Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[Emily's Cat]

Have you ever actually seen a medical definition of "man" and "woman"? Because I don't think you have. I don't think you've even seen a government definition that actually references such a medical definition.

I'll tack on that I don't think LJ has ever seen a definition of "valid lived experience" either. Certainly not from "medical experts" as he claims.

 

[LondonJohn]

For Zarquon's sake, that is possibly the dumbest question I've ever seen.

But, in case anyone is actually thick enough to not understand, I'll answer it anyway.

Let's use rugby as an example. Women are a lot more likely to get a broken neck in a scrum than a man, which is why there are men's and women's competitions. Putting men into a women's scrum is asking for serious harm at any level of the game.

Ah, so now you're talking about a subset of sports called "contact sports".

Obviously, in that subset, there will have to be appropriate safeguards. And obviously there will never be allowed to be a situation where the physical safety of girls/women is put at undue risk on account of disparities in physique/strength, etc. That's the case now, and it will be the case when/if transwomen or transgirls are part of women's sports.

Perhaps the original poster should have specified "contact sports" rather than "sports", eh?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is objectively not true, as sexual assault is a pretty serious crime resulting in custodial sentences, meanwhile misgendering trans people is something bigots can do with very little risk of formal consequence.

Sexual assault is a pretty serious crime that is dramatically unprosecuted, frequently dismissed and ignored, and often the victim isn't even believed.

So hey, let's introduce policies that *increase the risk of sexual assault* and *decrease the ability of victims to press charges*! What could go wrong?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You must have missed the part of that document which said, very clearly (my bolding/highlighting):


The UK government defines gender as:

a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth

where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender – where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman



And I'd say that, erm, most people would find it extremely easy to derive a definition of "woman" (in this specific context) from the above excerpt. But in case you cannot, I've done so for you already, a few days ago (do a search).

Thank you for admitting that you've been making this up all along, and that no government definition of "woman" or "man" exists in this context.

 

[theprestige]

Why are you making up "medical necessity" as your yardstick?

1. Because you keep alluding to medical authorities who apparently think this is a medical issue.

2. Because earthborn has explicitly stated that medical necessity is a criteria that they support.

And...

Were black civil rights predicated on what was a "medical necessity" and what was not? Or gay rights?

3. Because race and color are not medical issues. Sexual attraction is not (usually) a medical issue. (Too, Rachel Dolezal doesn't get to be black just because she says she's black.)

<personal attack snipped>

Please address the arugment, not the arguer.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What is the medical necessity for adding males to a female prison population, something we know will substantially increase the amount of sexual violence there, which we actually should be trying to decrease?

Because treating trans women as men is increasingly and correctly seen as a barbaric violation of their civil rights and human dignity. Generally speaking, the law usually frowns on such things, even if it makes things convenient in some ways.

Seems obvious to me there is a non-unlawful discriminatory way to advocate segregating known sexual offenders away from people that are likely victims of that sexual offender.

Instead of asking why a trans woman was placed in a woman's jail, as in the case of Karen White, we should be asking why a known sexual offender of women and girls was placed into close contact with other women. The same could be said of hypothetical cis-women sexual offenders, or men as well.

Absent from this conversation entirely is the huge amount of abuse, sexual and non-sexual, that comes from prison staff and not other inmates. It's a system that tolerates, if not encourages, violence as a means of punishment. It needs to be entirely reformed.

 

[Olmstead]

Do you support a desegregation of the prison system?

 

[LondonJohn]

Would you put cisgender men in a women's prison? If not, why not?

No.

But that's not the question. The question is: where should transgender women be imprisoned (or transgender men, for that matter)?

There are only two viable alternatives: men's prisons, or women's prisons.

If you believe that transwomen should be housed in men's prisons, well that's your call. But I think it's the wrong call. And I think that the authorities will agree that it's the wrong call.

Putting transwomen into women's prisons brings its own serious issues of course. But the answer to that is not to put transwomen into men's prisons. The answer is to put more measures in place to safeguard all the inmates in women's prisons - and governments need to be prepared to make the necessary expenditure to provide these appropriate levels of safeguards.

 

[theprestige]

Professional sports and public school sports have very different objectives.

School sports, at least in theory, are about educating the student population and should be as inclusive as possible. Elite sports are about pure competition.

The elite athlete is doing a job, student athletes are learning.

If there's an educational benefit to segregating male and female sports in school, then we should probably examine the educational benefit of allowing males and females to cross that line. We probably shouldn't pretend that examination isn't necessary, or has already taken place.

 

[theprestige]

This is objectively not true, as sexual assault is a pretty serious crime resulting in custodial sentences, meanwhile misgendering trans people is something bigots can do with very little risk of formal consequence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you of the opinion that there should be substantial risk of formal consequences for misgendering people?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Correct, having their human rights affirmed by society would probably do a lot to boost their sense of self worth and feelings.

Well, thanks for finally admitting that the feelings of transwomen are more important to you than the safety of women. Nice to have that nailed down.

And, ya know, all other things like it not being lawful to deny them public accommodation, arbitrarily fired, targeted for violence, and all the rest, but who's counting.

I 100% support putting protections for that into place.

None of that, however, suggests that prostate-havers should be entitled to have access to naked females just because they feel like it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for admitting that you've been making this up all along, and that no government definition of "woman" or "man" exists in this context.

Are you still playing these silly games?

Have at it. This thread has become a rather nasty cesspit of thinly-veiled anti-trans (and not-so-thinly veiled misandrist) sentiment. Straight out of the historic playbook of "Oh I've got nothing against those gay people, but...." and likewise. Time for another of my increasingly-frequent duckings out. Enjoy, y'all!


ETA: And by the way, it's abundantly clear from the two sections of that document which set out the UK Govt's definition of "sex" and of "gender" - since the "sex" section refers to "male" and "female", while the "gender" section refers to "man" and "woman" - that 1) The terms "male" and "female" relate to biological sex, while "man" and "woman" refer to gender; and 2) it is therefore indeed logically simple to derive how the UK Govt defines "woman". But, y'know.....

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Well, thanks for finally admitting that the feelings of transwomen are more important to you than the safety of women. Nice to have that nailed down.


I 100% support putting protections for that into place.

None of that, however, suggests that prostate-havers should be entitled to have access to naked females just because they feel like it.

Right, they must remain separate, but at least you'll grant them the courtesy of being equal.

No way that has, or ever could, go wrong.

Why didn't the gays just settle for "civil unions" and let the straights protect the sanctity of marriage?

 

[Sherkeu]

Nobody is denigrating YOU, nobody is even denigrating transgender people as a whole.

What we are doing is pointing out that the POLICY being pushed by the trans agenda puts FEMALES in danger and reduces our rights and safety because it has a GIANT GAPING LOOPHOLE.

Give me a solid proposal for closing that loophole, and we can start to make progress.

This needs a sticky Emily...or maybe just cut and paste these seemingly simple yet chronically unanswered questions over and over...save some typing.

No one can answer it without defining in some way how females are to discern the difference.

It just cannot be done. To make some dividing line or restriction would make transwomen separate from the group of females, and that is inherently transphobic and unaffirming to their internal identity even though they should at that point understand that others may abuse this new highway into otherwise illegal behavior. The same group of persons they claim are a danger to THEM!


Then people get offended at the notion that all males are dangerous to women which no one claimed AT ALL. There's some whataboutism of "dangerous women too!!" which is not a top concern of women and probably somewhere lower on the list than a Pekingese dog.
But if you want some protections in policy Emily then than you are clearly a transphobic bigot. And maybe a murderer too...the transwomen need that space to be safe from the men who are dangerous to them.
But you know, not the males we were speaking of before.

 

[theprestige]

You must have missed the part of that document which said, very clearly (my bolding/highlighting):

No.

I've read and re-read that part of the document many times, to see if there's something I'm missing or forgetting.


The UK government defines gender as:

a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth

where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender – where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman
[/quote]
None of that is a quote of the UK government definition. It's a claim about what that definition is. Nowhere in the paper is there any citation or reference to the actual UK government's actual definition.

And I'd say that, erm, most people would find it extremely easy to derive a definition of "woman" (in this specific context) from the above excerpt. But in case you cannot, I've done so for you already, a few days ago (do a search).

If you recall, I actually did derive your definition from that passage. It was the same as the definition you subsequently provided. We tried discussing the implications of your definition, but you put the kibosh on that immediately.

Meanwhile, it still doesn't solve the problem that there's still no clear government or medical support for your definition. You keep saying there is, but you also keep refusing to support that claim with an actual cite. The ONS usage of the UK government's alleged definitions of sex and gender is as close as you've gotten.

 

[lionking]

Exactly. (And I still can't begin to figure out how "physical safety" wove its way into this particular issue....)

Really? You know nothing about contact sports?

And school sports cannot be dismissed. Professionals usually become professionals by excelling in school sports. Allowing male bodied, self-id athletes to compete against females will ultimately destroy women’s sports.

It’s no wonder TRAs in this thread, and generally, try to avoid this issue like the plague.

 

[Louden Wilde]

That you equate restroom access with access to reproductive healthcare shows a profound lack of appreciation for the difference between "sex based rights" and rights based on medical need. I am very much in favour of the latter.

I did not equate restroom access to reproductive healthcare, and I suspect you knew that. Rather, it is the biology of females (which is intrinsically tied to reproduction) that has led to them to want/need safe female only spaces.

The needs of the many do not always outweigh the needs of the few. Sometimes both need to be accomodated, and trying to pit them against eachother through segregationist policies is wrong.

The TRAs have done a nice job of that (pitting groups against each other). To be clear, are you saying that you are against sex (female)-based rights (including representation, sports, spaces, etc.) of any kind? Meaning, you think TW should have access/eligibility to anything that is now based on being female?

 

[LondonJohn]

Right, they must remain separate, but at least you'll grant them the courtesy of being equal.

No way that has, or ever could, go wrong.

Why didn't the gays just settle for "civil unions" and let the straights protect the sanctity of marriage?

This inflammatory nonsense of "If you care about transgender rights and protections, you must therefore by definition care more about that than you care about the rights/safety of ciswomen". It seems to be a well-rehearsed mantra among the anti-trans-rights set. I guess they think it's both true and compelling...

 

[theprestige]

What am I "making up"? Have you read DSM5?

Where in the DSM5 is "woman" defined?

Do you know the UK Govt's definitions of sex and gender, as they pertain to transidentity?

Do you? You know what the ONS claims those definitions are. Where has the UK Government actually recorded those definitions? The ONS doesn't cite any sources. For all we know, their reference may be outdated. For all we know, different branches of the government have different definitions. Where is your primary source?

Or are you accusing me of either a) falsifying official documents, or b) misrepresenting official documents?

I'm definitely accusing you of misrepresenting that ONS webpage.

We're really going deep down the rabbit hole now.

It's not a deep hole. You could fill it in with a single shovelful of medical citations.

<more personal attacks snipped>

Please address the argument, not the arguer.

 

[Boudicca90]

Funny that civil rights don't work on your schedule.

Ready or not, trans acceptance is coming. It's already the law of the land in Canada, and TERF stronghold UK won't hold forever. Even the US is making slow but steady progress.

We, as a society, are going to have to figure out how to keep people safe from sexual violence, and that includes a seat at the table for trans people. Excluding them may be the preferred option for many, but luckily most civilized countries do not leave civil rights for the minority at the whim of the majority.

One of these days, sooner a later, a gavel is going to clap down and trans-exclusion will be made illegal. You should probably be prepared for that, because it's practically inevitable.

Yep, that's why ultimately I don't really care if I'm successful in convincing some bigots on a forum to support our rights, because change is coming regardless. It will still take a while depending on the country, but the tides are already turning and future generations won't be as regressive.