first. It gives males unfettered access to females who are in vulnerable positions and it protects those males against any complaints made by the females in those positions.

It turns females who object to peeping toms and flashers into the criminals, and makes the peeping toms and flashers the "victims" of bigotry from females who don't want to be forced to see their dicks.

But of course, it's only a danger to females. That doesn't really count for much it seems.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Their most vulnerable outside prison would be in any relationship. That is by far where women remain horribly vulnerable, we've only just started to recognise such abuse as coercive control. Anyone concerned about women being victims of abuse, rape and murder should be looking as to what can be done to reduce the risk in everyday life.

That of course does not mean we should look to increase risk in less vulnerable situations.

Females are just going to get abused and raped anyway. Let's go ahead and remove all potential obstacles to abuse or rape.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because this is the first time (in this sort of thing in this sort of context) where the disagreement is this... definitional. (Sorry hard to put into words.)

There wasn't AS MUCH (yes there was some, nobody @ me) debate about what women were during Suffrage or what black people were doing Civil Rights or what gay people were during the Gay Rights movement.

This is the first time where AS MUCH of the argument has been on the level of "respect means agreeing with me about a definitional thing."

That leaves less room for a middle ground. Not no room, but less.

Mainly "I disagree with what you are saying but still respect you" has been nearly fully taken off the table.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The danger is that males with malicious intent can make a declaration out loud, and say they are "women". And by having done so, they are given the special privilege of ignoring sex-separated spaces, and the privilege by right to override the boundaries of females. It legalizes voyeurism and exhibitionism... as long as the male says some magic words first. It gives males unfettered access to females who are in vulnerable positions and it protects those males against any complaints made by the females in those positions.

It turns females who object to peeping toms and flashers into the criminals, and makes the peeping toms and flashers the "victims" of bigotry from females who don't want to be forced to see their dicks.

But of course, it's only a danger to females. That doesn't really count for much it seems.

It's always a bummer when there's a male flasher in the locker rooms furiously masturbating and there's nothing I can do about it because it's totally legal to be a voyeur so long as it's the right bathroom. /s

 

[Emily's Cat]

There is no distinction between sex and gender in the eyes of the law.

That's the problem!

There's no distinction because up until about five minutes ago, the term "gender" was synonymous with sex. Now it's been hijacked and provided a different meaning altogether... and people are pretending like the new meaning is what was always meant.

Don't fall for the sophistry.

 

[theprestige]

How is that illustrated by the ACLU's complaint that Owen was not afforded necessary healthcare?

As far as I can tell, ACLU is begging the question that the healthcare they're concerned with was actually necessary in Owen's case. Was he diagnosed with a condition that is ostensibly treatable with that kind of care? Was that kind of care ever prescribed for him?

 

[Trausti]

As far as I can tell, ACLU is begging the question that the healthcare they're concerned with was actually necessary in Owen's case. Was he diagnosed with a condition that is ostensibly treatable with that kind of care? Was that kind of care ever prescribed for him?

The whole point of incarceration is to deny liberty. Being able to indulge in "gender affirming care" is something that free people get to do.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm saying, not suggesting, that the legal definition of sex is gender.

Sure, sure. And that's totally why it was a dumb waste of time for females to fight to get the right to vote. They could have just told everyone that they identify as "men", and they would get to vote. Wham bam, thank you Mr.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As far as I can tell, ACLU is begging the question that the healthcare they're concerned with was actually necessary in Owen's case. Was he diagnosed with a condition that is ostensibly treatable with that kind of care? Was that kind of care ever prescribed for him?

The ACLU's position seems pretty clear and really not that controversial. Most of the reporting seems to be focused on outrage over the idea that such an unpleasant and monstrous murderer might be receiving any consideration at all, but that's hardly new for a legal advocacy organization that takes up issues regarding the conditions of incarceration for convicted criminals.

From a purely legal practice point of view, the fact that Owens is requesting this treatment is probably all they need to know. It's not really their place to make judgements, but simply advocate a position. Showing that Owens is not actually suffering from gender dysphoria or otherwise not entitled to this care is for the opposite party of an adversarial process to demonstrate.

I'm finding very scant information about any litigation or other process concerning this specific request for gender affirming treatment. Most of the reporting I'm finding is just expressing outrage that a convicted murderer merits any concern at all, which doesn't address the root of the issue one bit.