Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:26 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,873

Equality Act is drawing opposition from feminists and conservatives alike


A prime case of "Baptists and Bootleggers": The Equality Act is drawing opposition from both feminists and conservatives, who claim that a law that requires people to be treated as the gender that they claim to be (rather than the gender they actually are) is going to be greatly disadvantageous to women, because it takes away "safe spaces" for women (not the best term, since that has loaded connotations, but I can't think of what else it would be called.) A man could then compete as a woman in woman's sports simply by claiming he is a woman, etc.
  #2  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:34 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
A prime case of "Baptists and Bootleggers": The Equality Act is drawing opposition from both feminists and conservatives, who claim that a law that requires people to be treated as the gender that they claim to be (rather than the gender they actually are) is going to be greatly disadvantageous to women, because it takes away "safe spaces" for women (not the best term, since that has loaded connotations, but I can't think of what else it would be called.) A man could then compete as a woman in woman's sports simply by claiming he is a woman, etc.
Transgender women aren't "claiming to be women" -- they are women. You appear to be confusing gender with biological sex.
  #3  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:08 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Transgender women aren't "claiming to be women" -- they are women. You appear to be confusing gender with biological sex.
That's an article of faith, not an objective statement. It entirely depends on your definition of "woman", and this definition is clearly disputed. You can't advance it as fact, only as something that you wish would be true or think would be better. Your opinion that the definition of woman should be based entirely on gender identity without reference to biological sex is clearly not shared by everybody and there's no objective, indisputable way to establish what the definition of "woman" should be.

And even if you managed to have everybody agree that the definition of woman should be entirely based on gender identity, you still wouldn't have a general agreement that actual gender identity is the the same as gender self-identification. Besides the trivial example of someone lying, you can't demonstrate for instance that the TERF argument according to which you can't really have a female identity if you were born a boy because you haven't been subject to the same extent to the patriarchal pressures that mold a female identity, thus creating an unbridgeable gap between a biological woman and a trans woman is objectively false.


On top of it, as exemplified by this other thread going on, biological sex can't necessarily be objectively established, either.


The concept of woman is based on a binary division where each category is assumed to have all the characteristics associated with this category. As soon as you introduce concepts like gender identity being different from biological sex and such, or the idea that both gender identity and biological sex are fuzzy concepts, you don't have anymore a clear, generally accepted, and valid in all circumstances, definition of what a woman is, and as a result can't determine objectively whether such or such person should be deemed a woman in some or all circumstances. Everything that has to do with sex and gender is based in large part on arbitrary social conventions and as a result heavily disputable, and definitely not resolved by pronouncements ex cathedra by you or others.


You might have extremely good intentions and feel that you're sparing people grief by acknowledging without reservation their gender self-identification, but being nice shouldn't go as far as distorting reality. To be clear, it's fine to call someone a woman if she self identify as such, but it's not to make absolute statements like "transwomen are women" when you'd be hard pressed to define objectively and indisputably what a "woman" is, what "gender" is, etc... It might sound as nitpicking about the meaning of words, but it becomes important when competing interests are at play in which situation being nice amounts to playing favorites, and stating "transwomen are women" amounts to saying : "your concerns are objectively unfounded" when of course, you can't decide objectively, to take the example given in the article, that the subjective distress of a transwoman denied access to the women locker room should be given more importance than the subjective distress of a woman seeing a person with a dick in her locker room.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #4  
Old 05-10-2019, 06:48 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
That's an article of faith, not an objective statement. It entirely depends on your definition of "woman", and this definition is clearly disputed.
Of course. And I am free to characterize those who dispute it in a hateful fashion as hateful and bigoted. If someone thinks that marriage does not include the possibility of interracial unions, or same-sex unions, then they hold a bigoted and hateful view, whether or not they see it that way. If someone doesn't think that trans women are women, then they hold a bigoted and hateful view, regardless of how they see it. Same if someone thinks "human" doesn't include Jews, or black people, etc.

Quote:
You can't advance it as fact, only as something that you wish would be true or think would be better. Your opinion that the definition of woman should be based entirely on gender identity without reference to biological sex is clearly not shared by everybody and there's no objective, indisputable way to establish what the definition of "woman" should be.
"Woman" and the concept of gender (as opposed to biological sex) in general are sociocultural phenomena, not objective statements. They will never be anything other than how culture sees them, any more than "computer" is what society defines as a computer.

All of this is discussion about how society should treat and view people. Such discussions aren't based on hard and objective facts, any more than discussions about whether gay people should be allowed to be married.
  #5  
Old 05-10-2019, 07:34 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
It's almost as if you completely ignored the link I provided (which x-ray vision updated with a more recent story).
I read it. In fact, I directly addressed it:
There are a handful of standout cases... which is exactly what you would expect given that transwomen are something like 1% of the population - eventually, someone's going to do something noteworthy. The idea that post-transition transwomen have any kind of innate advantage in any sport is, to date, utterly unsupported by any available evidence.
It's an individual ancedote of a woman currently undergoing HRT, who has been on hormones for less than half the length of time mandated by the IOC. It's not representative of most transwomen competing in sports, or the regulations those women face.

But even so, hey, guess what - the fact that a transwoman can win an event or even break records in her class is not proof of what you're claiming. How do we know that Mary Gregory isn't just a really good powerlifter? How do we know it's because of her gender? We know that HRT has significant effects on a person's physiology, effects that are extremely negative for extreme sports. She's only been on it for about a year, but to completely discount her as an athlete because of that is... well, fucking gross.

Seriously, this line of argumentation is infuriating. It's like hearing a woman competing with Rachel McKinnon complaining that it was an unfair competition when she lost, even though she beat McKinnon in 11 out of 13 races they both participated in. Yes, this is literally something that happened. To quote McKinnon:
This is what the double-bind for trans women athletes looks like: when we win, it's because we're transgender and it's unfair; when we lose, no one notices (and it's because we're just not that good anyway). Even when it's the SAME racer. That's what transphobia looks like.
(Bolding mine.)

If you allow transwomen to compete, then even if there are no advantages from being trans (hell, even if there are, on average, physical disadvantages to being trans), sooner or later by sheer law of averages a transwoman is going to win an event, or break a record, or do something significant. But at the moment, whenever that happens, the response is not to celebrate a spectacular athlete, it's to point and say, "SEE? SEE? TRANSWOMEN REALLY DO HAVE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE!" Regardless of how little sense that makes.

Do we know that Mary Gregory broke that record because she's a transwoman? No. Instead, you just point to a transwoman doing something significant, and act like that, in and of itself, is proof that transwomen have an advantage. But the evidence just isn't there yet. In fact, if you look at the IOC, they'd say the evidence just straight-up doesn't exist; that's why their ruling is what it is. If I were in a charitable mood, I would say that Gregory should have waited the IOC's recommended 2 years on HRT to compete as a woman. But I'm not. So can you prove that the reason Gregory did so well was because she's a transwoman? If not, stop assuming that she's a lesser athlete without any goddamn evidence. That's some transphobic bullshit, right there.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-10-2019 at 07:38 AM.
  #6  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:49 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
But even so, hey, guess what - the fact that a transwoman can win an event or even break records in her class is not proof of what you're claiming. How do we know that Mary Gregory isn't just a really good powerlifter? How do we know it's because of her gender?
Because lifts for a woman are world records, and for a man they are barely more than middle of the pack.

Regards,
Shodan
  #7  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:24 AM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 6,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Do we know that Mary Gregory broke that record because she's a transwoman? No. Instead, you just point to a transwoman doing something significant, and act like that, in and of itself, is proof that transwomen have an advantage. But the evidence just isn't there yet.
Sure it is. Do transwomen become shorter? Do their hearts shrink? Hands? Does their pelvis change? The male pelvis is more narrow making their legs to be more vertical aiding in speed. The male pelvis is better suited for childbirth. Does muscle memory forget? That's a real thing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933662/

Has the IOC changed the levels of testosterone they allowed in 2015? A professor in physiology says the limit allowed in 2015 isn't fair:

Quote:
In 2015, the IOC changed their regulations to include trans women in the women's category of events if they remained under the testosterone levels of 10 nanomoles per litre (NMOL/L) a year prior to competing, as well as during competition.

However, a CIS female (a born female) can reach nowhere near the testosterone level of 10 NMOL/L. The average female sits at 2.8 NMOL/L and the average male 23-25 NMOL/L. This means the likes of Hubbard competes at three times the amount of testosterone to other weightlifting females.

"It hasn't been studied, but logical science will tell you someone who has three times more testosterone has the advantage physically. We need to do more research before arguing either way.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-...peed-and-power

Do hemoglobin levels become equal? If not, that would be a huge advantage. Whatever does change to equal, a complete reformatting of the body doesn't happen.
God, I'm fucking gross!

Quote:
If I were in a charitable mood, I would say that Gregory should have waited the IOC's recommended 2 years on HRT to compete as a woman. But I'm not.
Gregory competed with the 100% Raw Powerlifting Federation. The IOC has nothing to do with it.

Quote:
So can you prove that the reason Gregory did so well was because she's a transwoman? If not, stop assuming that she's a lesser athlete without any goddamn evidence. That's some transphobic bullshit, right there.
There's nothing transphobic about it. And it's not about her being a lesser athlete; it's about her being a greater one.
  #8  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:33 AM
x-ray vision's Avatar
x-ray vision is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.J.
Posts: 6,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
In fact, if you look at the IOC, they'd say the evidence just straight-up doesn't exist; that's why their ruling is what it is. If I were in a charitable mood, I would say that Gregory should have waited the IOC's recommended 2 years on HRT to compete as a woman. But I'm not.
You seem to put a lot of stock in what the IOC claims, so why does it take you being charitable to think Gregory should have waited the two years? How long do you think one should wait when competing in a strength event?
  #9  
Old 05-11-2019, 04:07 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I read it. In fact, I directly addressed it:

<snip>

Do we know that Mary Gregory broke that record because she's a transwoman? No.
Since "transwomen" are a relatively new thing in sports I would suggest they be banned from sports till it is shown otherwise that they have no inherent advantages.

You said trans people are a very minor percentage of the population. So keeping this tiny percentage out of professional sports makes sense. It is a new thing that can skew results. Let them play in amateur leagues and when enough data is collected we can decide if they should be allowed in professional sports.

I am as liberal as they come and I am not seeing a problem here. By your own account we are talking about a very small percentage of the population, of whom an even vastly smaller percentage would be into professional/Olympic class sports, are denied access to the very highest levels of competition (a super, super small percentage).

Given that it is hard to be fussed that one or two in seven billion people *might be* unfairly blocked but I find it hard to get all up in arms about it.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #10  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:41 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Of course. And I am free to characterize those who dispute it in a hateful fashion as hateful and bigoted. If someone thinks that marriage does not include the possibility of interracial unions, or same-sex unions, then they hold a bigoted and hateful view, whether or not they see it that way. If someone doesn't think that trans women are women, then they hold a bigoted and hateful view, regardless of how they see it. Same if someone thinks "human" doesn't include Jews, or black people, etc.



"Woman" and the concept of gender (as opposed to biological sex) in general are sociocultural phenomena, not objective statements. They will never be anything other than how culture sees them, any more than "computer" is what society defines as a computer.

All of this is discussion about how society should treat and view people. Such discussions aren't based on hard and objective facts, any more than discussions about whether gay people should be allowed to be married.
So if I say I am a woman I can now compete as a woman? Just like that? What does feeling like a woman or being a woman actually mean at that point?

Look, if we are going to have discriminatory realms such as sport then we need actual definitions. What’s your definition of a woman?
  #11  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:08 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
So if I say I am a woman I can now compete as a woman? Just like that?
Not in my understanding. In my understanding, transitioning is a very involved process (though many parts of it can vary) and involves far more than simply saying that you are a woman.

Quote:
What does feeling like a woman or being a woman actually mean at that point?
I certainly don't know; I'm not a woman.

Quote:
Look, if we are going to have discriminatory realms such as sport then we need actual definitions. What’s your definition of a woman?
I don't see why this is necessary. There are plenty of xx, female-body-having women who can't compete in women's sports for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with their bodies or even their abilities (they broke rules, for example) -- they are still women. The question of who should be allowed to compete in women's sports is a legitimate question, but far more complicated than "what is the definition of a woman".
  #12  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:14 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Of course. And I am free to characterize those who dispute it in a hateful fashion as hateful and bigoted. If someone thinks that marriage does not include the possibility of interracial unions, or same-sex unions, then they hold a bigoted and hateful view
Not the same thing. Same-sex marriage doesn't impact people who aren't involved in it. Recognizing transwomen as women in all circumstances impact, or at least is alleged to impact cis women wrt to issues that are normally considered legitimate concerns for them, hence harm the many for the exclusive benefit of the few.

It is currently very widely accepted that women have a right not to share their locker rooms with men, regardless of what you think of it, so there's a need to define who qualifies as either. Defining "I don't want men parading naked in my locker room" as meaning "I don't want people with a dick parading naked in my locker room" or rejecting the idea that someone is allowed to enter the locker room just because he says he should, or saying that 99 women shouldn't feel distressed so that 1 will feel good aren't some absurd and outrageous stances.

Especially if you consider that if there's no objective reason to feel distressed because a transwoman is present in a locker room, there's in fact no objective reason to feel distressed because a man is present in a locker room, either. The reason why women feel they should be able to avoid such a situation are cultural and subjective, and I doubt that most would be able to clearly enunciate what the issue is exactly, or would agree with each other if they could. "I don't trust people with a dick to enter a women locker room for genuinely innocent reasons, and I have legitimate reasons to feel this way" would be a position enthusiastically supported by yourself if it didn't impact another category you also support.

Just because you feel that the woman writing the article shouldn't be disturbed if the dick owner exposing his parts self-identify as a woman, and that the risk that a cis man will pretend to self-identify as a woman just so that he'll be able to enter the women locker room is close to inexistant doesn't mean that this woman should feel the same way and analyze the risk the way you do.


Quote:
Same if someone thinks "human" doesn't include Jews, or black people, etc.
Not the same thing at all. "Human" can be objectively defined on the basis of purely biological factors. "Black" or "Jew" cannot be. "Woman" can't be objectively defined in this way, or rather, if it were, you would reject this definition.



Quote:
All of this is discussion about how society should treat and view people. Such discussions aren't based on hard and objective facts, any more than discussions about whether gay people should be allowed to be married.
Definitely. But who made you king (or rather mind controller) to decide that this woman should stop feeling disturbed or threatened by the presence of a naked dick owner in her locker room as soon as this person says "I identify as a woman" and to dismiss her concerns that the real reason why this person is there and says so might be to check up undressed underage girls and expose himself without consequences?
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-10-2019 at 11:14 AM.
  #13  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:25 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Not the same thing. Same-sex marriage doesn't impact people who aren't involved in it.
Neither does the existence of trans people.

Quote:
Recognizing transwomen as women in all circumstances impact, or at least is alleged to impact cis women wrt to issues that are normally considered legitimate concerns for them, hence harm the many for the exclusive benefit of the few.
Same sex marriage was "alleged" to impact other people, and it didn't. Recognizing the existence of trans people does not impact others any more than SSM.

Quote:
It is currently very widely accepted that women have a right not to share their locker rooms with men, regardless of what you think of it, so there's a need to define who qualifies as either. Defining "I don't want men parading naked in my locker room" as meaning "I don't want people with a dick parading naked in my locker room" or rejecting the idea that someone is allowed to enter the locker room just because he says he should, or saying that 99 women shouldn't feel distressed so that 1 will feel good aren't some absurd and outrageous stances.
People are free to go into, and leave, any locker rooms they want. They can find private locker rooms if that's what they prefer. They can change at home. Or they can go into a stall in the locker room. If someone attacks them, or behaves lewdly around them, then that's against the law and can be prosecuted regardless of gender identity.

If someone feels distress, that's a feeling that people sometimes have. I have little doubt that some white people felt distressed when they first had to share bathrooms and locker rooms with black people. Some probably still do. That's part of life -- sometimes you will feel distress. It's not violating anyone's rights. But preventing trans people from using locker rooms would be violating their rights to accommodation and services. Forcing them to use the wrong locker room would help no one -- the other locker room users are just as likely to be anti-trans bigots as the first.

Quote:
Especially if you consider that if there's no objective reason to feel distressed because a transwoman is present in a locker room, there's in fact no objective reason to feel distressed because a man is present in a locker room, either. The reason why women feel they should be able to avoid such a situation are cultural and subjective, and I doubt that most would be able to clearly enunciate what the issue is exactly, or would agree with each other if they could. "I don't trust people with a dick to enter a women locker room for genuinely innocent reasons, and I have legitimate reasons to feel this way" would be a position enthusiastically supported by yourself if it didn't impact another category you also support.
If you want to argue against segregated-gender locker rooms and bathrooms, feel free. I don't feel strongly that they need to remain, but others might. As long as they exist, trans people should be allowed to use them just like cis people do.

Quote:
Just because you feel that the woman writing the article shouldn't be disturbed if the dick owner exposing his parts self-identify as a woman, and that the risk that a cis man will pretend to self-identify as a woman just so that he'll be able to enter the women locker room is close to inexistant doesn't mean that this woman should feel the same way and analyze the risk the way you do.
Here you go again, deliberately (and hatefully) misgendering. There's no reason at all for it. You're choosing to say this hateful thing, for no reason at all.

Quote:
Definitely. But who made you king (or rather mind controller) to decide that this woman should stop feeling disturbed or threatened by the presence of a naked dick owner in her locker room as soon as this person says "I identify as a woman" and to dismiss her concerns that the real reason why this person is there and says so might be to check up undressed underage girls and expose himself without consequences?
Where did you get the impression that I'm king? I'm asserting my opinion. It's okay to assert one's opinion, even if they disagree. It's okay to criticize other opinions.

I believe lewd behavior should be sanctioned and prosecuted, and this has nothing to do with whether trans people should be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms.
  #14  
Old 05-11-2019, 03:35 PM
Royal Nonesutch is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
It is currently very widely accepted that women have a right not to share their locker rooms with men, regardless of what you think of it, so there's a need to define who qualifies as either. Defining "I don't want men parading naked in my locker room" as meaning "I don't want people with a dick parading naked in my locker room" or rejecting the idea that someone is allowed to enter the locker room just because he says he should, or saying that 99 women shouldn't feel distressed so that 1 will feel good aren't some absurd and outrageous stances.







Definitely. But who made you king (or rather mind controller) to decide that this woman should stop feeling disturbed or threatened by the presence of a naked dick owner in her locker room as soon as this person says "I identify as a woman" and to dismiss her concerns that the real reason why this person is there and says so might be to check up undressed underage girls and expose himself without consequences?
The people you are talking at don't get it, don't want to get it, won't ever get it, (To quote John Perry Barlow, "You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know.") because in their fevered imaginations they are Fighting On The Side Of The Angels and in their self-righteous zeal and indignation, they have lined up intellectually with the great thinker George W Bush and say in a firm, resolute voice, (blissfully unaware of the bitter irony) "You are either with us or the terrorists!" to the very people who want to be allies and agree with the vast majority of the positions, but have reservations that millions of others feel in their hearts as well.

But all is not lost, as when they wake up on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd 2020 to see President Donald John Trump re-elected and now free to be unrestrained and liberated to cause more worldwide shittaree than good ol' Charlie Sheen and the ghost of Anita Bryant together on a 3 week bourbon & buttermilk enema bender in the steamy back allyways of Old Saigon, they will have their principles to console them.

Last edited by Royal Nonesutch; 05-11-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #15  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:39 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
The "feminists" in your OP is the Women's Liberation Front(WoLF), a very radical feminist group dedicated to opposition to transgender rights. This fringe group does not in any way represent feminists as a whole. The "conservatives" in your OP are the Concerned Women for America, a conservative, evangelistic Christian women's activist group who( I dare say) do not represent conservatives as a whole.
  #16  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:53 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,113
Feminists are not, in general, opposed to trans rights, or the Equality Act. A small, radical group of bigots have appropriated the term "feminist" to give cover to their hateful attacks against trans people. They're a fringe group who can't get a platform in traditional leftist circles for their prejudicial agenda, and so have agreed to play kapos for Republicans who oppose them on literally every other issue they claim to care about. They're also so fringe that Republicans have had to import extras from the UK, where they are unfortunately rather thicker on the ground.

They're scum, basically. Hate-mongering quislings who will sell out every ideal they claim to hold to ally with people who will support them in their efforts to shit on a disadvantaged minority.
  #17  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:34 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Feminists are not, in general, opposed to trans rights, or the Equality Act. A small, radical group of bigots have appropriated the term "feminist" to give cover to their hateful attacks against trans people. They're a fringe group
They're a very vocal, very visible, long standing and pretty influential group. When they aren't attacking trans people (and, to a lesser extent voice their sex-negativity , but this bothers few people), their stances receive uncritical support by leftist activists.

They're *definitely* not people who pretend to be feminist just to bash trans. They're feminists at the core, and have a long history as feminists, and are only incidentally and secondarily anti-trans. Their rejection of transsexuals being based primarily on their basic philosophy according to which there's no mental difference altogether between men and women, all observed and/or supposed differences being social constructs and/or the result of women oppression and/or of the pressures of the patriarchal culture, a position that obviously clashes with the stance of transsexuals (being a woman in a male body, etc... which assumes a difference between male and female brain). And also based on the idea that nobody who isn't born a woman can really be a woman, because he won't share the experience of being raised a girl and experiencing male oppression and cultural pressures girls are subjected to since birth.

And also, even though many social activists deny that such a thing exists, due to the presence in their midst of many men haters, who can only see transsexuals as sexually perverted males trying to steal from women the only thing they have ever been allowed to have : being a woman. When they aren't just simply pretending for sexual gratification. They don't hate trans per se, they hate the men they see pretending to be women, infiltrating women movements, stealing women achievements and entering women locker rooms. They don't see trans-women, they see men. Most would deny that transsexualism is even a thing. They're more lenient with trans-men, but they don't really spare them, either. Basically, these are traitors, "passing" as men.

They definitely aren't pretending. They have been and still are at the vanguard of all feminist movements, throwing their support at every feminist cause you are yourself supporting (and probably some you aren't). You want to believe that because it would fit nicely in your worldview where feminist activists are nice oppressed people who always fight the good fight against the oppressive male patriarchy, and trans activists nice oppressed people who always fight the good fight against the oppressive cis male culture. And where everybody disputing either group's claims is a hater. So, you'd rather invoke the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and assume that a feminist objecting to some or all of trans people claims isn't a true feminist (or is as rare an an unicorn) than face the reality of the presence in both group of people who have no interest whatsoever in the plight of the other group. Trans people who don't give a shit about the situation of non trans women and about the consequences policies they advocate for would have for them and feminists who don't give a shit about people who aren't born women and/or aren't physically women and about the consequences the policies they advocate for would have for them.


It's easy to accuse cis straight white males of being haters when they argue against trans-women in women locker rooms, because your world view definitely allows for them to be haters. But it doesn't allow for feminist women to be haters or to be deluded by extremist/fundamentalist beliefs that allow no nuance. So it becomes a problem when those feminists are arguing against the exact same thing, on the basis of longstanding views that you're otherwise supportive of, which can only be solved by denying that such sincerely feminist women exist, or at least are in any way representative or significant. I'm sure you'd have no problem agreeing with such a feminist stating "Given how much women are victimized, it's perfectly normal for a woman to be wary of all men and about their true intents, and to not assume honest intents on their part". But since you also throw your support to the trans cause, and to their claim that their gender identification shouldn't be disputed in any circumstance, you somehow have a problem when a feminist tells you "why should I assume honest intent on the part of a naked dick-waving person in my locker room just because he says "I feel I'm a woman", exactly?" "Why should I have to face such a situation that I find threatening and abusive and can't have a place where I feel safe, not even a place where I go to undress?"

Being a feminist doesn't mean that one follows every single one of your progressive (or not progressive for that matter) ideas. Feminists won't necessarily stop arguing for the protection of women interests just because you feel they should in such or such circumstances for the benefit of groups they don't belong to. They won't necessarily feel that a situation isn't threatening just because you say that they shouldn't feel this way. They won't necessarily share any of your views that isn't directly related with feminism, and in particular your definition of "woman". Their feminist views (that, once again, you probably wouldn't dispute if they didn't impact a group that you favor) might very well bring them to absolutely oppose your values. They can very well, and very logically, note that their own interests as non trans women are at odds with the interests of trans women.

These radical feminists aren't really rare among vocal activists (they're quite rare in the general population, but then again, casual feminists in the general population aren't necessarily very supportive of trans rights, either). It's just that you probably don't question their equally radical statements when they don't impact trans people. Think about it for a minute : why would you assume that one couldn't at the same time be a sincere feminist (like denouncing sexual abuses, or income differences) and being anti-trans? Is there any obvious reason you can see why being supportive of one issue would make you necessarily supportive of the other? And as I already pointed out, there are on top of this reasons why radical feminist ideology will not be accepting of the concepts generally advanced in support of transsexuals.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #18  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:43 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
They're a very vocal, very visible, long standing and pretty influential group. When they aren't attacking trans people (and, to a lesser extent voice their sex-negativity , but this bothers few people), their stances receive uncritical support by leftist activists.

They're *definitely* not people who pretend to be feminist just to bash trans. They're feminists at the core, and have a long history as feminists, and are only incidentally and secondarily anti-trans.
Can you, or anyone else, please define "feminist" for this thread? I really want it nailed down. What it is and what it isn't so we can then discern what they do and do not support as a group.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #19  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:56 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Can you, or anyone else, please define "feminist" for this thread? I really want it nailed down. What it is and what it isn't so we can then discern what they do and do not support as a group.
Let's take any random dictionary definition :

Quote:
The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
or another :

Quote:
the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state:
Neither of these definitions requires the inclusion of transwomen in the "women" group.



I can't think of a definition of feminism that isn't ad hoc and that would imply the acceptance of transwomen.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-09-2019 at 10:58 PM.
  #20  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:48 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
The unholy alliance of conservatives and radical feminists isn't a novelty, by the way. You can see it in action in their common fight against pornography, prostitution and sex work, which occasionally goes beyond the coincidental. For instance both will launch attacks pornography totally independently, but they will sometimes objectively ally and even cooperate with each other for instance to pass laws.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #21  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:43 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 26,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
The unholy alliance of conservatives and radical feminists isn't a novelty, by the way. You can see it in action in their common fight against pornography, prostitution and sex work, which occasionally goes beyond the coincidental. For instance both will launch attacks pornography totally independently, but they will sometimes objectively ally and even cooperate with each other for instance to pass laws.
Cite?
  #22  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:57 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
They're *definitely* not people who pretend to be feminist just to bash trans. They're feminists at the core, and have a long history as feminists, and are only incidentally and secondarily anti-trans. Their rejection of transsexuals being based primarily on their basic philosophy according to which there's no mental difference altogether between men and women, all observed and/or supposed differences being social constructs and/or the result of women oppression and/or of the pressures of the patriarchal culture, a position that obviously clashes with the stance of transsexuals (being a woman in a male body, etc... which assumes a difference between male and female brain). And also based on the idea that nobody who isn't born a woman can really be a woman, because he won't share the experience of being raised a girl and experiencing male oppression and cultural pressures girls are subjected to since birth.
So, they can't make up their collective mind whether a man's mind/brain and a woman's mind/brain are essentially different or not, and they consider that all people are created equal and should be treated equally regardless of externally-imposed social label, but at the same time reckon that other people should accept externally-imposed labelling when it happens to come from them. Probably believe that they have the right to tell people what our own name is, too.

Doesn't give me much of a positive impression about their global mental ability.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 05-10-2019 at 02:00 AM.
  #23  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:27 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
So, they can't make up their collective mind whether a man's mind/brain and a woman's mind/brain are essentially different or not,
Radical feminists usually hold that female and male brains aren't different, but that patriarchal society, culture, education, social pressure, etc, etc... result in differences in behavior, preferences, etc...Basically that the differences between men and women are 100% nurture and 0% nature. I'm not sure how what I said was contradictory and if it is, it comes from me expressing it poorly rather than from them.

Quote:
and they consider that all people are created equal and should be treated equally regardless of externally-imposed social label, but at the same time reckon that other people should accept externally-imposed labelling when it happens to come from them.
Hmmm....I'm not sure I follow. And again maybe I poorly expressed myself. Let's take the same kind of views applied to racism. That would be : there isn't objectively such a thing as a human race, but there's a real social construct classifying people into races, and a real experience of, say, being black, so you can't just decide to call yourself black if you're born white and as a result don't really share this experience. You're just a white person playing at being black/pretending to be black for what isn't likely to be benevolent reasons and there's no reason to welcome you as part of the black community. The position of Radfems with regard to gender would be basically the same. Does it make more sense?


Quote:
Doesn't give me much of a positive impression about their global mental ability.
I never said that Radfems were nice people. I'm saying that they're authentically feminists, and even at the core of the feminist movement, not extraordinarily rare people pretending to be feminists so that they'll be able to bash trans. Disputing that Radfems are feminists is just a denial of reality intended to preserve a nice black and white view where feminists and trans activists are both always the "good guys" fighting the good fight for good reasons. And radfems views and arguments are generally happily accepted without much critical thought by the "progressive" left as long as they don't gore another of their sacred cow.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #24  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:30 AM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
They're *definitely* not people who pretend to be feminist just to bash trans. They're feminists at the core, and have a long history as feminists, and are only incidentally and secondarily anti-trans.
As far as I can tell, WoLF dates back to about 2014. While I don't doubt their members' personal bona fides with regard to issues like reproductive healthcare, equal pay, etc, I can't call the organization "incidentally and secondarily anti-trans". All of their court filings deal with gender identity, as do 95% of their blog posts. Interestingly, I see no posts about the anti-abortion legislation in Georgia, or the IAAF Caster Semenya ruling, or really anything other than trans stuff.
  #25  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:30 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
They're a very vocal, very visible, long standing and pretty influential group. When they aren't attacking trans people (and, to a lesser extent voice their sex-negativity , but this bothers few people), their stances receive uncritical support by leftist activists.
Terfs have certainly been around for a while - they're pretty strongly associated with second wave feminism - but visible or influential? I can't speak for what its like in France, but Terfs find it very hard to find a platform in leftist circles in the US, and are almost totally excluded from queer circles. One of the shitbags mentioned in the OP's link says this expressly: they "

Quote:
They're *definitely* not people who pretend to be feminist just to bash trans. They're feminists at the core, and have a long history as feminists, and are only incidentally and secondarily anti-trans.
Feminists don't oppress other women. These people are not feminists.

And you are wildly underestimating how strongly these women are motivated by bigotry against trans people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by one of the founders of WoLF
“I really believe that if we lose this fight as women, we’ve lost everything,” said WoLF founder and midwife Mary Lou Singleton. Miriam Ben-Shalom of Hands Across the Aisle, a lesbian who was discharged from the military because of her sexuality and afterward protested the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, bluntly stated that she wants the T in LGBT “to go away.”
WoLF is a hate group. They exist specifically to advocate for discrimination against transwomen. And they're almost entirely funded by the Heritage Foundation. This isn't a genuine feminist movement. It's astroturf.

Quote:
Their rejection of transsexuals being based primarily on their basic philosophy according to which there's no mental difference altogether between men and women, all observed and/or supposed differences being social constructs and/or the result of women oppression and/or of the pressures of the patriarchal culture, a position that obviously clashes with the stance of transsexuals (being a woman in a male body, etc... which assumes a difference between male and female brain). And also based on the idea that nobody who isn't born a woman can really be a woman, because he won't share the experience of being raised a girl and experiencing male oppression and cultural pressures girls are subjected to since birth.

And also, even though many social activists deny that such a thing exists, due to the presence in their midst of many men haters, who can only see transsexuals as sexually perverted males trying to steal from women the only thing they have ever been allowed to have : being a woman. When they aren't just simply pretending for sexual gratification. They don't hate trans per se, they hate the men they see pretending to be women, infiltrating women movements, stealing women achievements and entering women locker rooms. They don't see trans-women, they see men. Most would deny that transsexualism is even a thing. They're more lenient with trans-men, but they don't really spare them, either. Basically, these are traitors, "passing" as men.
I trying to figure out what part of this is A) something you think I don't already know, and B) is remotely exculpatory? Yes, they're bigots. You have accurately explained the nature of their bigotry. And?

Quote:
They definitely aren't pretending. They have been and still are at the vanguard of all feminist movements, throwing their support at every feminist cause you are yourself supporting (and probably some you aren't). You want to believe that because it would fit nicely in your worldview where feminist activists are nice oppressed people who always fight the good fight against the oppressive male patriarchy, and trans activists nice oppressed people who always fight the good fight against the oppressive cis male culture. And where everybody disputing either group's claims is a hater. So, you'd rather invoke the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and assume that a feminist objecting to some or all of trans people claims isn't a true feminist (or is as rare an an unicorn) than face the reality of the presence in both group of people who have no interest whatsoever in the plight of the other group. Trans people who don't give a shit about the situation of non trans women and about the consequences policies they advocate for would have for them and feminists who don't give a shit about people who aren't born women and/or aren't physically women and about the consequences the policies they advocate for would have for them.
This is like saying, "A racist is someone who treats people like shit because of their race," and having someone well-actually with, "Racists don't think blacks are people at all, so your description of them is incorrect."

Feminists support women's rights. Transwomen are women. Terfs actively work to undercut transwomen's rights. They slander and libel them. They sometime physically attack them. They're bigots, full stop.

Quote:
It's easy to accuse cis straight white males of being haters when they argue against trans-women in women locker rooms, because your world view definitely allows for them to be haters. But it doesn't allow for feminist women to be haters or to be deluded by extremist/fundamentalist beliefs that allow no nuance. So it becomes a problem when those feminists are arguing against the exact same thing, on the basis of longstanding views that you're otherwise supportive of, which can only be solved by denying that such sincerely feminist women exist, or at least are in any way representative or significant. I'm sure you'd have no problem agreeing with such a feminist stating "Given how much women are victimized, it's perfectly normal for a woman to be wary of all men and about their true intents, and to not assume honest intents on their part". But since you also throw your support to the trans cause, and to their claim that their gender identification shouldn't be disputed in any circumstance, you somehow have a problem when a feminist tells you "why should I assume honest intent on the part of a naked dick-waving person in my locker room just because he says "I feel I'm a woman", exactly?" "Why should I have to face such a situation that I find threatening and abusive and can't have a place where I feel safe, not even a place where I go to undress?"
Bigotry is often couched in terms of personal safety. I don't cut an excuse to white feminists who use personal safety as an excuse to discriminate against blacks. Why should I cut cis feminists an excuse when they discriminate against trans people for the same bullshit reason?

Quote:
Being a feminist doesn't mean that one follows every single one of your progressive (or not progressive for that matter) ideas. Feminists won't necessarily stop arguing for the protection of women interests just because you feel they should in such or such circumstances for the benefit of groups they don't belong to. They won't necessarily feel that a situation isn't threatening just because you say that they shouldn't feel this way. They won't necessarily share any of your views that isn't directly related with feminism, and in particular your definition of "woman". Their feminist views (that, once again, you probably wouldn't dispute if they didn't impact a group that you favor) might very well bring them to absolutely oppose your values. They can very well, and very logically, note that their own interests as non trans women are at odds with the interests of trans women.
Treatment of transwomen is, in fact, directly related to the treatment of women. You can dismiss this as a "article of faith" if you want, but then, "women should be treated the same as men," is also an article of faith. And let's be clear, because you muddy the waters on this quite a bit: feminism, radical feminism, and trans-exclusionary radical feminism are not the same thing. I know lots of radical feminists. Several of them are transwomen. None of them are bigots. Radical feminist != Terf. The latter is a small subset of the former, which is itself a small subset of feminism in general.

Quote:
These radical feminists aren't really rare among vocal activists (they're quite rare in the general population, but then again, casual feminists in the general population aren't necessarily very supportive of trans rights, either). It's just that you probably don't question their equally radical statements when they don't impact trans people. Think about it for a minute : why would you assume that one couldn't at the same time be a sincere feminist (like denouncing sexual abuses, or income differences) and being anti-trans? Is there any obvious reason you can see why being supportive of one issue would make you necessarily supportive of the other? And as I already pointed out, there are on top of this reasons why radical feminist ideology will not be accepting of the concepts generally advanced in support of transsexuals.
Where did I say they were insincere about other feminist-related issues? I'm sure they're honest when they complain about the gender pay gap. I'm sure they're honest when they worry about rates of sexual assault. But I know they're not being honest when they slander transwomen, impute sinister motives to them, attack them in public, and ally with the absolute worst elements in society - elements that are adamantly opposed to literally every other part of their agenda - because their hate isn't getting any traction in mainstream liberal circles.

Last edited by Miller; 05-10-2019 at 12:39 PM.
  #26  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:45 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Terfs have certainly been around for a while - they're pretty strongly associated with second wave feminism - but visible or influential? I can't speak for what its like in France, but Terfs find it very hard to find a platform in leftist circles in the US, and are almost totally excluded from queer circles. One of the shitbags mentioned in the OP's link says this expressly:
They don't necessarily spend a lot of their time arguing about transgendered people. They don't necessarily write their stance wrt this issue on the front page of their websites. They don't necessarily start a conversation by exposing these views. Their perception of transwomen ins't necessarily a central issue for them. What I'm saying is that many are visible and influential as feminists and women right activists, not as TE, and while their views with regard to women issues and gender relationships is based on the exact same prejudices, falsehoods and dogmas as their views wrt trans people but they are only ever called to task for the latter, while being listened to for the former.


Quote:
Feminists don't oppress other women. These people are not feminists.
This is entirely a true Scotsman fallacy. Someone agitating for women rights doesn't have to share all of your views about those rights or anything else for that matter.

On top of which, feminists who feel that they're entitled to decide what other women should do aren't by far limited to TERF or even RadFem in general. Feminists who think that they know better than sex workers or BDSM practitioners what sex workers and BDSM practitioners should do with their life or in their bedroom are commonplace. If you were to deny to all of them the name "femisnist", then you'd reduce a lot the number of feminists, including some whose actions have undeniably improved the situation of women in general.


Quote:
And you are wildly underestimating how strongly these women are motivated by bigotry against trans people.
No, I don't think so. The bigotry is evident, but I think it's for a large part the result and the consequence of their bigotry and hatred towards men, whose existence in the feminist movement is actively denied by many on the left arguing that there can't be such a thing as reverse sexism. Transwomen are only the fifth column of their real enemy, and they aren't treated any worse or with anymore prejudice than men are. I'm yet to see (in real life mostly long ago or on the web nowadays) any TE feminist who isn't filled with prejudice against men too, and in fact primarily.

When for instance they make their best to demonstrate that there's no such thing as men victims of domestic abuse and it's just a big conspiracy by the MRA, they use the same arguments, the same types of falsehoods and rely on the same dogmas they use to demonstrate that there's no such thing as transwomen and it's also just a big conspiracy by men, but their motivations and methods in the first case aren't questioned or even are uncritically accepted by the same people who immediately perceive the prejudice in the second case.

Quote:
WoLF is a hate group. They exist specifically to advocate for discrimination against transwomen. And they're almost entirely funded by the Heritage Foundation. This isn't a genuine feminist movement. It's astroturf.
I know nothing about this specific group.


Quote:
I trying to figure out what part of this is A) something you think I don't already know, and B) is remotely exculpatory? Yes, they're bigots. You have accurately explained the nature of their bigotry. And?
If it was you I was responding to originally, then yes I assumed you didn't know these things, not, on the other hand, that they were exculpatory.

I assumed it because I didn't think that someone familiar with radical feminism and TERFs would believe or state that they aren't genuine feminists with a genuine concern for women rights. A bit like, say, I would have assumed that someone stating that communists don't belong to the left and aren't genuinely concerned with the well being of the workers, but just pretend to be in order to impose a dictatorship doesn't know anything about communists. And I still think that your view about TERFs not being feminists is a Scotsman fallacy.

Quote:
This is like saying, "A racist is someone who treats people like shit because of their race," and having someone well-actually with, "Racists don't think blacks are people at all, so your description of them is incorrect."
Which still would be true and important to know.

Which makes me think that I forgot to mention earlier wrt your comment about me underestimating their bigotry that I think you might be underestimating the importance of theoretical constructs and political dogma in the views they develop. I couldn't tell with certainty whether the prejudice precedes the dogma or the other way around, but IME Radfem are extraordinarily heavy on theoretical concepts, at the expense of pragmatism. They tend to be convinced that they own the truth about life, the universe and all the rest, and, like most political extremists, that anything contradicting their dogma isn't just wrong but presumably an attack of the forces of evil on all that is good and sacred.

As such, I think that an assumption that bigotry in the abstract can alone explain their stance is mistaken. They don't have an issue with transwomen solely (maybe not even primarily) because they randomly dislike transwomen but also because they dare to contradict the dogma, according to which they shouldn't exist. And they give them the only place that the dogma allows : male infiltrators.


Quote:
Feminists support women's rights. Transwomen are women. Terfs actively work to undercut transwomen's rights. They slander and libel them. They sometime physically attack them. They're bigots, full stop.
Once again : Scotsman's fallacy. There's nothing saying that you can't be a feminist and a bigot.

And same response as usual with regard to "transwomen are women". You don't get to decide that the only valid definition of "woman" is "gender self-identification".

As I wrote above in response to another post, this is no different from saying that race is solely determined by self-identification and that anybody identifying as black should be welcomed in the the black community regardless of both physical appearance and life experience. It might be very inclusive of you to think so, but some people are going to disagree with this view, and not just out of hatred.

Quote:
Bigotry is often couched in terms of personal safety. I don't cut an excuse to white feminists who use personal safety as an excuse to discriminate against blacks. Why should I cut cis feminists an excuse when they discriminate against trans people for the same bullshit reason?
The question would be : can women legitimately exclude people in general from places, activities, etc...on the basis of their personal safety? If so, what is the legitimate reason that allows them to refuse the presence of men, *exactly* ?
Because whether or not transwomen can be excluded depends on the responses to these questions.

For instance is there's a legitimate and serious concern that allowing a man in is dangerous, then it is legitimate to want to exclude someone who cannot be distinguished from a man. On the other hand, if the danger presented by men isn't a legitimate concern, then there simply shouldn't be women-only rooms. And besides, the idea that, assuming that men are inherently dangerous and women inherently not dangerous (so making excluding men a legitimate concern), transwomen would be not dangerous because they're women rests on the idea that the mental makeup of a transwoman is exactly identical to the mental makeup of a cis woman, an idea that, despite being promoted, is unproven. If only because nobody knows what is the difference, mentally, and if any, between a man and a woman.

So, no, I have difficulties envisioning a situation where there would be a legitimate safety concern justifying the exclusion of men that wouldn't also make the inclusion of transwomen at least open to debate. Same, basically with sports. I can't see a reason for the existence of separate women sports that wouldn't also make the inclusion of transwomen at least open to debate.


Quote:
Treatment of transwomen is, in fact, directly related to the treatment of women. You can dismiss this as a "article of faith" if you want, but then, "women should be treated the same as men," is also an article of faith. And let's be clear, because you muddy the waters on this quite a bit: feminism, radical feminism, and trans-exclusionary radical feminism are not the same thing. I know lots of radical feminists. Several of them are transwomen. None of them are bigots. Radical feminist != Terf. The latter is a small subset of the former, which is itself a small subset of feminism in general.
True, not all RadFem are TERFs. But TERFs base their views on the same assumptions RadFems use. And in my view they're a bit like believers having two different interpretations of the scriptures. One group pushes the interpretation a bit further and as a result makes pronouncements the other group isn't comfortable with. But in the end they both believe in the same revealed truth, which is sufficiently flawed that it's no surprise that it leads the first group to these interpretations. Basically, I think that non TERF RadFems claims and reasonings generally aren't any more valid than, and exactly as faulty as, TERF claims and reasonings even if they disagree on the specific issue of transpeople.

In other words, I see TERFs as the natural children of radical feminism, and, to paraphrase the famous Game of Thrones sentence : "If you're surprised that TERF would be born from radical feminism, you haven't been paying attention".



Quote:
Where did I say they were insincere about other feminist-related issues? I'm sure they're honest when they complain about the gender pay gap.
Well, even though I don't remember the exact wording of your post, you implied that they weren't feminists, which in mind meant that you thought they didn't really care about women issues, and were only using them as an excuse for trans-bashing.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #27  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:02 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
A prime case of "Baptists and Bootleggers": The Equality Act is drawing opposition from both feminists and conservatives, who claim that a law that requires people to be treated as the gender that they claim to be (rather than the gender they actually are) is going to be greatly disadvantageous to women, because it takes away "safe spaces" for women (not the best term, since that has loaded connotations, but I can't think of what else it would be called.) A man could then compete as a woman in woman's sports simply by claiming he is a woman, etc.
Would you like the mods to change the title to "Two hate-filled fringe groups agree on something"?
  #28  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:46 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
As for the OP...

It's worth noting that RealClearPolitics is not exactly a "middle-of-the-road" rag. They're pretty firmly conservative - better than Fox News, but you're going to end up with framing like this, as though "feminist" and "conservative" are mutually exclusive and WoLF is a legitimate feminist group. Both of those things cannot be true, given that WoLF is a conservative astroturf (or should I say AstroTERF, ha ha) organization bankrolled by conservative groups that exists solely to attack LGBT rights. In fact, many such TERF individuals and groups are explicitly being bankrolled by homophobic and transphobic conservative groups - here's the Heritage Foundation hosting a panel of them.

Needless to say, I think the whole lot of them are both terrible feminists (and, more generally, terrible human beings). When you hate trans people so much you'll ally yourself with the fucking Heritage Foundation, you are not a feminist. You're a bigoted fuckstick who doesn't give two shits about women's rights, otherwise you wouldn't be allying yourself with a group that opposes women's rights at every fucking turn.

This isn't some great divide. There's a handful of astroturfed groups that the religious right is propping up to push back against LGBT rights. It's just become clear that "gay people are sinful" isn't going to cut it, so instead they're smuggling their bigoted rhetoric in under the guise of radical feminism, using Trans rights as the thin edge of the wedge. Because, as it turns out, once you start acceping anti-trans rhetoric, you tend to allow in premises that are easily used against the rest of the LGBT spectrum.

Quote:
Bigots are trying to stir up hatred of trans people as part of a wedge strategy to roll back equal rights for everybody. Scratch the surface of an anti-trans bill and you’ve usually got an anti-gay, anti-women bill that’s designed to take everybody way back in time. For example, in the US, new protections will enable religious people to refuse to treat trans people. We’re not talking orchiectomies and vaginoplasty here. We’re talking basic medicine. First aid after car crashes. Broken legs. Cancer treatment. But trans people are just the headline. Dig a little deeper and -– surprise – they don’t want to treat the gays or women either.
Bolding mine.

There's no divide here. These aren't "different groups coming together to oppose a bill". It's conservative transphobic bigots allying with and bankrolling other conservative transphobic bigots to make their conservative transphobic bigotry look less conservative and bigoted. But make no mistake - it is both conservative and bigoted.

Like, let's be clear here.

Here's a line from the article the OP links:

Quote:
Under this bill, men and boys will take away women’s small business grants and hard-won spots on sports teams; they will be allowed to live in women’s domestic violence shelters and use our locker rooms.
What the author is telling us here is that transwomen are men.

Pull this kind of transphobic, bigoted bullshit here, and from what I've seen you'll eat a well-deserved warning and thread ban.

The whole article is pretty much just this kind of disgusting transphobic horseshit from top to bottom. I'm kind of curious what Velocity wanted to achieve by posting it. Dude, did you not read past the headline? Or do you actually agree with this lukewarm gorilla shit?

Oh, and they're lying about Colleen Francis, as if this wasn't disgusting enough as it is.

Quote:
What if I were to tell you that, unlike the mountains of reports citing Fox News, the ex-gay advocacy group (oh, did I fail to mention – just like the news reports did – that the Alliance Defending Freedom for Faith and Justice is an ex-gay group?), and the police report, I called the college, got the facts and learned that the facts don’t exactly match up with the myth of the now infamous Evergreen State College incident?

Here’s the nugget of truth to the story: two teens did claim to see Colleen Francis nude while in the Evergreen College sauna.

Here’s what may not have not heard:
  • The sauna area was off limits to the two teens.
  • Unless one specifically tries to see inside the sauna, you can’t view the people inside the sauna.
  • Colleen Francis AND her cisgender female friend were using the sauna together. They were sitting there talking.
  • At no point did Francis act to expose herself to children.
  • At no point was Francis walking around nude in the area where children were.
So, the actual story is that two 17-year-olds went into an area they weren’t allowed, attempted to view the people in the sauna and saw Francis. The rest of what you’ve probably heard about this incident is, at this point, an urban myth.
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are better described as Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes. The acronym fits their general demeanor and attitude better, too.

"Baptists and Bootleggers". Penny Nance's previous article on RealClearPolitics is "When Will the Rising Tide of Bias Against Christians Stop?" which is exactly the kind of insipid "WAAAH PEOPLE ARE MEAN TO ME BECAUSE I'M A HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT" whining you'd expect given the title. Natasha Chart writes for the fucking Federalist. Really just Baptists and more Baptists.
  #29  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:33 AM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are better described as Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes. The acronym fits their general demeanor and attitude better, too.
That might be true of this particular group I know nothing about, but stating that all TERFs are reactionaries bankrolled by conservative groups is utterly false.

The debate about trans inclusion among feminist activists isn't anything new, it has been around for as long as I can remember (and I'm not a spring child anymore) and even before, and didn't wait for the alleged funding by conservative groups.

Whether you sincerely believe it to be true or not, this is just baseless accusations to avoid facing the fact that genuine feminists, and in fact especially the most ardent feminists, haven't always been supportive of transpeople rights, and still aren't.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-10-2019 at 11:37 AM.
  #30  
Old 05-10-2019, 06:14 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
... as the gender that they claim to be (rather than the gender they actually are) ...
And who judges this?
  #31  
Old 05-10-2019, 07:31 AM
yendis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 357
I'm opposed to the law because it means that women can go around pretending to be men, avoiding glass ceilings, getting higher salaries and all the best jobs. And worst of all, getting the benefit of a shorter line for the men's toilets in bars, stadiums etc. This is unacceptable.
  #32  
Old 05-10-2019, 07:42 AM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
This is also partially a Rachel Dolezal question. Why isn't Rachel Dolezal black? She said she's black, she ostensibly believed she was black, she acted in ways in which a black person would act, she changed her appearance cosmetically to appear to be black, she seems to say that she identified as black not out of some sort of choice, but rather as an expression of her 'true nature.' The bottom-line though is that Rachel Dolezal was not able to be black because she did not live the life of oppression and have the experience that was necessary to be considered black.

It's a similar argument from feminists over transgender rights. They certainly live a life with their own struggles, but they are not the same struggles that women have to go through. They can always choose to return to/pass as/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to their birth gender and escape the inherent oppression of being a woman. The fight that they have may sometimes intersect with the fight of biological women, but they are not the same and sometimes they are at odds, particularly when you start to get into the realm of 'self-identification.' If there is a scholarship for 'Women in Science' and someone who claims to be transgendered applies and is awarded this scholarship, is that really helping women? I think that many would argue it is not. If a company is found to be sexist in their hiring practices and has to hire more women, but hires biological males claiming to be transgendered women, are they now less sexist? Have opportunities actually been created for women? I think that's where a lot of the feminist concern comes from. It may or may not be ill-founded concern, but I think that it's legitimate concern.
  #33  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:16 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
This is also partially a Rachel Dolezal question. Why isn't Rachel Dolezal black? She said she's black, she ostensibly believed she was black, she acted in ways in which a black person would act, she changed her appearance cosmetically to appear to be black, she seems to say that she identified as black not out of some sort of choice, but rather as an expression of her 'true nature.' The bottom-line though is that Rachel Dolezal was not able to be black because she did not live the life of oppression and have the experience that was necessary to be considered black.
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.

Quote:
It's a similar argument from feminists over transgender rights. They certainly live a life with their own struggles, but they are not the same struggles that women have to go through.
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.

Quote:
They can always choose to return to/pass as/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to their birth gender and escape the inherent oppression of being a woman.
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?

Quote:
If there is a scholarship for 'Women in Science' and someone who claims to be transgendered applies and is awarded this scholarship, is that really helping women? I think that many would argue it is not.
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...)

...is a woman.

___________

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?

Quote:
If a company is found to be sexist in their hiring practices and has to hire more women, but hires biological males claiming to be transgendered women, are they now less sexist? Have opportunities actually been created for women? I think that's where a lot of the feminist concern comes from. It may or may not be ill-founded concern, but I think that it's legitimate concern.
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.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 05-10-2019 at 08:18 AM.
  #34  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:06 AM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...)

...is 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.

Quote:
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.
  #35  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:56 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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.
  #36  
Old 05-10-2019, 08:45 AM
Filbert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post

It's a similar argument from feminists over transgender rights. They certainly live a life with their own struggles, but they are not the same struggles that women have to go through. They can always choose to return to/pass as/whatever-you-want-to-call-it to their birth gender and escape the inherent oppression of being a woman.
That's one of the weirdest arguments I've ever seen- if these cis women think a trans woman deciding to 'pass' as male is going to escape the 'inherent oppression of being a woman', what's stopping them doing it themselves? Gender identity? The same thing they're denying in others?

And no two cis women have the same struggles growing up; a girl brought up by a sexist asshole father who expected her to be an uneducated housewife is going to have had totally different experiences to one brought up by, say, a feminist lesbian couple, but no-one thinks that means one is somehow less female than the other. The concept of 'feminists' who try to demand that all women have to have had one set of experiences to count as women, hence worthy of equality, would be laughable if it wasn't being used to affect real people.

If there starts being a wave of men who claim to identify as women simply to gain access to female spaces, then ways to prevent that would be worth considering.

There isn't.

Using a theoretical possibility that someone could be victimised in the future to justify present victimisation (especially of a group that already tends to get plenty of that) is just not a good argument.
  #37  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:45 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 55,413
10 Things You Should Known About Concerned Women For America can be summed up in four words: They are fucked up
  #38  
Old 05-10-2019, 11:27 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Back to the OP: Can you explain why you thought these two questionable groups were representative of either the liberal or conservative movements, Velocity?
  #39  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
The idea that allowing trans people to use locker rooms will lead to an outbreak of perversion has been proven false by the fact that trans people have been using locker rooms for years (probably decades in some places) without such an outbreak of perversion and lewd assaults. There's nothing to fear here except for those who hate trans people.
  #40  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Forcing transwomen to use men's locker rooms has lead to assault and death for transwomen. Allowing transwomen to use women's locker rooms might have a chance of leading to some feelings of distress for some anti-trans bigots. One of those things seems like something that it's reasonable to worry about; the other does not.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-10-2019 at 01:12 PM.
  #41  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:28 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
It’s not entirely fictional. There have already been cases of trans-women (or men who say that they’re women, depending on your point of view) being given access to female spaces and committing sexual assaults that absolutely wouldn’t have occurred if they hadn’t been granted access to those spaces.
Sure it could have occurred. A dishonest perv can pretend to be a transwoman, or a transman (or a ciswoman or cisman, for that matter), to gain access to their preferred targets, depending on the "rules". This doesn't change because transwomen are allowed to use locker rooms. Liars will lie, and pervs will perv, whatever the rules.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #42  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:53 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sure it could have occurred. A dishonest perv can pretend to be a transwoman, or a transman (or a ciswoman or cisman, for that matter), to gain access to their preferred targets, depending on the "rules". This doesn't change because transwomen are allowed to use locker rooms. Liars will lie, and pervs will perv, whatever the rules.
This discussion isn’t just about locker rooms. It’s about all female spaces. The strategy you describe will only work in a society which makes it easy for people to self-certify their own gender. Which is why women who (perhaps due to past experiences with men) only feel safe in female spaces can be concerned about the prospect of anatomical males whose predilections they don’t know being granted access to those spaces simply because they’ve declared themselves to be women.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 05-10-2019 at 03:53 PM.
  #43  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:55 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet
...I mean, we don't anymore. Exactly these arguments were used in the 70s to argue that lesbians shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because they were dangerous. They're based on the exact same bullshit assumptions, the exact same discriminatory rhetoric
Cite that anyone anywhere has ever had that discussion.
  #44  
Old 05-10-2019, 03:58 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Cite that anyone anywhere has ever had that discussion.
Since this board wasn't around back in the 70's, that would be quite a trick.
  #45  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
This discussion isn’t just about locker rooms. It’s about all female spaces. The strategy you describe will only work in a society which makes it easy for people to self-certify their own gender. Which is why women who (perhaps due to past experiences with men) only feel safe in female spaces can be concerned about the prospect of anatomical males whose predilections they don’t know being granted access to those spaces simply because they’ve declared themselves to be women.
The strategy I describe already works. I've known assholes who have done such disgusting things, and generally gotten away with it, because most people don't pay much attention to who else is in the bathroom. Most people aren't worried about who's in the next stall. It's always been possible and always will be, and its frequency doesn't depend on whether we treat trans people like human beings.

Most people go to the bathroom, do their business, and get out. A few pervs find ways to do pervy things in bathrooms -- by wearing a disguise, pretending to be the janitor, just going in feigning confidence, or whatever. Treating trans people with dignity and respect doesn't change any of this.
  #46  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:35 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sure it could have occurred. A dishonest perv can pretend to be a transwoman, or a transman (or a ciswoman or cisman, for that matter), to gain access to their preferred targets, depending on the "rules". This doesn't change because transwomen are allowed to use locker rooms. Liars will lie, and pervs will perv, whatever the rules.
But then shouldn't this lead to the conclusion that women only spaces are utterly unnecessary?

Because I'm not arguing that transwomen in women only spaces is clearly a problem. I'm arguing that if there's actually a problem wrt the presence of men in some spaces (be it safety or simply prudishness or whatever else), then the access of people stating that they identify as a woman despite not having a woman make up is also a legitimate concern.

If it doesn't matter who enters a locker room because anyway pervs will find ways to do their perv things and this is addressed by existing laws about pervs and perv things, and women have no valid reason to be bothered by the unwanted sight of a dick, then I'm not sure why the solution advocated shouldn't be to make to make these spaces coed, period.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-10-2019 at 05:36 PM.
  #47  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:56 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
But then shouldn't this lead to the conclusion that women only spaces are utterly unnecessary?

Because I'm not arguing that transwomen in women only spaces is clearly a problem. I'm arguing that if there's actually a problem wrt the presence of men in some spaces (be it safety or simply prudishness or whatever else), then the access of people stating that they identify as a woman despite not having a woman make up is also a legitimate concern.

If it doesn't matter who enters a locker room because anyway pervs will find ways to do their perv things and this is addressed by existing laws about pervs and perv things, and women have no valid reason to be bothered by the unwanted sight of a dick, then I'm not sure why the solution advocated shouldn't be to make to make these spaces coed, period.
Feel free to advocate for this. But, in general, people seem to prefer segregated-gender bathrooms and locker rooms. Yet, somehow, we haven't had a plague of pervs, despite how incredibly easy it is to be deceitful (and always has been), mostly because virtually no one is interested in going in the "wrong" bathroom. This is a solution in search of a problem. Treating trans people with decency doesn't change this at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
No it isn’t. If a man walks into a women’s bathroom today (or locker room, or domestic violence shelter, or whatever) he’s told to get out, and if he refuses security or the police will remove him.
For bathrooms and locker rooms, not in my experience. I've seen men go into women's bathrooms/locker rooms (and the reverse) dozens of times in my life, if not more. Never did I see police involvement.

Quote:
If he’s a predator, and if he can establish his bona fides by simply saying “I’m a woman”, what recourse does anyone have? Why can’t he stay there for as long as he likes? And how are vulnerable women in the same space supposed to deal with that?
This already could have occurred. There's nothing new here. He could have said "I'm a transman, but the rules say that I'm a woman so I have to go here". Pretending to be a transwoman gets him into the ladies room under my set of rules... pretending to be a transman gets him into the ladies room under your set of rules. Either way, it's very easy, as it always has been, for a man to go into the ladies' room. But it doesn't happen very often, because very, very few men actually want to go into the ladies' room.

This is not a real, actual problem in the real world, aside from extremely rare cases that already existed and aren't going away.

Quote:
And if there was some way for women to tell the difference between non-passing trans women and predators I might agree. But there isn’t.
Sure there is -- is one behaving lewdly? Is one assaulting people? Or are they just going into the stall and peeing? It's really not hard at all. Predators predate; most people just go to the bathroom to do their business.
  #48  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:15 PM
clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Feel free to advocate for this. But, in general, people seem to prefer segregated-gender bathrooms and locker rooms. Yet, somehow, we haven't had a plague of pervs, despite how incredibly easy it is to be deceitful (and always has been), mostly because virtually no one is interested in going in the "wrong" bathroom. This is a solution in search of a problem. Treating trans people with decency doesn't change this at all.
If you assert that there's no compelling interest in having segregated locker rooms besides a vague preference, since they don't offer any more safety for instance, obviously having transwomen in them isn't an issue, but then again neither is having anybody else there, including an openly cis and straight male. Which obviously nullifies the "but what if the transwoman is actually a cisman" concern.

But many people argue that there's such a compelling interest. If a woman was telling you that she should be spared the presence of men in locker rooms because she fears for her safety (even if she recognizes that the risk of being assaulted is objectively extremely low), or because it makes her very uncomfortable to have men possibly checking her up when she undresses, or because she shouldn't have to see some stranger's dick, would you tell her that in fact she shouldn't have such an expectation, and that none of the reasons she advances are legitimate?

Because in this case, her interest in preventing access to the locker room can be valued at 0, which seems to be your argument, and the desire of a transwoman to go into this locker room will necessarily be more important than hers, even if it's only valued at 0.001 for feeling good. But if you agree that she has *some* interest at least in limiting this access, say valued at 1, then you have to show that the interest of the transwomen in entering the locker room can be given some higher value because then there are competing interests, and you have to choose whose interest is more important.

So do you recognize or do you deny that women have any legitimate interest in limiting access to locker rooms on the basis of gender besides a meaningless personal preference?
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 05-10-2019 at 10:15 PM.
  #49  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:30 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,944
I think the "alike" in the OP is the problematic part. It's opposed by a large section of conservatives and a very narrow slice of radical anti-trans feminists.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #50  
Old 05-10-2019, 04:07 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,873
When cisgender female athletes complain about the physical advantage of trans athletes, the response to them seems to be......"Deal with it."
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017