Like what? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m genuinely asking. What did they say that made a stronger case to you that makes you believe that transwomen should be allowed access to women’s spaces?
You said that you concede that gatekeeping is necessary…if it were your call what gatekeeping would you put in place and how would it be enforced?
Good lord. Why even have words like male and female and men and women if the meanings are going to be so watered down to not offend a certain segment of the population? There comes a point where political correctness becomes madness.
Are they though? Or are they men who wish they were women? I’m having trouble understanding your use of the term “women.”
The person bringing up fake attention-seeking suicide attempts right after a transperson mentions their own actual suicide attempts.
Nice try, but no. Mentioning that actually belittling suicide can drive off the “brave” trans people you supposedly want around is not belittling suicide. I’m not mentioning it to “score points”, I’m mentioning it because it points to the underlying problem - “Oh, I want brave trans people. But they have to be brave enough to put up with whatever extremely personal damaging shit my sister chooses to throw their way”.
What that point has to do with the “people with cervixes” bit I have no idea, as I was just replying to the hypocrisy of your lamenting the lack of “brave” trans people when you’re defending the very thing that keeps them away - from this thread and this board.
What the fuck? No - I’m saying when transpeople do try and kill themselves for all the other reasons they might have, then belittling their suicide attempts afterwards is not encouraging them to want to talk to you.
…is that really what you think this is all about?
This is (and always have been) about much more than just this. This just happens to be one of the issues that trans-exclusive activists have pushed to the forefront.
This interview with Judith Butler published yesterday articulates the trans-inclusive position well. It addresses almost every point made in this thread.
Unlike some other people in this thread I’m not particularly interested in repeating myself for a third time. My views have already been expressed in this thread. And this thread is in IMHO, it isn’t in Great Debates, and at the moment (like most of the other trans-inclusive posters on the boards) am not really interested in rehashing the debate again. The search function is really good now. If you want to know my views then by all means feel free to make use of it.
Only a handful of posts ago Boudicca90 stated that she was a woman. That post didn’t confuse me at all. Did it confuse you? Are you having trouble understanding what she meant by the term “women?”
Do you think that she is “actually a man who wishes she were a woman?” Because if that is what you really think, then just come out and say that then. Don’t hide behind the rhetorical question.
No. I just don’t want the real transwomen I know to be thrown under the bus with the fake-trans boogeyman that only really lives in your head.
Well, this thread has been going on for several months and is nearly 4,000 posts long, so forgive me for not having realized that you had previously posted about gatekeeping and for not memorizing what you said back in August.
I didn’t see where it explained why transwomen should use women’s spaces instead of unisex/trans spaces. Would you quote the relevant part?
…well now you know.
Perhaps you didn’t read my post closely enough.
This was the post you responded too. You asked me this question:
Why did you ask me that question? As I stated: that wasn’t what I was addressing. We aren’t just talking about access. This issue is about much more than this. I told you this.
So I didn’t provide a cite to answer your very narrow cherry picked question that really had nothing to do with what I said. I provided a link the opinion of a prominent feminist as an example of feminist arguments that have convinced me to stand with trans-inclusive feminists.
But facts aren’t, and they do matter.
One can and should have a polite conversation and navigate a civil society by swerving facts that may make people feel unhappy and upset. We do that all the time.
That only works most of the time though. You can’t have a full and productive conversation without sometimes referencing awkward facts that some people might rather ignore or seek to completely subvert.
The fact remains that the majority of of trans people have a clear and unambiguous biological sex, with the chromosomes and construction that correspond to it and modification only changing some external manifestations of it to a greater or lesser extent. And biological sex matters to many people in many ways.
A discussion on trans rights and access would be failing if it did not recognise that fact where it was relevant. And in this thread it absolutely is relevant.
Facts can be awkward, facts can be uncomfortable but it serves neither side to wish or pretend they don’t exist.
For me, it’s not clear why any of those pictures couldn’t or shouldn’t be used to expand the definition of a man instead of expanding the definition of a transwoman.
If a person has a male body and no interest in making changes to that body…how do they become a transwoman just by wearing makeup? Or a skirt, or heels? Plenty of women don’t ever wear make-up, that doesn’t make them men. So why does wearing women’s clothes change a man into a transwoman? Why are they not just a man that wears make-up/skirt/heels?
The narrative has been that trans people deeply feel that they were born into the wrong body and they need to alter that body to feel whole. What’s unclear to me is if they aren’t trapped in the wrong body and they don’t want to alter their body, then why would they not use the locker room that corresponds to that body?
I guess I don’t understand why a person with a male body who doesn’t want to change their body can’t use the locker room for people with male bodies.
I was simply trying to participate in the discussion; that’s why I asked. I was curious to know what they said that made you feel that way. I didn’t realize that you would view it as a “cherry picked question.”
But as you said, now I know.
…except trans-positive feminists aren’t ignoring the facts. Facts aren’t actually awkward, but facts can and have been weaponised in this debate. And you can’t ignore that if you want to have a full and productive conversation.
Maybe that group aren’t, certainly some very vocal sections within the debate are.
I don’t see why any group should have a problem with statements of fact such as “transwomen are biologically male” when raised in the relevant context of a discussion on male/female spaces etc.
I disagree strongly. I think facts can be very, very awkward indeed.
I’m not sure I know what you mean by "weaponised " facts. Can you give an example?
…lets look at how that is actually being used in this thread. Its being used by posters like RickJay who posts pictures of transwomen and calls them men. That isn’t relevant context in the relevant discussion on male/female spaces. Its deliberate provocation. Not constructive and not relevant.
Of course you do. But nobody here is complaining that the facts are “awkward.” Its that the “facts” aren’t actually that important to the debate.
I already have. RickJay’s habit of posting photos of transwomen and calling them men.
Some groups do, and not fringe ones either. See this, published on the everyday feminism website:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/02/trans-women-not-biologically-male/
Judith Butler, who Banquet_Bear linked to earlier, claimed that sex is socially constructed. This sort of thing is why JKR is saying ‘sex is real’.
believing that “black lives matters” in the face of expressed concerns over a political ideology didn’t make Colin Kaepernick look like a brainwashed cult member defending a cult. The “slogan” isn’t the problem.
Colin Kaepernick and other black lives matters folks have a clearly articulated list of demands. They do not just recite “BLACK LIVE MATTERS!!” whenever someone asks what they mean by defunding the police. They have substantive answers to charges that BLM supporters want to get rid of the police and allow society to descend into anarchy.
They use their slogan in protests and rallies. But in discussions and debates, they come armed with a clear vision that they can share with the skeptics and the leery. They can tell you what victory and failure looks like. Failure isn’t just black people not getting what they want. Failure would also include uncontrolled criminality and a society where everyone feels unsafe and insecure.
I’ve asked several times about what the trans community’s vision is. Is it a world where trans folks have fair housing, employment, education, etc.? Or is it a world where trans folks have all of this PLUS they can access whatever space they want, without anyone telling them to GTFO? Do trans folks think they will always be a small minority of the public, which is why they think no one has to worry about words and concepts losing meaning? Or do trans folks believe that an ideal society is one where transwomen and ciswomen are equally represented and all spaces essentially function as unisex spaces? What does failure look like? Is it trans people not getting everything they want? Or does failure also include ciswomen being harmed?
I’m fixated on spaces because spaces are important to me and other women. Safe spaces protect women and spare us from the shit that we get in the outside world. If the potential invasion of safe spaces wasn’t an issue, then I wouldn’t care about this topic because it would essentially be about people protesting for the right to wear the clothing they want and going by the pronouns they want. That’s not what gender is for me. For me, gender is heavily about the power dynamics between males and females and the need for the latter to protect themselves from the former. I could wear male clothing and still suffer from this dynamic. So I’m going to need some safe spaces where I get a respite from male bullshit. I am OK with opening the door to special clear-cut cases. But I don’t want that door forced open by anyone who wants to come inside. I want to always have the right to say “no” to the individual demanding access to my gender class and its privileges. I see TRA and allies fighting to take away this right. I just can’t see how that isn’t oppressive.
I’m actually relieved you are OK with some gatekeeping because it does show that you care about what women are saying. But the slogan you keep reciting doesn’t provide that nuance. It seems to me a lot of the voices on the internet who recite that slogan don’t want any gatekeeping because they think if you don’t see every male who claims “woman” as a woman, you’ve committed some kind of travesty against humanity. Even when you’re just trying to protect yourself. I want no part of an ideology that doesn’t the consider safety and security of all marginalized, vulnerable groups.
I have asked this question multiple times already, and have yet to see a good response.
Why does gender identity (which lives in the mind) necessitate people undressing and sheltering with people of the opposite sex (which is a condition of the body)? What hardship arises when Alex Drummond is asked to pee in the room reserved for people with penises? No one is under the impression that Alex doesn’t have a penis, so she’s not outing herself by using this space.
No doubt there are transwomen who can convincingly pass as women. Odds are they’ve been using women’s spaces already and no one has cared because they code these people as women rather than men. But women will care if policies start entitling people like Alex Drummond to this space. Because it will never be self-evident why they have a bona fide need.
Okay, citing Butler is not the road to legitimacy, mate. She and other proponents of queer theory have a history of excusing and diminishing the harms of incest and pedophilia; the stink of this association has made her a controversial figure inside and outside feminists circles. Holding her up only as vindication suggests that either you know none of this backstory or you’re hoping none of us do.
…this thread has been going for months. You are one of the top posters in this thread. How can you have posted so many times and not actually listened to what people have said?
What transgender people want has been clearly articulated, both inside this thread and outside of it. But some primers.
I’m not just yelling a slogan. People fighting for the rights of transgender people aren’t just yelling slogans. If thats all you see then you simply haven’t been listening.
And sometimes they use it in messageboard posts.
This isn’t a debate thread. Its in IMHO, and expressing my humble opinion here is a perfectly valid thing to do. I don’t have to meet your standard of “clear vision.”
And yet I could speak to two different BLM protestors and they would give me two different definitions of what “victory” and “failure” would be. It isn’t as clear as you claim it to be.
Failure for transgender people looks very much like the road America is heading right now. They already have been banned from serving in the armed forces. They have already had their rights stripped by the administration. And with the prospects of a stacked Supreme Court things are looking even grimmer.
But what does failure look like?
Well it looks like this thread. It looks like this messageboard. Where casual transhopia is so accepted that people can practically call transgender people “delusional” and nobody bats an eyelid. We have failed transgender people on these boards. We could do so much better.
And everybody: and I mean ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY in this thread understands this. And everybody in this thread want safe spaces to protect women.
But here is the fundamental disconnect. And it comes right back to the slogan that you hate. Trans-inclusive feminists believe transwomen are women, and they believe that transwomen have every right to be in those spaces to be protected as well. Men who pretend to be women to gain access to those spaces are not transwomen. You can’t conflate the two. Transwomen need as much respite from male bullshit as you do. It isn’t a matter of privilege. Its a matter of safety.
Imagine how hard it is trying to navigate something as simple as going to the toilet while being transgender. Which bathroom do you think Alaina (the transwomen in the story) should be allowed to use?
Of course it doesn’t provide nuance. Transwomen are women is about as un-nuanced a position as you can get.
Well it isn’t that. Gatekeeping is a loaded word. I’ll use it for the sake of clarity. But should there be rules like the Olympic standard for transgender athletes? Sure. Do we need to keep women prisoners safe from sexual predators? Absolutely. But we can address the outliers without having to give up everything else.
And not misgendering people is simply a matter of politeness. I posted these in another thread.
Such a simple thing can make such a huge difference.