Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.
There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.
Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.
The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.
This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.
Laetitia Ky’s thread below:
So she’s openly attacking transgender people?
That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?
It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.
+ a million.
What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.
Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?
I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?
Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.
That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”
Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.
That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.
I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.
My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.
Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.
Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.
Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”
I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.
What does gender identity/gender roles have to do with sexual dimorphism? I thought gender identity is separate from biology. Can you elaborate on this reference? What is the connection?
It's a legal filing and therefore the lawyers have identified any nit they can legally pick. That's what lawyers are paid to do. I don't think that it is part of a unified theory of gender but rather one more argument from the complaint to which they can object. The goal is to invalidate the complaint and the more parts of it they can discredit, the better.
You're inconsistent and careless with your language in a discussion where it's necessary to be precise. You conflate the terms men and women, male and female, essentially conflating the concepts of gender and sex/biology. In a discussion about trans, this is everything. You can try to deflect, but it's not nit picking to point out the logical inconsistencies. If it's only an important distinction when you want it to be, then it's not really an important distinction.
While I certainly get things wrong from time to time, I believe I was accurate in this instance. Perhaps you are not actually as bright as you seem to believe and you simply missed the nuances? The specific legal issue being disputed involved sex. Precisely whether there are only two sexes which are distinguished by physical traits. The reasoning of that argument was not explained so I was speculating that the existence of intersex individuals means that the claim about dimorphic sexes was invalid and that is why the lawyers objected to the allegation. This has nothing to do with gender.
jsteele Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 51226
Online
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.
There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.
Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.
The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.
This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.
Laetitia Ky’s thread below:
So she’s openly attacking transgender people?
That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?
It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.
+ a million.
What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.
Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?
I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?
Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.
That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”
Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.
That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.
I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.
My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.
Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.
Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.
Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”
I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.
What does gender identity/gender roles have to do with sexual dimorphism? I thought gender identity is separate from biology. Can you elaborate on this reference? What is the connection?
It's a legal filing and therefore the lawyers have identified any nit they can legally pick. That's what lawyers are paid to do. I don't think that it is part of a unified theory of gender but rather one more argument from the complaint to which they can object. The goal is to invalidate the complaint and the more parts of it they can discredit, the better.
You're inconsistent and careless with your language in a discussion where it's necessary to be precise. You conflate the terms men and women, male and female, essentially conflating the concepts of gender and sex/biology. In a discussion about trans, this is everything. You can try to deflect, but it's not nit picking to point out the logical inconsistencies. If it's only an important distinction when you want it to be, then it's not really an important distinction.
While I certainly get things wrong from time to time, I believe I was accurate in this instance. Perhaps you are not actually as bright as you seem to believe and you simply missed the nuances? The specific legal issue being disputed involved sex. Precisely whether there are only two sexes which are distinguished by physical traits. The reasoning of that argument was not explained so I was speculating that the existence of intersex individuals means that the claim about dimorphic sexes was invalid and that is why the lawyers objected to the allegation. This has nothing to do with gender.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
Right. I agree with you. The issue at heart, the reason self-ID laws are so fraught, is violent men. But I want to be clear about what you are saying here. Because you view trans women as being at risk from violent men in male single-sex spaces, you want to open all traditionally single-sexed women’s spaces to any men, while we “focus” on the problem of violent men (a problem, I will note, that had not been solved for the entirety of human existence). In other words, your answer to preserving the safety of trans women is to remove traditional safety measures relied upon by women to keep them safe from those same violent men you believe put trans women at risk.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
+1
Stop punishing transgender women for the potential crimes of others.
Focus on harsher sentences for actual criminals. Castrate rapists, etc.
Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.
I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.
Link here:
A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.
Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.
What do you think about the practical outcome and impact on the spa workers? What happens to a spa worker, who is almost certain to be a lower-wage vulnerable immigrant, who finds herself alone in a room with a person with a penis?
This case gets to the heart of my concerns about trans rights, which is that they come at the expense of women’s safety. I don’t see how a spa worker protects herself against predatory men now. Again, there is no need for “pretend” here — any man can now walk into the spa and demand naked services that were previously only offered to women, because gender identity cannot be challenged. So what protects the safety of those workers from predators? Or other spa patrons?
As far as I can tell, this is what trans rights advocates want. This is what they are fighting for. Is this the outcome you want? How do you see this playing out for the spa workers, in practice?
I think that vulnerable immigrants are potentially subject to a number of types of abuses and I am concerned about their rights across the board. I would not assume that absent this ruling, they would otherwise be safe from abuse. Obviously, this ruling presents more challenges. Your or my feelings about the law are irrelevant given that it appears to be the law and the spa has to live with it. One obvious solution is to not allow a spa worker to be alone with a client regardless of the gender identity of the client. Another possibility is to have some sort of "panic button" either installed in the room or provided to the workers so that if they faced a dangerous situation, they could quickly summon help. I am also concerned that this ruling might threaten the survival of the business if its regular customers begin avoiding it. So, another solution might be to turn the spa into a private club that has more leeway to be selective of its members.
Moreover, I would hope that a trans woman who has not undergone bottom surgery would be sympathetic to the spa's and spa's customer's concerns and cooperate to find ways of alleviating those issues. I don't necessary believe that trans woman should summarily banned from the spa.
As for men who might simply be taking advantage of the ruling, I am not sure what to do. Maybe introduce a policy of welcoming all new members by posting their photo on the spa's website with the emphasis that the spa only serves women.
A brilliant idea in some respects, but again it is women who pay the price for predatory men by having to advertise their face and name in order to get spa services.
In general, and please let me know if I am misunderstanding you, you seem to be taking the position that spa workers and spa clients will potentially be hurt by predatory men abusing the ruling, but that is less important to you than getting the legal position on trans rights correct here.
I don't know enough about the particulars of the law to have a valid opinion of it. I am noting that a court upheld the ruling and, therefore, it is current law regardless of our feelings about it. I am sympathetic to the spa workers and I am sympathetic to trans women customers (though, if I were them I would probably avoid it). I am not sympathetic to cis perverts.
Sure, but you are avoiding the underlying question. Do you think that the current law is correct, understanding the practical outcome of the application of that law? We have an example here of the implementation: is it correct?
How exactly can women who previously used single-sex spaces to protect themselves from perverts — something we know works — now protect themselves, under current implementation of self-ID laws? What you and other trans rights advocates seem to be saying is that single-sex places are discriminatory, even if used to avoid predation. So you want them destroyed, because they are discriminating against trans people. My question is then, what is next? Single-sex spaces have historically been been created because of male predation. What replaces them for women?
And note, when I talk about predation, I mean from anyone with a penis, both trans and cis. A percentage of the population with penises, cis and trans, are horrific predators, we know that for a fact, and single-sex spaces used to protect from that. But they are now discriminatory. So what comes next?
I honestly don't know enough about the law in question to have an opinion on whether or not it is correct. I think there are some very obviously unfortunate and perhaps even harmful ramifications to the decision about the spa.
I have never said that I wanted the spa destroyed and the clear implications of what I've been saying is exactly the opposite.
As they say, necessity is the mother of invention, or maybe I should say "parent" of invention. Hopefully there is enough brain power on this earth to find ways of making formerly single-sex spaces safe for all (not just cis women) in the face of changing laws. I certainly have some ideas and I'm sure those smarter than me have even better ones.
Exactly. As gender roles/definitions/identities evolve over time, we will figure this all out.
My initial reaction was that the ruling was an overstep, primarily because it seems to violate the "privacy" of the workers. But they have genitalia in their face anyway so not sure that is consistent thinking. An easy solution is to have everyone cover genitalia.
Trying to discriminate against transgender people isn't going to fix gender inequalities. We should be banding together to lift up all women.
Instead, we get anti-trans posters here who are intentionally conflating transgender women with "predatory" cisgender men. And pushing this wedge issue will end up decreasing women's rights. Please refer to what is happening in red states.
While I appreciate the good-faith comments, I must disagree. We do agree that regressive gender roles should be abolished to lift up all women (and men). We agree that there is zero way to distinguish a trans woman from a cis man aside from their statements about their feelings. We know that males have higher levels of criminality than females. We know that trans women retain male patterns of criminality. We know that male patterns of crime and sexual predation on women is inherently different than female patterns of crime. I fundamentally disagree that abolishing women’s right to create sex-based spaces in anyway helps to abolish harmful gender stereotypes.
And please explain the definition of gender identity. One thing people don’t agree on is if there is any relationship to biological sex.
I don't agree that we "know" either of the bolded. There are absolutely ways to distinguish a transwoman from a cis man beyond relying on their self-reported feelings. You can look at their actions -- the steps they are taking (beyond just trying to enter a Korean spa) to live their life as a transwoman. Are they in therapy? Are they living and presenting as a woman in other areas of their lives? And I don't know what you're relying on to talk about transwomen's "male patterns of criminality." What are you basing that statement on?
No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are not necessarily required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from his saying that he is one.
Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?
Fixing the comment below to address typos and accidental misgendering of a hypothetical male.
No. Neither seeking therapy nor "presenting" as a woman are required for a natal/biological male to identify as a transgender woman. No specific action is required for a male to identify as a transgender woman, aside from them saying that they are one.
Criminal patterns of behavior for males, females, and trans men and women are based on data, statistics, and facts about the crimes convicted for these different groups of people. Of course, it's not a perfect measure. Crime is notoriously underreport and convictions are even less. But, I think it's important to base discussions on this topic around facts instead of feelings, would you agree?
In reality, there are a small % of transgender people who are just trying to live their lives and fit in. Portraying them as invasive criminals taking over spaces everywhere is a such a strawman.
Or punishing them for the possibility that “predatory” cisgender men may commit crimes?
This whole narrative is 100% intentionally conflating “predatory” cisgender men with transgender women.
Fearmongering 101.
I'm not portraying anyone as anything, and I certainly never called anyone an invasive criminal. I'm sorry if that is how you interpreted my comment. I am sharing statistics which are based on facts, such as criminal convictions.
I'm a bit confused about your point of view here. You believe that crime statistics should not be collected, gathered, and published? Or are you saying that there is no difference in the nature of crime and violence between biological males and females?
Either way, the crime discussion is a bit of a derail. Everyone, including our moderator, acknowledges that male and female patterns of violence are crime are extremely different. Which brings us to the real question. What is exactly is the difference between a biological male and a transwoman, other than statements about their feelings?
From who's perspective? From the individual themselves, it's fundamentally internal. From the perspective of other people, you'd look to their statements and actions.
OK! We've already established that a biological male stating that he is transwoman is what makes them one. You say actions are part of this too. What actions should one look at to make this determination?
I don't think we have established that a biological male stating that he is a transwoman is what makes them one. Like I said, for the individual in question, their sincere belief is enough. For other people, it depends on who you're talking about. The APA diagnostic criteria is here: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis. To establish that you are a transman or transwoman in the eyes of a state government depends on the particular state.
For other people generally, I would think that you would look at the steps the individual is taking (beyond just trying to enter a Korean spa) to live their life as a transwoman. Are they in therapy? Are they living and presenting as a woman in other areas of their lives? It's an open question - one that we're still figuring out. But it's disingenuous (and argumentative) to claim that any biological man can go up to any establishment and say "today I feel like I am a woman!" and boom: they must be treated as a woman. And it looked to me like the Korean spa wasn't saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are secretly a cis man." They were saying "we don't want to treat this individual because they are a transwoman."
It’s irrelevant. A trans woman could be on hormones and live as a woman 24/7. Have legally changed her name and gender marker, etc. the person you’re talking to would still consider her a man. There is no acceptable “when is a trans woman considered a woman for services?” answer that isn’t “never” for most of these people.
No. I am interested in finding out the belief of the trans community what specifically differentiates a biological male and a trans woman. It seems to be that the answer is his statements of his feelings, or more specifically his feelings about his gender identity. Again, please help me understand if this interpretation is not correct.
What do you think differentiates between a biological male and a trans woman? Maybe you can give your definitions. That could really help.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
There is no one in this thread that would debate that there is a harmful epidemic of male violence.
It’s impossible for me to respond to your comments beyond that because I do not understand gender ideology or how natal males become transwomen.
Literally no one in the thousands of comments in this post has been able clearly explain what is gender identity and its relationship to biological sex.
No one has explained the differences between cis males and trans women beyond them making statements about their feelings.
All of my comments are sincere. I genuinely want to know these answers.
I am an atheist and therefore i do not believe in faith-based or supernatural constructs which do not exist in material reality. Gender ideology seems like a type of faith based belief system related to one’s feelings about a hypothetical self which is fully severed from biology. Similar to what Christians call a soul. I know many people have said that it’s entirely separate from biology so I acknowledge that definition may not be correct. Again, please feel free to provide another definition.
So I must bow out of this discussion. I want to thank to people who engaged in sincere discussion as well as our moderator for not deleting my comments. I believe that free and open speech is essential to societal progress and free people.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
There is no one in this thread that would debate that there is a harmful epidemic of male violence.
It’s impossible for me to respond to your comments beyond that because I do not understand gender ideology or how natal males become transwomen.
Literally no one in the thousands of comments in this post has been able clearly explain what is gender identity and its relationship to biological sex.
No one has explained the differences between cis males and trans women beyond them making statements about their feelings.
All of my comments are sincere. I genuinely want to know these answers.
I am an atheist and therefore i do not believe in faith-based or supernatural constructs which do not exist in material reality. Gender ideology seems like a type of faith based belief system related to one’s feelings about a hypothetical self which is fully severed from biology. Similar to what Christians call a soul. I know many people have said that it’s entirely separate from biology so I acknowledge that definition may not be correct. Again, please feel free to provide another definition.
So I must bow out of this discussion. I want to thank to people who engaged in sincere discussion as well as our moderator for not deleting my comments. I believe that free and open speech is essential to societal progress and free people.
What is your definition? Are you arguing against trans women in women’s spaces without having an opinion on what a trans woman is?
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
The specific example was about a single-sex spa, which is a private business where female clients are nude. Not going there would not put that particular trans person, or anyone, at risk for harm. Also, your assertion that we have a rapey man problem might be true, but if that that doesn't preclude males from using the bathroom with females, why would it also preclude males from using the bathroom with other males? What is the logic there?
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
There is no one in this thread that would debate that there is a harmful epidemic of male violence.
It’s impossible for me to respond to your comments beyond that because I do not understand gender ideology or how natal males become transwomen.
Literally no one in the thousands of comments in this post has been able clearly explain what is gender identity and its relationship to biological sex.
No one has explained the differences between cis males and trans women beyond them making statements about their feelings.
All of my comments are sincere. I genuinely want to know these answers.
I am an atheist and therefore i do not believe in faith-based or supernatural constructs which do not exist in material reality. Gender ideology seems like a type of faith based belief system related to one’s feelings about a hypothetical self which is fully severed from biology. Similar to what Christians call a soul. I know many people have said that it’s entirely separate from biology so I acknowledge that definition may not be correct. Again, please feel free to provide another definition.
So I must bow out of this discussion. I want to thank to people who engaged in sincere discussion as well as our moderator for not deleting my comments. I believe that free and open speech is essential to societal progress and free people.
DP, I posted about this yesterday and have yet to read an explanation as to why having a feeling makes it a reality. I specifically mentioned other conditions such as BIID and anorexia which cause an individual to have feelings or perceptions in opposition to reality. A person with BIID for example may have an intense desire to amputate a leg because their body does not recognize the limb. It literally feels like a foreign object attached to them. How is this any different from gender dysphoria? If doctors will amputate healthy body parts for transgender people why not amputate a health limb for someone suffering from BIID? Why is one considered a mental disorder and the other not? Believing a person really has the opposite sex soul is a spiritual, metaphysical belief not rooted in science.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
There is no one in this thread that would debate that there is a harmful epidemic of male violence.
It’s impossible for me to respond to your comments beyond that because I do not understand gender ideology or how natal males become transwomen.
Literally no one in the thousands of comments in this post has been able clearly explain what is gender identity and its relationship to biological sex.
No one has explained the differences between cis males and trans women beyond them making statements about their feelings.
All of my comments are sincere. I genuinely want to know these answers.
I am an atheist and therefore i do not believe in faith-based or supernatural constructs which do not exist in material reality. Gender ideology seems like a type of faith based belief system related to one’s feelings about a hypothetical self which is fully severed from biology. Similar to what Christians call a soul. I know many people have said that it’s entirely separate from biology so I acknowledge that definition may not be correct. Again, please feel free to provide another definition.
So I must bow out of this discussion. I want to thank to people who engaged in sincere discussion as well as our moderator for not deleting my comments. I believe that free and open speech is essential to societal progress and free people.
DP, I posted about this yesterday and have yet to read an explanation as to why having a feeling makes it a reality. I specifically mentioned other conditions such as BIID and anorexia which cause an individual to have feelings or perceptions in opposition to reality. A person with BIID for example may have an intense desire to amputate a leg because their body does not recognize the limb. It literally feels like a foreign object attached to them. How is this any different from gender dysphoria? If doctors will amputate healthy body parts for transgender people why not amputate a health limb for someone suffering from BIID? Why is one considered a mental disorder and the other not? Believing a person really has the opposite sex soul is a spiritual, metaphysical belief not rooted in science.
^This is where I land, too. I’m sorry, but I just can’t pretend that this is reality. I respect everyone, but I believe transgenderism is a mental disorder. And, frankly, I take offense to being told and shown that my feelings and wants are lesser than those of transwomen.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
There is no one in this thread that would debate that there is a harmful epidemic of male violence.
It’s impossible for me to respond to your comments beyond that because I do not understand gender ideology or how natal males become transwomen.
Literally no one in the thousands of comments in this post has been able clearly explain what is gender identity and its relationship to biological sex.
No one has explained the differences between cis males and trans women beyond them making statements about their feelings.
All of my comments are sincere. I genuinely want to know these answers.
I am an atheist and therefore i do not believe in faith-based or supernatural constructs which do not exist in material reality. Gender ideology seems like a type of faith based belief system related to one’s feelings about a hypothetical self which is fully severed from biology. Similar to what Christians call a soul. I know many people have said that it’s entirely separate from biology so I acknowledge that definition may not be correct. Again, please feel free to provide another definition.
So I must bow out of this discussion. I want to thank to people who engaged in sincere discussion as well as our moderator for not deleting my comments. I believe that free and open speech is essential to societal progress and free people.
What is your definition? Are you arguing against trans women in women’s spaces without having an opinion on what a trans woman is?
Maybe PP thinks they don’t exist; it’s just “mental illness”.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
There is no one in this thread that would debate that there is a harmful epidemic of male violence.
It’s impossible for me to respond to your comments beyond that because I do not understand gender ideology or how natal males become transwomen.
Literally no one in the thousands of comments in this post has been able clearly explain what is gender identity and its relationship to biological sex.
No one has explained the differences between cis males and trans women beyond them making statements about their feelings.
All of my comments are sincere. I genuinely want to know these answers.
I am an atheist and therefore i do not believe in faith-based or supernatural constructs which do not exist in material reality. Gender ideology seems like a type of faith based belief system related to one’s feelings about a hypothetical self which is fully severed from biology. Similar to what Christians call a soul. I know many people have said that it’s entirely separate from biology so I acknowledge that definition may not be correct. Again, please feel free to provide another definition.
So I must bow out of this discussion. I want to thank to people who engaged in sincere discussion as well as our moderator for not deleting my comments. I believe that free and open speech is essential to societal progress and free people.
DP, I posted about this yesterday and have yet to read an explanation as to why having a feeling makes it a reality. I specifically mentioned other conditions such as BIID and anorexia which cause an individual to have feelings or perceptions in opposition to reality. A person with BIID for example may have an intense desire to amputate a leg because their body does not recognize the limb. It literally feels like a foreign object attached to them. How is this any different from gender dysphoria? If doctors will amputate healthy body parts for transgender people why not amputate a health limb for someone suffering from BIID? Why is one considered a mental disorder and the other not? Believing a person really has the opposite sex soul is a spiritual, metaphysical belief not rooted in science.
^This is where I land, too. I’m sorry, but I just can’t pretend that this is reality. I respect everyone, but I believe transgenderismg is a mental disorder. And, frankly, I take offense to being told and shown that my feelings and wants are lesser than those of transwomen.
[different PP]
You may want to reflect why you are so triggered by people being inclusive.
“It is a cheap rhetorical trick to constantly pretend, as Trans Radical Activists do, that this debate is the same as the Civil Rights Movement or the Gay Rights Movement. It isn’t, because in those debates, there was no conflict of rights between peoples.” X Shahana Ashur
This was incredibly helpful for me when trying to understand how to frame the argument.
Anonymous wrote:“It is a cheap rhetorical trick to constantly pretend, as Trans Radical Activists do, that this debate is the same as the Civil Rights Movement or the Gay Rights Movement. It isn’t, because in those debates, there was no conflict of rights between peoples.” X Shahana Ashur
This was incredibly helpful for me when trying to understand how to frame the argument.
Christians in TN refusing to process paperwork for gay men getting married. Cake shops. All that freedom of religion stuff where people claim their god hates gays.
Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP from above and I meant to add:
When people talk about how the trans rights movement is a male supremacist movement, this is what people are talking about. To be clear, I don’t agree with that characterization, at least not as a universal truth. I think the trans rights movement is complex and it isn’t fair to judge all trans people and advocates by the actions of some of the worst activists. But the WA decision is, to me, clearly an example of male supremacy being elevated over women’s safety, and not even because of the transwoman plaintiff. The outcome elevates male access to single-sex spaces over women’s safety; trans rights are just the vehicle by which it is happening. That is inherently a male supremacist outcome.
This is an inherent conflict with non-discrimination. You can't on the one hand argue that discrimination is bad when it negatively impacts women but is good when it negatively impacts trans people. Similarly, there is a conflict between the desire for "safe places" and opposing discrimination because the first often necessities the second. I don't think any of this is limited to trans issues. But, these are complex topics that I don't think will be solved on DCUM.
The other issue is if trans people are excluded from existing safe spaces, they become even more vulnerable than they already are. If trans people are excluded from bathrooms of the gender they identify as, for example, it outs them, and second, it puts them in a room of people they may match biologically but not in any other way. Someone presenting as a woman would be eye catching and stand out in the men's room, and if men should never be in the women's restroom because it's inherently dangerous for men and women to use the bathroom together, how are you not putting the trans woman at risk by forcing her into the men's restroom?
This isn't a trans problem. It's a violent and/or rapey men problem. Maybe that's what we should focus on if we're concerned about men being violent against women. Trans people are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to commit them.
There is no one in this thread that would debate that there is a harmful epidemic of male violence.
It’s impossible for me to respond to your comments beyond that because I do not understand gender ideology or how natal males become transwomen.
Literally no one in the thousands of comments in this post has been able clearly explain what is gender identity and its relationship to biological sex.
No one has explained the differences between cis males and trans women beyond them making statements about their feelings.
All of my comments are sincere. I genuinely want to know these answers.
I am an atheist and therefore i do not believe in faith-based or supernatural constructs which do not exist in material reality. Gender ideology seems like a type of faith based belief system related to one’s feelings about a hypothetical self which is fully severed from biology. Similar to what Christians call a soul. I know many people have said that it’s entirely separate from biology so I acknowledge that definition may not be correct. Again, please feel free to provide another definition.
So I must bow out of this discussion. I want to thank to people who engaged in sincere discussion as well as our moderator for not deleting my comments. I believe that free and open speech is essential to societal progress and free people.
DP, I posted about this yesterday and have yet to read an explanation as to why having a feeling makes it a reality. I specifically mentioned other conditions such as BIID and anorexia which cause an individual to have feelings or perceptions in opposition to reality. A person with BIID for example may have an intense desire to amputate a leg because their body does not recognize the limb. It literally feels like a foreign object attached to them. How is this any different from gender dysphoria? If doctors will amputate healthy body parts for transgender people why not amputate a health limb for someone suffering from BIID? Why is one considered a mental disorder and the other not? Believing a person really has the opposite sex soul is a spiritual, metaphysical belief not rooted in science.
I am the mental hospital doctor (not psychiatrist) and THIS. I am not a very good writer/speaker and you have summed up my feelings exactly. Thank you.
Forum Index
»
Website Feedback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}