Straight Dope Message Board

[Velocity]

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. 1

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Velocity

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. 2

[Czarcasm]

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. 3

[Miller]

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. 4

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Velocity

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"? 5

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Miller

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. 6

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

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. 7

[clairobscur]

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. 8

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

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 :

The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

or another :

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. 9

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

"The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

<snip>

I can't think of a definition of feminism that isn't ad hoc and that would imply the acceptance of transwomen.

Seems to me "equality of the sexes" would encompass transwomen. 10

[octopus]

If society is going to demand separate considerations, such as sports, for men and women at some point simply declaring one to be a man or a woman won’t be sufficient for acceptance in exclusive activities. There are real biological differences between men and women that one cannot doublethink away.

And I’m not sure why people are attacking the recognition of biology as hate. It’s bizarre. That said, nothing is going to be resolved on this subject here. It’s like the endless gun debates.

Personally I don’t care what people call themselves, how they dress, what pronouns, what name, or who they have sex with. But I do have an issue with biological men competing in women’s divisions merely because of a declaration. 11

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by octopus

But I do have an issue with biological men competing in women’s divisions merely because of a declaration.

Me too but it takes more than a declaration.

But it is abundantly clear that men who switch to being women have a major advantage over women who were born women in many sports.

- Transgender weightlifter smashes women's world records, sparking backlash from Olympians

That said I do not see what "feminism" has to do with this. 12

[Tee]

Going by the OP's article, the feminists might be upset about having to share space with other women who are a) biologically male b) stark naked, and c) sexually attracted to them, d) somewhat lacking in decency. Not a difficult concept. 13

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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. 14

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Tee

Going by the OP's article, the feminists might be upset about having to share space with other women who are a) biologically male b) stark naked, and c) sexually attracted to them, d) somewhat lacking in decency. Not a difficult concept.

What?

Everything you wrote is a difficult concept for me. 15

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Seems to me "equality of the sexes" would encompass transwomen.

I don't understand what you mean, here. I assume you don't mean that transwomen are a third separate sex that should be equal to the others.

So, assuming that we're talking about two sexes, then of course transwomen would be included and equal to everybody else, but this still wouldn't say if they are men equals to women or women equal to men.

On top of it and more importantly, what you're trying to do here is, again, a true Scotsman fallacy. While it's obvious that not all people who define themselves as feminist, or who are generally considered as feminists support the transwomen right to be considered women, you're trying to interpret definitions of feminism so as to exclude them.

Feminists have historically fought for the rights of women, as they understood "women" to be. Which means that many never even wondered about whether transwomen should be included, and a significant number have openly excluded transwomen. They didn't fight for trans rights, and you can't invent a requirement for being considered a feminist like supporting transwomen, supporting gay people, favoring an universal healthcare system or liking Pepsi more than Coke. 16

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by octopus

If society is going to demand separate considerations, such as sports, for men and women at some point simply declaring one to be a man or a woman won’t be sufficient for acceptance in exclusive activities.

This problem is almost entirely confined to the area of sports competitions, though. In pretty much every aspect of life other than people engaging in heavily elaborated versions of playground games for the entertainment of spectators, whether or not a person is transgender or cisgender is simply irrelevant. (Of course, many people feel that the distinction between transgender and cisgender is important in their private romantic and sexual lives, but that's their personal preference and nobody else's business.)

Originally Posted by octopus

There are real biological differences between men and women that one cannot doublethink away.

And I’m not sure why people are attacking the recognition of biology as hate. It’s bizarre.

Nobody is "attacking the recognition of biology" or trying to "doublethink away" "real biological differences". As I have explained to you and others on these boards at least a dozen times, nobody is trying to pretend that transgender and cisgender (not to mention intersex) people don't have real biological differences in their genetic makeup, their genital anatomy at birth, and so forth. Trans rights are not about denying biological reality in any way.

What trans rights are about is the current category shift in the social definitions of the categories "men" and "women". There is no intrinsic reason, for example, why the social use of the label "man" has to be synonymous with the category of "people born with a penis", any more than it has to be synonymous with the category of "people who are sexually attracted to women".

Is it "denying biology" to refer to homosexual men as men, even though (most) homosexual men lack the traditionally essential male characteristic of being sexually attracted to women? If not, then there's nothing intrinsically "denying biology" in referring to transgender men as men, even if they lack the traditionally essential male characteristic of being born with a penis. 17

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

That said I do not see what "feminism" has to do with this.

Easy. They see it as men invading one of the rare women space and stealing their accomplishments. In fact, it's mentioned in the article linking to by the OP, I believe.

Or maybe I should rather write "preventing women from achieving anything". Radical feminists have a very adversarial view of gender relationships (not just strictly radical feminists, in fact. You can see this adversarial view of gender relations in action for instance in the current thread about touching coworkers, where a certain number of posters immediately assume that the only reason a man could have to touch a woman would be asserting control and power on this woman. They don't just suspect that the man could have nefarious intentions, they assume this as default). So, they tend to perceive men as permanently trying to oppress women. And to assume that the motivation (not just the result) of a man's action is to oppress them (consciously or unconsciously). So, in this case it can go beyond the suspicion that a man who can't compete as man will pretend to be a woman so that he will get a medal, incidentally depriving a woman from it, motivated by egoistical self-interest, to the assumption that the man will pretend to be a woman *in order* to deprive actual women from a medal (again, not necessarily perfectly consciously), motivated by a desire to oppress women and put them back at their subordinate place.


Look for instance at the arguments used against the participation of transwomen in feminist events. You'll easily notice that it goes beyond the idea that transwomen aren't really women and have no place there. The idea is that they're men trying to deprive women from power *even within the feminist movement* and to gain control of this movement. They're not just wrong in thinking they're women, they're actively, sneakily, trying to oppress women. 18

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

You can see this adversarial view of gender relations in action for instance in the current thread about touching coworkers, where a certain number of posters immediately assume that the only reason a man could have to touch a woman would be asserting control and power on this woman. They don't just suspect that the man could have nefarious intentions, they assume this as default).

Just correcting this misinterpretation of the concurrent thread: No, it's not that all men are immediately assumed to have "nefarious intentions" about deliberately trying to "assert control and power" over women. It's that in a traditionally and persistently sexist society, human beings are always immersed in cultural expectations about men being entitled to assert control and power over women, and human behavior is bound to reflect that. 19

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Just correcting this misinterpretation of the concurrent thread: No, it's not that all men are immediately assumed to have "nefarious intentions" about deliberately trying to "assert control and power" over women. It's that in a traditionally and persistently sexist society, human beings are always immersed in cultural expectations about men being entitled to assert control and power over women, and human behavior is bound to reflect that.

Well, in this case, it's similar to what I wrote about RadFem not necessarily assuming that a man oppressing a woman does so consciously but that his behavior is often dictated by the patriarchal structure of society. I struggled with expressing this concept.

In any case, I still see what you say as an adversarial view of gender relationships. when you write that men behavior will reflect the cultural expectation that men are entitled to assert control over women, it still implies that it's what they do when they touch a woman (asserting control). And exclude a simple explanation like : "he touched her because it was a convenient way to get her attention" without not only nefarious intent, but also any subtext reflecting men entitlement.

This is definitely a view according to which any male behavior is interpreted by default as reflecting men entitlement and women oppression and the possibility that there could be a neutral or pragmatical explanation for these behaviors is rejected. 20

[Nava]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

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. 21

[Ronald Raygun]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

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. 22

[x-ray vision]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Me too but it takes more than a declaration.

But it is abundantly clear that men who switch to being women have a major advantage over women who were born women in many sports.

- Transgender weightlifter smashes women's world records, sparking backlash from Olympians

Old news.


https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/05/0...alified-trans/ 23

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Tee

Going by the OP's article, the feminists might be upset about having to share space with other women who are a) biologically male b) stark naked, and c) sexually attracted to them, d) somewhat lacking in decency. Not a difficult concept.

Also: not something that actually happens. It's a phantom fear that simply does not happen.

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Me too but it takes more than a declaration.

But it is abundantly clear that men who switch to being women have a major advantage over women who were born women in many sports.

How many olympic athletes have been transwomen since the IOC allowed transwomen to participate in 2004? How many olympic athletes have been transwomen since the IOC loosened those restrictions again in 2015?

The answer is zero and zero, respectively. Out of tens of thousands, there isn't a single one represented.

Transwomen are actually drastically underrepresented in elite sport. 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. 24

[Budget Player Cadet]

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.

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:

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.

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. 25

[bobot]

Originally Posted by Velocity

... as the gender that they claim to be (rather than the gender they actually are) ...

And who judges this? 26

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Also: not something that actually happens. It's a phantom fear that simply does not happen.

<snip>

Transwomen are actually drastically underrepresented in elite sport. 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 almost as if you completely ignored the link I provided (which x-ray vision updated with a more recent story). 27

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

I don't understand what you mean, here. I assume you don't mean that transwomen are a third separate sex that should be equal to the others.

Most feminists want equality. They are not asking for special rules or privileges. So, one would suppose that equality would extend to anyone and everyone. 28

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

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.

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. 29

[yendis]

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. 30

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

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. 31

[senoy]

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. 32

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by senoy

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.

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.

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?

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?

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. 33

[Filbert]

Originally Posted by senoy

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. 34

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

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 35

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Because lifts for a woman are world records, and for a man they are barely more than middle of the pack.

Regards,
Shodan

I know you think this is an argument, or relevant, but... it isn't. 36

[senoy]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

It's hard to quote just a single 3-paragraph segment from this tour de force response by ZinniaJones to this particular argument, but if I had to choose, I think I'd go with this one:

There’s another element of dissimilarity that’s especially striking to me. Trans people have reached what might be called a “critical mass” of awareness. Our visible presence has reached a point where emerging trans people have the means to recognize themselves in us, helping each of them to develop a better understanding of their gender and what’s best for them in their life. I’ve received hundreds of messages from viewers who’ve said that my work led them to realize that they’re trans, but this has been occurring for decades – after Christine Jorgensen publicly transitioned in 1952, hospitals received thousands of requests from trans people who also wanted to transition (Meyerowitz, 2002).

Yet in the wake of Rachel Dolezal’s real-life example, we see nothing of the sort. There aren’t thousands of people emerging to say that her life reflects their own experiences, or that they feel more affirmed in themselves now as a result of her visibility. She is not an instance of a latent yet widespread phenomenon that’s now rising to public awareness – she is one individual, with a particular set of personal issues, who has made a very unique series of poor choices in her life.

Bolding mine. It's a toss-up between this and the bit at the start where she rakes you over the coals for even making such an absurd comparison to begin with. Rachel Dolezal is not comparable to LGBT people. And grounding the discussion in terms of flighty notions about "what is race" or "what is gender" misses how completely these comparisons fall apart when comparing Rachel's life to the life of the average trans person, or "transracialism" to "transgenderism" in aggregate.

Seriously, read the article, then don't make this awful comparison again, please.

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

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

If you've spoken to a single transwoman you'll hear that, alongside concepts like transmisogyny, transwomen suffer from much of the same misogny cis women do. When it comes to sexism, if it's not explicitly biological (like abortion), transwomen almost always suffer alongside ciswomen. Their struggle doesn't simply intersect with that of biological women, it overlaps to an extreme degree.

If you talk to Rachel Dolezal, she will certainly be able to tell you how she too has suffered from her position. To be honest, she has had to endure extreme suffering for being 'whatever it is she is.' She's a subject of public scorn, she lost her job, she was unable to find anyone to hire her. She has suffered abuse for her 'race' as others have.

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

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

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

...What? The actual? Fuck?

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

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

(See if you can figure out where I'm going with this...)

...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.

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. 37

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Nava

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.

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?

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. 38

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

I know you think this is an argument, or relevant, but... it isn't.

Of course it's relevant. If the same lift is a world record in the women's class but unremarkable in the men's class, then competing in the women's class is a large advantage to those who want to win and set world records.

If transgender status doesn't make any difference, then why aren't there any FtM transgender athletes winning at the same level? Because, on average, biological maleness confers an advantage in sports in which males and females compete under the same rules.

So...it is.

Regards,
Shodan 39

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by Tee

Going by the OP's article, the feminists might be upset about having to share space with other women who are a) biologically male b) stark naked, and c) sexually attracted to them, d) somewhat lacking in decency. Not a difficult concept.

What's the alternative? Show your genitals at the door and/or take a genetic test before you're allowed to use the bathroom or locker room? Something tells me women of all political stripes, not just trans-exclusionary feminists, will dislike that.

Or keep doing it the way we've done it for millennia, and just go by what gender people say they are and how they present themselves? I know which one I would choose. 40

[Annie-Xmas]

10 Things You Should Known About Concerned Women For America can be summed up in four words: They are fucked up 41

[x-ray vision]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

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:

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!

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.

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. 42

[Tee]

Originally Posted by DrCube

Or keep doing it the way we've done it for millennia, and just go by what gender people say they are and how they present themselves? I know which one I would choose.

Agreed, that's how we do it. That's two criteria. 43

[x-ray vision]

Originally Posted by x-ray vision

The male pelvis is better suited for childbirth.

Whoops. 44

[octopus]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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? 45

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

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? 46

[x-ray vision]

Originally Posted by x-ray vision

Do hemoglobin levels become equal?

I found the following:

The hemoglobin, hematocrit, and RBC number are all seen to decrease during hormone therapy in transgender women. A previous study of 55 transgender women3 showed that hemoglobin levels decreased significantly from cis-gender male levels to be not significantly different from cis-gender female hemoglobin. With a larger patient group, we were able to confirm this previous finding of decreased hemoglobin, but transgender women’s hemoglobin levels are still significantly different from individuals with sex-assigned female at birth (Figure 2).

https://labmedicineblog.com/2018/12/...ender-females/

Why this matters:

Jamie Pringle, a physiologist who has coached many world and Olympic champions, says: “The most consistent observation about the difference is that women have lower total mass of haemoglobin in their blood, compared to men, and less blood in total. This means less capacity to transport oxygen in the blood, which, when combined with the heart’s ability to pump that blood, and the muscle’s capacity to extract the oxygen from it, is a key determinant of aerobic fitness and endurance.”

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitnes...erently-344365 47

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by senoy

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

Go back and reread Filbert's post. Why yes, Caitlyn Jenner is a phenomenally privileged person! I don't know why that matters. She's a massive outlier in almost every way. And for most of her life, yeah, she didn't face misogyny. Does she face it now? Almost certainly, in the way you may expect any old rich white woman to face misogyny.

The idea is that you CAN do that, while biological females CANNOT.

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

If every female scholarship in the country were to magically go to trans women, would the plight of biological women be better off? Obviously not.

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

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

I think I would claim that if the benefits to being transgendered became great enough, there would be people that would fake it. I work with admissions at a large university and I know that right now racially people fake it constantly.

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

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

Or, to put it another way...

I think that feminist groups are worried about that scenario coming into play and wish to prevent it.

Man, if only there was a term for "irrational fear of trans people".

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

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

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

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

If you accept this kind of nonsense moon logic, there is no discrimination or bigotry against trans people you can't justify by appealing to what might happen if you don't. 48

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by octopus

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.

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.

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". 49

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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.

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.

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? 50