Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Meadmaker]

Continued from here. As is usual the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to address points from the previous thread(s).

Posted By: Agatha

Yes, the "Trans boogieman" of the gaps argument once again.

Sounds to me like the admin didn't really know the facts of the incident very well. This doesn't reflect well on their concern for a sex crime happening under their supervision, but I'm not sure what other facts I'm supposed to glean from this.

Let me try it like this.

Other than those times when he was having a rendezvous with his sex partner, which bathroom did he use?


Do you have any evidence to support your answer?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Let me try it like this.

Other than those times when he was having a rendezvous with his sex partner, which bathroom did he use?


Do you have any evidence to support your answer?

I have no idea. I see no reason to assume someone who identified as a boy was using the women's restroom.

Your comment is an excellent illustration of the boogieman of the gaps approach to this.

Sure, just about everything said by this uninformed, braying mob about this case was wrong, but maybe, just maybe, they were right about this one thing we don't know.

 

[d4m10n]

I see no reason to assume someone who identified as a boy was using the women's restroom.

I'm guessing you've not yet seen him.

 

[Lithrael]

Yeah that’s a Look but not exactly a trans slam dunk. I had friends that identified as hot guys who didn’t follow no rules that had similar looks even way back in the 90’s.

ETA also (with apologies to any exceptions) no actual female-identifying person has ever worn a choker that said ‘kitten’ on it unironically without financial incentives.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yeah that’s a Look but not exactly a trans slam dunk. I had friends that identified as hot guys who didn’t follow no rules that had similar looks even way back in the 90’s.

ETA also (with apologies to any exceptions) no actual female-identifying person has ever worn a choker that said ‘kitten’ on it unironically without financial incentives.

I think what's obvious is that it's a deliberately feminine gender expression. I can think of a few reasons someone might do that.

1. Pretending to be trans
2. Actually trans
3. Trolling the transphobes.

Any of those are also compatible with using a girls' bathroom, and we have no data to use to be certain whether or not he was doing that. I have expressed why I inferred that he was doing that, but I readily admit it is an inference based on incomplete, and possibly inaccurate, data. It is not confirmed. Perhaps we will learn more if a civil suit goes to trial.

4. This kid is one seriously messed up in the head kid, and doesn't really know what his own motive is. That is compatible with lots of different behaviors, and with the psychological profile summary described by the judge at the sentencing hearing.

 

[Lithrael]

Yeah from the reporting he seems like a real little thinks-he’s-cute bastard. Ingested all the worst of the ‘it’s ok/hilarious to surprise your partners with new sexual acts they didn’t consent to’ stuff that that type of young thinks-he’s-cute bastards talk each other up about. Back in the day I could blame Porky’s or Bill Murray in Caddyshack but I no longer have my finger on the pulse of where they get it from these days.

 

[d4m10n]

I think what's obvious is that it's a deliberately feminine gender expression.

Precisely; it's the sort of outfit one might expect to see in the girls' room.

I can think of a few reasons someone might do that.

1. Pretending to be trans
2. Actually trans
3. Trolling the transphobes.

The individual in question could be gender nonconforming for other reasons, e.g. edgelording IRL, queering gender for the sake of undermining the binary, attracting attention, etc. Any of those reasons are also compatible with using the ladies facilities, though.

Perhaps we will learn more if a civil suit goes to trial.

Indeed. Anyone care to wager on which bathrooms this person was using on the regular?

Back in the day I could blame Porky’s or Bill Murray in Caddyshack but I no longer have my finger on the pulse of where they get it from these days.

I've heard the www has some explicit streaming content on it somewhere.

 

[theprestige]

Honestly I think ST has a point. This guy is clearly some kind of public policy problem. But I don't think it's quite a trans-inclusion problem. I get the "how do we prevent scumbag predators from putting on a dress and walking into a women's restroom" angle, but the longer this particular discussion goes on, the more I think it's a red herring. It adulterates the valid points being made, and does more harm than good to that side of the debate.

 

[d4m10n]

Came across an interesting pair of essays today.

1) Doing better in arguments about sex, gender, and trans rights

2) You Keep Using This Phrase, "Adult Human Females"

The second one is a rejoinder to the first one, and answers some of the questions posed by gender critical feminists to intersectional feminists. Both of them pose several interesting questions, several of which are likely worth discussing here.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hmmm.... I seem to remember that I too drew attention to that strange (and very obviously taught/learned and institutionalised among a certain rather militant constituency) "adult human females" mantra.

Still, I continue to enjoy the spectacle of progressive, well-informed legislatures and public bodies - all of which have the inconvenient truth of containing a pretty representative proportion of females - enacting laws and policies which give proper, proportionate rights and protections to transgender people (including, yes, transmen/transboys) in a careful and watchful manner. Excellent stuff.

Meanwhile, the toxic anti-debate continues apace in these threads

 

[d4m10n]

Hmmm.... I seem to remember that I too drew attention to that strange (and very obviously taught/learned and institutionalised among a certain rather militant constituency) "adult human females" mantra.

I seem to remember you coming up with a fairly unworkable alternative definition in lieu of the one generally seen in dictionaries of common usage. No shame in that, it's a rather sticky wicket to reconceptualize the meaning of a term which dates back to Old English.

 

[Meadmaker]

The Websterian faction can indeed be rather stubborn.

 

[lionking]

Hmmm.... I seem to remember that I too drew attention to that strange (and very obviously taught/learned and institutionalised among a certain rather militant constituency) "adult human females" mantra.

Still, I continue to enjoy the spectacle of progressive, well-informed legislatures and public bodies - all of which have the inconvenient truth of containing a pretty representative proportion of females - enacting laws and policies which give proper, proportionate rights and protections to transgender people (including, yes, transmen/transboys) in a careful and watchful manner. Excellent stuff.

Meanwhile, the toxic anti-debate continues apace in these threads

Know what? I’m sick of you granting god-like status to governments whose only motive is re-election and who will pander to any minority to pick up a few more votes.

 

[Meadmaker]

Came across an interesting pair of essays today.

1) Doing better in arguments about sex, gender, and trans rights

2) You Keep Using This Phrase, "Adult Human Females"

The second one is a rejoinder to the first one, and answers some of the questions posed by gender critical feminists to intersectional feminists. Both of them pose several interesting questions, several of which are likely worth discussing here.

I confess I only skimmed both essays, but I read enough to recognize a familiar pattern in the second one. The basic pattern is to criticize both the original argument, and the people who made it, but provide nothing of substance in substitute. They say of course the original is wrong, and they would know that if they weren't so stupid and/or bigoted, but the rejoinder never presents anything about what they actually believe, beyond raw assertion.

In particular I was reading her comments about "gender", and saying that isn't what makes her a woman, and insulting the phrase "gender identity" as if it were some sort of artificial construct from the other side.

But that's how it goes. There are constant attempts to get to a common understanding, and constant assertions, usually expressed in a manner dripping with condescension despite the lack of substance. Men can have babies, and if you disagree, or even if just want to clarify what is meant by the assertion, you are an idiot, a bigot, or both.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm guessing you've not yet seen him.

Yes, you're making the same wild leap of speculation the mob did. Congrats.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Honestly I think ST has a point. This guy is clearly some kind of public policy problem. But I don't think it's quite a trans-inclusion problem. I get the "how do we prevent scumbag predators from putting on a dress and walking into a women's restroom" angle, but the longer this particular discussion goes on, the more I think it's a red herring. It adulterates the valid points being made, and does more harm than good to that side of the debate.

The point is made earlier is that this red herring really does the community a disservice.

How does someone who has recently been credibly accused of a serious sex offense commit a similar crime again? It's good that the school district separated the boy from his victim, but clearly something went amiss that he was unsupervised and was able to victimize someone else. What protocols are in place, are they adequate, and were they followed?

All very good questions that probably should have been explored if the mob wasn't too busy on an anti-trans wild goose chase.

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, you're making the same wild leap of speculation the mob did.

The mob also referenced the trans umbrella comic to see whether gender nonconformity should be included? Well, then, hats off to the mob for checking what trans rights activists actually believe so as to avoid leaping to any unwarranted conclusions.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Came across an interesting pair of essays today.

1) Doing better in arguments about sex, gender, and trans rights

2) You Keep Using This Phrase, "Adult Human Females"

The second one is a rejoinder to the first one, and answers some of the questions posed by gender critical feminists to intersectional feminists. Both of them pose several interesting questions, several of which are likely worth discussing here.

That second essay is awful. Choice quotes:

I accept part of the description you offer, with the caveat that I do not think that “sex” is a natural category that pre-exists patriarchy but one that is imposed upon people through patriarchy.

For me, this statement alone disqualifies the essay as worthy of serious discussion except as to whether the author (and many of these TRAs) is that deluded or just disingenuous.


The phrase “trans women are women” is not really a claim about how someone “identifies” at all; it is a claim about how trans women are treated...
This is complete nonsense. If TW were treated like women, there'd be no need for the phrase. Moreover, (I realize I've repeated this ad nauseum), TW will never be broadly treated like actual women for the obvious reason that they do not have female anatomy/can never fulfill that reproductive role.

The quote above also contradicts the claims by many TRAs that being trans is based on self-ID. Indeed the author does that as well later in the essay:
by asking: Do you consider trans women authorities on our own experiences of socialization and identification?

What's curious there (apart from the obvious that being female is not an identity) is that the author (& many TRAs) are pretty keen to deny actual girls/women the right to call themselves what they want.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Yes, you're making the same wild leap of speculation the mob did. Congrats.

We should just rename the Scotsman fallacy "no true transwoman"

 

[Louden Wilde]

Came across an interesting pair of essays today.

1) Doing better in arguments about sex, gender, and trans rights

2) You Keep Using This Phrase, "Adult Human Females"

The second one is a rejoinder to the first one, and answers some of the questions posed by gender critical feminists to intersectional feminists. Both of them pose several interesting questions, several of which are likely worth discussing here.

I should have added that essay 1 is well done and well worth reading by lurkers/those who have not spent much time thinking about the issue or wondering what about trans activism has upset a good number of women enough to speak up.