Banning ‘Woke’ Words in State Documents, Arkansas Governor Signs Executive Order

[Revoltingest]

Sure, but what we deem a "disorder" doesn't disqualify something in the way icehorse wants it to, any more than - in a world where being right-handed is socially expected and preferred - calling people who are left handed "disordered" means we can disqualify them as a category of person.

"Disqualifying" people appears to be the goal of
our more conservative friends who resist trans
folk becoming more known & accommodated
in society.

 

[Revoltingest]

Forcibly trying to bend reality to avoid possible negative connotations is dishonest, and does more harm than good.

It appears that they problem is your resisting reality & change that happens.
That could be called "dishonest".

If we want a better world, we have to find solutions that do not require lying.

I recommend being truthful & open minded.

 

[icehorse]

It appears that they problem is your resisting reality & change that happens.
That could be called "dishonest".

Bad connotations and stigmatization happen, no doubt. But the way to address those problems is NOT to lie about conditions that people might have.

 

[Soandso]

It would depend completely on context.
I can imagine quite some contexts where for example treating transwomen as actual women to be very harmful to actual women.


Here's another "fun" one I once heared....

Suppose you work on an ER. A transwoman comes in and tells you that she suspects she migh be having a miscarriage.
Would you spend time on her actually investigating a potential miscarriage - and thus thereby taking away time you could be spending on another patient who actually has a real emergency?

If I work at an ER, I have instant access to patient records and will know all of this information 5 seconds after looking into her EPIC files

I've worked in a hospital for years, and I've never seen a situation like the one you presented. Trans patients I've seen generally want accurate treatment and aren't in denial of reality, they just want to be treated respectfully like anyone else

That said, the ER is full of patient hijinks. Most patients we get are old folks, folks who are their due to mental health related issues such as attempted suicide, or homeless folks who are there due to drug related issues or situations where they are looking to get into the hospital for a warm, safe place to stay until the hospital turns them away. Who do you decide who gets treatment or who waits? We have systems in place to make those choices

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm sure millions of women will feel much better knowing that you think their dread is misplaced.
wow!!! just wow!! Who tf do you think you are??

Is that supposed to be some sort of counter argument?
We just looked at numbers showing that a majority of women don't dread going into the washroom with trans people. I suggested that you are overexaggerating this "dread" you're talking about because it isn't borne out in the numbers. It seems to come from your personal experience asking women about it.
And we just looked at numbers showing that the people most likely to be harmed in public rest rooms are trans people.
Should we just let people experience dread, even if unwarranted? Why?

By your own evidence, it is a thin majority.

Not a majority.

Most of the women I know who are important to me do not want to see biological males in their safe spaces. I don't care if they represent only 47% (or whatever), of all women.

How about trans women?

The fact that you want to impose dread on millions and millions of women to accommodate a tiny handful of people is perhaps one of the most misogynistic things I've ever heard.

That's a tad overdramatic. You haven't demonstrated that this "dread" is a massive problem. You've only asserted that it exists. And now you're just asserting misogyny and assuming that the few women you've personally spoken with are representative of all women.

Do the feelings of that 47% not matter to you?

Of course, but I don't think you're fairly representing anyone in this discussion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah yes, the serious problem of people thinking they have had miscarriages despite not having wombs. Totally a real problem worthy of lots of careful consideration.

Absurd, isn't it.

Women can have miscarriages because they have a womb.
Transwomen can't. Because they aren't women. They don't have a womb and never had one.
They don't menstruate for the same reason.

These are the things that define what a woman is.

So why would we pretend otherwise?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Terms like condition, disorder, and disease are not arbitrary, accurate distinctions are useful and necessary.

Not when using them arbitrarily to remove them from other categories. A person with no arms still belongs in the category of "person who has no arms".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Bad connotations and stigmatization happen, no doubt. But the way to address those problems is NOT to lie about conditions that people might have.

Who has proposed lying? Do you believe that people with disorders do not count as a category of person? That a person with XY chromosome who is, nevertheless, biologically female somehow does not fit into the category of "biological female"? That a person born intersex does not fit into the category of "intersex person" and may no comfortably sit in either the biologically male or biologically female category? Where are the lies in those scenarios?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Absurd, isn't it.

Women can have miscarriages because they have a womb.
Transwomen can't. Because they aren't women. They don't have a womb and never had one.
They don't menstruate for the same reason.

These are the things that define what a woman is.

So, if you have had an hysterectomy, you're not a woman?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Such as.....

For example sports.
If we are going to pretend that transwomen are actual women...

Say Andre Agassi wants to identify as a woman. We should then respect that.
So he must be treated as a woman.

Shall we allow him to enter women's Roland Garros?

After all, he's a "woman", right?

That would imo cause harm to all women tennis players competing in Roland Garros.

I've not "heared" of it happening.

Neither have I.
I just think it shows the absurdity of what we are being asked, to consider transwomen to be actual women.
To pretend as if anything other then an actual woman can become pregnant, can breastfeed, can menstruate etc.

Here's another, which in fact does happen...
You, a heterosexual male, go to a bar. You hook up with someone. You have sex with her. You build a relationship with here.
And then she outs herself as a transwoman.

Is it a dealbreaker? Do you feel scammed?
I think most straight men very much would. They will instantly not see her as the "woman" they believed she was.
I think that for the vast majority of men, it would be an instant dealbreaker.


All just to say: when people ask me to see them as actual women, I can't help but to feel that I'm being asked to pretend.
It's not an actual woman. It's a man that had a sex-change.

All the power to them and I'm happy they live in an age that this is actually a possibility for them if that makes them happy.
I just don't see why I would have to pretend it makes them an actual woman.

It doesn't.
So what's wrong with the term "transwoman"?
I don't get it. What on earth is so offensive about that?

In my experience with health care, the intake process
immediately addresses cis vs trans status, along with
allergies, current medical conditions, etc.

Right.... so why would we have to pretend they are actual women when they clearly aren't?

If you see otherwise, the problem is with incompetence,
not the patient.

But the patient insists on us considering them actual women............................

I'm sorry, but I can't.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bad connotations and stigmatization happen, no doubt. But the way to address those problems is NOT to lie about conditions that people might have.

I suggest honestly trying to understand
people who are different from you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I work at an ER, I have instant access to patient records and will know all of this information 5 seconds after looking into her EPIC files

And your conclusion will be "it's not a real woman, so miscarriage is off the table".

And there we have it. "pregnant person". Give me a break. As if anybody but a woman with a uterus could become pregnant.

I've worked in a hospital for years, and I've never seen a situation like the one you presented. Trans patients I've seen generally want accurate treatment and aren't in denial of reality, they just want to be treated respectfully like anyone else

SO if they aren't in denial of reality, why insist on being labeled something they aren't?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For example sports.
If we are going to pretend that transwomen are actual women...

Say Andre Agassi wants to identify as a woman. We should then respect that.
So he must be treated as a woman.

Shall we allow him to enter women's Roland Garros?

After all, he's a "woman", right?

That would imo cause harm to all women tennis players competing in Roland Garros.

Sports have always had a variety of various weight and qualification classes. I fail to see this as a serious issue worthy of broad social prescription to fix.

Neither have I.
I just think it shows the absurdity of what we are being asked, to consider transwomen to be actual women.
To pretend as if anything other then an actual woman can become pregnant, can breastfeed, can menstruate etc.

Nobody is asking you to pretend people other than those able to become pregnant can become pregnant. That's not being asked of you. It's not that hard to separate the social prescriptions of gender from the biological function of a person's body. Medicine did this decades ago. It's not that hard.

Here's another, which in fact does happen...
You, a heterosexual male, go to a bar. You hook up with someone. You have sex with her. You build a relationship with here.
And then she outs herself as a transwoman.

Is it a dealbreaker? Do you feel scammed?
I think most straight men very much would. They will instantly not see her as the "woman" they believed she was.
I think that for the vast majority of men, it would be an instant dealbreaker.

You don't think the fact that this person was trans may have come out, at the absolutely, very latest during sex? You don't think that maybe, just maybe, trans people are open and honest about this stuff?

Maybe the key to this is developing a society where, for many men, it would NOT feel like a deal-breaker? For instance, if they saw trans women as just as much a woman as anyone else, there wouldn't be an issue.

All just to say: when people ask me to see them as actual women, I can't help but to feel that I'm being asked to pretend.

Then stop feeling like that, because it's not. We've understood gender as a social category for decades.

It's not an actual woman. It's a man that had a sex-change.

No, it's a woman.

All the power to them and I'm happy they live in an age that this is actually a possibility for them if that makes them happy.
I just don't see why I would have to pretend it makes them an actual woman.

It's not pretending.

It doesn't.
So what's wrong with the term "transwoman"?

Nothing. Just understand that "trans woman" is under the umbrella of "woman".

I don't get it. What on earth is so offensive about that?

Okay. Let's say I always use the term "black person", and when someone asks me why I can never just call a black person a "person", I respond "What's wrong with calling them a black person? Why should I call them a person? I'm not going to pretend they're a person like everyone else, so I use the term 'black person'"."

Would you maybe think I had some form of prejudice underlying the way in which I was categorising black people, there?

Right.... so why would we have to pretend they are actual women when they clearly aren't?

It's not pretending.

But the patient insists on us considering them actual women............................

I have never once met a trans person who insists on being treated - medically - as BIOLOGICALLY their preferred gender. That's absurd. It doesn't happen.

I'm sorry, but I can't.

Then get over it. The problem is clearly you.

 

[Revoltingest]

For example sports.
If we are going to pretend that transwomen are actual women...

Say Andre Agassi wants to identify as a woman. We should then respect that.
So he must be treated as a woman.

Shall we allow him to enter women's Roland Garros?

After all, he's a "woman", right?

That would imo cause harm to all women tennis players competing in Roland Garros.

Consider what I've posted before about
sports, where cis vs trans is a significant
difference, ie, have separate categories
for trans & cis women.

Neither have I.
I just think it shows the absurdity of what we are being asked, to consider transwomen to be actual women.
To pretend as if anything other then an actual woman can become pregnant, can breastfeed, can menstruate etc.

Your absurdity is an invented one.
Something that doesn't happen isn't
worth addressing in public policy.

Here's another, which in fact does happen...
You, a heterosexual male, go to a bar. You hook up with someone. You have sex with her. You build a relationship with here.
And then she outs herself as a transwoman.

Crying Game moments would be troubling.
But are you advocating that government
regulate information disclosure in personal
relationships?

All just to say: when people ask me to see them as actual women, I can't help but to feel that I'm being asked to pretend.
It's not an actual woman. It's a man that had a sex-change.

I don't think you're going to be invited
to any parties with trans women present.

So what's wrong with the term "transwoman"?

Nothing....unless you use the term
to degrade or dismiss them.

Right.... so why would we have to pretend they are actual women when they clearly aren't?

But the patient insists on us considering them actual women............................

I'm sorry, but I can't.

You confuse "pretending" with using "woman"
more broadly when it serves dignity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And your conclusion will be "it's not a real woman, so miscarriage is off the table".

No, their conclusion would be "they don't have a womb, so miscarriage is off the table".

Y'know. The same conclusion they would read if a biological woman came in who had had a hysterectomy.

And there we have it. "pregnant person". Give me a break. As if anybody but a woman with a uterus could become pregnant.

Now who's the one pretending?

SO if they aren't in denial of reality, why insist on being labeled something they aren't?

They're not in denial of reality. These people don't believe they have organs that they don't. They're ascribing themselves a social label.

I repeat, your imaginary scenario is not a thing. It doesn't happen. Nobody is asking you to believe a trans woman with a penis actually has a vagina. They are probably a bit more distinctly aware of it than even you are.

The fact that this seems to be your concern, that trans people are all somewhat either mentally ill or delusional, really speaks to what your fundamental issue is; you are unwilling to see trans people as just healthy, reasonable human beings.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that supposed to be some sort of counter argument?
We just looked at numbers showing that a majority of women don't dread going into the washroom with trans people. I suggested that you are overexaggerating this "dread" you're talking about because it isn't borne out in the numbers. It seems to come from your personal experience asking women about it.
And we just looked at numbers showing that the people most likely to be harmed in public rest rooms are trans people.
Should we just let people experience dread, even if unwarranted? Why?

Not a majority.

How about trans women?

That's a tad overdramatic. You haven't demonstrated that this "dread" is a massive problem. You've only asserted that it exists. And now you're just asserting misogyny and assuming that the few women you've personally spoken with are representative of all women.

Of course, but I don't think you're fairly representing anyone in this discussion.

I wonder if he's considered that forcing a trans woman
to use the men's lavatory would have a risk of assault?
Trans folk are already assaulted at high rates, & demanding
they act in a manner that announces their trans status
in such a venue strikes me as not just degrading, but
downright dangerous.
Is it failure to consider the consequences of what they'd
impose upon others, or feelings of loathing that justify
harming trans folk>

 

[Soandso]

And your conclusion will be "it's not a real woman, so miscarriage is off the table".

More or less, though that's not the way I would judge the situation, personally. I don't view people through a transphobic lense, like you seem to

And there we have it. "pregnant person". Give me a break. As if anybody but a woman with a uterus could become pregnant.

What? Where does this even come from? I didn't mention any of this in my post

SO if they aren't in denial of reality, why insist on being labeled something they aren't?

If you're asking this question, it seems like you aren't listening to the reasons trans people are giving for their motivations. I'd start there

 

[SkepticThinker]

I wonder if he's considered that forcing a trans woman
to use the men's lavatory would have a risk of assault?
Trans folk are already assaulted at high rates, & demanding
they act in a manner that announces their trans status
in such a venue strikes me as not just degrading, but
downright dangerous.
Is it failure to consider the consequences of what they'd
impose upon others, or feelings of loathing that justify
harming trans folk>

Exactly! Thanks for making the point more succinctly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, if you have had an hysterectomy, you're not a woman?

They don't have a womb and never had one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They don't have a womb and never had one.

You said that having a womb is what defines being a woman. Therefore, having a hysterectomy means you're no longer a woman.

Unless you want to amend your definition, because you know for a fact that there are women who don't have wombs (yes, including those that NEVER HAD ONE).

This just all begs the question: why should such features DETERMINE these broadly unrelated social categories we belong in? Why should having or not having a womb be a determining factor in whether or not you belong in the social designation "woman" any more than being left-handed should be the determining factor in whether you are considered a "human" or a "leftomorph"?