While welcoming the ruling that said that firing someone because they are gay or lesbian or transgender violates the law, she says that there is much more that needs to be done to protect the transgender community. She highlights the particularly precarious and dangerous situation in our society of the black trans community who get the whammy of racism added to the homophobia and transphobia. And black transwomen have to deal with the added sexism as well.
What is appalling is that so many people try to act as if the non-trans community has to be protected from the trans community, when the reality is the other way around.
Mano, there needs to be a clear definition between trans men and trans women as the problems they face are different, and I think you will find that there is comparatively little violence against trans men as compared to trans women.
While trans women are often at war with women, accusing women of denying trans women their rights, the greatest perpetrators of violence against trans women comes from their own sex -- men. Women are more likely to suffer violence at the hands of trans women and trans women are mostly attacked, raped and murdered by men.
If you look closely, you will see a lot of the murdered of trans women, of any colour, are prostitutes, and prostitution, especially street prostitution is a violent, deadly workplace.
Transphobic much, Roj?
Transphobic much, Roj?
Please explain.
#3 -- Your entire blathering post at #1 explains it.
Cripes, Carson blows every dog whistle imaginable, saying every hateful fiction except for the explicit “All Trans women want to rape cis women!”
Does someone want to tell him about the racist dog whistle, “All Black men want to rape white women”? His mentality towards Trans women is the same as racists towards him.
@Intrans #4
Which bits?
The bit about prostitutes, especially street prostitutes, being highly vulnerable to assault, rape, and murder?
Or the bit about trans men suffering less assault, rape, and murder than trans women?
Or the bit about all trans people mostly being victims of male violence, while most TRA vitriol is reserved for women?
All of the above are verifiably true.
Intransitive, yeah, I got the same vibe from Roj.
(Who ignores the central point relating to intersectionality)
—
One point I’ll address: “If you look closely, you will see a lot of the murdered of trans women, of any colour, are prostitutes, and prostitution, especially street prostitution is a violent, deadly workplace.”
Ever wonder why? Here: https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/Meaningful%20Work-Full%20Report_FINAL_3.pdf
It’s not because trans people in particular find that to be appealing work, contrary to the insinuation.
John, you and I seem to be using different words to say the same thing.
That I did not explicitly explain why any people, male, female, black, white, trans*, gay, or bi, enter sex work does not mean I am ignorant of the lack of choices that can send people down that path.
Are you denying that prostitutes, especially street prostitutes, are highly vulnerable to assault, rape, and murder? Because that is the reality.
A further reality is (and I don’t need to define all the causes) a significant number of murders of trans* people are carried out by domestic partners or family.
Already in this past few months of this year, an unconscionable and seemingly growing number of transwomen, especially trans women of color, have been murdered in the U.S., a fact that is deeply – and rightfully – upsetting to our community.
Circumstance behind a number of these murders seem to be rooted in domestic or intimate partner violence. At least half of these women were killed by their partners or family members. That means they were likely not victims of a random anti-trans hate crime. We must acknowledge that transgender people face domestic and/or intimate violence, and here are tools and resources folks should be aware of. (emphasis added)
https://forge-forward.org/2015/03/05/ending-trans-domestic-violence-murders/
All of which swings back neatly to my starting point that when it comes to discrimination, trans women face far more than trans men, and the most common perpetrators of violence against trans women is -- Men. Yet TRA’s save almost all their vitriol for women.
Roj:
Bad apostrophe — it’s a plural, not a possessive.
Anyway, best as I can make it, TRAs quite understandably employ (not save!) their vitriolic responses in the media towards those who use the media to agitate against their rights. Are they supposed to shut up and take it?
—
Well then — it’s a targeted anti-trans hate crime. Not any better, is it?
If Roj pulled their head out of their arse they would find many examples of trans people critising men and the structures that make trans women vulnerable to men’s violence. That they claim our vitriol is directed at women just suggests they hang around too many TERFs
“Trans women are women, and if you disagree you aren’t a feminist.”
Interesting! What then is the word for someone advocating for fairness, protections and etc. along the protected characteristic called sex? Because that is what I thought the word feminist means, but it seems Bee disagrees.
___
#1 etc. Roj
For my part, every time I have looked into the claim that trans people are being murdered at a disproportionately high rate, the figures have come up short.
___
#9 John
“Well then — it’s a targeted anti-trans hate crime. Not any better, is it?”
The point that you appear to have ignored is that those murders were not for being trans, but occurred for reasons other than that.
Weighing in…
First sentence… citation needed. I mean, it passes the smell test, but still -- how much violence against trans men compared to cis-men would be a more sensible comparison. It’s on you to cite.
THAT bit. The bit in bold.
Oh yeah, this bit:
What? More likely THAN WHAT?
My guess would be that yes, women are more likely to suffer violence at the hands of trans women that they are to suffer violence at the hooves of unicorns, say. More likely to suffer violence at the hands of trans women than they are to get struck by lightning, possibly. But I’m really struggling to come up with a non-transphobic interpretation of that sentiment. Do tell.
The last sentence strikes me as true but not really relevant, so uh yeah, I guess.
Holms @11:
Really? Because, apart from the entire context of it, were that the case it would have been properly conveyed by the mere elision of the term ‘random’.
You might have also considered the immediately succeeding sentence in the original quotation.
*sniff sniff*
Ah, TERFs. Hello, Roj and Holms.
OK Tabby, instead of using a slur, show us where we are wrong.
@John, the document I quoted from is from a trans* site, so take up the wording with them.
Roj:
Duh, I know that — you cited the source (well done, you!).
It’s not the text or the content which I criticised, it was your (and Holms’) interpretation thereof.
What interpretation would that be? That trans women are more likely to be assaulted, raped and murdered by men? Just as women are also more likely to be assaulted, raped and murdered by men.
Roj, your JAQing is hardly discreet.
So disingenous!
Everyone (including men) is more likely to be assaulted, raped and murdered by men.
That’s banal.
No, your interpretation that it’s weird that “TRA’s save almost all their vitriol for women”, because you imagine it’s men doing the pushback (as opposed to the actual violence). Your insinuation that because a shitload of the violence is sex-work related, that’s somehow a thing for trans people.
—
FWIW, you’re better at it than Holms. 😉
Your insinuation that because a shitload of the violence is sex-work related, that’s somehow a thing for trans people.
I am not insinuating that “sex work is a thing for trans people” at all.
Now, my sources may be more limited than yours, I don’t see a lot of news stories about murders of trans people, but when I do, there is quite often a connection with sex work. That may be a bias of the media, I don’t know. I don’t have access to the raw data, and neither do you, I presume.
The fact remains, however, that TRAs spend an inordinate amount of time attacking women who wish to preserve women only spaces and very little time attacking the true source of violence against them.
FWIW, you’re better at it than Holms.
Maybe Holms doesn’t have a “non-binary” grandson, I do.
Roj:
See? How is that different to a dogwhistle? The only way those women who wish to do the preservation have a point is if they hold that trans women ain’t women.
And how exactly would that be done? It’s not like those sources post media screeds which can be critiqued or characterised, is it?
I imagine you love them just the same. But yes, for me, it’s an abstraction.
—
Point being, Mano summed up the issue in the OP:
The only way those women who wish to do the preservation have a point is if they hold that trans women ain’t women.
If trans women were women we wouldn’t need the trans bit, would we? We would just say women.
She highlights the particularly precarious and dangerous situation in our society of the black trans community who get the whammy of racism added to the homophobia and transphobia. And black transwomen have to deal with the added sexism as well.
What “added sexism”? Are women not subject to sexism?
Not sure how the homophobia fits with the trans phobia, when homo (aka Lesbian) women are expected to welcome non Lesbian women in to their spaces. Lesbians are abused if they do not want romantic relationships with trans women who still sport the male genitalia. If Lesbians were interested in men’s dangly bits, they wouldn’t be Lesbians, would they?
You’re having a hard time keeping it up, ain’tcha, Roj?
Sure; and if black (sorry, Black) women were women, we wouldn’t need the Black bit, would we? And if black swans were swans…
Well, since the subject is “the black trans community”, the sexism is related to the sexism of trans women. Context, again.
Perhaps, perhaps not; thing is, you didn’t bring that stuff up from the OP in your first comment, did you? You didn’t question it then.
You just put that doggy whistle to your lips and blew.
We DON’T need the Black bit, we know they are women. The Black is non essential to their womanhood. Just as it is to Chinese women, Indian women, Blonde Women, Brunette women, etc. They are all women, and the prefix doesn’t change their status as women.
Well, since the subject is “the black trans community”, the sexism is related to the sexism of trans women.
Thank you for confirming my point, that trans women exhibit exactly the same misogyny as men all the while claiming to be “victims”.
Also, thank you for confirming that you don’t care about the sexual preferences of Lesbians, that they must be available at all times from trans women to use and abuse. Funny how so many trans women are sexually attracted to women; it’s almost like they ARE men.
You just put that doggy whistle to your lips and blew.
Just another cop out, like Tabby’s hurling the slur TERF. At least you didn’t do a drive by slur.
Honestly, if I did have a dog whistle to blow, do you think I’d be blowing it here?
#13 john
But if your interpretation is the correct one -- that trans partners are also attacked specifically for being trans -- a far better phrasing would have been “That means they were likely victims of an anti-trans hate crime.” That seems like the larger error to me, and so I continue to regard the word ‘random’ as a spurious inclusion.
“Your insinuation that because a shitload of the violence is sex-work related, that’s somehow a thing for trans people.”
You mean, your inference.
#23 John
“Sure; and if black (sorry, Black) women were women, we wouldn’t need the Black bit, would we? And if black swans were swans…”
The word woman indicates a person whose sex is female; the term trans woman indicates a woman that is not female -- a contradiction. Black woman, black swan, etc. lack this contradiction.
Also, I’m still wondering if there is a new word meaning an advocate for the equality of the sexes.
I could carry on with this digression about the ontological validity of a part of the population, but none of it relates to the topic at hand (its protection) and I know it gets tiresome.
Still, the masks are well and truly off, now. No need to pretend any more, is there? 😉
Sure, we disagree on a point and you take that disagreement to be an indication of evil. You are entitled to that view.
What is notable however is your side of the disagreement’s serial refusal to engage, other than by casting aspersions.
So, John, it is of no interest to you that the majority of trans women who are murdered are murdered by a male intimate partner or a John, not by women. But we must police women’s language and deny women safe spaces.
It is of no interest to you that “ontological validity” erases women by terming women as “people who give birth”, or “people who menstruate” because the word woman is exclusive of men?
It is of no interest to you that big bodied boys claiming to be women are denying female athletes fair competition and a chance at medals?
I take it you’re OK with a man launching prosecutions against women because a) they don’t believe him when he says he is a woman, and b), they don’t like waxing testicles.
In other words, you are quite happy with the world the way it is, where men (mostly, but not always white) get all the prizes, all the advantages, and women can just suck it up.
Well, I’m not, and I will always take the woman’s side and support their push back against men trying to roll back 60 years of Women’s Liberation.
Roj, heh. Can’t resist this one retort:
You do realise not all women are TERFs, right?
You do realize that I don’t care about your TERF slur. Just as I refuse to be defined by CIS.
But, to keep with your pathetic barb -- Not all women who want safe, women only spaces are feminists, or radical.
Why are you so keen to see men invade women’s spaces, steal women’s athletic awards, demand to be accommodated at every turn and marginalise women?
Do I deny the existence of trans people? No.
Do I want to deny human rights to trans people? Again, no.
Do I want to protect women from this and this? You bet I do.
#31
It is true that women do not think in lockstep with one another. The same can be said of trans people… are they also terfs if they disagree with you?
🙂
Speaking of your refusal to engage… ^
Holms, he is done. He played his TERF Card, now he has nothing left.
You got the big smile, Holms. And I know pointlessness when I see it.
Your mind is made up (and hey, you do know I still read you on Ophelia’s blog too, right?), and so is Roj’s. And no casual readers are gonna be swayed by either of us.
And I’m getting to the point where I’ve made all the arguments before, to both what you’ve hitherto adduced and to what you will inevitable adduce after my own retorts.
Besides, I already got you dudes to take your masks off. My job is done.
But hey, at least Roj is trying to be a White Knight for the subset of helpless feeemales who he thinks need protecting and on whose behalf he speaks.
—
Besides, it should be clear this post is about the transgender subset of the population, and the social difficulties they face. So, at least to that extent, your comments are useful in illustrating the mindset of some of those who pose the difficulty.
Roj is trying to be a White Knight for the subset of helpless feeemales
Good job in pulling off the mask of naked misogyny. You’ve got the Trans special victim hood right down to a “T”. You don’t actually care about people being assaulted, raped, and murdered, you are just happy to see women devalued and marginalised.
Heh. Nah, Roj. I grew up in a household with a single mum and three sisters, and I can assure you they’re anything but helpless. What I have is respect, not misogyny.
(And I don’t pretend to speak for them)
Funny you should write that, since transgender people are, you know, people.
Oh, sorry, you don’t know, do you? If they were people, we wouldn’t need the trans bit, as per your own claim. But they are, and they do actually get assaulted, raped, and murdered. Difference between you and I is that I also care about them, not just about cis women.
(Yeah, I know… to you, ‘cis’ is an abomination, but hey, there it is anyway)
Funny you should write that, since transgender people are, you know, people.
And have I ever denied that? No.
Difference between you and I is that I also care about them, not just about cis women.
The difference between you and me is that I care about all people who are assaulted, raped, and murdered. I’m just not prepared to make it easier for women to be assaulted, raped and murdered. Which is why I stand with women who want to preserve woman only spaces. It is why I stand with women who want to offer intimate services to women only. It is why I want to see women and girls achieve their potential, without having to give way to men and trans women. I am all for trans* people having their own safe spaces, their own social services, their own sporting competitions, beauty therapists who will cater to their needs. They can even have their own changing rooms and toilets for all I care.
What they must not have is access to women’s spaces, women’s sport, women’s healthcare.
You might be happy with Jonathan Yanniv wanting to insert tampons in pre-pubescent girls, but I am most certainly not. Yeah, I know, I’m not supposed tom dead name pedophiles, am I?
Disagree, if you like, but the “No True Scotsman” will be laughed at.
Roj:
Which has zero to do with the post at hand, and which makes zero sense in any other way. Women do rape women, it’s a known thing. So, the only way to stop women being assaulted in women’s only spaces is to not have such spaces.
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adass_Israel_School_sex_abuse_scandal
(TLDR: ultra-orthodox sex-segregated school; pedophile principal)
#37
“I know pointlessness when I see it. Your mind is made up…”
Wrong, I am open to reason. Maybe you will be the one to show me where I went wrong? But, no, it won’t be you will it. The entire point for you is to lob some jibes in your usual snide manner, not dialogue.
‘What I have is respect, not misogyny.”
Nothing in what Roj said implied that women are helpless. You responded to an expression of siding with women with the reflexive response of the MRA, equating feminism with white knighting.
“If they were people, we wouldn’t need the trans bit”
Non sequitur.
Compare that to the number of women raped and assaulted by men and you will see why some spaces need to be female only.
Speaking of “the post at hand”… I asked a question in response to a passage in Bee’s segment, and it remains unanswered.
Holms:
You dogmatically hold that trans women are men, and nothing whatsoever will dissuade you from that. Every single claim you make is predicated on that dogmatic belief.
Parallel form; see #22. I’m taking the piss by using the very same phrasing.
See what I meant? For you, trans women are men.
But sure, if you want for women to be only raped by women in women’s only spaces, it would be a necessity.
Heh. No, I equated Roj’s claims with White Knighting, not feminism.
Speaking of which, I wonder what the National Organization for Women (the largest feminist group in the United States) has to say about that?
<clickety-click>
https://now.org/blog/why-transphobia-is-a-feminist-issue/
Huh.
I don’t think she is in this comment stream; perhaps ask her about her segment.
(Though I’m not bad with words, so I of course know)
Being unswayed by flawed arguments is dogmatism now? Christian apologists say the same thing of atheists, despite that atheist genuinely engaging.
It made sense in the original form, but not in your imitation of it.
I was referring to men, the unambiguous kind: the males who live as men. You drew that equivalence.
So, a net reduction.
His claims? You mean, his statement that he wants to protect women from abuse. And in your world, protections for the female sex are white kniting, much like the typical MRA.
As for your linked source…
Really John, did you not find it odd that is says right there that 100% of the murdered trans people were black trans women? If they were being murdered for being trans, the victims would be a smattering of skin colours and sexes. This just says that the most murdered demographic in USA is the black male, which we already knew.
Context would suggest that I wasn’t asking her, I was asking people in this comment thread if they know. So far, none have given me any reason to believe that they do.
Holms:
You can’t be swayed by argument because for you it’s a basic premise. It is foundational. An essential belief. That’s the very definition of dogma.
See what I mean? For you, “women of color” becomes “the black male”. It’s reflexive.
So, yeah, when you wrote “I was referring to men, the unambiguous kind: the males who live as men.”, I knew damn well you weren’t. And you knew it too.
Women do rape women, it’s a known thing. So, the only way to stop women being assaulted in women’s only spaces is to not have such spaces.
What is the proportion of women raped by women and the proportion of women raped by men?
What is the proportion of women raped by women who are raped by trans women?
So, the only way to stop women being assaulted in women’s only spaces is to not have such spaces.
How about men stop raping women anywhere? How many women assaulted in women only spaces are assaulted by women compared to how many are assaulted by trans women and how many are assaulted by men?
Once again, it is your misogyny on display. You have no care for the safety of women and girls, just that the oh so marginalized men can have access to women whenever and however they desire.
John, You dogmatically hold that trans women are women, and nothing whatsoever will dissuade you from that. Every single claim you make is predicated on that dogmatic belief.
FIFY
If that is what you have inferred about my thought process, you are wrong. And I’m the one to know, being that it’s my thought process.
Oh? Is a trans woman’s sex female now?
There you go again, thinking you get to tell me what my own thought process is.
Wow. Almost 50 posts and most of them appear to be from cis-men arguing. I’ll throw in my two cents, which is probably not worth even that much, then I’ll relate the conversation I had with my wife this morning about this topic. But to clear away some of the underbrush; John you are not good with words, you are good at using a dictionary. Dictionaries, by their very nature are descriptive and prescriptive, they do not suggest future meanings for words and they generally lag behind current usage. For example, a dictionary from 1910 will not define the word “Gay” with an entry: 1. Fun loving and lively. 2. Homosexual (c. 1970). Dictionaries do not, and cannot work like that. So get off your high horse of using a dictionary to define gender, which is clearly what you are trying to do. You argument boils down to: if a person has female genitalia, regardless of other aspects of that person, they are called female. Conversely, if a person has male genitalia, they are call male. So trans-women, who have female genitalia, should be allowed in spaces which are created as safe for females.
It is not that simple.
Let me first put in my two cents. The point of safe spaces is not equality. The point of safe spaces is to relieve stress and encourage discussion. If people, or even classes of people, who are disruptive of that goal are in a safe space, that goal is not met. Further, it is not the people who want to enter who make that decision, but the people inside the space. It would be perfectly fine with me if a safe space was created in which the participants decided that black women scare them and cause them stress, so they want to exclude black women. Racist, sure. But equality is not the point of the creation of a safe space. A black woman demanding entry into such a safe space defeats the purpose of the safe space, the mere act of trying to join a safe space by force will probably destroy it. It certainly isn’t equal, or fair, but that’s not the point.
Safe spaces can be created which are welcoming to trans-women. Safe spaces can be created which exclude trans-women. It is the creators of the space who decide, not the applicant. Requiring all safe spaces created for women must include trans-women prevents women who feel uncomfortable around trans-women from feeling comfortable in the very safe spaces they created. My feeling is that the creators of safe spaces must be allowed to decide who can join, and even who can remain. Yes, kicking someone out who is disruptive will also cause stress, but that those decisions need to be made by the people who are in the space, not legislation. Not everything in life needs to be open to everyone. Unhappy people who want the community of a safe space are not entitled to join one. It is not fair, but being fair is not the purpose. (On the flip side, if a ostensibly safe-space ends up having a large influence on business awards or politics it ceases to be a safe-space and becomes a club, which can be forced to change it’s behavior. E.g. A golf club may be a safe space for cis-males, but if business deals are made at the club which distort a market; legislation and enforcement to curtail this behavior can be necessary. Life is not cleanly defined, which is why judges exist.)
So I asked my wife about this same question. She indicated that she is a bit torn about it, but on the whole her experience is that trans-women have not had the same experience as born-women. Since, for her, the need for safe spaces has been to help her re-affirm her worth, and discuss her experience as a born-woman, she is not comfortable with safe spaces which include trans-women. She feels guilty about feeling that way, she wants be inclusive, but that’s how she feels. She was very clear that trans-women may need safe spaces, and that they do have terrible experiences which sharing and discussion would certainly help them, but that they are not the same experiences which a born women has had.
She then gave me an example to clarify her point. She actually gave me a few, but for brevity I’ll select the one I think illustrates her feelings the best. One experience she related was fairly personal, and she feels somewhat guilty about it. When she participated in safe-spaces with other women which included trans-women, her experience is that the trans-women take over. They lead the discussions, often making the discussions about trans-issues rather than women’s issues, and generally dominate. This behavior isn’t ‘wrong’, but as I discussed above, it’s not what she was looking for in a safe space. She wants to talk with, and about, women and the experiences they had growing up as women, and how that impacted their lives. Discussing trans-issues is not wrong, but not what she was looking for. Women who feel the same way should not be required to open their safe spaces to trans-women who may not have these same experiences.
But, my wife also indicated that because of the way she was raised it would be very hard for her to say “no” to a trans-woman who wanted to join. Rather than deny a trans-woman entry into the safe space, she would allow them to join, and then she would leave. This defeats the original purpose of the safe space. None of this is wrong or evil. This is the way people are. I can tell my wife that she doesn’t need to include a trans-woman who asks to join, or feel bad about telling them “no, you are not welcome in this particular safe-space.” But because she has been taught to be inclusive, she would be unable to say that without strong feelings of personal guilt.
I want to make it very clear that this is not the case for all safe-spaces. The inhabitants of a safe space can make the determination of who the members are. But if the members of a safe space put certain criteria on the applications who wish to join, they are doing so for a reason. The reason may be that they don’t want to be put in a position where they feel forced to accept someone who doesn’t meet their criteria; but they don’t feel powerful enough, or confident enough, to say “no, you can’t join.”
They are not saying that trans-women are not women. Trans-women are women. They are saying that; “The inhabitants of this particular safe space have decided, without meaning to insult or demean anyone, that including trans-women would negate the purpose of this safe-space.”
This declaration does not mean they feel trans-issues are unimportant, and that’s where it becomes difficult for the inhabitants to tell an applicant that they are not welcome. They feel guilty about rejecting someone. But at the same time, a trans-women who grew up presenting as male probably has had a significantly different upbringing than a woman who was female from birth.
Many women were brought up feeling that, as a female, they has to be welcoming and inclusive and that their feelings are secondary to others. My wife feels guilty about even mentioning this, but she feels that trans-women, at least those who let everyone know they are trans, generally present more aggressively, probably without even realizing it. Because they present themselves more aggressively they drown out the voices of women who have learned to be passive. She brought up the possibility that there were women in the safe spaces she has participated in who she didn’t know were trans. If there were trans-women in those spaces, and she wan’t aware of them, it was because they didn’t make the discussions about trans-issues. Again, she is engaged with trans-issues, but she doesn’t want them to be the focus of every discussion. She doesn’t want those issues to the be the only discussion points in the safe spaces she attends. But she, and from her description a lot of other women, does not feel comfortable telling someone that trans-issues are not what they intended that specific safe space to be about.
And let’s take a quick glance at the other side; the applicant who is rejected. Rejection is very hurtful. It can shatter a self-esteem which may be low to begin with. The ethical question of whether the healing of one person is as important as the healing of several is not a straightforward one to answer. When a trans-woman is denied joining a safe space, with the best of reasons and good communication, there will be doubts and increased anxiety for that woman. Doubts that could lead to depression and even suicide. Is there a solution? Not an obvious one that I know of, requiring safe spaces to be more inclusive does not fix the problem but can exacerbate it.
What can help is improved access to mental health facilities, an active creation of multiple support groups meeting different needs, and distribution of the knowledge that these resources exist is a good start. Over the past 150 years we have made great progress in what makes people tick (with some notable failures along the way), what we haven’t done well is apply that knowledge to individuals who need help.
And with that I’ll end my wall-o-text. You should have seen it before I edited down.
flex,
Very interesting. When you wrote:
I was reminded of what a female friend told me when I discussed with her why hers and other book clubs are often entirely female. She said that her book club had tried opening it up to the male spouses of the members but some of them (and one particularly) came and dominated the discussions and gave little room for others to speak even when he had not even read the book. She said they went back to the women-only format, which excluded even those men (including her own spouse) who did not behave in that way and whom they would have enjoyed having attend. She knew it was unfair but they did not know what else to do. This was not a safe space issue, of course.
Sometimes this is resolved by having a strong and skillful chair who is able to guide the discussion back to the focus for which the group was formed and also makes sure that everyone gets to speak, but most informal discussion groups are not structured that way and have no formal chair. And even if there is someone present who senses that the discussion is going off-track and can play that role well, they may be reluctant to put themselves forward as a self-appointed discussion monitor. So often such groups flounder, with increasing numbers feeling that it has strayed from its original purpose and is no longer meeting their needs.
This happens with discussion groups that are not gender-based or gender issues-focused as well. I am a member of a humanist group and there is one person who has strong opinions and tends to speak at length and sometimes go off in tangential directions. Fortunately for us, the discussion convenor, who acts as the de facto chair, is very good at firmly but gently limiting his time and allowing space for others to speak. I have privately complimented her for the way she handles discussions.
I think all such informal groups that do not have a formal chair would do well to have regular discussions about how to keep the discussions focused and to allow for maximum participation. At the beginning of each semester, I would have such discussions with the students in my classes because even though as the teacher I had the formal authority to determine who speaks and on what and for how long, I wanted to keep that in reserve, to be used only when absolutely necessary, because one of my teaching goals was to teach students how to participate productively in group discussions.
flex, excellent work, and three thumbs up for both you and your wife.
The only issue I would take with this is the contradiction between the dogmatic “Trans-women are women.” with your wife’s experience of men presenting as women and behaving like men.
If there were trans-women in those spaces, and she wan’t aware of them, it was because they didn’t make the discussions about trans-issues.
I am going to make huge assumption here, but I will bet London to a Brick that they are people born as men who are going the whole route to transition, where they do all they can to “become women”, including the putting the needs of others ahead of their own, contrasted with the shouty men in dresses who see their “lived experience as a woman” as a piece of performance art, not as a way of life. I fully understand why your wife would feel comfortable around one, and not the other.
Trans woman?
flex:
Heh. One can’t be good at using a dictionary and also be good with words?
(I did write “not bad”, which is pretty good inasmuch as you thought it meant “good”)
<snicker>
Such acumen!
—
Roj:
One of them is severed, I take it. Or are you a polydactyl mutant?
—
And, of course, if one doesn’t feel safe around trans people purely because they are trans, one is perforce transphobic. Hardly need to be “good with words” to get that one.
PS Roj:
Why yes! Everyone knows women always put the needs of others ahead of their own.
That’s an essential womanly thing, that is.
Heh.
Mano @51,
I’ve personally observed this behavior in many situations; from book clubs, to theater groups, even to meeting at work including a dozen engineers meeting to solve a problem. We marvel at the scene in Apollo 13 where the engineers are giving a list of things the astronauts have and need to solve the problem of getting them home safely. But we don’t really think how many other ways of solving that problem could exist. There may be a few dozen. I’ve participated in too many ‘critical’ engineering problem-solving meetings to think only one solution was possible.
There are many people who, unconsciously in my opinion, strive to dominate discussions. Their opinions are immutable and they will argue a firmly held belief on the slimmest of evidence, dominating a discussion until the rest of the group gives up from exhaustion rather than being convinced of the accuracy of that person’s belief. Then, if they are proved wrong, they will adopt the opposing opinion and say that was their stance all along.
To hazard a guess on the reason for this behavior I refer to the work of Robert Sapolsky and his studies of baboon behavior. I think there is a lot of insight into human behavior by studying primate behavior. From his observations, I identify one of the most important needs of primate behavior is to be part of a group. The next most important need of a primate is to be recognized by other primates. The recognition does not have to be from the entire group, but everyone needs someone to recognize them as being a unique human being. BTW, Sapolsky doesn’t deserve all the blame for my opinion, some should also be directed at Jean Piaget who’s work on childhood development of mind has certainly affected my opinions of humanity.
The people who dominates a discussion, even when they have not studied the material, are not doing so in order to carry a point. They are doing so because they are not thinking, they are establishing dominance. The underlying message is that, “This is my group and I’m the most important member in it!” This fills the two needs they have; belonging to a group and getting recognition from the group.
Obviously this is a very cynical view of human behavior. But as I view the world around me I see that rational thinking clearly is not a normal condition for human beings. I’m no exception, I’ll admit that most of the things I do are not the result of reflective cogitation, but because of training or predilection.
We are seeing that very clearly today. No rational person would suggest, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that face-masks have no affect on the transmission of disease. Yet we have a political party who has endorsed that view and not only are people still supporting that party, these same people are actively propagating the party line. It’s not rational thinking that results in this outcome, it’s the non-rational primate brain adhering to group identity and seeking recognition.
This isn’t new. The phenomena of cults, most famously the Millerites, illustrate this lack of rational thinking and superiority of group identity and recognition within the group that primates crave. Again, I formulated this thought through reading Sapolsky, but was only re-enforced by reading the essays of Montaigne and the observations of Charles Mackay.
That is what I suspect is happening when people take over meeting; whether it be a book club, a safe-space, a classroom, or a political party. I really don’t think it’s a conscious thing. I’ve known too many people who are checked by a moderator for this behavior, who then recognize they are dominating a meeting and apologize only to do the same thing ten minutes later. I don’t know that moderators would be any better if they believed that my opinion was true, the important thing for them is to get a meeting back on track and other voices heard. What this realization has done, at least for me, is to look on such behavior with a certain amount of charity. I don’t believe the people who are dominating a meeting are doing it consciously. Regrettably, you need a strong moderator to ensure all the voices are heard. When that isn’t available, people leave the group.
It’s not like the old days when the only group in town was the church, and only people with a very strong sense of self would be willing to leave the only community which existed.
Well, John, if you bothered to absorb what you read, maybe you would have understood my comment as being sympathetic to Flex’s wife’s position and social conditioning.
And, of course, if one doesn’t feel safe around trans people purely because they are trans, one is perforce transphobic.
Equally, if one doesn’t feel safe being around rapists purely because they are rapists then one is perforce rapephobic.
I am sure flex’s wife would be quite comfortable with trans* messages like this, and this.
@Roj Blake #52,
I do not disagree with you in your assessment.
However, I do disagree in your assessment of the natural roles of the sexes. With charity. The nature of blog comments tends toward brevity which can impede clarity.
It is my contention that men are not genetically disposed to arrogance and dominance. Or that woman are genetically disposed to subservience and humility. But that society makes them so. The ideal we should be striving for is that we could talk about a person dominating a meeting, and not assume they are masculine. Or a person helping moderate a meeting and not make an assumption that they are feminine. We are not there yet, ideals are rarely realized, but it’s a nice goal.
There is a fun book which explores the idea of gender reversal, Egalia’s Daughters: A Satire of the Sexes by Gerd Mjoen Brantenberg, published in 1977.
Roj:
Depends; do you consider fear and/or antipathy towards rape to be irrational?
(That’s to what ‘phobia’ refers; rational fears aren’t considered phobias)
Ah, you presume flex’s wife (who has hitherto not posted here) is the true arbiter of truth.
@John Morales, #53,
Not necessarily, unless you think in a binary.
The reality is that there is a gradient. I think I first encountered this idea in a completely different context when reading Christoph Alexander’s theories of architecture. Alexander talks at length about a ‘privacy gradient’. The idea being that in a home there are levels of privacy that the homeowner is comfortable with. The postman comes to the front step, and no further. (This infuriates the dog because the postman is clearly making repeated advances to enter the house, but is never allowed in. An intruder which is repeatedly turned away is a threat.) Alexander goes on to say that areas like the dining room or a formal parlor are acceptable for guests like the boss or the minister, but they are not really allowed into the main living areas. The close friends of the family are allowed into the kitchen. But generally the only people allowed into the master bedrooms are the people who live in the house.
Alexander goes on to suggest that keeping this privacy gradient in mind when designing a house is important. Houses which lack a clear demarcation of privacy tend to be less comfortable to their inhabitants. If the master bedroom, the most private place in the house, is next to the front door and visible from it, the inhabitants will be discouraged from having guests and they may feel isolated.
Clearly this is not applicable to everyone, or to every house design. But the idea of a gradient is an important one and shows up in a lot of situations.
This is one of them. A person can be perfectly comfortable working with and socializing with a trans-woman, but not comfortable in discussing certain details of their life which are feared to be embarrassing or could be miss-understood.
In anyone’s life there are few people who are trusted enough with their innermost secrets. I would not be surprised if my wife has things she doesn’t feel comfortable confiding in me about. But that does not mean she dislikes or fears me. Similarly, my wife not wanting to discuss her difficulties of growing up as a woman in America with a trans-woman who may not have had similar experiences does not make her trans-phobic. Life is not binary, even if language sometimes is.
@John Morales, #58,
Ha. Neither of us aspire that high. I will accept that truth is beauty, but not that truth is immutable. 😉
That being said, while both my wife and I had a laugh at Roj Blake’s links, neither of us would condone such actions. Even during the times when the bile rises to our throats over trans-phobic feminists. I believe that many TERFs are expressing opinions without thinking. My wife is somewhat less charitable than I and attributes such attitudes to malice. But neither of us think that much progress can be made by violence, however cathartic that would be.
?
flex:
cf. #13. Ask if you need further elaboration.
Yet dwellings do not have restrictions on male/female toilets. They’re shared spaces.
The applicable privacy restrictions boil down to owners/residents/visitors, not to gender.
I don’t want to get all philosophical on you, but be aware that depends of the level of granularity. End of the day, either a proposition is true, or it is not.
(Which is why quantifiers exist in higher-level logics, and why trinary logics exist)
flex @60, yeah. I get you.
And sure, there’s no reason to doubt bad actors exist.
However, I do disagree in your assessment of the natural roles of the sexes. With charity. The nature of blog comments tends toward brevity which can impede clarity.
Something I know only too well, especially when it comes to an Australasian talking to (mostly) Americans, nuance can be lost, sarcasm misunderstood, etc.
It is my contention that men are not genetically disposed to arrogance and dominance. Or that woman are genetically disposed to subservience and humility. But that society makes them so.
Again, we are in agreement. Just as a small child isn’t racist, it is society that makes them so. Or not.
If I can track it down, I’ll add Egalia’s Daughters to my reading list. Right now I am struggling my way through Jennifer Eberhardt’s “Biased”.
@John Morales, #62,
Yes. I thought that was understood, but my apologies for being unclear. The point is that gradients exist, and I used an example from another field to avoid the discussion of gender.
I am aware of that, and if you are measuring atoms with a meter-stick your results are not useful.
If you are measuring atoms with a meter-stick at best you can say that the atom exists or not. If you use a tool with fine enough granularity to measure the atom properly you can tell if it is He or Fe.
To relate this back to our discussion, this binary view of the world (trans-phobia is any fear of transsexual people, no matter how small) implies that if a person feels that there are places where a trans-women shouldn’t be allowed to participate then that person is trans-phobic. This is easily refuted with a reductio ad absurdum. If anyone objects to a fully trans-woman using the men’s restroom, they are, by your definition, transphobic. If this binary view is true, you either need to add the qualifiers you mention or consider most people, including most trans people, transphobic.
It would be more productive to abandon the notion that truth is absolute and consider the idea that truth, at least in the fields of sociology, psychology, history, laws and justice are mutable. An Fe atom is the same whether measured by Agricola or Eddington. The justification for the death penalty is different between William Blackstone and David Lloyd Jones.
As Terry Pratchett repeatably points out, there are no atoms of justice, but humans believe in it’s existence anyway. It’s part of what makes people human. If we use our meter-stick of objective reality to measure justice, it doesn’t exist. It is not true in the same way that an Fe atom is true. The proposition that justice exists does not meet the requirements of truth established by measurable reality.
Which means, if we do truly believe that justice does exist, that our method of measurement is wrong. We need something better than the binary that a proposition is true or not. We can create a tool of measurement which allows granularity, so we can say, “This person, who doesn’t want trans-women to use the men’s toilets is not trans-phobic.” That may change over time, but we can say this is true today.
We can say that a woman who is uncomfortable with allowing trans-women into a safe space is a little trans-phobic, but not enough to create a problem for trans-women.
We can say that a person who wants to shun all trans-women is highly trans-phobic. And a person who wishes to harm a trans-women is not only trans-phobic but a danger.
Again, these examples will change over time. Maintaining that there is an absolute truth on subjects which are entirely subjective (i.e. not measurable without humanity) is absurd. History shows us over and over again that ideas we find abhorrent today were unexceptional in the past, and ideas we find normal today were abhorrent in the past. Abandon the binary, replace it with a gradient.
@Roj Blake, #64,
Something new to add to my list. From looking at the subject, I’d also recommend Claude M. Steele’s Whistling Vivaldi. It’s a bit older, but in the same vein. You may have read it already.
Damn you flex, this is the problem with engaging with intelligent people on the interwebs -- my reading list keeps growing. And I still haven’t got to Mano’s latest, and know I should.
Slightly OT, but “Biased” is interesting and confronting. For example, I moved from being accepting of gays (working in theatre and ballet does that to you) to becoming almost homophobic and then back to be accepting. It is hard to pick any one moment on each step, but so much of it comes back to the amount of influence you allow people to have on you. Peer pressure exists in adults, as well as children. My return to accepting was probably because of a major change in the types of people I associated with and the work we did to help each other become better people.
I have had the same journey with trans*, where I have gone from almost unconditional support to support on a limited basis. It isn’t that I am transphobic, regardless of what John, et al may think, but because I am torn between my strong belief in human rights and the misogyny and out right hatred so many TRAs exhibit towards women. See the recent pile on on J K Rowling, for example. It is the attitude expressed by TRAs in the images I linked above, and goes right along with the “Suck my girlie dick” that appears so often.
I believe in human rights, I believe that trans* are human. And I believe that women get to determine who are women and who they accept into women only spaces.
In Australia, you can do the DNA tests, you can do the ancestry searches, and determine that you are part Aboriginal. But none of that matters, unless an Aboriginal language group accepts you as one of theirs, you are not Aboriginal. In a similar way the claims of Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren have been rejected in the USA. All I am asking is that women get to make the same determination.
Roj:
And with support like yours, who needs antagonism? 😉
Well, it’s all very nice and tolerant of you, but since you’re a man, you don’t get to have a say in the matter, by your own belief.
(So whence your disapprobation and agitation?)
Ahem. https://aiatsis.gov.au/research/finding-your-family/before-you-start/proof-aboriginality
(Nothing about language groups there)
#50 flex
Well said, though I would go further. If people wish to be included not just in a particular safe space but a category of people, the people in that category have a stake in the matter. That’s not to say that all voices will be reasonable and correct, just that they should not be excluded. I’m seeing it claimed in many discussion on this topic, that the only people that can have a say are trans people.
And so, safe spaces can be made for trans people, safe spaces can be made for cis people, with each space being exclusive to that group.
Minor quibble: I would say that the reason a golf club or similar should not be permitted to discriminate between sexes is that it is a business rather than a safe space, even if it incidentally provides that social service.
___
#53 John
Except you have ignored one very real possibility: the feeling of reduced safety comes from the maleness of trans women, rather than their transness. The test which would demonstrate which is causing the discomfort: is the person also made to feel unsafe in the company of trans men? Is either changed if the trans man / woman ‘passes’ as male or female? If the discomfort comes from the maleness of the person, then it is not transphobia.
___
#57 flex
My read of comment #52 is that it is entirely compatible with the idea that male assertiveness / female meekness is largely the product of socialisation rather than genetics. At least, I do not see that comment as an assertion that it is genetic.
For what it’s worth, my position is that such tendencies are certainly mostly the product of socialising, with the remaining question being whether there is any genetic cause at all.
#59 flex
Completely trivial and off topic, but I can’t help interject: surely that most private space would be the toilet?
$Roj Blake, #57,
Consider this…
Your personality is not created solely within your skull, but is strongly influenced by the environment you currently exist in. If you exist in a homophobic environment, you are likely to develop homophobic personality traits. This does not mean that your actions are no longer your responsibility. It’s not exactly peer pressure, it’s an actual change in who you are during that time. It’s a frightening thought, it means you are in less control of who you are than you think. I suspect we are fooled by the continuity of memory into thinking there is a continuity of personality.
The person who is not-racist at the age of 20 thinks they remain not-racist at the age of 40, even if their actions belay that belief. Because they associate with mildly racist people now, they don’t see their actions (like calling the police on a black man in central park) as racist. Their personality has adopted racism without their being aware of it. That doesn’t excuse their actions. They may still need the two-by-four of loving correction applied to their noggin. But it makes their actions more understandable in context.
I agree with one caveat. The people inhabiting the woman-only spaces are the ones who determine who they will accept into those spaces. I’m happy to call people by the gender they choose, if a trans-woman simply wants to be called a woman, I’m on board with that. But in regard to safe spaces I would only ask that the people who are using the space determine who can be let in. If they want to let in someone presenting as male, and are comfortable with it, that’s okay. The safe space is for their use and they can determine who enters. All I would ask is for an honest evaluation and discussion.
@John Morals 68.
It is easy to DDG and then copy paste the first link that arises, but there is more to that than knowledge and understanding.
In the 1980s a new definition was proposed in the Constitutional Section of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs’ Report on a Review of the Administration of the Working Definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Canberra, 1981). The section offered the following definition:
An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he (she) lives.
A definition similar to this had already started to be used by the some parts of the Commonwealth in 1978 and the Report of the Aboriginal Affairs Study Group of Tasmania, (1978, p. 16) found that this definition:
provides three criteria which are necessary and sufficient for the identification of an individual as Aboriginal and is sufficient for such identification in Tasmania.
The 1981 Report gave the new definition added impetus and soon this three-part definition (descent, self-identification and community recognition) was adopted by all Federal Government departments as their ‘working definition’ for determining eligibility to some services and benefits. The definition also found its way into State legislation (e.g. in the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 where ‘Aboriginal means a person who: (a) is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia, (b) identifies as an Aboriginal, and (c) is accepted by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal’) and was accepted by the High Court as giving meaning to the expression ‘Aboriginal race’ within s. 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution.(10) It was also used by the Federal Court when, in a first instance decision, it found that the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody had no jurisdiction to inquire into the death of Darren Wouters as the community did not identify him as Aboriginal nor did he identify himself as Aboriginal. Similarly, several justices in The Commonwealth of Australia v Tasmania, (1983) 158 CLR 1, observed that there are several components to ‘racial’ identity and that descent was only one such component. Justice Brennan concluded that while proof of descent or lack of descent could confirm or contradict an assertion or claim of membership of a race, descent alone does not ordinarily exhaust the characteristics of a racial group’, while Justice Deane argued that by ‘Australian Aboriginal’ would be meant ‘a person of Aboriginal descent, albeit mixed, who identifies himself as such and who is recognised by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal’.
Source.
Descent, self-identification and community recognition -- how about we use that to define women and men?
@Holmes, #69,
No quibble. I was struggling to find an example of a safe space for cis-males. It’s hard to find an example when the dominant class controls all the space. Safe spaces are most often needed by the minority classes, not the dominant one.
I have no objection to this clarification. Nurture vs. Nature is really a moot point, both have an impact. Physical dimorphism between male and female humans does exist. What I’ve learned about how the brain develops suggests that there is likely no dimorphism in brain development, but I’m no neuroscientist. The evidence suggests not too much, but there is a lot of work to do in that field. My opinion is that there are probably no physical differences in the brain, but I could certainly be wrong about that.
Woo, boy! That is a can of worms, no pun intended. In a house with a single toilet, it is pretty low on the privacy gradient, all guests would need access to the toilet. As you add toilets to a house, the number and category of people using a particular toilet changes. A house with two toilets usually has one for the guests and one for the occupants. With three toilets you typically get one for the guests, one for the occupants of the master bedroom and the remaining one shared between the remaining occupants, and so forth. So while I understand the humorous nature of your comment, toilets are not necessarily the highest rank on the privacy gradient, even if they are the most private room when occupied. Social norms are funny when looked at objectively.
Roj, I see you take a legalistic approach, so…
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/AustralianGovernmentGuidelinesontheRecognitionofSexandGender.pdf
Huh. None of this AFAB or AMAB determinism, there.
That’s because that document talks about gender and not sex, John.
It refers to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual identity and the way a person presents and is recognised within the community.
Sure, but when women refuse to recognise this, this, this, or this as women, they are labelled TERFs, doxed, hounded from jobs and events. Yet surely it is, or should be, the community of women who get to decide.
I know a lot of people whose religion is part of their deeply felt internal and individual identity and they present and are recognised within their religious community as a member.
But I am not compelled to accept that, they do not demand that I validate their identity, and if I refuse to accept how they see themselves, I am not hounded, doxed, or sacked. Nor am I accused of threatening them, encouraging violence against them, erasing their identity, or all the other accusations TRAs like to hurl.
Well, yes, Holms. It’s not about the physiology, it’s about gender.
Officially, even. Transitioning is a thing.
(https://www.passports.gov.au/how-it-works/documents-you-need/sex-and-gender-diverse-passport-applicants)
Roj:
Depends, dunnit? You mean some women, and sure, some claimants might not be genuine. Which doesn’t mean that none are genuine, just as with claims to Aboriginality. And note you’re no longer disputing me, you’re disputing an official stance by a State — I was just quoting. Not my words, you know?
—
And, of course, the discussion has long since (lang syne?) drifted from the topic, which is about the extra whammy Black trangender people (women in particular) get.
[blah]
Well I guess you win. You do not care about women who are persecuted for going against the trans* orthodoxy. For all you care, they could (should?) be burned at the stake as heretics.
And, of course, the discussion has long since (lang syne?) drifted from the topic, which is about the extra whammy Black trangender people (women in particular) get.
Women suffer more from violence than men.
Black people suffer more from violence than white people.
Street prostitutes suffer more violence than SOOB prostitutes.
Who could have guessed?
And yet, when it comes to murders of trans-women, it would appear that the USA is relatively safe. Of course, without knowing the proportion of trans* people per cohort, no hard and fast conclusions can be drawn. Suffice to say, Brazil is not the place to be.
Further reading.
Roj:
Nah, I just don’t pick one particular subset and declare that they represent all women.
Oh, I see. Accepting the existence of trans people is the norm, and transphobia is heresy. In some other world that you inhabit, presumably — certainly not in this one.
—
You don’t get it, do ya? I am a het cis older bloke who just isn’t fussed about it, but who likes to argue, especially with ideologues such as you. And I don’t pretend to speak for women, either — I speak for myself.
I was particularly amused how you adduced a governmental stance regarding Aboriginality as authoritative, yet cavilled when presented with an equivalent stance regarding transgenderism. Heh.
(Thanks for being perfect fodder for my predilection)
Nah, I just don’t pick one particular subset and declare that they represent all women.
No, you juts pick one sub set, women, and declare their rights inferior to women’s rights.
No comment on the relative safety of trans* outside Brazil?
Of course not, it doesn’t suit your narrative of trans* persecution.,
John
Well, the point was made that the whammy, extra or base level, seemed to arise from being black, female, and in the sex trade, as opposed to arising from being trans. And your response was not to engage on that on-topic discussion, but to pursue tangents.
Ah, those that disagree with you are automatically ideologues. Cool.
Ah, the morning routine.
Roj:
What? All women have women’s rights, obviously. But only some women are bigots.
And only some feminists are TERFs.
See my #7. Those murdered people were in the USA.
My narrative?
See my #44 — that’s NOW saying that, too. And the OP, for that matter.
(Might as well write about my “narrative” about cycles of light and dark as the planet rotates — I call them day and night, in my narrative, I do)
—
Holms:
Well, yeah, but that view is a bit like being a flat-earther. Note it’s the very same point made in the OP, and the very same point made by NOW.
What, you want me to just repeat myself over and over and over and over again?
What? People like Roj that appeal to feminism (as practiced by TERFs, obviously) as their basis for objecting to accepting trans people’ gender identity are clearly ideologues, since that is an ideology.
So, hasty generalisation from one specific example. Again mistaken, you are.
What? People like Roj that appeal to feminism (as practiced by TERFs, obviously) as their basis for objecting to accepting trans people’ gender identity are clearly ideologues, since that is an ideology.
People who believe that a trans woman IS a woman are clearly ideologues as that is an ideology. People who insist that Lesbians should accept trans women as sexual partners are ideologues as that, too, is an ideology.
Maybe you missed my #32
Gender identity is a social construct. You may wish to identify as a woman, but you cannot be a woman. I identify as a man because I was born male, I was socialized male, and I have no experience of being anything other than male. But I would struggle to tell you how it “feels” to be man compared to how it “feels” to be a woman as I have only ever experienced one and not the other.
Trans* people exist. I have never denied that. Trans* people are entitled the same rights and freedoms as everyone. But that does not give them the right to impose themselves on women’s spaces, to steal women’s achievements, or to launch hate campaigns against women who don’t comply with trans* demands.
John, have you ever wondered why trans women are so voluble and aggressive in their demands, whilst trans men are in the main quiet and content with their lot? Do you think that the socialization as a man has anything to do with the different approaches?
No comment on the relative safety of trans* outside Brazil?
See my #7. Those murdered people were in the USA.
Only American lives matter? How insular.
Roj:
Tu quoque doesn’t change that your appeal to feminism (which is an ideology) makes you an ideologue. But sure, I’m happy to accept them as a category of women, in every social sense. Not bigoted, that way.
Heh. Ever heard of this little thing called ‘consent’?
Me, I reckon anyone should be able to choose for themselves with whom they engage in sexual congress.
See, you keep assuming I’m some sort of ideologue, like you. Not so.
I already know your stance.
As per #37, no point reiterating the very same things.
I accept, you’re in denial. Simples.
Not really; if I were to guess, it’s that they get less pushback and more acceptance.
Mind you, I’m aware of the distinction between assertiveness and aggressiveness.
(Nor do I imagine women as meek, delicate flowers — I know better)
‘Twas a pre-emtpive comment, addressing your request before you made it, but surely it counts — unless you imagine the USA is not outside Brazil? 🙂
—
I can see I’m gonna have another day of fun with you… excellent!
#82 John
Those women (and men) that want to end female-only protections come to mind.
And it was pointed out that they appear to have been murdered not for being trans, but for being black street sex workers.
It was pointed out in reply to your #44 that if all of those murdered were black, this only confirms that they are more likely being killed for being black than for being trans. These examples you cite only show that there is a dire problem with racism, but this is cast aside to prop up trans victimhood.
Oh and in reply to OP, I asked a question. Still unanswered. Too busy with your personal entertainment to actually answer on-topic questions, John?
Not really, seeing as how your own sources have highlighted trans people being murdered… 100% of whom were black.
That would be a step up from cop-outs and tangential squirrels.
So now ideas with which you disagree are ideologies, and those you agree with aren’t. This is just a repeat of what I said before.
Too weak, Holms. Try again.
Speaking of cop outs in place of answers… ^
Heh. You sure feel entitled, Holms. You’ll keep getting short shrift, live with it.
As I’ve said before, no point relitigating everything. You’ve had your answers.
You want to imagine being trans has absolutely no consequence and is not a factor in the violent crimes they endure (contrary to all research), I can’t stop you.
You want to make bullshit disingenuous claims in the form of a question a la JK Rowling (“I’m sure there used to be a word for those people “Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”), I can’t stop you.
You want to deny trans women’s identity, I can’t stop you.
But you hardly deserve further serious retorts, since (as I repeat yet again) it’s pointless.
—
End of the day, the OP has it right.
“She [Samantha Bee] highlights the particularly precarious and dangerous situation in our society of the black trans community who get the whammy of racism added to the homophobia and transphobia. And black transwomen have to deal with the added sexism as well.”
Real people, with real problems, and you’re part of the problem.
—
But this time, unless Mano says something, you’re not even getting the satisfaction of having the last word. I can be at least as obstreperous and obstinate as you, and that’s without even trying.
(And feel virtuous about it, too!)
Entitled? I’ve “had my answers”? You must be joking. You never answered the question directed at you in #33. You never disputed the point made in #45 and elsewhere that if 100% of the murder victims are black, the violence is far more likely anti-black than anti-trans. You never even responded to my #49, let alone answer the question posed there directly to you. And of course you openly avoided answering anything in #86.
Oh and right at the top of the thread, the question I put to the general readership in #11 remains unanswered. It wasn’t directed at you, but it remains conspicuous in that it was avoided by everyone.
Do you regularly experience confabulation? I’ve never said that. I disputed the claim that the violence they face is “disproportionately high”, and you seem to have enlarged that in your memory.
It’s a question asked in the honest hope of an answer. Again with your fact claims about my thought process without having any knowledge, being that it is my thought process and not yours. This fits well with your recent pattern -- rather than answer, just accuse all that disagree with you of being ideologues and dogmatists.
Holms:
And you never disputed that
“She [Samantha Bee] highlights the particularly precarious and dangerous situation in our society of the black trans community who get the whammy of racism added to the homophobia and transphobia. And black transwomen have to deal with the added sexism as well.”
Did you?
Well, you are, for the reasons given. I can’t help how you are, you know.
Ah well, short shrift or not, I admit I can’t resist this one:
You @45: “did you not find it odd that is says right there that 100% of the murdered trans people were black trans women?”
Me: “You want to imagine being trans has absolutely no consequence and is not a factor in the violent crimes they endure”
You: “if 100% of the murder victims are black, the violence is far more likely anti-black than anti-trans”
To which the obvious retort is that 100% of the murder victims are trans women, as per your own #45.
(Heh)
The bit I disputed was about trans people facing a wave of violence for being trans. Several times.
But at least you do not dispute the thrust of #90 -- that your claim “you’ve had your answers” was untrue at best, a deliberate lie at worst. (I’ll leave which one up to you)
You said some things about something that you have no knowledge of, i.e. my thought process. You were corrected. You have chosen to persist in that particular idiocy.
Nice, you thought of a response to that post finally! Well done, but it is undermined a touch by being two days in the making, and worth the wait it ain’t. You blatantly omitted “If they were being murdered for being trans, the victims would be a smattering of skin colours and sexes”, which takes care of your response nicely. Prescient of me!
Anyway, maybe you’d like to take a stab at any of the others you couldn’t address back then? Again:
Entitled? I’ve “had my answers”? You must be joking. You never answered the question directed at you in #33. You never disputed the point made in #45 and elsewhere that if 100% of the murder victims are black, the violence is far more likely anti-black than anti-trans [You have now disputed it -- poorly]. You never even responded to my #49, let alone answer the question posed there directly to you. And of course you openly avoided answering anything in #86.
Ah, a fresh new day.
G’day, Holms!
Ctrl-F finds only one instance of “wave of violence”, and it’s in that sentence.
So, no.
What’s “the thrust of #90”?
Nah, I wrote it, finally.
Heh. That’s irrelevant, what amused me is how you picked one attribute that was universal and declared that had to be it, when there’s another universal attribute at hand.
It’s you and Roj that are obsessed with the murder rates and reasons, not me.
You didn’t even understand why the 100% claim amused me.
<snicker>
That was as straight an answer as you’ve got since #37.
—
Something that also amuses me is how Roj was on all about the murders, and now you are, too. Not something I brought up.
Control-f looking for an exact match to the wording used in that sentence? A search method practically tailor made to find nothing; even for you, that is unimaginative and lazy. You might like to try my first post as an example of that same item of scepticism being expressed with different words. Watch out though! I used different words to express the point.
“I’ve “had my answers”? You must be joking.” Followed by details to make that point. Did you not read it?
You’ve shown a consistent trend of being unable to refrain from replying with a rejoinder when you have one, so no, you only just thought of it.
Trans people run the gamut of sckin colours, yet the only ones that were murdered were black. Yes both of those traits are common to the ‘black + trans’ subset of all murdered people, but they weren’t looking for ‘black + trans’ murder victims… they were looking for trans murder victims, but only black ones had been murdered.
You’d have to be (wilfully?) blind to not see the significance of that.
Odd, because a quick glance at the OP shows that it is very much on-topic. And you were the one to bring in that particular source. I suppose it is not obsession when you talk about it, only when someone else does.
I did. You thought it funny that when compiling the set of ‘trans people murdered in 2012’, it was inadvertently ‘black trans people murdered in 2012’ because of all the trans people around in 2012, the only ones to be murdered happened to be black. Wow, amazing, the traits ‘black’ and ‘trans’ were both common across that group, teehee. True but trivial; the real conclusion was that this indicates that they face violence not so much for being trans but for being black.
Yes, it is exactly as straight as #37, in that both were cop outs.
The topic has been anti-trans violence, including murder, all along. Recall: the OP, Roj’s first post here, my first post here, your first post here. Most of our posts since then. Oh and the stuff about the murders that took place all stemmed from a source introduced here… by you.
Jeez, you are slipping.
I’ve also shown a consistent trend of being the more mature and better guest, and guess what? Not this time. Because you ain’t getting the last word.
Roj appealed to feminism, I looked up what the largest feminist org in the USA had to say about it, and lo and behold, they’re inclusive. Not TERFish.
(What, you imagined I brought it up because of murder?)
Nah. I know because you wrote “You blatantly omitted “If they were being murdered for being trans, the victims would be a smattering of skin colours and sexes”, which takes care of your response nicely”, which indicates you thought I was somehow disputing your 100%-based claim, instead of laughing at it.
Heh. What part of “You’ll keep getting short shrift, live with it.” do you find confusing?
And don’t forget, more generally, the prejudice; murder is just the extreme of violence.
But, if you want to imagine being trans has absolutely no consequence and is not a factor in the violent crimes they endure (contrary to all research), I can’t stop you.
Nah. You’re just not worth any more effort.
—
End of the day, the OP has it right.
“She [Samantha Bee] highlights the particularly precarious and dangerous situation in our society of the black trans community who get the whammy of racism added to the homophobia and transphobia. And black transwomen have to deal with the added sexism as well.”
Real people, with real problems, and you’re part of the problem.
“Better house guest” is up to Mano to decide, but “more mature”? Laughable. Your entire track record consists of nitpicking and sniping.
But of course this is just a distraction from the point made: you would have posted your rejoinder way back when if you had thought of it then, because you have no restraint. And even that little tangent was a distraction from the fact that the rejoinder was weak piss.
You stated that Roj and I have been “obsessed” with murder, and I pointed out that the topic has been murder all along. In order to distract from this correct observation, you are now claiming to have brought in that on-topic source and quote for an off-topic reason. Weird guy.
Yes, I did. You made a trivial point in response to a substantive point, and I maintained the substantive and on-topic point.
You seem to have confused yourself. I was pointing out that you had given cop outs, remember? Saying “You’ll keep getting short shrift” is confirmation of this.
I’ve never disputed that there is prejudice. I have disputed that there trans people are disproportionately murdered.
That would be another confabulation of yours. You misinterpreted some comment or other, and now you remember your misinterpretation as the real conversation. Or, point to where I claimed that there is “absolutely no consequence” for being trans. (You won’t, because you can’t.)
Says the guy that has committed to an indefinite run of replying to everything I say in this thread. Nice try. As noted already, and as demonstrated in just about every thread in which you participate, you have minimal restraint.
And I only pushed back on the claim that trans people are being murdered disproportionately.
Nope.
You forgot about our little marathon earlier, here? I stopped out of consideration for our host.
Not this time.
I quote from the OP:
“She [Samantha Bee] highlights the particularly precarious and dangerous situation in our society of the black trans community who get the whammy of racism added to the homophobia and transphobia. And black transwomen have to deal with the added sexism as well.”
I quote Roj, very first comment:
“If you look closely, you will see a lot of the murdered of trans women, of any colour, are prostitutes, and prostitution, especially street prostitution is a violent, deadly workplace.”
So, yeah, obsessed. And when I brought in a quotation from NOW about their inclusivity, what did you focus on? Muuurrderr!
Do you get it now? He was purporting to speak for women and for feminism, upon which I looked it up. The URL should tell you why I chose that.
And yet, you focused on the race issue. And murder most murderous.
I know. 🙂
The effort needed to type stuff out, which I do pretty damn fast.
You’re worth that much. Taking seriously? Not-so-much. You’ve made your stance clear.
You’re the one who claims the murder of trans people had nothing to do with their gender status, not me. Not my fault that’s what you claim.
Whose claim was that?
Fine, you don’t think they’re real people with real problems.
No, you stopped because you were running out of rejoinders. That was merely the excuse you routinely give when you meet opposition. If you had respect for the host, you wouldn’t do your nitpick routine in the first place. And as I said, it is for Mano to decide.
Selecting a subset of the OP for further discussion is not obsession, John.
No he wasn’t. He sided with women’s advocacy with no suggestion that he was speaking for anyone but himself. You then played the MRA card: calling women’s advocacy white knighting.
And your source only confirmed the points made on the topic of trans people being murdered. Thanks for that.
___
You: You didn’t even understand why the 100% claim amused me.
Me: I did. …
You: Nah. …
Me: Yes, I did. …
You: I know. …
Good, you agreed that I did understand it. Or did you really think I was agreeing with the supplementary text?
And yet you used ‘you’re not worth the effort’ as an excuse after I said that you were slipping. So coming up with decent answers is both too much effort and also barely any effort.
I just got done telling you that is not my position. I even asked you to point out where I said any such thing. Keep up.
It was in the OP.
Sigh.
“Real people, with real problems, and you’re part of the problem.”
“Nope.”
Did you not see that, or merely pretending not to see that?
You wish.
Nope.
You’re the one who quoted the entire three-term conjunction.
(Hey, the first hundred is up!)
It’s speculative, as all statements of someone else’s thought processes necessarily are, but it remains my surmise.
Are you actually claiming that the OP contained no mention of murder?
You described yourself as being “not bad with words”, so I thought that you would figure it out. Maybe revise your self appraisal downwards a notch?
Anyway, at least you tacitly accept that an on-topic discussion of murder is not an “obsession”, what with it naturally following on from the OP and all. And also that the white knight card card is a classic MRA play. Oh and no further excuses on “So coming up with decent answers is both too much effort and also barely any effort”? Not surprising, you cornered yourself a tad on that one.
Yet it’s wrong. I don’t flounce, I just stop. And you think you’ve “won” because I don’t carry on the pointless exchanges past some point. Thus this pointless continuation.
Again: either you give it up, or Mano steps in. But, by this point, I think (hope) he’s more amused than anything else, and so long as we pollute no more than this one thread, it should be OK. We’ll see, eh?
Try Ctrl-F, if you don’t believe me. Ain’t there.
My lexicon is large, and my application apposite, and my facility felicitous.
How is that bad?
<snicker>
That was a premature ejaculation, that was.
Excuses? I already told you. You get what I give. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
(That’s how operant conditioning works, you know)
No, the pattern is pretty strong. You spend the first portion of one of these arguments with increasing numbers of finicky points, then you start talking about ‘not imposing too much on our host’ and similar once your points have been cornered, then your posts peter out all while claiming that you won but haven’t we taken up enough of Mano’s patience and oh look at the time… And your low willpower has been demonstrated by your habit of declaring that you will no longer indulge in such and such a topic, only to break down in the very next post.
So yeah, historically, you flame out when you run out of patience and sniping nitpicks.
Are you completely sure the OP has nothing about murder in it?
Bad enough that you parsed a simple sentence quote and reply incorrectly.
No it wasn’t.
And sometimes you claim that posting is effortless, other times you dodge giving a reply because it is too much effort.
Ah, good morning, O transphobic one. Time for today’s round.
Yeah, as the number of pointless comments grows, so I begin to worry about the host banning me. Go figure!
Wishful thinking will not get you very far.
I work in mysterious ways. To you, anyway.
(Such effort!)
Wellllll you did promise to shitpost the thread. Maybe that doesn’t count in your favour?
Which is why I don’t indulge in it.
Yes, that’s the bit that makes your ‘not worth the effort’ excuse look ridiculous.
Weeelll… I did say you wouldn’t get the last word, which you so fondly imagine meant I ran out of puff. To recapitulate what I told you in the last marathon, takes two to tango.
(Dance, little boy, dance!)
Heh.
“You want to make bullshit disingenuous claims in the form of a question a la JK Rowling (“I’m sure there used to be a word for those people “Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”), I can’t stop you.”
See, that ain’t worth the effort. It’s plain as day what you did. Very first comment.
(Be aware I’ve read your eructations about trans people on multiple blogs, including this one, PZ’s, and Ophelia’s. I am not uninformed)
@ Holms
You’re the mouse. You get that right? Because it’s even more tragic if you don’t even get that.
Your decline in post content, repeated in many threads at approximately similar points, is what gives the impression of running out of puff. Your commitment to post endlessly, combined with that decline in content, is a promise to shitpost.
And as noted, you keep avoiding its answer.
Oh no, you’ve read my words knowingly stated out in the open. Such terrible secrets I hid there!
___
Hello, Bob. I acknowledge that that is your evaluation. Naturally, I disagree.
Already told you how it goes; normally, I show some maturity.
Sure, usually right about when you are being chased into the weeds. I’m sure it just resembles quitting in exasperation with a handy excuse.
Edit fail? You quote me deriding your tactic here, and somehow you think this undercuts my position regarding feminism and sex as a characteristic.
Your certitude is unwarranted; I don’t flounce, I just stop.
Yup. Happens when one doesn’t preview and takes little care. Missed one backslash.
Easily fixed.
Here you go:
—
So, do go on about ‘feminist’ being the word for someone advocating for fairness, protections and etc. along the protected characteristic called sex.
(cf. my #44)
Yes, you’re going with ‘coincidence’.
Yes, those word were typed at another blog. And?
By the way, are you still certain the OP has no mention of murder?
Heh. Already told you, my normal modus is to stop when it (a) becomes sufficiently pointless and/or (b) when the host may be sufficiently annoyed.
In this case, I’m making you continue, because I know damn well you need that little psychological crutch of having the last word. And, best of all, I’ve told you I’m doing it. And it proves you know that I’m manipulating you into this, whereas I chose to do this.
🙂
And it’s pretty good evidence that, in fact, I still read you on Ophelia’s blog too (cf. #37).
So I know exactly where you stand, even if you’re too cowardly to say it in this particular blog.
Try Ctrl-F, if you don’t believe me. Ain’t there. (cf. #102)
Hey, an eye for an eye! Always preview.
Another day.
Nope. So, prove me wrong — by stopping and thus missing out on the last word.
Not as well, since you’ve already gloated “the pattern is pretty strong”. My pattern of being able to stop, because I’m not needy about it.
And now you’re in no position to do so.
Already told you, I’m not an activist or ideologue.
But sure, describe the
race realistgender critical position, in your own words. Don’t be shy!Why? You’re the one that believes having the last word is a win condition.
Your pattern is replying with every rejoinder you think of, and only petering out when your silliness has been cornered.
I’m in no position to do a thing that I was not going to do anyway? Wow, amazing.
You avoided the point. You claimed to know exactly where I stand, and I pointed out that your descriptions what you believe my position to be indicate otherwise.
And feel free to cling to the pretence that you don’t have a position on this. Never mind that you give it away every time you describe my position as ‘race realism’…
By the way, you skipped the final question I asked:
Me: By the way, are you still certain the OP has no mention of murder?
You: Try Ctrl-F, if you don’t believe me. Ain’t there.
Me: What do you think you would say if you turned out to be wrong?
And yet, here you are, retorting helplessly.
Tell ya what: you tell me about your “gender critical” stance, without dissimulation, and I’ll answer you. By the way, even.
Wishful thinking will not get you very far.
Seems to have worked out quite well for Jonathan Yanniv, Bruce Jenner, Callum Mouncey, Rhys McKinnon, et al. For Rachel Dolezal, not so well.
Jenner is an interesting case study.
If we accept the TRA ideology that trans women are men who always knew they were “women born in the wrong body”, then he should return his Olympic and other medals, as they were all won under false pretenses; a woman competing in a men’s event. If we accept that Jenner was a man at the time of those events, then we must accept that Jenner always was and always will be a man.
Aww, Roj. You figure Holms needs your support, eh?
(Against a “pathetic troll”, even!)
Yeah, and? The win condition is your belief.
I asked you a question. What might you say if you turned out the be wrong regarding whether murder was referenced in the OP? Treat it as a hypothetical if you like.
What questions do you have regarding my stance? Specific questions, not open ended please.
Ah, you’re good sport, Holms.
Yet, you repeatedly brought up my history of ceasing without persevering.
What part of “unless Mano says something, you’re not even getting the satisfaction of having the last word” was unclear to you?
My belief is that it’s your belief that having the last word is a thing, and the fact is that historically, you have always persevered and imagined you’ve “won” because I never have, hitherto. Every pointless response to this mutual jejune ego-butting strengthens that belief. See? I’m perfectly willing to condescend.
What part of “Tell ya what: you tell me about your “gender critical” stance, without dissimulation, and I’ll answer you.” is confusing you?
As I noted, “you’re too cowardly to say it in this particular blog”. Prescient, that.
Aww, Roj. You figure Holms needs your support, eh?
Not at all, just confirming your inability to apply logic and mount a defence of your position.
Pathetic troll? No, that was really being far too kind to you. Heaven truly knows that thou art false as hell.
Get your archaisms right, Roj.
The third-person singular simple present indicative form of know is ‘knoweth’.
Ah John, Thou hast no more brain than I have in mine elbows.
You think that a Man can mutter some magic words and “become” a woman.
You aver that women who do not wish to share intimate spaces with entire males are TERFS.
And you claim to know the English language better than The Bard.
All you have is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Your capitalisation skills are impressive.
Yes, “I’m not bad with words” most certainly is a claim that I know he English language better than The Bard.
(Astounding acumen!)
And yet you lack proof reading skills.
You have not so much brain as ear-wax.
But I will leave this OP alone now, more of your conversation would infect my brain.
Not quite. I brought up those occasions where you stated you would to no longer post in a thread only to go back on that with some snarky rejoinder; from which I conclude that you have poor impulse control whenever you think of something snappy. Couple this with the fact that you always fade out whenever I chase down your argument for long enough, and I reckon these indicate that you really do run out of steam -- you would snap back, if you thought you had something good. I consider the claimed consideration for Mano’s patience a thin excuse.
Obviously surmise rather than proof positive, but for better or worse, that is what I conclude from your behaviour. And you have your surmise from my behaviour.
I asked first. As I see it, these remain unanswered:
#11 [responding to OP]: What then is the word for someone advocating for fairness, protections and etc. along the protected characteristic called sex? Because that is what I thought the word feminist means, but it seems Bee disagrees.
#33 [responding to your #31]: It is true that women do not think in lockstep with one another. The same can be said of trans people… are they also terfs if they disagree with you?
#49 [responding to your #46]: Oh? Is a trans woman’s sex female now?
#several: What would you say if it turned out that the OP did reference murder? Treat it as a far-fetched hypothetical if you like.
___
Take this very brief sketch as a proffer. The GC position is roughly: there are two sexes, and two genders / social roles foisted on people on the basis of the sex they are; and the task of feminists has been since its inception to eradicate those things on the basis that biology is not predictive of personalities, aptitudes, hobbies, jobs, etc. etc. but we are socialised to believe that they are. This is called ‘gender critical’ because attacking those notions attacking the concept of gender.
Being so rough, it is inevitable that there are clarifications needed. Answering my questions to you would go a long way to getting those clarifications, should you ask for any.
Ah, another beautiful day, here.
Nope.
You imagine I’m under any obligation to you?
But sure:
#11 You want to mansplain feminism to Samantha, go ahead.
(But are you so sure it’s about sex, and not about gender? And about protections, and not about equality?)
#33 People can’t be exclude themselves, can they?
(cf. Russell’s Paradox)
#49 Gender. Trans women are female.
(Either you distinguish between the two, or you conflate them)
#several Already told you my condition for an answer. Not yet met.
Remember I wrote “without dissimulation”?
What you wrote is basically the ‘radical’ part of radical feminism.
But that has two main branches: trans-exclusive and trans-inclusive.
Your antipathy towards trans women is part of the exclusive branch, the which is known as TERF. You left that out.
Wanna try again?
Related: https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/7/2/21311179/trump-hud-rule-homeless-trans-people
As it should be. Men bunked with men, women bunked with women.
Trans women are not women. If they were women we would simply call them women.
No one is “assigned a sex at birth”, they are born male or female. With a few, rare, exceptions. No one is born Trans*. Being Trans* is a lifestyle choice, unlike homosexuality which is innate. Gay men can no more become straight by wishful thinking than men can become women.
John Morales, when did you decide to be a het cis bloke?
Roj, cute cameo.
and
and
You think neonates write their own certificates?
You think social constructs are immutable?
(Aaand you tacitly acknowledge your belief that cis(gender) is a real term with a real meaning, which you are comfortable employing, much as het(erosexual) is one.
Well done!)
—
Also:
You are now infected, having sought and received more conversation.
It fascinates me, how like creationists these idiots are. They will cling to their ideology, no matter what and to hell with the evidence.
132@ Roj Blake
The American Psychological Society:
My bold.
The Endocrine Society:
But please, O ignorant plonker, tell us more about
how the Devil put the fossil record there to trick usthe transgender “lifestyle”. Lol.P.S. “It’s not innate it’s just a lifestyle” is exactly what your homophobic equivalents say. They should charge you royalties for adapting their bullshit without permission.
And you don’t think an openly transgender queer Two Spirit man may have a bias? Especially one who works with little children?
Also curious that one of the supporting references is titled “Gender Identity Disorder in Twins”, not Trans* in twins. A study of 23 cases is also probably not conclusive.
It’s not innate it’s just a lifestyle” is exactly what your homophobic equivalents say.
Homosexual behaviors are noticeable in species other than Humans, but not trans* behaviours. Ever see a Peahen put on a great display of feathers, or a Lioness grow a mane?
Roj:
No surprise that you attempt associate trans people with pedophilia, any more than your earlier association with sex work. Nasty of you, but hey. Only to be expected.
I am rather amused that you use the asterisk, since it signifies the spectrum (e.g. agender, genderfluid, bigender, etc) and is not a binary. I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you’re intimating when you do that. I know I avoid it, since I’m not that learned and thus lack the confidence to employ it correctly — but fools and angels, right?
—
Oh, and again:
↓ ↓
Black women are not women. If they were women we would simply call them women.
(Adjectival qualifiers are opaque to you, no?)
—
Yeah, I know… you imagine you’re provoking outrage and anger when you use these silly and supposedly provocative talking points. Probably because ideologues imagine everyone else is also an ideologue, just like religious people imagine everyone else is religious.
(Such futility!)
—
And, as a reminder about what this post is about,
Dunno that I am that appalled — my cynicism is vast — but it is perverse, no denying that.
No surprise that you attempt associate trans people with pedophilia, any more than your earlier association with sex work.
That is your interpretation, your problem, not mine. My concern with Colt Meier is NOT that he may or may not be a pedophile, but that he believes children as young as 4 “know” that they are not the sex they were born. If a boy exhibits interest in playing with dolls or a girl in trucks, he does not see that as an expansion of play, but as a validation of his ideas.
And no matter how hard you try to deny it, a lot of murdered trans women of color ARE engaged in sex work. That is not to say I condone their murder, or their lack of choices that led them to sex work, but that sex work, especially on the street, is dangerous. They are murdered by men, not by women.
Black women are not women. If they were women we would simply call them women.
Most of us do, unless their color is relevant.
When I see a group of women of a variety of races I don’t say “Look at those Black, Chinese, Indian, White, Portuguese, Japanese women” I simply say “Look at those women”.
Men are not women, no matter how much hand waving and magical thinking they do.
Ever see a Peahen put on a great display of feathers, or a Lioness grow a mane?
Of course not, because gender is not innate, it is a social construct.
What is appalling is that so many people try to act as if the non-trans community has to be protected from the trans community, when the reality is the other way around.
And the biggest threat to the trans community is not women, it is men. Just as the biggest threat to women, is, surprise, men.
Roj, no point reiterating your gender essentialism, I already get you.
It’s unfortunate that your antiquated conceptual framework is so ossified that times have passed you by, but there it is.
I know it’s hard for you to face it, but you’re in the very same position as homophobes were a generation ago. Society will change around you, and you will probably remain a bewildered, reactionary old coot.
Ah well. ‘Tis your fate, unless you wake up to reality.
you will probably remain a bewildered, reactionary old coot.
As a lifelong “Leftie”, I find that hard to believe. My principles and politics are still of the Left.
I know it’s hard for you to face it, but you’re in the very same position as homophobes were a generation ago.
Yer reckon? My first real lover was another man. I decided I preferred women, he decided he preferred men, and here we are, 50 years later, still friends.
Women are women. Men are men. And thank Dog for that.
Exactly. Ossified.
Not ossified. Just not a band wagon follower. And unlike you, I am not acquiescent, impressionable, or an enthusiastic follower of fashion.
#130 Morales
Er, that’s exactly what I brought up. See #103.
As stated long ago, the question was directed at the readers of this thread, which likely does not include Bee.
So those trans people that want to excluse trans women from women’s sports, women’s rape shelters etc. are non-terfs because they are themselves trans. But I thought the ‘trans exclusionary’ portion of terf meant a person excluding trans people from feminism and/or from female spaces?
Also, look at that sentence just quoted. The ‘be’ is spurious, right? Which reminds me of the quote Roj rbought in wayyyy back in post 8. You interpreted that bolded portion one way, and I interpreted it another. You disputed my interpretation, arguing that the meaning I arrived at would have been better expressed by eliding the word ‘random’, while I stated that that word was likely a spurious inclusion (admittedly, superfluous was the word I was thinking of… PEBKAC). We see now how easy accidental superfluous inclusions are now, I hope.
I asked specifically about their sex.
Yes I’ve checked. With ctrl-f even! Now, what would you say if it turned out the OP referenced murder after all? Obviously just a hypothetical scenario.
What was lacking from that?
And so the Earth rotates another time. So, Holms.
Sure:
Burner is still lit. Historically, even.
Nah, it’s a left-over. Was gonna write more, changed my mind, forgot to delete it.
The parenthetical part sums up the issue with that conceit.
I know — because to you, sex is gender, and gender is sex. As I already noted.
Keep asking, but it shall remain futile until you meet the tit for tat. Already told you.
Specificity and honesty. Trans-inclusive radical feminists are also gender critical, hence that can’t be to what you refer. Which I’ve already told you.
You omitted the vital text being referenced. I know you can read, and you had to have read past the relevant text to get to that, so we’ll put that down to dishonesty.
And the end result is the superfluous inclusion. You didn’t refute that it was superfluous, all you did was explain how it occurred.
The point being, it is easy to see how the writer of Roj’s source in #8 may have done that, given how easily it can happen.
I have told you in the past, and am telling you again now, that they are separate concepts. If you think I have indicated otherwise, please point out where so that I may correct it. (You won’t, because I have said no such thing.) So. What is the sex -- not gender -- of a trans woman?
Done. Deliver.
I outlined my position, not anyone else’s. If it matches your position on some points, that just means we have those particular points in common. But of course this is just another cop-out for the sake of obstinacy.
First, you claimed I always give up; now, you claim I don’t. Heh.
You originally wrote “spurious”, now it’s become “superflous”.
(You do get they’re not synonymous, right?)
Why does that matter to you?
Ahem. “What part of “Tell ya what: you tell me about your “gender critical” stance, without dissimulation, and I’ll answer you.” is confusing you?”
Hm. Let’s see…
” there are two sexes, and two genders / social roles foisted on people on the basis of the sex they are; and the task of feminists has been since its inception to eradicate those things on the basis that biology is not predictive of personalities, aptitudes, hobbies, jobs, etc. etc. but we are socialised to believe that they are.”
It ineluctably follows that gender-critical task is to eradicate things such as women-only spaces. You’re quite sure that’s your position?
The text you omitted is why I conclude you give up -- you’ve demonstrated many times that you post if you have something to post, even if you just claimed you wouldn’t post any more.
Oh wow, you actually seem to have either reading issues or memory issues. Check that portion of #143 again.
Odd, you were willing to answer it before in your #130. Now that I’ve clarified that the word ‘sex’ means ‘sex’ for you, you are unwilling. Anyway, the question remains unanswered.
The proffer I gave contained none. That was a summary of my real views.
No, because that does not follow.
I’ve already told you why I give up, but fine, stick to your narrative.
How’s it working for you?
“The ‘be’ is spurious, right?”
(Still there)
Odd, since you think I’ve answered it, that you asked it again.
“there are two sexes, and two genders / social roles foisted on people on the basis of the sex they are; and the task of feminists has been since its inception to eradicate those things”
But fine, you’re not sure, because it doesn’t follow.
I’ve already told you why I give up, but fine, stick to your narrative.
I explained your behavioural pattern that led me to that conclusion. If you hadn’t said “no more posts from me” followed immediately by posts from you, I wouldn’t have arrived at that surmise.
Finish reading that paragraph. You’re so close!
You answered it thinking I was asking what gender they were. I cleared up your misapprehension: the word sex means sex. Bizarre I know, but there it is. So, what is the sex of a trans woman?
My bad, the ‘because’ was superfluous. But at least you agree that your conclusion was a non sequitur.
Whatever made you imagine that?
Pretty obviously, women-only spaces are social spaces where attendance is determined by social roles foisted on people on the basis of the sex they are. That which is to be eradicated.
Nope, the problem lies in one of your premises. Work on it.
Don’t have to, it’s obvious. And it’s not my premise, it’s yours.
…Alright, I guess I have to show you. Women-only spaces =/= things foisted on women on the basis of sex. Women only spaces, such as toilets, sporting leagues, shelters etc. are protections carved out for themselves as a result of their own activism. The social role stuff -- the expectation they’ll do the chores, the child-raising, the pretty wallflower and more -- that’s the unwanted stuff.
So they’re not due to “social roles foisted on people on the basis of the sex they are”?
Women can go to any toilets, any sporting league, any shelter?
But they can certainly opt out of those, can’t they? So, in what sense are they “foisted”?
—
You want to dispute that there’s an expectation — by you, even — that women have a need to socialise only amongst other women of the same sex, which is certainly a gender role.
And you wrote nothing about only “unwanted” roles, you just wrote “roles”.
That which is to be eradicated.
—
And, of course, once transgender people’ gender is accepted, those roles are no longer “foisted” on the basis of their sex. Problem solved.
Same reply, since you didn’t read it: Women-only spaces =/= things foisted on women on the basis of sex. Women only spaces, such as toilets, sporting leagues, shelters etc. are protections carved out for themselves as a result of their own activism. The social role stuff — the expectation they’ll do the chores, the child-raising, the pretty wallflower and more — that’s the unwanted stuff.
You can defy someone’s expectations, but the expectation -- and social pressure -- remain.
Nope: Women-only spaces =/= things foisted on women on the basis of sex.
I like that you accept that TRA theory requires accepting the continuation of gender roles. Not many let that slip out.
You mean the expectation to act like the gender that’s traditionally associated with one’s genitals? Because that’s what you exhibit.
Well, no — in your case, the role of women is foisted by their sex, and they can (in your estimation) only be women if they’re cis women. That’s a sex-based gender determination. The which is supposedly to be eradicated.
I know somewhat about feminism, but fuck-all about Trans Rights Activism, so I can hardly let anything out. Again, I’m no activist, and I only speak for myself.
I know enough to see that you are foisting the male gender on AMAB people, and female gender on AFAB people, and that you figure the two differ in whatever manner. Look, either you want those differences gone, or you want them assigned on the basis of sex. Pretty simple.
Oh, and lest we forget:
No. The expectation that someone will like blue or pink, that someone will play with toy soldiers or dolls, that someone will be a homemaker or get a career, or [many more things] is handed out by broader culture, and on the basis of the sex of the person. And that’s what is to be eradicated.
You let it out all the same. And you are reciting many of the TRA arguments, so you may not know it but that seems to be your team.
🙂 No, that’s the exact opposite of what I argue for.
Just as are “Women only spaces, such as toilets, sporting leagues, shelters etc.”
Perhaps. But I’m not responsible for what other people may say, any more than they’re responsible for what I say. Again, I speak for myself, and I’m for sure no activist.
I guess they’re not bigoted, either.
Fine, then you hold that AMAB people may be female, and AFAB people may be male.
So, whence your transphobia?
I have to chuckle at the naiveté of a man pontificating that sex segregation was totally a feminist innovation. 😀
Morales,
No, those are based on sex. Ever wonder why men’s toilets have urinals? They are there in expectation of the male sex. You really need to disentangle sex from gender, you’ve got it bad.
I said you were reciting the TRA arguments. I did not call you an activist.
I have never said anything remotely resembling that.
Silentbob,
Did you see the examples I gave? Sports leagues, toilets, shelters for the abused. Those are the ones carved out by feminist activism, as safe spaces. You’re bringing up the opposite side of the coin: the segregations that were forced on women, along with having no vote, reduced property rights, and all sorts of others.
But male toilets also have stalls. So, if male toilets are based on sex, so are stalls.
And female toilets have stalls. Which means stalls work for both sexes (and genders), and so females can most certainly use male toilets, and males can use female toilets.
(You imagine every bloke uses an urinal?)
Which is what I do; thus, I have no problem accepting that AMABs can be female, and AFABs can be male. Or in between. Or something else.
(As Roj put it: “gender is not innate, it is a social construct”)
You imagine that, because you have a blind spot. But you indeed did.
You claimed that “the exact opposite of what I argue for” is that “you are foisting the male gender on AMAB people, and female gender on AFAB people”; it follows that you don’t think that AMAB entails maleness nor AFAB entails femaleness, else you’d be foisting that.
(You are so confused!)
I have never met a woman with a penis who needed to buy tampons, but some sure get agitated over the packaging.
I have, however, encountered a woman who thinks that she is a man and that she is also gay, because she likes anal sex with her boyfriend.
Confused just does not cover it.
Roj, your efforts at trying to be provocative are becoming ever more risible.
(Probably the brain infection you prognosticated)
Well at least Roj was able to come up with a better synopsis of the “gender critical” position than the Abbott to his Costello, Holms.
Men need to shit too, you idiot. Urinals are for men i.e. males, cubicles are for both.
You’re in kool aid so deep, you can’t even see the surface. A person observed to be male is male and not female, a person observed to be female is female and not male. That’s what their sex is.
This is weak even for you. The actual opposite of “foisting the male gender on AMAB people, and female gender on AFAB people” is not foisting gendered expectations on them. You see? The opposite of doing is not doing.
sigh
why do I never preview?
Yes, every home I’ve ever seen has an all-gender toilet, and no urinal.
(Urinals are quick, and dirty)
I (strangely enough) don’t go peering at the genitals of people I meet so as to determine their sex.
(And Mrs Doubtfire was truly a female, by your standard)
Exactly — which means you wouldn’t assume and expect AMAB people are male or AFAB female — after all, they might be transgender. But you do, don’t you?
Duh, home toilets aren’t segregated.
Neither do I, but have you forgotten you brought up AMAB/AFAB i.e. being observed to be male or female at birth? Take your memory pills or something.
In just one sentence prior, the standard you were referencing was observing someone’s genitals. By that standard, Mrs. Doubtfire would be male. How did you forget your own previous sentence??
Dear god, you really can’t split sex from gender. John, AMAB refers to someone that is male. You’re damn right I assume a male person is male, because that’s what their sex is. Their sex is male, therefore their sex is… male. Similar for AFAB ==> female because they are female.
That’s their sex, john. Not gender. Remember, gender is the socialised stuff; the different expectations and social pressures placed on people for being male or female. And so when I meet a woman, I work to avoid assuming she will match the female stereotypes, and likewise when meeting a man. That’s the gender stuff. That’s the stuff I endeavour to avoid.
Exactly. It’s only the gender roles based on sex and foisted by society that segregate public loos.
(That which is to be eradicated!)
The first “A” stands for “assigned”, not “observed”.
And aren’t you the one who asserted “You really need to disentangle sex from gender”?
Heh. Yes, and both related to your claim that “A person observed to be male is male and not female, a person observed to be female is female and not male.”
And, without genital examination, Mrs Doubtfire was observed to be female.
(hey, it’s your standard, not mine)
Roj does; he claims “gender is not innate, it is a social construct.”, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t think sex is similarly a social construct. So it’s quite doable, even by such as he.
Ahem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_assignment#AMAB
(You imagine neonates exhibit gender?)
Heh. Many trans people “pass”, you know.
(If you want to be sure, you know what you have to do — but I don’t recommend that 😉 )
I feel I should just leave Morales to have his fun, but this is becoming increasingly surreal.
@169 Holms
Okay, so how do you know when you have met a woman? You claim being a woman is simply some obscure medical fact about baby genitals, it has no social dimension. This immediately raises the question of how you could possibly know when you have met a woman. Have you ever, in fact, met a woman? How do you know? Here’s a picture of some women. If you met them, would you consider you had met women? How would you make that determination? Ask for a picture of their baby genitals or what? As it happens, all the women in that picture are trans (surprise!). But how could you possibly intuit this without medical information about them? If you make a determination of who is a woman and who isn’t on the basis of appearance, what even is the point of a definition of woman (baby genitals) that is only hypothetical and has no practical utility? All the people in that photo go through their lives been seen and treated as women every day of their lives. What is the use of some jury-rigged definition of women that excludes them, especially if your goal is to oppose discrimination against people perceived to be women (feminism)?
Nope, it’s sex segregation. Remember, there is a difference between the men’s and women’s based on an anatomical difference between male and female genitals.
Yes, but identifying someone’s sex is based on observation.
Ah, you took it as an in-universe thing, with the entire family being taken in by his disguise. I took it as a movie watcher looking in, and with that perspective, no Robin Williams did not pass very well. No genital viewing required.
You took the wrong meaning from that sentence. You took it as an instruction, something like ‘you must not split gender and sex’. If you parse it with a different inflection, you might see the meaning I intended; something like ‘you really are no good at keeping them separate in your mind’. I was marvelling at how badly you have them conflated.
Sex, John. Noting that a child is male is and observation of their sex. I really hoped you would get that one, here are some clues I left for you that you missed:
“Dear god, you really can’t split sex from gender. John, AMAB refers to someone that is male. You’re damn right I assume a male person is male, because that’s what their sex is. Their sex is male, therefore their sex is… male. Similar for AFAB ==> female because they are female.
That’s their sex, john. Not gender.”
I’m sorry that the clues were too subtle for you.
Silentbob for a change
By looking at her and recognising her as such.
Firstly, not quite, the ‘baby genitals’ bit was specifically in reference to a newborn being looked at by the staff and having their sex recorded. So, I will trust we can agree that this renders your ‘baby genitals’ line of questioning moot. Secondly, I have never denied that there is a social dimension surrounding sex. That’s what gender is -- the cloud of assumptions and stereotypes associated with one sex or the other, some of which have serious consequences.
This may or may not be especially relevant, but… I could tell those three were trans. Admittedly, this was partly due to the context in which they were presented -- an argument about sex, gender, and trans people -- but there are still some physical clues. If I had met them in some other setting, who knows? I might or might not have overlooked those clues.
But what of it? We can agree that noting someone’s sex via the typical method -- looking at them -- is not 100% guaranteed, yet what does that change? No one here is claiming that observations are guaranteed, so pointing out that there is a chance of error does not undermine the assertion that sex is observed.
And another day goes by.
So, Holms:
As per Wikipedia: “Assigned male at birth (AMAB): a person of any age and irrespective of current gender whose sex assignment at birth resulted in a declaration of “male”.”
This occurs well before they develop a gender identity.
That depends; ‘male’ is a polysemous term. So it can be used for either or both, depending on context. Analogously, the terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ can be similarly used.
I’m not the one who imagines sex and gender must always conform once assigned at birth, that’s you.
That’s why you make a point of using the incorrect gendered pronouns when referring to trans people. Not even slightly subtle.
(cf. #144)
As it happens, all the women in that picture are trans (surprise!).
We only have your word for that. A tineye search reveals the only source of this photo is a teen magazine, and while it talks about gender issues and The Dresscode Project, it does not in anyway identify the people in the photo. So, how do YOU know they are all trans?
>Here’s another photo, this time from the Dresscode Project. Not at all hard to pick the blokes dressed as Sheilas. (I generally prefer women don’t sport beards).
I’m not the one who imagines sex and gender must always conform once assigned at birth, that’s you.
True. You’re the one who thinks sex can be changed by saying a few magic pronouns, waving of hands, and applying make up. Still doesn’t mean a man can give birth or a woman has a dick.
Roj:
Gender, and not necessarily changed, but rather instantiated.
And I think that because I see it in real life, and unlike you, I am not in denial.
(Again, I’m not the one confused about sex and gender, because I know they’re not mutually entailed)
Yes I read that John and it completely agrees with me. That’s an observation of someone’s sex. It says it right there: sex, not gender.
Ah, no. You might use it with some idiosyncratic meaning, Humpty Dumpty style, but that is not polysemy. But even if it was, your own wiki quote openly states that AMAB / AFAB refer to sex and not gender.
I’ve stated multiple times that I oppose the gendered expectations and genders, noting that they are a matter of socialising, and you interpret this as a statement that gender is immutable? That’s quite the confabulation.
Now we are well and truly off-topic. Murder statistics were at least part of the OP subject matter.
Note “Assigned male at birth (AMAB): a person of any age and irrespective of current gender“.
(Quite sure it completely agrees with you?)
See above: “Assigned male at birth […] irrespective of current gender”.
(I’m quite up to date, thanks, and versed in idiomacy)
Well, then, you must be in accord with me that gender doesn’t need to match sex.
(So whence your transphobia?)
No. I’ll hereby quote the entirety of the OP, for your benefit:
“While welcoming the ruling that said that firing someone because they are gay or lesbian or transgender violates the law, she says that there is much more that needs to be done to protect the transgender community. She highlights the particularly precarious and dangerous situation in our society of the black trans community who get the whammy of racism added to the homophobia and transphobia. And black transwomen have to deal with the added sexism as well.
What is appalling is that so many people try to act as if the non-trans community has to be protected from the trans community, when the reality is the other way around.
[citations]”
Biological gender essentialists like Holms do this amusing doublethink where gender is bad, except for the bits of gender they want to keep, which are redefined as “acknowledging sex” and not bad.
So, “blue is for assigned males, pink is for assigned females” is gender and bad.
“‘He’ is for assigned males, and ‘she’ is for assigned females” is acknowledging sex and therefore not gender and not bad. 🙂
They somehow manage to convince themselves that the social classes ‘men’ and ‘women’ are purely medical, not social, and therefore not ‘gender’, even though they themselves routinely sort people into those categories based 100% on social cues -- names, pronouns, presentation -- , and 0% on medical knowledge. The self-deception is fascinating.
John
Yes, it says right there that AMAB refers to a person’s sex. Precisely what I was saying.
Again, I was talking about sex. Not gender.
I guess you must have imagined it.
You didn’t watch those videos, did you? I did.
___
Silentbob
Look up ‘grammatical gender’.
You body shape and size, and in particular, faces. People are visibly male or female irrespective of the way they style themselves.
Holms:
Not precisely, since you left out important aspects.
1. As assigned at birth; and
2. Irrespective of their current gender.
Which means that AMAB people can have a female gender identity, thus meriting the female pronoun.
Bad guess; you are most evidently transphobic, inasmuch as you don’t even accept the concept of gender identity as a real thing. Which is kinda problematic, because from there you go on to deny trans people have any right to their identity, and from there you go on to imagine they’re either delusional transvestites, mentally deranged, or nefariously predatory.
(Akin to a Catholic refusing to believe that an infant who was baptised as an infant is not religious, but rather either in denial or lying)
But the videos aren’t the OP (that is, the opening/original post of the thread, sometimes also the opinion piece).
Observed*
Right. A person’s sex is unrelated to how their gender identity. And I was talking specifically of sex.
Say rather that I don’t accept that a person’s gender identity trumps existing permitted sex segregation.
Hah! They were in the post. They are a part of the post. Hence, the OP included murder statistics as a subject.
And yet another day.
Yes, trans-exclusive, radical, and feminist. That’s you.
Such sad desperation!
Silent Bob -- I see you are remaining silent on the question of how you *know* the people in the photo you posted are trans. I guess you looked at their genitals.
@^ Roj Blake
Eh? They said so mate, that’s how. The only way we know private medical information about other people (apart from intimates or being a doctor… ) is if they choose to share it. We know only gender, from which we infer “sex” (if we ever even think about it at all).
P.S. I don’t know why you assume “looking at their genitals” would tell you if they were cis or trans.
P.S. I don’t know why you assume “looking at their genitals” would tell you if they were cis or trans.
Chicks don’t have dicks. Easy.
We do not need the modifier “cis” when dealing with women, as they are women. We do need the modifier trans when dealing with men who want to be, but are not, women.
We infer sex from a lot of things, mostly size, presentation, vocal depth. None of these are perfect, which is why they are inferences. But 99 times out of 100 when I see this, this, this, or this, or similar, I know I am looking at a man. Prove me wrong.
Gender is social, sex is biological. You can have as many genders as you like, but without sex, we cannot reproduce.
@183 Holms
I don’t know what jurisdiction you’re in, but generally speaking “permitted sex segregation” is not a thing if by “sex” you mean biological category. That’s the whole point of “bathroom bills” and the attempts by TERFs and other right-wing reactionaries to introduce biological definitions of “sex”. To -- for the first time -- legislate literal “sex segregation” when what we’ve always had is gender segregation. In a cisnormative society it’s been assumed gender segregation and sex segregation are the same, but of course, trans people have always used the gender segregated facilities appropriate to their gender, since like forever. There is currently a concerted effort by bigots to change that.
Wrong, but I see you believe that gender identity trumps sex. So, are you finally admitting to having a position on the question asked in
#11: What then is the word for someone advocating for fairness, protections and etc. along the protected characteristic called sex?
#33: It is true that women do not think in lockstep with one another. The same can be said of trans people… are they also terfs if they disagree with you? [Some added context for this question: there are trans people that agree with me, that women’s spaces should remain solely for the female sex alone, i.e. no trans women.]
#49: Is a trans woman’s sex female now?
Speaking of which, you denied that murder was part of the OP subject matter, and rather than admit that you were wrong, you claimed that videos included in the OP cannot be counted as being part of the OP.
This is just too naive to take seriously. They’ve been segregated on the basis of sex the entire time, and only recently have laws been changed from sex to gender identity. And, of course by sex I mean biological category -- sex is all about biology ffs.
Whatever made you imagine there’s some sort of competition between the two?
Gender is the social aspect of masculinity/femininity, sex is the biological aspect.
(Also, see #130)
The OP is what Mano typed — his original post. His original content.
And the videos were citations, but not Mano’s content.
The fact that trans rights activists are attempting to end sex segregation and thereby end sex as a protected characteristic.
The OP is the Original Post. The entire thing is the post.
___
#11: What then is the word for someone advocating for fairness, protections and etc. along the protected characteristic called sex?
#33: It is true that women do not think in lockstep with one another. The same can be said of trans people… are they also terfs if they disagree with you? [Some added context for this question: there are trans people that agree with me, that women’s spaces should remain solely for the female sex alone, i.e. no trans women.]
#49: Is a trans woman’s sex female now?
Well, at least I know the basis upon which you imagine that is the case.
But no, no competition. Complementary aspects.
(And sex segregation is not a biological thing, it’s a social thing. The imposition of gender roles based on sex, which is what is to be eradicated, according to you)
Yes, and no mention of murder therein.
(But I can see how your obsession makes you imagine that)
—
And I like how you repeat the questions to which you’ve already received an answer.
Pointless, just like your need to have the last word.
I doubt you do, given your poor track record of imagining what my thought process or motivations have been.
Good to hear. So you’re fine with sex specific spaces -- e.g. sports leagues, shelters, toilets -- continuing to be sex specific?
Reduced to lying now? Recall that OP means Original Post, and the original post contains both text and video.
You know there is a difference between answering a question and merely responding to one, right?
Heh.
When I ask “what makes you imagine X” and you answer “Y”, either you are lying or I know that Y is why you imagine X. It follows that the only way you can doubt I do is if you were lying.
(And you doubt I do, so…)
They’re social spaces, not biological spaces.
But sure, I’m fine with that. Can’t stop bigots from being bigoted, can I?
You are funny. I quoted the entirety of the post, remember? No mention of murder there. I can’t help that you imagine an OP is other than someone’s opinion piece.
Yup.
So you accept the reasonable answers I’ve given.
They’re spaces. And some are organised on the basis of some aspect of biology.
The text, yes. Meaning, not the entirety of the OP. But it is interesting to me that in your latest squirm to avoid the obvious point that you were wrong about the OP containing references to murder, you are now pretending that anything other than text is not considered part of a post.
And that your replies to my questions were frequently not answers?
So your doubt is settled.
Sure. And some schools are sex-segregated, too.
(cf. #41)
Well, I wasn’t gonna embed the hyperlinks to the videos, that’s just messy.
But here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/
Now, anytime you ask about anything that’s there, I’ll refer you to this comment, since this comment refers to everything in Wikipedia, by your reasoning.
(heh)
Such frustrations!
As to you having an accurate view of my thought process? Sadly, no.
Of course.
It is accurate to say that a link to wikipedia is a part of #198, just as it is accurate to say that some clips from Samantha Bee form part of the OP.
Why do you imagine that to be my emotional state?
And the double century is up!
Why do you keep asking questions?
—
At the end of the day, you’re not going to change your mind and stop agitating against trans men living as men and trans women living as women. If you can’t at least accept that they exist, and that they face discrimination (not least from you), then you’re just in denial.
@194 Holms
You live in a transphobic fantasy land. At least I assume when you say “sex specific” you mean trans-exclusive, since that’s the topic. It’s not a thing, Holms. Trans people have been a part of society for a long time. Let’s take your examples one by one:
-- Sports leagues
Rules for inclusion of trans people in sports have been around for many, many years. You would be hard pressed to find a “sex specific” sport that excludes trans people.
-- Shelters
I take it by this you mean battered women’s shelters, rape crisis shelters, and so forth. These are almost always trans inclusive. Allow me to quote to you from a statement against trans exclusion by a coalition of over 300 national, state, and local anti-sexual assault and domestic violence organizations.
-- Toilets
I already mentioned somewhere upthread that “bathroom bills” to exclude trans people from appropriate gender toilets are a recent thing and they have largely failed so far.
None of your fantasy “sex specific” (read no transes) spaces actually exist. And that’s a good thing, because obviously excluding trans people would be a massive human rights violation.
And what is this shit here, @192?
Do what? Are you trying imply “trans rights activists” (the word activists is to make trans people sound scary) are in favour is sex discrimination? Of course they’re not. There may be some efforts to replace “sex” with “gender” (which makes no difference to cis people for whom these things are by definition the same) in order to extend protections to trans people. If two women are being discriminated against for being women -- one cis and one trans -- it makes no sense only one should be protected.
Get it through your head, mate: Trans people were around long before you were born, they’ll be around long after you’re dead, they have every bit as much right to exist in society as you, with exactly the same rights as you, including access to appropriate gendered facilities. You’re just going to have to deal with it, because they ain’t going anywhere. Wake up, snap out it, and stop being such a bigoted dick.
You know, while you’ve been arguing about what’s in the OP, there’s a bit that’s indisputably there and which you seem to have completely missed:
Do you feel seen, Holms, as the kids say? Do you feel seen? Because you should. That’s about you.
Because I choose to. Note that this reply of yours stands as a good example of you responding to but not answering questions. Are the questions too difficult for you? No wonder you have yet to answer (as opposed to respond to) those I repeated in #192. Here’s a simpler one for you that you still didn’t manage to answer: what makes you think I am frustrated?
I’m not agitating for any such thing, I’m well aware that trans people exist, and that they face discrimination. So that’s 0 for 3 guesses about my thought process.
I’m quite enjoying your non-frustration, and your non-neediness to have the last word.
There you go. At least you’re not in denial about those aspects of the situation.
(Kudos!)
So you have no problem with trans men living as men and trans women living as women. You’re not agitating to exclude trans women from women’s sporting events, from women’s toilets, etc, right? Just seems like it.
Silentbob
Bad assumption, as we’ll see.
I’m not sure that within this decade qualifies as ‘many, many years’ but never mind that. I’m not against sports including trans people, I’m against male people competing in the female leagues. Note that if I was anti-trans people in sports, I’d also be against trans men in male leagues, but I’m not, as the physical disparity does not provide trans men with any advantage.
Yes, those. I’m not against any particular shelter choosing to include trans people of that specified sex, as each organisation can choose what its purview is. Thing is, I also support an organisation making the choice to be strict regarding sex. Many trans rights activists do not, but demand that all must choose to accept trans people’s sex as whatever that person identifies as. What about you?
Oh for crying out loud… I really should follow my own advice. Picking up from where it all goes wrong:
Sort of. You made the claim that toilets have been gender specific all along, and have only recently seen a push to make them sex specific. You have it the wrong way around — they started as sex specific at their inception to accommodate the female sex being permitted into many previously male-only workplaces. Changing to be gender specific is the recent thing.
No, I’m trying to say — and just said — that activists (not a scary word) are attempting to end sex segregation and thereby end sex as a protected characteristic. You then admit it:
That’s what I said!
And note that it does make a difference in some areas. There are rape shelters that insist on keeping the male sex out, specifically for the well-being of the women making use of their shelter, as the male sex is a major source of stress for that demographic. And trans rights activists lobby to have them defunded! Sports make a difference too. Some high school students are looking for sports scholarships, sports scholarships depend greatly on their athletic performance during high school, and so having positions taken from them by males that declare themselves female assuredly hurts their scholarship chances.
But I’ve never denied that trans people face discrimination.
Holms:
You denied their gender status was a factor in their murders.
You denied their gender status was a factor in their murders.
And you have provided no proof that it was.
When a black trans woman prostitute is murdered, it may be because of her colour, or it may be because she was trans, or it may be because she was a woman, or it may be because she was a prostitute, or it may be a combination of factors, or it may well just have been wrong place, wrong time. in the absence of a confession, we just don’t know. But you are certain, certain beyond all doubt, that the only reason was being trans. It’s a bloody good thing you don’t work homicide.
Roj:
That doesn’t matter, Holms’ denial still exists.
That doesn’t matter, Holms’ denial still exists.
As does your unwillingness, or inability, to prove Holms wrong. Where is your proof that “gender status was a factor in their murders”?
I don’t need to prove anything, Roj.
But hey, are you gonna match Holms’ soft-pedalling, and admit that trans people face discrimination?
(Because I think he’s now overtaken you on the superficially reasonable concessions)
Neither do I, yet I provided good reasons to believe that their murders were more likely racial.
Why is disagreeing with your naked assertion bad, when I have good reason to do so?
I never denied that they faced discrimination once. You asserted that I did, and I had to point out that you were wrong. How is that a ‘concession’?
So the days roll by.
How is it not?
To concede is to give ground, to admit error. But I never occupied that stance -- that “[trans people] exist, and that they face discrimination” -- you just asserted that I did. You made it up.
Fine, you admitted it without conceding it. 🙂
Also a poor word choice, given that it was never denied.
A feeble concession, since you didn’t concede you’re part of the problem.
Because I’m not. But at least you are no longer denying that the murders you cited were more likely racial rather than anti-trans.
Heh. I didn’t cite any murders, I cited NOW’s stance on trans issues.
You are the one who focused on murders — as I already noted @98.
As for not being part of the problem, you’re in denial.
When you actively advocate against trans women being able to live as women, you are most certainly part of the problem.
@217 Holms
Because I love idiots wasting my time, I did some googling for a back of the envelope calculation:
In the US, in 2018, 1,168 black women were murdered.
In the US in 2018, at least 26 trans women were murdered, all but one women of color. (It’s important to note, trans status is not necessarily recorded so this figure is almost certainly underreported.)
Now we need to adjust for population. Trans people are 0.6% of the population. So the “cis-equivalent” number of murdered black trans women is:
25 / 0.006 = 4,167.
4,167 / 1,168 = ~ 3.6 roughly.
So black trans women are 3.6 times more likely to be murdered than black women generally, but Holms says that’s “more likely racial rather than anti-trans”.
Holms is making shit up. How surprising.
And I have to add how fucked up it is that you’re making this all about murder anyway! Do you do the same with other minorities? Is anti-Semitism okay as long as the body count isn’t too high?!
Trans people face horrendously high levels of violence and sexual assault, discrimination in employment and housing, constantly bashed and demonised in the media, attacks on their rights from conservatives and throwback regressive “feminists” who should know better, and all you care about is, “yeah, but how many are corpses?”.
Your attitude is so fucked up.
Silentbob, how do you *know* “Trans people are 0.6% of the population.”? Being trans is a sate of mind, and we are not permitted to question *anyone* who declares themselves trans. There is no way to know the proportion of trans in the community as it is more fluid than a any other demographic.
I looked through the murders at the link you provided, and found nothing there to reinforce the sole motive for the murders was trans status. Women are the most vulnerable group, so if we accept the TRA mantra that trans women are women, then we could say these people were murdered because they were women, not because they were trans.
But this is where the whole “trans women are women” mantra becomes so fucked up it cannot be followed logically.
(It’s important to note, trans status is not necessarily recorded so this figure is almost certainly underreported.)
Trans women are women*. So why the need for a separate statistical category? Because … reasons, I suppose.
And why are trans women subject to so much violence while trans men rarely rate a mention in the victim hood stakes?
* This is not my opinion, it is the expressed opinion of TRAs and I do not endorse it.
The text you chose to quote was about murder. Your citation was about murder.
More notable than this however was that my comment to which you are responding was “…you are no longer denying that the murders you cited were more likely racial rather than anti-trans.” And which portion of this did you choose to oppose? The matter of those murders being more likely anti-black than anti-trans? No. You chose to quibble over an irrelevance: whether “cited” was the right word to describe the inclusion of those murders in your post.
The OP was in part about murder. And rather than substantively engage on that, you decided to deny that murder was part of the OP… and then when it was pointed out to you that it was, you then quibbled over whether non-text media in a post can be considered part of the post… endless idiocy in preference over on-topic discussion with you.
No, you are. (etc.)
Really? Pretty sure I’ve said in various avenues that people can live as they like, including modifying their bodies if they wish.
Silentbob
Let’s repeat that, but in a clearer fashion.
In the US, in 2018, 14,123 people were murdered (your source) or 14,504 per FBI records.
In the US, in 2018, at least 26 trans people were murdered.
Trans people are 0.6% of the population. If trans people are being murdered at a rate exactly proportional to their fraction of the population, we expect that figure to be 14,123 * 0.006 = 84.7, or 14,504 * 0.006 = 87.0.
But as you say, there are only 26 recorded murders of trans people for that year. I take your point that underreporting to an unknown degree is likely, but the figures that we have do not show a disproportionate murder rate. In fact they show a murder rate that is less than a third of what is expected. There would have to be about 60 additional unrecorded murders of trans people merely to bring the figures up to par with their population, or 279 unrecorded murders to bring up to your 3.6 times the expected rate.
The OP referenced murder of trans people, and in reply to this topic I said “For my part, every time I have looked into the claim that trans people are being murdered at a disproportionately high rate, the figures have come up short.” That’s what started this whooooooooooooooooole thing.
I never disputed that they face discrimination. I pushed back on the claim about murder and only the claim about murder. At no point did I say or imply that no corpses = no discrimination, or anything even remotely similar.
And another day.
See #98.
Nope.
Well, women compete in women’s events, no?
QUOTE, UNQUOTE
“Look for the woman in the dress. If there is no woman, there is no dress.” – French fashion designer Coco Chanel.
Well, women compete in women’s events, no?
No problem with that. The problem only arises when men who claim to be women compete in women’s events.
Let them either compete as the me they are, or establish a new division for trannies only.
Roj:
But the idea is that what women do is what living as a woman entails.
So, it’s rather like the Catholic position on gays: it’s “intrinsically disordered”, so it’s tolerable only so long as they don’t act on it.
(So tolerant!)
<snicker>
https://www.vogue.in/beauty/content/transgender-model-teddy-quinlivan-on-her-new-role-as-the-face-of-chanel-beauty
But the idea is that what women do is what living as a woman entails.
But is it?
Wearing a jockstrap is not something that women do. Women have no need to protect testes and penis in sport.
Not all women play sport, so are those who don’t, not living as women?
And “living as a woman”? What does that mean? It’s not something I hear my women friends talking about. They are women. “Living as a woman” is another trans myth. It has no more logic than living as a dog, as a door, or as a pineapple.
The “lived experience” of women is not a monolith, it does not require high heels and makeup, as TRAs seem to think.
So, it’s rather like the Catholic position on gays: it’s “intrinsically disordered” …
I’m not a catholic, so am not subject to their dictates. But I do believe that too many trans people are disordered. The suffer from Gender Dysphoria, Body Integrity Identity Disorder, or a combination. They are in the same category as people with eating disorders. Just as someone who suffers from Anorexia nervosa sees themselves as “fat”, even though they are reduced to a living skeleton, some men see themselves as women, when they are, quite plainly, men. Both cases deserve sympathy, empathy, and appropriate health care, not validation.
One of the key markers of homosexuality being a normal human condition is its replication in other animals; its is not exclusive to Homo sapiens. trans sexuality is not exhibited in nature. Even the “great PZ” only classifies his spiders male and female. He has never observed a trans gender spider. The same for when his obsession was zebra fish.
Roj:
Obviously, yes. If women don’t live as women, what does it mean to live as a woman?
Just like when I noted your attitude towards trans people is akin to that of homophobic people towards gays (and you imagined I was calling you a homophobe), here you imagine I am calling you a Catholic.
(Analogies, how do they work?)
Perhaps. But then, homosexuality was also pathologised back in the day.
Q: What’s the difference between heteronormativity and cisnormativity?
A: Only the former has been depathologised.
Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has if you count the tail as a leg. When they answered “five,” Lincoln told them that the answer was four. The fact that you called the tail a leg did not make it a leg.
Heh. I think your brain infection is affecting its function.
Anyway, if so, Abe was of course wrong, since if a dog has four legs and a tail, and you count the tail as a leg, it must indeed be five — otherwise, the conditional would not be met, such that the tail was counted as a leg. That is, the only way it could be four is if the dog is tailless or lacks a leg or the conditional is not met.
(And a two-legged dog with a tail would, if the tail is counted as a leg, have three legs)
—
PS does a stump count as a tail? Dobermans are still docked, in some jurisdictions.
Nah, I think I get it.
So the answer to the question, “How many men are competing in women’s sport if we call transgender women men?”, is “none”.
Good point, Roj. TWAW to you too.
@Roj Blake
What’s a man?
Brony, as you appear to have trouble with words, here are some pictures to help.
Man. Man. Woman. Man. Man. Man who attacked 10 year old girl in female toilet while “presenting as” a woman.
#224
See #99.
Yes it was. Second video, murder.
Females compete in female leagues. The division criterion is sex.
#229 Roj
I find it fascinating that this echoes a sentiment about race, but TRAs dislike comparisons to race because it blows the shell game away. A surprisingly good primer can be seen in this clip. “Being black isn’t what I’m trying to be, it’s what I am.” Notice that the thing being rejected is any performative or social test of what it is to be black; he is black regardless of his failing to meet the behavioural expectation placed on black people. He is black due entirely to physiology.
The analogy to womanhood is obvious to anyone that does not have their head in the sand. Women are not trying to be female, it’s what they are.
#234 Brony
An adult male human. Trivial.
And another day. Can’t stop, can you, Holms?
See #198, #201.
The only thing in #198 referencing sex is an acknowledgement that sex is indeed used as a division. As for #201, Silentbob makes a fundamental misunderstanding of my position, which I adressed: “I’m not against sports including trans people, I’m against male people competing in the female leagues. Note that if I was anti-trans people in sports, I’d also be against trans men in male leagues, but I’m not, as the physical disparity does not provide trans men with any advantage.”
Holms, it is you who holds that whatever is cited is part of the comment’s content.
It’s all there, just have to look at the content.
I’m pointing out that the things you reference are already refuted. And no, that is not my position.
But if there are rules for transgender competitors, it can’t be the case that it’s sex-based.
It’s all there @198.
(I’ve also referred to syllogisms @198, just look at the content)
I can easily be the case that it is sex based. Example: a member of the male sex cannot enter a league designated for the female sex. No need to make a special rule addressing trans people.
No need, but there it is.
I’ve already addressed the “is-ought” distinction @198.
So you accept that segregations based on sex don’t need an exemption for trans people. It’s about time.
Sure, anyone can segregate on any criteria. One could segregate on the hair colour, too.
Point being, if they were in fact segregated by sex and not by gender, there would not be rules for transgender competitors, whose gender definitionally differs from their sex. But those exist. It follows the segregation is on the basis of gender, not of sex.
That’s the reality, like it or not.
There is a reason sports are segregated on the basis of sex that is highly relevant to the purpose of sporting competition, there is no such basis for hair colour segregation. Were you not aware of this, or were you pretending not to be aware of this?
Those sports that abandoned sex segregation for gender segregation did so to the detriment of female competitors, after years of lobbying from people who appear indifferent to such concerns. Sex segregation is relevant and even necessary for fair competition in athletics.
Speaking of which, what is the sex of a trans woman?
Point being, if they were in fact segregated by sex and not by gender, there would not be rules for transgender competitors, whose gender definitionally differs from their sex. But those exist. It follows the segregation is on the basis of gender, not of sex.
Sport is traditionally segregated by sex, not gender. This is why Caster Semenya was a difficult, and at times, tragic case in sport. Born as a woman, living as a woman, but afflicted with hyperandrogenism she has been in and out of competition in various sports. No trans woman athlete has been as unfairly treated as Semenya.
Sex segregation is not just used in sport, but also in single sex schools. Boys schools for boys, girls schools for girls.
We even use sex segregation when it comes to reproduction. No man can become pregnant, no woman can impregnate a man.
Transgender people exist. Trans gender people have rights, the same rights as all humans. But men don’t become women by thinking so.
Including the International Olympic Committee and World Athletics, as I noted @198.
In your opinion, and that of other TERFs. Not in their opinion, obs.
Heh. Transwomen aren’t cisgender, they’re transgender.
(round and round we go! All because you need to get the last word in)
Roj:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
(Also, was, not is)
Well, no. Women become women, even though their sex assignment at birth was male.
(Obviously, if one is a man, one wouldn’t become a woman, would they? I don’t, you don’t)
You didn’t, but yes the Olympics stand as an example of a sporting institution that abandoned sex segregation to the detriment of female competition.
Trans women are transgender? Amazing. Anyway, what is their sex?
If one’s sex is male, one is not a woman.
I did. “The entire thing is the post.”
“I was marvelling at how badly you have them conflated.”
(I also referred to psychological projection @198)
But if one’s gender is female, one is not a man.
(“Gender identity is a social construct.”)
—
This is fun — I’ve gotten to the point I can quote your own words to make my points.
I don’t think you understood that correctly. Try it again.
That quote does not conflict with what you are responding to.
The word ‘man’ is an indication of a person’s sex.
Sure, because it’s delicious.
“Speaking of which, you denied that murder was part of the OP subject matter, and rather than admit that you were wrong, you claimed that videos included in the OP cannot be counted as being part of the OP.”
The OP had links to the videos, my comment had a link to Wikipedia.
You went on and on about it, now you resile? Heh.
And it’s also an indication of their gender. See my #198 for details.
I see Abbott and Costello are back again.
@237 Holms
Lol. No Holms. Trans people and others who are not transphobic roll their eyes at comparisons to race because they are idiotic.
First “living as a woman”. This is cis talk. Trans people don’t say this. Cis medical gatekeepers have had requirement that trans people “live as gender X” before they are allowed to transition. Like Roj’s putative “women friends” trans people don’t say they live as men/women, they say they are men/women. Trans people’s gender identities are as deeply held as those of cis people. That’s not opinion but scientific consensus based on peer-reviewed research.
Having said that, it’s easy enough to understand what “living as gender X” means. Take for example Ben Barres. Barres was a trans man who transitioned half way through his career, and the difference in how he was treated as a woman and as a man was so striking he used to lecture, from first hand experience, about sexism in science.
Now if “living as a man/woman” is as baffling as perpetually confused Roj “living as a pineapple” Blake claims, how is this possible? The entire difference in the way Barres was treated was due to formerly living as a woman, and latterly living as a man. It means using a male name, using male pronouns, presenting in a way that is culturally recognised a male, etc., or vice versa for a woman. Simples.
Re race. *facepalm*
I mean this is just so stupid. The only thing race and gender have in common is they have been bases for discrimination. The phenomena themselves couldn’t be more different. Race, to the extent it exists, is the development of superficially different characteristic in populations that have been isolated for a long time. Sex/gender is all about mixing. We’re all products of male and female, we all start out the same and differentiate in the womb, we all have hormone receptors for male and female sex hormones. And these receptors remain active throughout life, which is how Ben Barres was able to masculinize his body in his 40s.
Trans people have existed in all cultures throughout history. In my own country, the indigenous people have recognised transgender people for thousands of years. Astonishingly, no indigenous Australian ever differentiated in the womb in such a way their brain perceived them as a white person of Scandinavian descent. How the fuck is that even supposed to work, you numbskull? We know cross-gender identity is related to pre-natal hormone exposure. What is supposed to be the race equivalent? How does that even seem like a remotely sensible analogy to you at all?
This “race” stuff is a red herring, but I can’t resist pointing and laughing at one last extra bit of idiocy:
I see. Okay, now I want you to think very hard Holms, and consider these questions.
If this person who is black entirely due to physiology, hooks up with a person who is white due to physiology, and they have a little baby, is the little baby black due to physiology or white due to physiology? And if the little baby is black, when they grow up if they have a baby with “white physiology” person, is that baby of black physiology? And how many iterations can we go through? If one sixteenth of the baby’s great-grandparents were physiologically black is the baby physiologically black? Where’s the cut-off?. Explain to us Holms’ Theory of Physiological Racial Differentiation. Is there a certain scientifically measured albedo to the epidermis one must have to be physiologically black? Enquiring minds want to know.
The point of all my mockery is that race is of course about culture and identity and perception and the way people are treated. As is existing in society as a man or a woman.
It would be good if you pair of ignorant bozos could get out of your transphobic echo chamber, and actually learn something about trans people that didn’t come from hatemongers. Here’s a mountain of research showing that trans people, and by extension society, are happier and healthier when allowed to transition and accepted socially as their experienced gender.
I mean if you can ever drag yourselves away from swapping Karen White mugshots with your fellow bigots.
In my own country, the indigenous people have recognised transgender people for thousands of years.
Oh yeah? they may have been aware of them, but if by recognised, you mean accepted, you are wrong.
There may be racism within predominantly white trans communities and difficulties with language because, for example, English, for many Indigenous Australians, is their third or fourth language. Furthermore, sistergirls and brotherboys may experience a loss of identity because community and country are essential aspects of Indigenous Australian’s sense of self, well-being, and spirituality. Transphobia in traditional Aboriginal communities manifests in the so-called custom of payback, through which retribution for social transgressions is brought on community members.
Racism from Trans people? Whodathunkit?
That “payback” is used against trans aborigines is a certain sign that they are marginalised, probably because the Elders don’t believe that a man can become a woman. Aboriginal society has clearly defined male/female roles, and pathways from child to adult. There is no pathway for a transgender aborigine. Now, don’t you think, that after 40,000 years they would have figured one out, IF there had always been transgenders among them, and not just a bunch of people adopting the latest fad?
The Tiwi Islands, about 80 kms north of Darwin, are home to Australia’s largest per capita transgender population, with locals claiming that up to 5% of approximately 3,000 residents identify as transgender, gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Note the dishonesty. “Locals claiming” is not a statement of fact. 5% of population “identifying as transgender, gay, lesbian or bisexual.” tells us nothing about the proportions. The claim that this is “Australia’s largest per capita transgender population,” is not supported with evidence. How many of the 5% are trans? We don’t know, we are expected to take the claim as given, a bit like we are expected to take all TRA claims without evidence.
damn the inability to edit.
[I corrected it for you but I don’t know if what I did is what you wanted because there were multiple errors. -- Mano]
Thanks Mano, exactly as I meant it to be.
@Roj Blake 235
You are prejudiced and discriminatory. Whoever that is that person doesn’t mean anything trans people broadly. What is a man?
@Holms 238
A man is a male human? What’s this male thing?
No, Brony, I am simply stating reality as it is.
1st photo -- Rhys McKinnon
2nd Z Nicolazzo
3rd Freddy McConnell
4th Callum Mouncey
5th Jonathan Yanniv the man who wanted to “teach” teenage girls to use a tampon, who asked if you “could see the string hanging out”, and who has made a career out of harassing women who refuse to wax his balls.
6th Miguel Martinez
Each of these claim to be women, except Freddy who thinks he’s a man, even after giving birth. Each of these have done immeasurable harm to women. Not imagined harm, like using the “wrong pronouns”, but real, lasting harm. To women.
@Roj Blake 264
No what?
Those people don’t mean anything to trans people broadly.
Explain it then. Explain how how those people mean anything to millions of people with different gender identity in cultures around the world. You are offering a bised view of millions people with a few you irrational incompetent.
Roj, leaving aside that you’ve evaded the substance of Brony’s question, are you really arguing that, because certain members of category X (allegedly) did bad things, category X should not exist?
(Do you really imagine every trans person must be a saint?)
[heh, we crossed, Brony — but the thrust was the same]
No True Scotsman rears its head.
You are offering a bised view of millions people with a few you irrational incompetent.
I can find plenty more examples. If you want to see irrational incompetence, take a look at those who are piling on to J K Rowling for simply expressing an opinion. By the screeches of outrage, you’d thing she’d set up death camps was extermination people wholesale, whereas all she is doing is questioning a dogma.
And honestly, is there anything more irrational than a woman who gives birth to a child but insists she is a man? Or a woman who thinks she is a man, and because she has a boyfriend, must be a gay man, so she indulges in anal sex because “that’s what gay men do”, not being aware that not all gay men indulge in anal sex. She is simply conforming to a stereotype. And that no gay man will want to have sex with a “vagina haver”, to use a TRA term.
are you really arguing that, because certain members of category X (allegedly) did bad things, category X should not exist?
No, I am arguing that category XY is not the same as category XX.
Roj:
But what you wrote is that people from category X did bad things.
So, it’s a bad argument. Not even an appeal to consequences, though it tries to be.
And, of course, trans people are a different category to cis people — thing is, for every trans person who does whatever bad thing, you’ll find multiple cis people who do those same bad things.
—
BTW, your little jibe didn’t go unnoticed, so: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
Thanks for the link, John.
I note that after publication, the article was edited because the author referred to “transgender” when the study was referring to intersex people. This kind of dishonesty is common with TRAs. Also interesting to note that all of the other current members at Tsien Lab, when writing about themselves, are quite comfortable using the pronoun “I”. Not so Simon, that pronoun seems lacking in his vocabulary.
Intersex people are not transgender. Intersex people are simply born with mixed male and female organs. Intersex is determined via simple medical tests. Being transgender, on the other hand, is a psychological condition. It is no different to believing you are God or the Devil.
I’ll just quote this laughable piece from the article:
Secondary sex characteristics—penis, vagina, appearance, behavior—arise later, from hormones, environment, experience, and genes interacting.
So I have a Penis because I grew up in an industrial environment and could have had a vagina if I grew up in a garden? How does “experience” change a vagina to a penis? Or call one or the other in to being?
Roj, so you weren’t referring to karyotypes?
I’m pretty sure the term ‘experience’ in that sentence refers to developmental processes, not to subjective experience. And I’m amused by your capitalising ‘penis’ but not ‘vagina’.
@Roj Blake 268
No true Scotsman? You haven’t come out and said it yet. Do you believe all trans women are violent predators?
Those extra example don’t make all trans women threats. That’s something you have to show. And so far all you’ve done is the same as a common homophobe, pull some bad examples and give people a feeling not based in reality.
I’ve been involved in lots of arguments and confrontations with libelous transphobes over the JKR situation. Like them you’re full of indirect non-literal disparagement like “screeches of outrage” instead of anything useful to determine reality.
A reality irrelevant to your portrayal of all trans people as having something to do with those violent and bad people.
Your feelings about trans men are also irrelevant to your portrayal of trans woman, though there’s likely related irrationality in there.
So much fear that could be attached to more useful things.
#257 john
And then you get it wrong.
John, you quoted the text ““The entire thing is the post.” as supposed evidence that your #198 contains all of wikipedia. Clearly, you misunderstood that comment, so here it is again with additional notes:
The first sentence is in reference to the meaning of the internet term “OP”, laying out what it stands for: “original post” (in other contexts, it can also mean “original poster“, in reference to the person making the original post). Simple enough, but then it was the second sentence which proved too tricky for you to parse correctly, so let’s get to it.
“The entire thing is the post.” As in, the entirety of what Mano posted is the post. The text he wrote is part of the post. The videos he embedded are part of the post. If he had posted a picture, then the picture would also have been part of the post. All of the components of Mano’s post are part of the post. The whole thing -- all components of the post -- is the post. The OP.
But you got your wires crossed and thought “the whole thing” referred to all of youtube.com’s content as part of the OP. Oy vey etc.
@Holms
What is a “male”.
Also culture attaches a lot of things to “man” that aren’t anatomy.
#258 Silentbob
Firstly a small point, Morales was the one to first use that phrasing in this thread, so take it up with him if you dislike it. Secondly, what the fuck are you smoking?? Loads of trans people say that. Here’s one, chosen from a swarm of possible examples. Thirdly, your Ben Barres example merely establishes something feminists have been saying all along: the female sex is relegated to second class citizen status. Ben escaped that treatment by changing his physical appearance, and is now getting the treatment reserved for the male sex on that basis.
How did you misunderstand my point so badly that you thought this was an answer to it? Not a single shred of what I said implied any such thing.
Revisiting that post… “Notice that the thing being rejected is any performative or social test of what it is to be black; he is black regardless of his failing to meet the behavioural expectation placed on black people. He is black due entirely to physiology.” My comment explicitly distinguishes between the social expectations placed on black people and being black as a matter of physiology.
Cool, let’s have a look at it. Bolding added:
“Back then… they would automatically see that sistergirl, that’s not a boy, she’s a girl. He’s really feminine, so he has to be a girl now. So that sistergirl would go with the women and do women’s dancing and ceremony and all that sort of stuff.”
“So for sistergirls, it’s always been in our culture, and we have the role as a woman. We go hunting with the women. We go sitting with the women and talking with the women, and grow up and have nieces and nephews like they’re our own children.”
Oh would you look at that, womanhood as a performative role. A man acting a certain way ==> declare him a woman. Explicit acceptance of the behavioural roles given on the basis of being male or female. Let me lay the gender critical position on you at this point: how about no roles at all? Attack the underlying concept that the sexes ought to act a certain distinct way. Suddenly, there is no right way or wrong way to act your sex. People simply have their male or female bodies, and can be any personality type without being considered at conflict with their sex.
Oh and while I was reading further into what you cited, I found this glossary page. The sistergirl entry includes “Sistergirls are Indigenous people who were classified male at birth but live their lives as women,…” -- would you look at that, they “live their lives as women”. Your own source includes trans people referring to themselves with the ‘living as’ construction you told me they never use. And before you try telling me this was written by some cis government flunky and not the sistergirls themselves, see the authorship section. It was written in consultation “with Catherine Wilson at queerspace and Lisa Taylor at Sistergirls and Brotherboys Australia.” It is entirely possible that she wrote the entry herself, but even if she didn’t, Lisa Taylor at Sistergirls and Brotherboys Australia approved the language for that entry.
…Also, you’re another Australian? So weird.
In which you assume I do not already look far and near for my reading on the matter.
#263 Brony
Oh, it’s one of the two sexes humans can be. I’m surprised you’ve not heard the word before.
#265
It’s pretty obvious that Roj’s “No” was in reply to your “You are prejudiced and discriminatory.” Anything else?
#266 John
Speaking of which, what is the sex of a trans woman?
#269
Any source that refers to the penis and vagina as secondary sex characteristics is a bad source of information on the biology of sex.
And another day.
You wish. The time to object was after #198, where I explained what I was doing and why, in response to your song and dance about the content of a hyperlink’s target being part of the content of a post.
Heh. Different to the sex assigned at birth, obviously, else whence the trans status?
And yes, I know that to you, the sex and the gender must match immutably.
(Which is why it amuses me that you accuse me of conflating them)
Not that there’s an expiry on pointing out your error, but I did address it. “It is accurate to say that a link to wikipedia is a part of #198, just as it is accurate to say that some clips from Samantha Bee form part of the OP.” It was only after your excerpt in #254 that the specific origin of your brainfart was revealed to me.
Cat got your tongue? Which sex is it?
What part of “Now, anytime you ask about anything that’s there, I’ll refer you to this comment, since this comment refers to everything in Wikipedia, by your reasoning.” was opaque to you?
You got your answer, which is perfectly clear to anyone who is not a dolt.
(What part of “I can be at least as obstreperous and obstinate as you” was unclear to you?)
—
As I noted long ago, this is all pointless jabber.
The only reason it continues is your need to get the last word.
@Brony
Do you believe all trans women are violent predators?
No, I don’t, and I have never made that claim. The photos I posted above contained only one “violent sex predator” and one overblown male ego. The other pretenders are simply trying to enter female spaces because their chances of “victory” are much higher then when they competed as men.
I’ve been involved in lots of arguments and confrontations with libelous transphobes over the JKR situation.
Do you know what the word “libel” means. I doubt it. Have you launched prosecutions against any of these “libelous transphobes”, or would doing so require you to provide proof of harm?
Now, I am not too proud to say I have been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future, and I am prepared to change my mind when shown I am wrong. So, in order to further my education, please list the things JKR wrote that were “transphobic”. Not interpretations, but by quoting her actual, unedited words. 3 or 4 examples will do.
See, its easy to throw out labels such as “TERF”, “transphobe”, etc., far harder to provide solid evidence that you are on the right side of the debate.
And just so you are clear, these are my current beliefs:
Trans people exist.
Trans people are human and entitled to human rights. I will defend them against anyone who wants to deny them their human rights, just as I stand with POC, women, refugees, the poor and oppressed, and any other marginalized group, except white supremacists.
Trans men are not men and trans women are not women, otherwise we would not need the modifier “trans”.
A man cannot get pregnant and give birth.
A woman cannot impregnate a man.
I think that I need to close this comment thread.