View Single Post
Old 05-10-2019, 09:06 AM
senoy is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
It's hard to quote just a single 3-paragraph segment from this tour de force response by ZinniaJones to this particular argument, but if I had to choose, I think I'd go with this one:
There’s another element of dissimilarity that’s especially striking to me. Trans people have reached what might be called a “critical mass” of awareness. Our visible presence has reached a point where emerging trans people have the means to recognize themselves in us, helping each of them to develop a better understanding of their gender and what’s best for them in their life. I’ve received hundreds of messages from viewers who’ve said that my work led them to realize that they’re trans, but this has been occurring for decades – after Christine Jorgensen publicly transitioned in 1952, hospitals received thousands of requests from trans people who also wanted to transition (Meyerowitz, 2002).

Yet in the wake of Rachel Dolezal’s real-life example, we see nothing of the sort. There aren’t thousands of people emerging to say that her life reflects their own experiences, or that they feel more affirmed in themselves now as a result of her visibility. She is not an instance of a latent yet widespread phenomenon that’s now rising to public awareness – she is one individual, with a particular set of personal issues, who has made a very unique series of poor choices in her life.
Bolding mine. It's a toss-up between this and the bit at the start where she rakes you over the coals for even making such an absurd comparison to begin with. Rachel Dolezal is not comparable to LGBT people. And grounding the discussion in terms of flighty notions about "what is race" or "what is gender" misses how completely these comparisons fall apart when comparing Rachel's life to the life of the average trans person, or "transracialism" to "transgenderism" in aggregate.

Seriously, read the article, then don't make this awful comparison again, please.
Her argument largely seems to be - there are lots of people identifying as transgender people and very few identifying as 'transracial' people. Obviously, this is a fallacious argument. If I were in the say 1880s, there would be very few transgendered people. We simply have no way of knowing how many transracial people there are. The opprobrium that Ms. Dolezal received - losing her job, losing her friends, national mockery, family exclusion (all things faced by transgendered people at one time)- obviously would suppress the number of people who would identify as such. There may be tens of thousands of them who are closeted because of societal expectations, we have no way of knowing. We do know that she is not unique. There have been others as well who have 'come out' as it were. We also know that racial 'passing' has existed for an extremely long time. We don't know whether those 'passing' felt themselves to be the 'non-biological' race or not, but it has been a common behavior throughout history.

Her second counter-point is that 'she didn't blend in very well.' Basically, she led the NAACP chapter (very well from all accounts) and 'made a spectacle of herself.' Really? That's a criticism? She wasn't particularly good at being black? So then if a transgender person tries to lead a women's group or 'makes a spectacle of themselves' that transgenderism and transracialism are the same thing? Because I'm fairly certain that somewhere I could find such a person.

If you've spoken to a single transwoman you'll hear that, alongside concepts like transmisogyny, transwomen suffer from much of the same misogny cis women do. When it comes to sexism, if it's not explicitly biological (like abortion), transwomen almost always suffer alongside ciswomen. Their struggle doesn't simply intersect with that of biological women, it overlaps to an extreme degree.
If you talk to Rachel Dolezal, she will certainly be able to tell you how she too has suffered from her position. To be honest, she has had to endure extreme suffering for being 'whatever it is she is.' She's a subject of public scorn, she lost her job, she was unable to find anyone to hire her. She has suffered abuse for her 'race' as others have.

Besides, this is disingenuous. Yes, there are transgendered people who suffer as women, but there are those who don't. Caitlyn Jenner as an example, enjoyed 50-ish years of identifying as a cis-gendered male before transitioning. She was able to partake of all of the benefits of being a white male until in her 60s when she was then able to enjoy all the benefits of being a minority spokesperson. This is nothing against Ms. Jenner, but saying that transgendered people suffer the same as biological women is misleading at best and frequently false. Yes, they have their own types of oppression, but it is NOT the same as the oppression faced by women.

This is a bit like saying, "Hey, if you're sick of homophobia, you could always just go back into the closet and marry someone of the opposite sex". I mean, trans people don't go on hormones with quite unpleasant side-effects, get invasive surgery, change their entire outward appearance, and out themselves as one of the most hated and discriminated-against minorities in the world for no reason. They do it because gender dysphoria fucking sucks.

The idea that "if you don't like misogyny, you can always detransition" is just...

...What? The actual? Fuck?
The idea is that you CAN do that, while biological females CANNOT. It's an option that is available to you that is closed off to the rest of females. Now certainly, you can say that such a choice is difficult or that 'they've gone to far.' but the fact is that that is an option available regardless of its difficulty that is closed off to biological females.

Transwomen are women. If a scholarship for "women in science" goes to a transwoman, it is helping women, because that woman...

(See if you can figure out where I'm going with this...) a woman.
Apparently, these feminists would disagree with you. If every female scholarship in the country were to magically go to trans women, would the plight of biological women be better off? Obviously not. Would the plight of women as a whole be better off? I think that that's arguable and many would say that it would not.

A slight aside. Lemme take a stab in the dark, here - well, not that dark, given your previous reference to Rachel Dolezal and the way you say "claims to be transgendered".

There's an assumption here that these people are pretending, isn't there? That they're really guys, just pretending to be women - presumably for all the advantages that come in our society from being transwomen (if you read that sentence without catching the joke, try again).

Now, maybe that never crossed your mind. Maybe it's also not subconsciously underpinning anything you're saying here. If so: good, because it's bullshit. It doesn't happen. Transwomen generally transition because they identify as women. It's not a prank, it's not a trick - they feel like they are women, they identify as women, they are often dysphoric because their bodies are not feminine, and this is why they put up with all the shit society throws at them - because the alternative is virtually unthinkable.

Anyone who knows the kind of abuse transwomen put up with on a day-to-day basis just for being trans would consider this idea somewhere between laughable, embarrassing, and dangerously misguided. This shit does not happen.

Now, as said, maybe you didn't actually think that. Maybe your phrasing is bad and your examples are bad and it doesn't, consciously or subconsciously, come down to this particular chestnut. But if so: what is this?

And today, in "things that definitely happen, no really guys, stop laughing": "A company with sexist hiring practices would rather hire transwomen than women". Yeah. Sure. That's definitely a thing that's ever happened ever.

C'mon, man.
I think I would claim that if the benefits to being transgendered became great enough, there would be people that would fake it. I work with admissions at a large university and I know that right now racially people fake it constantly. They feel it gives them an advantage and we frequently have people that mark every racial minority checkbox hoping that one of them will get them scholarships or give them an admissions advantage. They know that there is no DNA test and that race is simply self-described, so they take advantage. If the benefits of being transgendered get high enough, I think it is nearly a guarantee that people would fake it to take advantage. I think that feminist groups are worried about that scenario coming into play and wish to prevent it.

The problem comes with self-identification. In our company argument, the issue is not that they would be hiring transgendered people, but rather, they would be hiring men and telling them to check the transgendered box on their application. Their medical records are protected, so a company can claim that they have no idea whether the individual is transitioning or not. In a fraud case, you would have to prove that the individual(s) were not transgendered and how exactly do you do that? It becomes a route that could be used to potentially exclude women from positions of power - which is what these feminist groups are afraid of.