If you can't even say what you mean, then what?

[SomeRandom]

In what way?

It seems to me that the article was criticizing extreme trans-activism, not trans itself. So let's take an example: Say a trans woman who has not had surgery is in the women's locker room. I have had women tell me that that would be quite uncomfortable. (To say nothing of the possibility of the person being a lying rapist.) Should we conclude that the trans woman's rights supersede everyone else's in the locker room?

Look, sure, I want everyone to be comfortable.
But if everyone used the locker room based solely on which genitals/sex they were born as, which you seem to be favouring, you’d have trans men using the women’s locker rooms. Trans men who would often elicit screams if they tried to use said women’s locker room (regardless of whether or not they’ve had surgery.) You’re aware of this, aren’t you?
Because they’d be sporting beards and are often very masculine presenting. Would you prefer them to use the men’s locker room, even if they do not have a penis? Or would you want women sharing a locker room with a masculine presenting trans men, often sporting facial hair?
And what of a feminine presenting trans woman? Someone who passes very easily as a woman. Would you prefer them to use the men’s locker room since they were born with a penis?
That’s not to mention folks with intersex conditions, hermaphrodites and psudomites. Which locker room would you have them use?

Also if a man wanted to use a locker room to rape a woman, they wouldn’t need to lie about being a trans woman.
There’s not a forcefield around women’s locker rooms and bathrooms magically ejecting anyone who has a penis. Nor are there security guards stationed outside inspecting everyone’s genitals. If someone had the intention of raping a woman, they’d just stroll on in and try to commit the awful crime. No trans needed.
Probably why girls are likely to go to the public restroom in groups, ngl.

This is eerily similar to the “gay panic” arguments made from back in the day.
“You could be sharing your locker room with a gay person, you know? What if they tried to rape you” is an argument I vividly recall from those days

Again, I don't have any answers here. But what I do think is often true is that the extreme left is not open to criticism of its solutions. Not open to actual nuanced discussions.

I’m very left leaning, practically an anarchist. I welcome nuance. But yeah sometimes both sides of the extremes don’t like any criticism
.

Which argument was that?

That gay men would be more likely to rape folks, even using their gay status to do so. That it would be one day considered homophobic to refuse to date a gay man (if you’re a man, vice versa for women) that allowing gay folks would open the flood gates and anarchy would be let lose. That butch lesbians were unnatural and would be better off if they became “real women.” Humorously I also encountered some who argued that gay couples should have one in the relationship that should “change their gender.” The reasoning being that if they’re going to live unnatural lifestyles, they might as well go all out.
Wonder what those folks would think nowadays.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Earlier, you said:



I really do want to understand this sentence, and I don't. Let's start with this, what do you think we should call people who are proactively supporting the trans community? Apparently you take "trans-activism" to be a slur of some sort? I certainly didn't mean it that way. I remember recently debating someone on this forum who was defending religion. They took umbrage when I used the word apologist.

I guess it's not clear in my tag lines, I'm VERY interested in using the proper names for things.

As for your "eerily similar" comment. It strikes me that you're attempting to conflate the message with the messenger? If not, can you clarify what you meant there?

Not a slur, a dog whistle. What's the Political Meaning of 'Dog Whistle'?

Nobody uses 'trans activism' inside the LGBT community. It's a term cooped and used by anti trans groups to vilify LGBT allies and issues. E.g. the way 'gay agenda' was employed.

 

[icehorse]

This is eerily similar to the “gay panic” arguments made from back in the day.
“You could be sharing your locker room with a gay person, you know? What if they tried to rape you” is an argument I vividly recall from those days

This is the second time I've heard the "eerily similar" term. I would again suggest that we not confuse the message with the messenger.

Specifically to this point, isn't it the case that BY FAR the most common type of rape is a man raping a woman? So, sure, homosexual rape occurs, but isn't it far less likely?

So can't we conclude that if women are to accept people with penises in their locker rooms and restrooms - if that becomes "the norm" - that we're making the rapists' jobs that much easier?

But yeah sometimes both sides of the extremes don’t like any criticism

I think we can agree on that point. I'm suspicious of extremists in general.

 

[icehorse]

Not a slur, a dog whistle. What's the Political Meaning of 'Dog Whistle'?

Nobody uses 'trans activism' inside the LGBT community. It's a term cooped and used by anti trans groups to vilify LGBT allies and issues. E.g. the way 'gay agenda' was employed.

I'm happy to accept that. And as I said I meant no harm.

So I'll ask again, what is the acceptable term?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm happy to accept that. And as I said I meant no harm.

So I'll ask again, what is the acceptable term?

Just LGBT ally, human rights campaign, trans inclusivity depending on context. There's no catch all for someone for trans rights specifically.

 

[Kooky]

A wonderful case in point!

A common SJW perspective is to divide the world into "oppressors" and "the oppressed". And if you take issue with that perspective, then you must be a _______________ (racist, transphobe, and so on).

If you want to convince other people of the merits of your argument, then you should be more tolerant of their ideas and try to understand where they are coming from, rather than assuming that all of them are argueing in bad faith. This abrasive discussion tactic of yours is only serving to push away the people you want to convince.

 

[icehorse]

Just LGBT ally, human rights campaign, trans inclusivity depending on context. There's no catch all for someone for trans rights specifically.

Thanks! "LGBTQ ally" seems respectful.

So who speaks for the trans community? For the most part, this has been a civil thread. I've taken the position of being critical of some of the actions taken by LGBTQ allies, and others have more or less defended these actions. I know one trans person. In my discussions with them I can tell you that they're not too thrilled with some of the more extreme support they've received, unbidden. 81 pronouns being an example.

 

[icehorse]

If you want to convince other people of the merits of your argument, then you should be more tolerant of their ideas and try to understand where they are coming from, rather than assuming that all of them are argueing in bad faith. This abrasive discussion tactic of yours is only serving to push away the people you want to convince.

I don't go in assuming people are arguing in bad faith. But a few posters tend to lean in that direction, and such patterns can be spotted. In this thread, for example, I've felt almost everyone has been discussing in good faith.

 

[Kooky]

I don't go in assuming people are arguing in bad faith. But a few posters tend to lean in that direction, and such patterns can be spotted. In this thread, for example, I've felt almost everyone has been discussing in good faith.

I'm glad that you finally accept my position as a good faith one. I hope that you will continue to grow in your tolerance of other opinions so that you can eventually be able to argue without attacking others and waging debates using terms such as "SJW", "trans activist", and similarly derogatory descriptors for your ostensible partners of discussion.

 

[Left Coast]

Sorry, let me clarify. I wasn't talking about whether the surgery itself was successful. I was talking about people who have successful surgeries and later want to de-trans. Since de-trans-ing is not a rare occurrence, it seems to me we should look very closely at when these surgeries should occur, since - AFAIK - they're mostly irreversible.

If a patient regrets the surgery and wants it reversed, that's a failure. No doctor wants to cut someone open and have the patient regret that they did it. Again, this is a risk of all surgeries.

And again, you're making a statistical claim here...what does "not rare" mean? And what does detransitioning specifically mean? Reversal of surgeries? Stopping HRT? Dressing in a way that aligns with their sex assigned at birth?

As I think I said earlier in this thread. I think that if a 25 year old has gone through counseling and has concluded that they are trans, we should absolutely respect that. But if an 8 year old says it, I think we ought to be very conservative in our responses.

Why does a person need to have gone through counseling to be taken seriously with regard to their own experience? We don't expect that from cisgender people. You'd likely be offended if someone suggested that to you regarding your own gender.

As far as 8 year olds are concerned, I would take their self-descriptions of their own experience equally seriously whether they are cis or trans.

 

[Left Coast]

That's a big "if".

It's a big if in literally any sexual encounter. Why is this one specifically more problematic?

 

[icehorse]

I'm glad that you finally accept my position as a good faith one

I didn't say that.

I hope that you will continue to grow in your tolerance of other opinions so that you can eventually be able to argue without attacking others and waging debates using terms such as "SJW", "trans activist", and similarly derogatory descriptors for your ostensible partners of discussion.

What terms would be acceptable in exchange for SJW and trans activist?

 

[icehorse]

And again, you're making a statistical claim here...what does "not rare" mean?

Yes, in this sort of discussion I would say it's most useful if the default is that we're making statistical claims. So what percentage of de-trans-ing would be acceptable to you? How many irreversible surgeries are acceptable?

And what does detransitioning specifically mean? Reversal of surgeries? Stopping HRT? Dressing in a way that aligns with their sex assigned at birth?

I imagine it can be any combination of those.

Why does a person need to have gone through counseling to be taken seriously with regard to their own experience?

Despite the press it's been getting recently, being trans is relatively rare, and we'd have to admit it's some sort of disorder, correct? I would say that in general one ought to do some counseling when dealing with any disorder that has a mental component.

As far as 8 year olds are concerned, I would take their self-descriptions of their own experience equally seriously whether they are cis or trans.

As would I. But as I said, I'd be conservative about what actions ought to be taken.

 

[icehorse]

It's a big if in literally any sexual encounter. Why is this one specifically more problematic?

Well I think your definition of autogynephilia is more benign than normal, it's a fetish that is certainly not confined to the bedroom between consenting adults.

It's more problematic because it allows bad actors an easier path to duplicity.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, in this sort of discussion I would say it's most useful if the default is that we're making statistical claims.

Right, so when you make a statistical claim you ought to be able to back it up, if it's going to be useful. So again, if you could provide, like, any relevant numbers it would help us to gauge the accuracy of what you're claiming.

I imagine it can be any combination of those.

Another important caveat to any of your claims about how common detransitioning allegedly is, then.

Despite the press it's been getting recently, being trans is relatively rare, and we'd have to admit it's some sort of disorder, correct?

No.

Transgender: Gender Dysphoria and Ensuring Mental Health

TGNC Guide

 

[Left Coast]

Well I think your definition of autogynephilia is more benign than normal, it's a fetish that is certainly not confined to the bedroom between consenting adults.

No non-consensual sex is ever acceptable. Whether it involves a fetish is irrelevant.

It's more problematic because it allows bad actors an easier path to duplicity.

I have no clue what this even means. This strikes me as the kind of weird excuse conservatives give for prohibiting trans people from using the bathroom of their gender because they say predators will attack girls in women's restrooms. But wait, let me guess...you probably agree with that.

You're looking less like a supporter of trans people with every post, sir.

 

[SomeRandom]

This is the second time I've heard the "eerily similar" term. I would again suggest that we not confuse the message with the messenger..

I’m merely pointing out the similarities in rhetorical techniques. You can even find such similarities in the arguments against interracial marriage and gay marriage.
Actually that was a common critique even back then.
I’m not trying to say folks who use the same rhetoric are doing so because they are coming from a place of hate. I honestly don’t think that’s true. At least not in all cases.
Just that we need to be careful of our arguments. And examine them for holes. I’m including myself in there just for the record

Specifically to this point, isn't it the case that BY FAR the most common type of rape is a man raping a woman? So, sure, homosexual rape occurs, but isn't it far less likely?.

Well it’s statistically reported the most. Though the actual numbers might not be entirely accurate to reality as there is a lot of shame, guilt and stigma associated with male rape. Especially if the perpetrator is a woman. This is even a common talking point among both feminists and even anti feminists.

Even if that were the case, I don’t know if it’s a good idea to base locker room policy on such stats. Not only does it presume that all males (cis or otherwise) are automatically guilty of possible rape, it excludes again masculine and feminine presenting features. Just because someone happens to have a penis does not mean they’re automatically gonna go rape a woman. It doesn’t even automatically mean you could distinguish a cis person from a trans person a lot of the time. Since there are cis women who have a lot of traditionally masculine features and vice versa. And there are quite a few trans men who you wouldn’t know weren’t cis just going by looks.

Not to mention that there is actually more violence and sexual violence targeted at the trans community anyway. At least that’s my understanding based on stats.

Forcing a trans woman to go to the locker room based on the sex they were born as might actually open up the possibility of even more rape and sexual violence.
Since you know, they transitioned from male to female. And therefore would be a feminine presenting individual literally surrounded by men in a locker room.
Is that allowing rape to occur more easily?
Honest question

And anyway, programs that are literally designed to reduce rape involve educational programs and programs designed to allow men to open up about their feelings and find more healthy coping strategies if sexually frustrated. It doesn’t have anything to do with trans folks using the locker room. Like at all.

Ironically being more open with regards to sexuality and allowing trans folks to use their appropriate locker room or restroom (based on their gender identity) like a human being, might actually do some good.
Like actually reducing such instances of sexual violence in the long run.
But I’m not fully aware of all the statistics involved, that’s just based on what meagre knowledge I have regarding social endeavours in general.
Someone more knowledgeable than me on such subjects can chime in.

So can't we conclude that if women are to accept people with penises in their locker rooms and restrooms - if that becomes "the norm" - that we're making the rapists' jobs that much easier?.

Rapists will rape with or without such locker room policies. Like I said, literally nothing is stopping them from doing so now. Do you honestly believe that someone who would knowingly and intentionally set out to rape a woman (or man) gives a damn about what picture is on the locker room door? Really?
They can go on in now. Nothing is stopping them. There’s no forcefield, there’s no guards positioned outside doing genital checks. Hell a woman might not even notice a cis man following them into such a room if they’re distracted enough. (Listening to music or something.)
The net “opportunity” if you like, doesn’t really change at all.

And again allowing folks to use the locker room based on gender instead of sex might save some women from chasing out a trans man who has a beard like Santa Claus, since using the locker room of their “original sex” like you’re proposing would have them entering the ladies room. With a beard and looking like a man. Do you honestly think women would tolerate that?

I think we can agree on that point. I'm suspicious of extremists in general.

Extremists are often quite err “dogmatic” about their stances. So I agree with your suspicion lol

 

[Left Coast]

Post #41: The definition of 'woman' which I use is 'adult human female'.

Define "female." Does the definition include both physical and psychological characteristics?

 

[David Young]

Female = produces female gametes if and when fertile.

 

[Left Coast]

Female = produces female gametes if and when fertile.

So someone who doesn't have ovaries, or has ovaries that don't produce eggs, is not female?