View Single Post
Old 05-10-2019, 10:56 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
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.
Go back and reread Filbert's post. Why yes, Caitlyn Jenner is a phenomenally privileged person! I don't know why that matters. She's a massive outlier in almost every way. And for most of her life, yeah, she didn't face misogyny. Does she face it now? Almost certainly, in the way you may expect any old rich white woman to face misogyny.

The idea is that you CAN do that, while biological females CANNOT.
No, they fucking can't, any more than biological females could just transition in the other direction. (It's a lot easier to pass for male as a transman than it is to pass for female as a transwoman.) Gender doesn't work like that. Asking a transwoman to go back to living as a man is like asking a ciswoman to get on medication and sew their vagina shut to pass better as a man. It's fucking gruesome, dude, and if you don't get that, you might wanna spend a little time actually talking to trans people.

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.
What is the purpose of these scholarships? To help adjust for the biases in society that lead to women being underrepresented in these programs. Transwomen are women and suffer from misogyny (they fucking do, spend some time talking to literally any of them) in addition to transmisogyny.

The only way to argue that this is a distinction worth making is to argue that transwomen are not women or to argue that transwomen do not face misogyny. Neither position is even remotely tenable.

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.
Oh come on. It's piss-easy to say "my grandmother was Cherokee" and costs little to nothing. Living your life as the opposite gender? Would you do that to get into college, knowing you had to keep it up, and take hormones, and face constant threats of violence from bigoted fucksticks who took this kind of argument and ran with it?

...Look, I'm sorry, but this whole thing is really dumb. How about, if this ever actually becomes a problem, we address it then? Right now, people aren't "pretending to be women" to get into colleges, or jobs, or sports teams, or locker rooms, or lesbians' pants (literally a TERF talking point). Those are lies transphobes make up, not things that actually happen. Because right now, what you're doing is perpetuating injustice and prejudice because you're worried that maybe if we don't, there will be injustice. And that's fucked up.

Or, to put it another way...

I think that feminist groups are worried about that scenario coming into play and wish to prevent it.
Man, if only there was a term for "irrational fear of trans people".

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.
Great! Has this ever happened? Is there any reason to believe this could happen?

Christ, dude, listen to yourself! This isn't "something that could realistically happen". This is the plot to a shitty Adam Sandler/Tyler Perry crossover that not even Netflix would fund. It's embarrassing. But it's only a little more far-fetched than some of the other things you and others keep bringing up.

But that's the basis of all this stuff. Transwomen aren't dominating women's sports... But if we let them keep competing they might do okay, so we'd better ban them from sports. Transwomen aren't assaulting women in bathrooms... But if we keep letting them into women's bathrooms they might, so we'd better ban them from bathrooms. Transwomen aren't... *checks notes*... being used en masse to get around equal rights amendments (jesus christ dude what the hell)... But if we let them exist, they might do this or that or the other thing. And sure, we could address it if and when it becomes a problem, but why wait for that to happen? Trans people are icky and shouldn't exist anyways.

If you accept this kind of nonsense moon logic, there is no discrimination or bigotry against trans people you can't justify by appealing to what might happen if you don't.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-10-2019 at 11:00 AM.