One of those groups is far more likely to be the perpetrator of violent crime, committing 95% of all homicides worldwide. Do you also consider transwomen’s concerns about male violence misplaced?
In almost any social situation, simple self-identification is sufficient. There are some areas where some degree of gatekeeping is appropriate. We’ve discussed prisons at length already. My general apathy for anything sports related is almost total, so I’m not the best person to address that specific issue, but my understanding is that a lot of athletic organizations already have guidelines in place for allowing trans women to compete, that usually involve some level of hormonal monitoring. I’m fine with that. I’m okay with more stringent restrictions in contact sports, where there’s a genuine physical safety issue, but I’m not sure a total ban on trans athletes is necessary. I think scholarship programs should probably do some minimal investigation to prevent outright fraud, but I’m leery of checklists like, “Must be on hormone therapy,” or “had surgery.” Medical interventions can be expensive, and may be a health risk for certain individuals. “Lived x amount of time as a woman,” is probably workable, provided a reasonable definition for “living as a woman” is used. Some historical implementations of that sort of standard have included things like, “Never wear pants ever, under any circumstance.”
Trans men are trans men. Insisting they are men, no different than other men, is what feels like gaslighting. Because it’s biologically false.
Fuck biology.
Who’s saying they’re “no different from other men”? I mean, if we’re bringing up gaslighting and all, this probably qualifies.
More likely, though–as is always more likely–you’re just misunderstanding the arguments others are making. Gaslighting is a really easy accusation to make when people disagree with you, it suggests that they know you’re right but are lying so that they don’t have to admit you’re right.
I have yet to hear the activist who claims that there’s no difference between trans men and cis men. If you’ve heard this claim, it’d be lovely to cite it. Otherwise, it feels like gaslighting.
The point made was about the fear of being a victim of violence. Who needs protection, whether women need women-only prisons to avoid being victims of violence and so forth. So “male violence” isn’t relevant. Do you respond to BLM with concern trolling about Black On Black Crime?
“Fuck biology” is the male privilege way of saying let them eat cake.
“Biology” is an excuse straight people use to oppress queer people.
I don’t agree with allowing trans women on hormone therapy to compete as women, because male biology provides a hell of a lot more advantages than just hormones. Body size, joint differences, larger hearts and lungs, more fast twitch muscle fibre. All these make more or less of a difference in different sports, and there is no way of ensuring a level playing field.
For scholarships, awards etc, I think you have to consider the purpose. If it is supposed to help women because of discrimination, then I strongly oppose anyone who presents as a man being eligible, because they do not suffer that particular form of discrimination. Even for someone who has fully transitioned, I think it can be dodgy. For example, if a transwoman achieved all or most of her success in X before transition, I do not think she should be eligible for the ‘women in X’ award. If she transitioned before starting X, then I am happier to support it. If the aim is to make sure women are represented in politics, decision making etc, then I oppose transwomen standing, because trans people have their own set of issues and concerns, not the same as those of ciswomen. It would be better to have separate trans representation in those cases, rather than taking spots from natal women.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Also, please to get your own analogy, I already used that one with Banquet Bear.
#UnexpectedMisandry
It’s also an excuse men use to oppress women. Not gender ID. Biology.
Yes, it is. Seems like using biology as the basis for determining someone’s civil rights does not have a great track record, does it?
No, this is wrong. A person’s gender identity is their mental state, and this is no less objectively real than their genitalia. Do you think the fact that a cat behaves like a cat is less objectively real than the fur and claws?
We sometimes talk colloquially about “physical” vs “mental” attributes, but that terminology is misleading. A person’s mental state has a physical basis (a neuron configuration) that’s just as objectively real as their genitalia.
@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness, I’m hoping you’ll answer about how well you think we as a society are doing at stopping creepy people being creepy, in the light of #MeToo, President Grab Them by the Pussy, campaigns against street harassment, etc.
That seems like a weird gotcha. Of course we have a lot of work to do in this regard. But that’s a non sequitur: the cases of trans women attacking cis women in restrooms is vanishingly rare. No longer attacking trans women for using the women’s restroom or using the men’s restroom will get us much further toward the “stopping creepy people being creepy” that continuing these attacks will do.
Biology is the basis of female oppression. Women carry a reproductive burden that men do not, and this burden has been used to marginalize us from power for thousands of years, across all societies. In the U.S., women make it more than half the population but less than 25% of Congress . I’m starting to doubt we will ever see a female president in my lifetime and I’m only 42.
Seeing “fuck biology” from a goddamn man, who has always had the privilege of seeing men making decisions that are in men’s best interest, is actually making my blood boil right now.
What, exactly, is “biologically false”? Humans have a mental state that correlates somewhat with gender - most of us “feel” male or female. If you’re a cis male, you don’t have to keep checking between your legs to know who you are as a person. Your brain would not suddenly change if you lost your penis in an accident, you would still feel that your identity is male.
Our mental state, just like everything about us, is a combination of genes and environmental factors. And since there are very few genes on the Y chromosome, all humans are born with virtually the same set of genes. So it’s perfectly biologically plausible that a minority of people could be born with female external genitalia but the mental configuration of a typical male (or vice versa).
So it’s perfectly biologically reasonable that a trans man and a cis man could have exactly the same mental state, exactly the same gender identity.
Who’s saying we should attack trans women for using either restroom? I mentioned in another post I’m more concerned about the trend towards unisex bathrooms. If it’s in eg a family restaurant, with people of both sexes present, then that’s fine. But if it was in a club, and I walked in to find just a group of drunk men present, I probably wouldn’t risk it.
Riemman
No, this is wrong. A person’s gender identity is their mental state, and this is no less objectively real than their genitalia. Do you think the fact that a cat behaves like a cat is less objectively real than the fur and claws?
How does a woman act? Can you describe that without resorting to stereotypes?
What is a woman’s mental state and how does it differ from a man’s? What evidence is there to support that men and women have different “mental states”?
If gender identity is objective, how do we measure it? Is there a test one can take to ascertain what gender their mind is? Can you recognize on sight who has what gender identity?
How do I differentiate a man who falsely thinks he’s a woman from a man who truly is? Some trans women have gender dysphoria; some do not. Some trans women don’t take hormones or get surgery; some do. Do we treat them differently are all they both considered women?