What exactly makes someone a TERF?

[Debater Slayer]

I think part of the fixation is because of the tidal wave of bizarre people coming out with bizarre takes on whatever gets them going today. Humanity is not adapting well to social media and the cracks are appearing. Conservatives actors like LibsofTikTok may well have brought a lot of this unique content a bit more exposure than the creators bargained for. How fair that is, is open to debate. It's pretty low hanging fruit. That said, and I am no exception here, people have a tendency to OVER-SHARE these days. It's like people have no shame and here I'm really meaning they do not seem to have any boundaries. Should we protect people from those who would take advantage of the poor choices they have made?
No one protected me from my own poor choices, but more importatly, there is no way you could have.

There's no shortage of bizarre content from a minority among any given group, though. Social media provide exposure to fringe views that we otherwise would have probably never heard about. With that in mind, why would certain media outlets and online channels focus so much on perceived "bizarre takes" from a subset of trans and non-binary people while often trying to generalize about the majority or even all of the group based on the views of said subset?

I see a lot of instances of such content as politically motivated attempts to appeal to a specific audience and gain more support or profit (in the case of some YouTubers, for example), and hyperbolic, emotionally charged demagoguery often works to that end.

You are talking to a gay conservative so I am a tiny bit familiar with this subject matter. It is amusing having it explained to me, however. {For the record, you do a good job.) In your country I can well imagine how horrific the hostility and demonization must get. The thing is what constitutes hostility and demonization? Who decides?

That part of my response was about non-binary people in particular, not gay people. I wasn't trying to explain anything to you about the latter, to be clear.

As for what constitutes hostility and demonization, I think that's almost always country-specific and sometimes variable depending on context. In this case, I think dismissal of medically documented non-binary identities altogether as a "delusion," "ideology," "illness," etc., falls within that category, and when it is not intentionally hostile or demonizing, it is at least misinformed. The latter is much easier to address through dialogue than the former, in my opinion, because everyone has been misinformed about one issue or another at some point in their life, but not everyone is intentionally, knowingly hostile.

 

[Ella S.]

Agreed, but the key word here is SOME. I think some points on the agenda are fine, I disagree with others. Famously, I would say that that's exactly where JKR stands, and she was publicly pilloried for having the audacity to question any of the agenda.

In my recent personal experiences, such thoughtful communications seldom happen. Instead, even mild criticism is met with accusations of "transphobia" or "ignorance" or "bigotry" or "hate". Until my current conversation with @SomeRandom , I don't recall EVER being steelmanned in these debates, although I have frequently attempted to sincerely steelman my opponents.

Yeah, no. If you're defending JK Rowling's views, you're transphobic, full stop. There's nothing to steel man. It's like defending David Duke and then claiming to not be racist.

If you don't understand why, honestly, that's almost certainly willful ignorance on your part. Stop trying to make your hate everyone else's problem.

 

[SomeRandom]

A bit off-topic, but part of it might be because, I hate to say it, but a lot of men, despite being stronger, are very poor when it comes to fighting techniques. The average man probably knows less about them on the level of instinct, than the average woman.

Could also just be because I live in an area with quite an abundance of umm “enhancers” around, if you catch my drift

 

[SomeRandom]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. JIC there has been a miscommunication, steelmanning is a nice thing to do

Oh, it is?
I must be thinking of a different term then lol
Don’t mind me

 

[SomeRandom]

Most of my career was spent as a teacher. So for a long time I focused on "cognitive skill acquisition". More recently I've branched out to include sports coaching, a.k.a. "motor skill acquisition". The newest ideas in motor skill acquisition fall under the domain of "ecological dynamics" which is a subset of "ecological psychology". So this line of thinking is not new to me

Yeah, you sound like a teacher, no offence lol.

I have quite a few cousins who teach in various subjects and age groups. All of them have one thing in common. When we’re all hanging out (usually drinking) they will ask me a random weird hypothetical and then press further and further on my elaboration, focusing on exactly what positions I can defend at any given time. The more further away from my own comfort zone the better.
I’m sure there’s a word for it, lol but I have had to defend all manner of positions over the years. Some of which I prefer to forget lol

In cased you missed it, recently on RF some of the biggest threads have been on the topic of "what is a woman?" and this all came from the claim that "a trans woman is a woman". This is indicative of the fact that this is hardly a backwater, seldom used term. At least in the US, this is a raging debate.

Ahh, I see. I will admit that the amount of threads on the topic did seem like rather a burst. But I assumed there was some big news story or a bunch of little ones, to spurn on the debate

I mean, it does seem to be a hot button topic in the US and the UK as of late. I’m not sure about my own country, we could just be too drunk to care right this moment. Or rather, I am lol

The context I'm concerned with (sorry if it hasn't been clear), is public policy. No doubt there are exceptions to every generality. But I think I was careful to use words like "mostly" or "usually", because of course rare exceptions exist. But no policies are perfect, the typical goal is to serve the most people well.

Whilst I agree (in a rather general sense) public policy also needs to serve the entire public. That includes those in the minority. I mean most people don’t use a wheelchair, for example. But wheelchair services are still expected in all public areas. Well, at least they are here.
All public transport, public access buildings, shops and yes even bathrooms are expected to address the concerns of those using a wheelchair or other modes of “personal transportation.”
(Admittedly, as I understand it, my government tends to spend a bit more on such things in comparison to the US? Generally speaking. I mean we have our slums and ghettos too. But like, I will say, when I visited fam in California a few years back, I was appalled at some of the facilities I saw. No offence.
Fantastic country, had the time of my life.
I’m just saying lol)

I realise that when this “safety net” directly includes the majority, so to speak, comfort levels might clash. Depending on the circumstance. But I can’t help but notice that trans women were using the women’s room for years without any hassle and it only caused harm when fears were stirred up by various political goings on.
Indeed, cis women are even being accused of using the wrong bathroom when they use the…well women’s.

Nothing will be perfect, I absolutely realise that. But if folks calm down a bit and just mind their own business, usually these issues tend to magically disappear. Admittedly not always, but hyperfocusing on it like people are right now causes more harm than good. To themselves even.
(And yes I realise I am doing little more than saying “whoah, chill out a bit man.” I’m just saying, these dramas and concerns seemingly seem to be self fulfilling prophecies, in a way.)

sigh... Once again WITH JAZZ HANDS, the concern here is violent, non-trans men. So GAC is not the topic.

As for deterrence, none are perfect, most are sort of incremental.

Appreciate the jazz hands. I always like a bit of show and dance with my discussions

I understand that your concern was primarily with cis men who may have violent tendencies taking advantage of this movement forward (so to speak)
But we can’t live our lives worrying about what they might do if we implement insert shiny new progressive policy here.
Because they will always find some loophole or some way to do whatever it is they’re inclined to do. By worrying about them, we allow ourselves to be held back by that fear and then they win.
Do you understand what I’m trying to say?
I realise I’m not the best communicator lol

Don’t get me wrong here, I absolutely think we should be highly vigilant when it comes to security issues and keeping women safe in such spaces. (And men too, gosh.)
I’m just saying, there’s really nothing stopping such men from doing heinous things to women in the women’s now. So why should we bother with what they might take advantage of going forward?
They’d probably take advantage of a parents room to commit assault. Hell they might have already. I’m sure there’s cases out there where a violent cis man took advantage of the fact that men and women (at least near me) can use a public room under the guise of taking care of their infant. (And I hope such scum are dealt with by the full force of the law, obviously.)
That doesn’t mean I think my government should get rid of these facilities though. Press the public to remain vigilant and protective of parents, maybe. But I mean

By the way, America has parents rooms out in public too, right? Just out of curiosity

 

[wellwisher]

Let me extrapolate what is coming after transgender, since it will be from the same basic template. Transgender is really about a longer term money grab for free cosmetic surgery.

Here is the argument. Part of gender is how you see yourself in the mirror; DNA, and how you want to see yourself in your imagination; ideal you. If a female was born with small breasts, and feels like she should have had larger breasts, then her gender health and well being will require free breast augmentation.

Gender is not about being male or female, but all the subtle steps between and including these. This includes reinforcement of an imaginary ideal gender uniform within any given chromosomal sex. This nonsense is already being planned, since so many have bought the basic foundation premises. Now if a women needs or wants bigger breasts she has to save her money or get a sugar daddy. Soon little girls will have free double D's.

Feminists were not typically the babes, who could get by on their good looks and like being a pretty woman. The early feminists were more like the nerdy chicks and maybe even the jock chicks. Transgender tries to be the babe or handsome dude, who can get by on the newly enhanced looks. There is fundamental friction between the two groups until free cosmetic surgery for all become the norm. I can see it coming, but this will be the end of both.

 

[icehorse]

I understand that your concern was primarily with cis men who may have violent tendencies taking advantage of this movement forward (so to speak)
But we can’t live our lives worrying about what they might do if we implement insert shiny new progressive policy here.
Because they will always find some loophole or some way to do whatever it is they’re inclined to do. By worrying about them, we allow ourselves to be held back by that fear and then they win.
Do you understand what I’m trying to say?
I realise I’m not the best communicator lol

As a bit of a tangent, I've recently become a fan of the YouTuber: ozzyman. So I'm gonna say "yeah, nah" - ALL public policies ought to be up for review, criticism, refining, and even scrapping, when necessary. This is me saying that this particular shiny new policy ought to be changed. I don't think that's me living in fear, I think that's shining the light of reality on the topic. Whenever possible I take the pro-reality stance

Again, no policies perfectly serve everyone or perfectly eliminate all risk...

By the way, America has parents rooms out in public too, right? Just out of curiosity

We have a few, but we have a long way to go. (pun recognized after the fact)

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, no. If you're defending JK Rowling's views, you're transphobic, full stop. There's nothing to steel man. It's like defending David Duke and then claiming to not be racist.

If you don't understand why, honestly, that's almost certainly willful ignorance on your part. Stop trying to make your hate everyone else's problem.

I will reiterate my previous questions:

1 - Does the article I linked to fairly represent the things that JKR said that got her in trouble?
2 - If so, how do those statements constitute transphobia?

Until you connect those dots (which you might be able to do!), it seems to me that you're following a page from the trans activist handbook that declares:

"Any disagreement with any aspect of our agenda will be met with cries of 'transphobia'."

==

As an aside, we can all notice once again, that here on RF, criticizing the trans activist agenda is likely to get one slurred and/or bullied. My personal feeling is that - in general - if you have a strong argument, you don't need to stoop to personal attacks.

 

[icehorse]

Humanity is not adapting well to social media and the cracks are appearing

THAT bears repeating!!

This is a tangent but...

Social media affects human brains in ways that are very similar to how drugs like crack and heroin do. Social media is NOT something we should learn to adapt to, it's literally poison in human brains.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, you sound like a teacher, no offence lol.

None taken, I'm pivoting to "context designer"

 

[YmirGF]

THAT bears repeating!!

This is a tangent but...

Social media affects human brains in ways that are very similar to how drugs like crack and heroin do. Social media is NOT something we should learn to adapt to, it's literally poison in human brains.

Talk about poisoned brains, what of OnlyFans who are actively exploiting themselves in a quest for dollars. (That's an entirely different conversation, I realize, but like all else, it is connected via the mind set that makes it all ok.)

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

I see lots of people throwing around terms without properly defining them (or perhaps I missed it).
Without agreeing on terms, it's impossible to have sensible conversations.
So...
Someone please define the following terms:
Trans
Gender
Gender Identity
in a way that is non circular and doesn't rely on sex stereotypes, and in a way that all participating in the conversation can agree on. Otherwise we're just talking in circles.
Thx.

My definitions for these words:
Trans: nonsensical, doesn't exist, so no definition.
Gender: used to mean the gender of words in languages like French (e.g. la table, l'ordinateur); then came to mean sex stereotypes (e.g. women submissive, men dominating, etc.) then became a word prudish people use to say "sex", and then become something nonsensical.
Gender identity: nonsensical, doesn't exist, so no definition.

 

[SomeRandom]

As a bit of a tangent, I've recently become a fan of the YouTuber: ozzyman. So I'm gonna say "yeah, nah" - ALL public policies ought to be up for review, criticism, refining, and even scrapping, when necessary. This is me saying that this particular shiny new policy ought to be changed. I don't think that's me living in fear, I think that's shining the light of reality on the topic. Whenever possible I take the pro-reality stance

Again, no policies perfectly serve everyone or perfectly eliminate all risk...

Well I will say right back at ya,
Yeah, nah, mate.

I agree that all public policies should be criticised, reviewed, refined and if necessary scrapped.
But I will have to point out, as a criticism of the policy in question, how one can even properly implement it? I mean in actuality. Because it’s all well and good to ramble on and on about what might happen and what is happening and so on
But how does the implementation work in practice? In the real world, I mean?
Are you going to install security guards at every public bathroom to inspect the genitalia of all who enter? To ensure policy is being met correctly.
Will you have an agreed upon scale of masculine presentations posted on the wall of all women’s bathrooms? I mean I know a couple of cis women who have some beardy features, if they can’t get a good shave that morning.

Because when it comes down to it, like in practice, it really is just a self policing situation. Sometimes even at odds with the written policy.
That’s the real world lol

I’m simply asking for a more relaxed atmosphere all around, so that we aren’t being hyper vigilant of the discrepancies in feminine and masculine presentation. Because that affects cis folks on much larger scale than people like to admit. Serving the most, if you prefer.

We have a few, but we have a long way to go. (pun recognized after the fact)

Ahh I see. Fair enough

 

[icehorse]

But how does the implementation work in practice? In the real world, I mean?
Are you going to install security guards at every public bathroom to inspect the genitalia of all who enter? To ensure policy is being met correctly.
Will you have an agreed upon scale of masculine presentations posted on the wall of all women’s bathrooms? I mean I know a couple of cis women who have some beardy features, if they can’t get a good shave that morning.

How did it work 10 years ago? Most likely, if a man entered a woman's restroom, he would have gotten yelled at, right?

 

[SomeRandom]

How did it work 10 years ago? Most likely, if a man entered a woman's restroom, he would have gotten yelled at, right?

Well idk depends on the area, I guess
And the circumstance
I remember as a kid at the shops there was a disabled man who happened to use the women’s whilst I was there. I have to assume the men’s was unavailable or perhaps he just happened to have a female carer with him. No one gave him any grief and everyone lived happily ever after

Again I point to the story I may have brought up earlier in this thread. A woman accompanied her non verbal autistic son into the ladies room due to his inability to use the facilities without her assistance. No one in the actual women’s facility cared. She was only given grief by the manager of the building. There are genuine circumstances that make a lot of women fairly forgiving of a male in the women’s.
If it’s a genuine mistake in the heat of the moment, disability and indeed that “one guy friend we allow in the building.”

I’m not actually arguing against a general rule of men in men’s and women in women’s, believe it or not. (Admittedly because I can agree it’s not realistic at the moment. Again depending on the area. Many places already have unisex facilities without any drama. The US though might need some more “baby steps” in that regard. I am not above admitting that lol.)
I’m just saying that perhaps it’s okay if that rule isn’t always followed. And indeed hyper vigilance of that rule tends to cause far more harm than good. And I think you and I agree on reducing overall harm.

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

Well idk depends on the area, I guess
And the circumstance
I remember as a kid at the shops there was a disabled man who happened to use the women’s whilst I was there. I have to assume the men’s was unavailable or perhaps he just happened to have a female carer with him. No one gave him any grief and everyone lived happily ever after

Again I point to the story I may have brought up earlier in this thread. A woman accompanied her non verbal autistic son into the ladies room due to his inability to use the facilities without her assistance. No one in the actual women’s facility cared. She was only given grief by the manager of the building. There are genuine circumstances that make a lot of women fairly forgiving of a male in the women’s.
If it’s a genuine mistake in the heat of the moment, disability and indeed that “one guy friend we allow in the building.”

I’m not actually arguing against a general rule of men in men’s and women in women’s, believe it or not. (Admittedly because I can agree it’s not realistic at the moment. Again depending on the area. Many places already have unisex facilities without any drama. The US though might need some more “baby steps” in that regard. I am not above admitting that lol.)
I’m just saying that perhaps it’s okay if that rule isn’t always followed. And indeed hyper vigilance of that rule tends to cause far more harm than good. And I think you and I agree on reducing overall harm.

Some women who've been raped or assaulted will self-exclude from events and from places where only unisex is offered for facilities. I personally will not go in a unisex, which means I don't go to places where I might need to use the facilities and that's the only option.

Of course you don't see any "drama" because women who are concerned about putting themselves in these situations usually just don't go. It's the "urinary leash" of the Victorian era all over again.

A woman bringing a male young child or disabled adult male child into the women's room is of course just fine because a young child or a disabled adult male is not a threat to the women, and women can instantly see that those people are not a threat.

Most men are not a threat. But 98% of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by men. So we exclude ALL men (caveats for young children and disabled people who need help) from spaces where women are vulnerable to dramatically lower the risk. We never policed this in restrooms before, and sometimes men slipped in and caused great concern for the women who were there. Back in those days, we could complain. Complaining is now no longer an option. Again, this means that women self-exclude from public life to some degree.

 

[SomeRandom]

Some women who've been raped or assaulted will self-exclude from events and from places where only unisex is offered for facilities. I personally will not go in a unisex, which means I don't go to places where I might need to use the facilities and that's the only option.

Of course you don't see any "drama" because women who are concerned about putting themselves in these situations usually just don't go. It's the "urinary leash" of the Victorian era all over again.

A woman bringing a male young child or disabled adult male child into the women's room is of course just fine because a young child or a disabled adult male is not a threat to the women, and women can instantly see that those people are not a threat.

Most men are not a threat. But 98% of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by men. So we exclude ALL men (caveats for young children and disabled people who need help) from spaces where women are vulnerable to dramatically lower the risk. We never policed this in restrooms before, and sometimes men slipped in and caused great concern for the women who were there. Back in those days, we could complain. Complaining is now no longer an option. Again, this means that women self-exclude from public life to some degree.

And I do not blame such individuals one bit if that is what they choose to do. Though it is terrible that they even have to do so in the first place.
I’m sure victims who have been raped in public women’s rooms similarly avoid public women’s restrooms for the same reason. And again, it’s terrible that they would even have to do so.
This is an issue that happens regardless of who is and isn’t allowed in a certain restroom. And I sincerely wish that weren’t the case.

There is a part of me that does want a security person around such facilities, unisex or not, to try to prevent that from happening. But I realise that the implementation of such a policy might do more harm than good overall.
My naive hope is that we can find a way to prevent such assaults from happening in bathrooms overall. Maybe once we get robots everywhere, idk

But trans passing individuals who are forced to use the facilities according to their sex would cause just as much fear to victims who would avoid the facilities. A woman might not like to see a person sporting a full on beard next to them in the women’s facilities. (Passing trans man.)
Similarly a trans woman would be potentially be subject to harassment and maybe even violence if forced to use the facilities according to their birth sex.
Though I will freely admit the “non binary” elements arising does throw this conversation into brand new “territory” for better or worse.

I’m not saying there aren’t legitimate concerns to have. And I fear we won’t find a compromise that satisfies everyone for a long time.
Not when it comes to official policy, anyway.

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

And I do not blame such individuals one bit if that is what they choose to do. Though it is terrible that they even have to do so in the first place.
I’m sure victims who have been raped in public women’s rooms similarly avoid public women’s restrooms for the same reason. And again, it’s terrible that they would even have to do so.
This is an issue that happens regardless of who is and isn’t allowed in a certain restroom. And I sincerely wish that weren’t the case.

There is a part of me that does want a security person around such facilities, unisex or not, to try to prevent that from happening. But I realise that the implementation of such a policy might do more harm than good overall.
My naive hope is that we can find a way to prevent such assaults from happening in bathrooms overall. Maybe once we get robots everywhere, idk

But trans passing individuals who are forced to use the facilities according to their sex would cause just as much fear to victims who would avoid the facilities. A woman might not like to see a person sporting a full on beard next to them in the women’s facilities. (Passing trans man.)
Similarly a trans woman would be potentially be subject to harassment and maybe even violence if forced to use the facilities according to their birth sex.
Though I will freely admit the “non binary” elements arising does throw this conversation into brand new “territory” for better or worse.

I’m not saying there aren’t legitimate concerns to have. And I fear we won’t find a compromise that satisfies everyone for a long time.
Not when it comes to official policy, anyway.

No compromise would be needed if women didn't take drugs to look more like men. Women are spectacularly good at detecting the sex of people in very short periods of time (milliseconds) precisely because of the threat that men pose. Evolutionarily, it's been beneficial to be able to determine someone's sex almost immediately.

The solution is not to have unisex or police restrooms. The solution is two fold:
1) to have men's and women's facilities and have men use the men's and women use the women's.
2) to have women stop taking dangerous and life-altering drugs to look like men.
This would solve probably > 99% of issues.

 

[Viker]

No compromise would be needed if women didn't take drugs to look more like men. Women are spectacularly good at detecting the sex of people in very short periods of time (milliseconds) precisely because of the threat that men pose. Evolutionarily, it's been beneficial to be able to determine someone's sex almost immediately.

The solution is not to have unisex or police restrooms. The solution is two fold:
1) to have men's and women's facilities and have men use the men's and women use the women's.
2) to have women stop taking dangerous and life-altering drugs to look like men.
This would solve probably > 99% of issues.

Unisex facilities would be ideal.

The rest wouldn't solve anything. We'd be right back where we started after running around in circles.

 

[SomeRandom]

No compromise would be needed if women didn't take drugs to look more like men. Women are spectacularly good at detecting the sex of people in very short periods of time (milliseconds) precisely because of the threat that men pose. Evolutionarily, it's been beneficial to be able to determine someone's sex almost immediately.

Ahh, there is indeed an instinctual reaction that assesses for danger. But I would need to see studies that confirm that women can innately detect the sex of another. They might be able to see discrepancies in cultural presentations of gender, both masculine and feminine. Which in itself begs the question, is that really truly innate instinct or reaction to cultural climates?
And indeed such discrepancies affects cis individuals quite a bit more than people might want to admit

The solution is not to have unisex or police restrooms. The solution is two fold:
1) to have men's and women's facilities and have men use the men's and women use the women's.
2) to have women stop taking dangerous and life-altering drugs to look like men.
This would solve probably > 99% of issues.

Whilst simultaneously condemning those with gender dysphoria to a life of misery, self harm, potential suicide, all against the established advice of medical experts worldwide. Umm okay?