Why is this board so obsessed with restrooms?

[icehorse]

Neither were interested in talking about sex or gender as a social construct or the like and both were affable people.

Bingo! There's a BIG difference between the people and the activist agenda, that most of them probably don't care about.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope, that would require a book. But I would say people who are likely to cry "you're a transphobe" are probably TRAs.

Here are some more TRA talking points:

- there is no such thing as biological sex, sex is a social construct

Never heard that argument, in my life, and those two things are contradictory. Can you give an example of someone making these arguments?

- a transwoman is a woman
- some women have penises
- some men have vaginas

Literally just acknowledging the existence of trans people.

- we should call women things like "womb owners" or "lactators"

Nope. We should call people who have wombs "people who have wombs", because literally that category includes both men and women.

 

[Yerda]

yes; restrooms, locker rooms, women's shelters, safe houses, women only gatherings...



Indeed, that's also a concern and a problem to be solved!

Well fair enough. I never imagined that would be a problem but at least you're consistent. All the best

 

[Ella S.]

No problem. Just wondered.

@icehorse Edited to add: I went back and read the post by @Ella S. and I fail to see how Ella S. is bullying you.

You've brought up being bullied so many times I've lost count. Are you actually being bullied, or are people meeting you tone for tone?

My post maybe could have been rephrased to be less antagonistic.

I recently went through a period where I gave up trying to tone-police my posts on here and that was one that I simply didn't feel like taking the time to try to make less pointed. In the context of this thread, I didn't feel like it would really matter. I figured that, no matter how I phrased it, the result would be that it went nowhere.

I still think I was probably right about that. However, I have been considering making fewer posts in order to ensure that I can take the time to make sure my posts are up to my personal standards of politesse. It might not have impacted the discourse in this thread but it makes a mockery of my character.

That said, I do not think that I was out of line or that my tone was inappropriate. I simply think that characterizing a position that I disagree with in a way that could be seen as a condemnation of it, such as by calling a certain stance transphobic, adds to the abrasion of discourse here. It is likely to be counter-productive.

Nonetheless, I do condemn what I perceive to have been transphobia in that post. I am simply questioning the efficacy of my approach and how it reflects upon me.

 

[Ella S.]

Hey @Ella S. -

On your points 1-4, I apologize, I've had this conversation with a few people so I failed to give you the complete context:

I agree that trans people are no more violent than anyone else. But the point is that we're now NORMALIZING men entering into women's safe spaces, and that's what causes the safety risks I'm talking about. For example, an violent man enters a safe house and when he's told he cannot enter he lies and says he's trans. What now?

Do you think that trans people should be punished for other people's wrongdoings?

The problem we're seeing here is the sort of blurring of gender and sex. The word "woman" can be used to mean either, and that's become an issue. But the reality is that in many common situations, "woman" implies sex. So from a sex basis, a transwoman is NOT a woman.

"Woman" has never really been used to refer to sex. It is a word with grammatical gender.

"Sex" isn't a straightforward concept. There's anatomical sex and there's chromosomal sex, both of which are more than a simple male/female binary and they might even contradict. You might have someone born with XY chromosomes who develops primary and secondary female sex characteristics, for instance. We generally call this state of being between the two sexes "intersex."

As a society, we tend to assign a binary gender to intersex people despite the fact that this does not line up with their biology. This means that the label of "woman" is based on gender, not sex, since intersex people are often assigned female genders.

Linguists are familiar with this. Again, this is why we refer to "she/her" and "he/him" as gendered pronouns, not "sexed" pronouns. The language we use is gendered, not sexed.

And the times when sex matters are very important, e.g., locker rooms and safe houses.

Why?

Many countries have gender neutral bathrooms. They haven't exactly fallen apart at the seams over it.

It is a HUGE mistake to allow the word "woman" to be hijacked to mean only gender. That has many negative social, psychological, and legal implications. I have a wife and two daughters, and such a hijacking is massively misogynistic.

How is it misogynistic to use a word properly?

Do trans people deserve to be safe and treated fairly? OF course!!!! But the solutions should not come at the expense of women.

The solutions are to protect women. Trans women.

Yes, I've had this conversation before. And it usually goes the way this one is going. There appears to be a sort of dogma that trans apologists follow. Part of the dogma is to try to bully and slur any critics of the trans agenda. So congrats - I guess? - you're doing a good job of repeating the trans-activists party line.

I am not trying to slur you. I am not calling you a transphobe.

I am pointing out that you are being transphobic and transmisogynistic. These are not simply mean words that I am throwing at you to debase your character.

They describe the content of your posts adequately. You are advocating for the widespread misgendering of transgender women and you are wanting us to treat transgender women like men. That is transphobic, meaning aversive towards transgender people, because you are denying their gender and advocating for their social stigmatization in a way that specifically worsens their gender dysphoria and in a way that you think would unfairly put them at serious risk of being sexually assaulted.

How is that not transphobic? What do you think transphobia is? What do you think transmisogyny is? How are you defining these terms in a way that does not describe the sentiments you have expressed here?

Why do you think activists who care about transgender people are opposing you on this topic? Have you considered that they might be doing so from a place of genuine concern about the well-being of transgender people? If so, have you taken the time to hear out what those concerns are?

You aren't hearing me out. You completely shut down discourse with this baseless accusation that I'm "bullying" you and "slurring" you for "criticizing the trans agenda." I have done no such thing. I have pointed out that your statements are incorrect and transphobic, that's all. I wish you cared as much about the safety of women as you did about not having your views described in ways that you think are uncharitable.

 

[icehorse]

Do you think that trans people should be punished for other people's wrongdoings?

of course not.

"Woman" has never really been used to refer to sex.

until the TRAs started doing it?

As a society, we tend to assign a binary gender to intersex people despite the fact that this does not line up with their biology. This means that the label of "woman" is based on gender, not sex, since intersex people are often assigned female genders.

No, we don't warp all of language and discard all of science for extremely rare exceptions.

Why?

Many countries have gender neutral bathrooms. They haven't exactly fallen apart at the seams over it.

Women's rest rooms, locker rooms, safe houses, women's shelters: they all exist because too many men are violent.

In a few paragraphs I will respond to your claims that I'm not listening to you. I feel the same way! Please tell me why you think safe houses and women's shelters exist? And then tell me if you think there very purpose wouldn't be upended if random men could enter them?

How is it misogynistic to use a word properly?

A women is a female, adult, human. A trans woman is NOT a biological female.

I am pointing out that you are being transphobic and transmisogynistic. These are not simply mean words that I am throwing at you to debase your character.

That implies that somehow you are the final arbiter. You are not, and your bullying allies on this forum are not. This is a debate. You might very well be wrong. (I believe you are.) If we imagine fast forwarding into the future and learning that my positions are viewed as correct and yours as wrong, then your positions would be seen as being the transphobic ones. So I would request that you refrain from using phrases like "you are a ..." or "you are being a ...". Does that make sense?

You are advocating for the widespread misgendering of transgender women and you are wanting us to treat transgender women like men. That is transphobic, meaning aversive towards transgender people, because you are denying their gender and advocating for their social stigmatization in a way that specifically worsens their gender dysphoria and in a way that you think would unfairly put them at serious risk of being sexually assaulted.

I simply disagree. Where is your evidence that calling a trans woman a trans woman causes harm? I think forcing society to bend reality by calling trans women women will ultimately do far more damage to trans people, than being honest about the difference.

What do you think transphobia is?

I think transphobes might want to do trans people harm. That is the opposite of my goals.

It seems to me that you are ascribing to TRAs some superior wisdom when it comes to shaping society. How did they acquire such expertise? When I look at their agenda, I see the opposite. I see ham-handed, destructiveness.

Why do you think activists who care about transgender people are opposing you on this topic? Have you considered that they might be doing so from a place of genuine concern about the well-being of transgender people? If so, have you taken the time to hear out what those concerns are?

Not only have I heard their concerns, I have several times steelmanned them. The opposite has not occurred.

You aren't hearing me out. You completely shut down discourse with this baseless accusation that I'm "bullying" you and "slurring" you for "criticizing the trans agenda." I have done no such thing. I have pointed out that your statements are incorrect and transphobic, that's all. I wish you cared as much about the safety of women as you did about not having your views described in ways that you think are uncharitable.

I am hearing you, we're simply disagreeing I know that must be shocking, but the TRA agenda is quite assailable

 

[anna.]

That implies that somehow you are the final arbiter. You are not, and your bullying allies on this forum are not. This is a debate. You might very well be wrong. (I believe you are.) If we imagine fast forwarding into the future and learning that my positions are viewed as correct and yours as wrong, then your positions would be seen as being the transphobic ones. So I would request that you refrain from using phrases like "you are a ..." or "you are being a ...". Does that make sense?

That goes two ways. Should you be asking yourself if you should refrain from using phrases like "bullying allies?"

 

[anna.]

My post maybe could have been rephrased to be less antagonistic.

I recently went through a period where I gave up trying to tone-police my posts on here and that was one that I simply didn't feel like taking the time to try to make less pointed. In the context of this thread, I didn't feel like it would really matter. I figured that, no matter how I phrased it, the result would be that it went nowhere.

I still think I was probably right about that. However, I have been considering making fewer posts in order to ensure that I can take the time to make sure my posts are up to my personal standards of politesse. It might not have impacted the discourse in this thread but it makes a mockery of my character.

That said, I do not think that I was out of line or that my tone was inappropriate. I simply think that characterizing a position that I disagree with in a way that could be seen as a condemnation of it, such as by calling a certain stance transphobic, adds to the abrasion of discourse here. It is likely to be counter-productive.

Nonetheless, I do condemn what I perceive to have been transphobia in that post. I am simply questioning the efficacy of my approach and how it reflects upon me.

FWIW, I did go back and read your post a second time. I still think it was well articulated, and thoughtful. I wouldn't change a thing.

 

[icehorse]

That goes two ways. Should you be asking yourself if you should refrain from using phrases like "bullying allies?"

When a person uses a slur, they might be correct or they might be incorrect. The correctness of their position is independent of using the slur. A slur, is a slur, is a slur.

I would hope that we could debate IDEAS, and never start phrases with "you are a ....".

 

[Ella S.]

of course not.

until the TRAs started doing it?

No, we don't warp all of language and discard all of science for extremely rare exceptions.

The science of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and anthropology is that transgender women are women. Language conventions tell us that gender is not a one-to-one correspondence with sex.

It is not warping language or science to point out their proper use.

Women's rest rooms, locker rooms, safe houses, women's shelters: they all exist because too many men are violent.

In a few paragraphs I will respond to your claims that I'm not listening to you. I feel the same way! Please tell me why you think safe houses and women's shelters exist? And then tell me if you think there very purpose wouldn't be upended if random men could enter them?

We are not discussing safe houses or women's shelters. We are discussing rest rooms.

A women is a female, adult, human. A trans woman is NOT a biological female.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "biological female?" It seems likely that whether one is transgender or not is partially biological and based on one's "mental sex."

Are you talking about anatomical sex? Chromosomal sex? Why are you redefining what a woman is in order to intentionally exclude trans women?

Aside from that, "female" is a gendered term. It sometimes refers to a specific sex depending on the context, but even in biology it can mean different things depending on the context. Hence the division between anatomical and chromosomal sex.

What about transgender women who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery to change their anatomical sex? Do you still discount them?

That implies that somehow you are the final arbiter. You are not, and your bullying allies on this forum are not. This is a debate. You might very well be wrong. (I believe you are.) If we imagine fast forwarding into the future and learning that my positions are viewed as correct and yours as wrong, then your positions would be seen as being the transphobic ones. So I would request that you refrain from using phrases like "you are a ..." or "you are being a ...". Does that make sense?

I promise you that I am not trying to bully you. It is not my intention to use divisive language.

I was not aware that you would take such great offense to having your transphobia pointed out to you. I was under the impression that you cared about transgender people and that you would take those concerns seriously rather than reduce them to some kind of personal attack. I was hoping that, if I explained this in more detail, you would come to understand that I am not trying to offend or bully you.

I apologize that I have upset you. It was not my intention.

I simply disagree. Where is your evidence that calling a trans woman a trans woman causes harm? I think forcing society to bend reality by calling trans women women will ultimately do far more damage to trans people, than being honest about the difference.

Suffering from being misgendered is one of the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria. In many transgender people, gender dysphoria is so severe that it drives them to suicide.

Gender dysphoria is how researchers learned that we have a mental sex distinct from our anatomical and chromosomal sexes. It has led to a wide variety of avenues for research.

Properly gendering transgender people is the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria. Helping a transgender woman fully transition and socially pass as their gender identity rather than their assigned gender alleviates symptoms of gender dysphoria in 99% of cases. That is a remarkably efficient treatment for any medical intervention.

In contrast, misgendering them and trying to force transgender people to live as their assigned gender rather than their gender identity is part of a practice known as "conversion therapy." Conversion therapy has been shown to worsen symptoms of gender dysphoria, anxiety, and depression. It has even created suicidal ideation in people who did not contemplate suicide prior to going to conversion therapy.

The science is very straightforward on what harms and helps transgender people. They have been studied for over a century at this point. We have had quite a bit of time to figure out the nuances of these issues.

Most of them just want to be able to live their own lives, be respected and accepted for who they are, and avoid having everyone poke and prod through their private medical records.

I think transphobes might want to do trans people harm. That is the opposite of my goals.

Okay, I am glad to hear that. I was honestly quite unsure of that entirely.

The positions you are proposing will do serious harm to transgender people as a direct consequence of what you are advocating for. We know this with almost certainty. If you do not want to unfairly harm transgender people, then you have to let them use the restroom that corresponds with their gender and stop associating them with sex offenders.

You are stigmatizing transgender women by stoking the fear that they are all secretly rapists pretending to be women. I accept that this is unlikely to be your intent but this is the consequence.

It seems to me that you are ascribing to TRAs some superior wisdom when it comes to shaping society. How did they acquire such expertise? When I look at their agenda, I see the opposite. I see ham-handed, destructiveness.



Not only have I heard their concerns, I have several times steelmanned them. The opposite has not occurred.



I am hearing you, we're simply disagreeing I know that must be shocking, but the TRA agenda is quite assailable

It is possible to criticize transgender rights activists.

However, it is difficult to criticize any form of civil rights activism without an in-depth understanding on the topic, the issues they face, and a general understanding of how civil rights activism functions in general. If we cannot double-check our own privilege and our own prejudices, which is a common practice in civil rights activism for strong and historically important reasons, then we should not speak up on these topics.

This is true for transgender activism. In order to engage in it, one should understand what gender is, what transgender people experience, the current medical practices regarding gender dysphoria, why activists oppose misgendering transgender people, why transgender people undergo transition, and what attitudes and beliefs characterize transphobia.

I think you are probably not transgender, if you do not mind me saying so. You are coming to this topic with genuine fears and worries that are completely understandable. From your perspective, there is a real danger here. I understand that.

However, that does not justify your undermining of civil rights and your advocacy for narratives and practices that stigmatize and harm transgender people. I understand that you have your reasons for doing so, but I implore you: please, please reconsider what you are doing here. You are not helping anyone.

 

[icehorse]

The science of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and anthropology is that transgender women are women. Language conventions tell us that gender is not a one-to-one correspondence with sex.

It is not warping language or science to point out their proper use.

Please define "gender" and "sex". I ask because I think TRAs are actively attempting to force new definitions onto the public, and I'd like to know which definitions you're using. thanks!

As a sign of good faith, I will reiterate that I believe:

- sex is a matter of biology, not how a person identifies
- a woman is an adult, biologically female, woman
- gender has to do with a person's roles in society (I know that's over simplified)

I believe that we cannot conflate sex and gender.

We are not discussing safe houses or women's shelters. We are discussing rest rooms.

That might have been true 150 posts ago, but...

I am not quite sure what you mean by "biological female?" It seems likely that whether one is transgender or not is partially biological and based on one's "mental sex."

Are you talking about anatomical sex? Chromosomal sex? Why are you redefining what a woman is in order to intentionally exclude trans women?

Aside from that, "female" is a gendered term. It sometimes refers to a specific sex depending on the context, but even in biology it can mean different things depending on the context. Hence the division between anatomical and chromosomal sex.

What about transgender women who have undergone sexual reassignment surgery to change their anatomical sex? Do you still discount them?

I think it ultimately has to get down to DNA. My definition of female is not new! The TRAs have recently been trying to upend my definition, but my definition is the long standing one.

What I'm trying to do is protect women's rights. I'm fine finding ways to protect trans people, but NOT at the expense of women.

The surgery question is not black and white. I suppose that in super-rare cases a biological male could start puberty blockers and hormone therapy at an early age, and not develop the superior strength men typically have. IF that rare individual then undergoes sex change surgery, I guess that for the sake of using restrooms, I'd be okay. But that person is still NOT a woman.

What is wrong with using the true term "trans woman". What is your evidence that that term threatens the safety of the individual?

I promise you that I am not trying to bully you. It is not my intention to use divisive language.

I was not aware that you would take such great offense to having your transphobia pointed out to you. I was under the impression that you cared about transgender people and that you would take those concerns seriously rather than reduce them to some kind of personal attack. I was hoping that, if I explained this in more detail, you would come to understand that I am not trying to offend or bully you.

I apologize that I have upset you. It was not my intention.

I appreciate this, sincerely. That said, I'm not really upset. I actually think it's oddly amusing that taking ANY stance against TRAs so reliably elicits such responses.

But the fact remains, that to claim I'm a transphobe is a slur, no matter how kind your intentions. You could say "that argument sounds transphobic because...", and that's much more honest.

And once again, I think anyone who supports the TRA agenda in total, is actually hurting trans people, despite their best intentions.

Suffering from being misgendered is one of the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria. In many transgender people, gender dysphoria is so severe that it drives them to suicide.

How is the term "trans woman" misgendering. Again, I'd like to understand your definitions!

Properly gendering transgender people is the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria. Helping a transgender woman fully transition and socially pass as their gender identity rather than their assigned gender alleviates symptoms of gender dysphoria in 99% of cases. That is a remarkably efficient treatment for any medical intervention.

Sincerely, I think most of those stats came from "the Dutch study", and that study is not holding up well to renewed scrutiny. I will - once again - post a link to an article that covers this:

Denmark Joins the List of Countries Who Have Sharply Restricted Youth Gender Transitions

As I've said repeatedly over the last few months: As much as anyone, I hope youth suicide rates go down. So if these extreme interventions ACTUALLY do that, fantastic!!! BUT !!! If they do not, then they are nothing short of horrific. As the article explains, the efficacy of these interventions is now under serious doubt. If we REALLY care about gender dysphoric people, we should take this very seriously.

There would be no real problem for them or wider society if we simply treated them as their gender. It is a solution that helps a large group of people without hurting anyone.

Your fears about transgender people are poorly founded. They are not trying to rape you.

The positions you are proposing will do serious harm to transgender people as a direct consequence of what you are advocating for. We know this with almost certainty. If you do not want to unfairly harm transgender people, then you have to let them use the restroom that corresponds with their gender and stop associating them with sex offenders.

You are stigmatizing transgender women by stoking the fear that they are all secretly rapists pretending to be women. I accept that this is unlikely to be your intent but this is the consequence.

I have clarified my position before, I'll assume not to you, so here goes again:

I am NOT claiming that trans people are any more or less violent than other people.
I am NOT afraid of trans people.
But some trans women are making a point of looking like men. Some even have beards as a sort of provocateur stance?
So the real fear here is that EVIL STRAIGHT MEN will take advantage of the situation and enter women's safe spaces under the guise of being trans. So the issue here is normalizing the occurrence of people WHO LOOK LIKE MEN, entering women's safe spaces. This puts ALL women at increased risk.

Do we need to protect trans people? Yes!!!! but not by increasing the risk for all women.

However, that does not justify your undermining of civil rights and your advocacy for narratives and practices that stigmatize and harm transgender people. I understand that you have your reasons for doing so, but I implore you: please, please reconsider what you are doing here. You are not helping anyone.

I'm sorry, but I'm advocating for the safety of my wife, my daughters, and all women.

I believe we can find solutions for the problems trans people have, without endangering women.

So the TRAs might have the best intentions, but they have some poor solutions.

So I implore you: don't throw ALL WOMEN under the bus in your support of poor solutions.

I believe you and I have the same goals, I also believe we can find better solutions than the ones on offer.

 

[Ella S.]

Please define "gender" and "sex". I ask because I think TRAs are actively attempting to force new definitions onto the public, and I'd like to know which definitions you're using. thanks!

As a sign of good faith, I will reiterate that I believe:

- sex is a matter of biology, not how a person identifies
- a woman is an adult, biologically female, woman
- gender has to do with a person's roles in society (I know that's over simplified)

I believe that we cannot conflate sex and gender.

I have already gone into great detail about what these words mean and why your definitions here simply do not line up with science or linguistic convention.

You have yet to provide any reasonable counter-points to what I have said. You are simply ignoring what I said and re-stating your position.

I think it ultimately has to get down to DNA. My definition of female is not new! The TRAs have recently been trying to upend my definition, but my definition is the long standing one.

I would say that any definition that relies on DNA would have to be a new definition, given that we only discovered DNA fairly recently. We discovered DNA after we began studying gender dysphoria, which means that trans-affirming understandings of "female" technically predate the concept of chromosomal sex.

What I'm trying to do is protect women's rights. I'm fine finding ways to protect trans people, but NOT at the expense of women.

It doesn't have to be the strict dichotomy you are making here.

The surgery question is not black and white. I suppose that in super-rare cases a biological male could start puberty blockers and hormone therapy at an early age, and not develop the superior strength men typically have. IF that rare individual then undergoes sex change surgery, I guess that for the sake of using restrooms, I'd be okay. But that person is still NOT a woman.

What about cisgender women who are bodybuilders? They could overpower other women with their superior strength, too. Should they be forced to use men's restrooms?

I appreciate this, sincerely. That said, I'm not really upset. I actually think it's oddly amusing that taking ANY stance against TRAs so reliably elicits such responses.

But the fact remains, that to claim I'm a transphobe is a slur, no matter how kind your intentions. You could say "that argument sounds transphobic because...", and that's much more honest.

And once again, I think anyone who supports the TRA agenda in total, is actually hurting trans people, despite their best intentions.

I never claimed you were a transphobe, as I said. Why do you keep mischaracterizing my posts?

Sincerely, I think most of those stats came from "the Dutch study", and that study is not holding up well to renewed scrutiny. I will - once again - post a link to an article that covers this:

Denmark Joins the List of Countries Who Have Sharply Restricted Youth Gender Transitions

As I've said repeatedly over the last few months: As much as anyone, I hope youth suicide rates go down. So if these extreme interventions ACTUALLY do that, fantastic!!! BUT !!! If they do not, then they are nothing short of horrific. As the article explains, the efficacy of these interventions is now under serious doubt. If we REALLY care about gender dysphoric people, we should take this very seriously.

When did this become about transgender youth, specifically? How is this relevant to the conversation?

I have clarified my position before, I'll assume not to you, so here goes again:

I am NOT claiming that trans people are any more or less violent than other people.
I am NOT afraid of trans people.
But some trans women are making a point of looking like men. Some even have beards as a sort of provocateur stance?
So the real fear here is that EVIL STRAIGHT MEN will take advantage of the situation and enter women's safe spaces under the guise of being trans. So the issue here is normalizing the occurrence of people WHO LOOK LIKE MEN, entering women's safe spaces. This puts ALL women at increased risk.

Yes, I heard you.

You think that we should keep in mind that people who appear to be transgender women could actually be "EVIL STRAIGHT MEN" and that we should treat them as potential risks. Your solution is to unfairly bar transgender women from using the bathrooms which correspond with their gender.

Do you understand why I do not agree with your approach?

I'm sorry, but I'm advocating for the safety of my wife, my daughters, and all women.

I believe we can find solutions for the problems trans people have, without endangering women.

So the TRAs might have the best intentions, but they have some poor solutions.

So I implore you: don't throw ALL WOMEN under the bus in your support of poor solutions.

I believe you and I have the same goals, I also believe we can find better solutions than the ones on offer.

I am a woman. Other cisgender women, in this thread, have been agreeing with my posts and support allowing transgender women to use women's restrooms.

Other cisgender women have also advocated for allowing transgender women into safe spaces meant for women, too. I understand that you care about the safety of women and that is, in my opinion, a good thing. You are also not the only who cares.

This is not a "cisgender woman vs transgender woman" issue. This is a transgender rights issue. You are, by your own admission, taking an active stance against transgender rights.

You can care about cisgender women and support transgender women. The false dichotomy you are creating here where it is women against "EVIL STRAIGHT MEN...under the guise of being trans" is one of prejudice towards trans people, not concern towards women.

If you are concerned about women's rights and safety, then I think you should look into intersectional feminism. There is a reason why support transgender women is, in the broader picture, actually a good way to support all women in general. You are focusing on this single issue without an understanding of the issue itself or the bigger picture that it fits into.

I have given you further avenues to try to understand. However, you are mischaracterizing my statements and flat-out ignoring large, relevant points that I am making. You have tried to derail the subject with a number of tangents. You demand to receive special treatment towards your ideas and concerns when you cannot even do the bare minimum to understand the perspective of those who disagree with you. You demand that I avoid using pointed language towards you while you use it against everyone else.

You are being unreasonable and illogical. You are capable of being better than this, I know you are. If you are genuinely concerned about the well-being of anyone, then you need to enter these discussions with a desire to understand, not this anger towards transgender activists and general disregard for transgender rights.

 

[icehorse]

I have already gone into great detail about what these words mean and why your definitions here simply do not line up with science or linguistic convention.

I'm not intentionally ignoring you, if I forgot something, I apologize. Now, are you referring to what you said in post 190, or an older post. If it's older, could you do me a favor and tell me which one?

You have yet to provide any reasonable counter-points to what I have said. You are simply ignoring what I said and re-stating your position.

These are conclusions we do not share..

I would say that any definition that relies on DNA would have to be a new definition, given that we only discovered DNA fairly recently. We discovered DNA after we began studying gender dysphoria, which means that trans-affirming understandings of "female" technically predate the concept of chromosomal sex.

The word transgender originated in the 60's, but I think this history angle isn't very useful. I will amend my earlier answer to say that sex is defined by Biological science, not psychology the softer sciences you mentioned.

It doesn't have to be the strict dichotomy you are making here.

I literally said I was open to ANY solution that doesn't adversely affect all women. How is that a dichotomy?

What about cisgender women who are bodybuilders? They could overpower other women with their superior strength, too. Should they be forced to use men's restrooms?

I would agree that our current solutions are imperfect. But that's no reason to make them worse.

When did this become about transgender youth, specifically? How is this relevant to the conversation?

These long threads have a tendency to drift a bit from the OPs.

You think that we should keep in mind that people who appear to be transgender women could actually be "EVIL STRAIGHT MEN" and that we should treat them as potential risks. Your solution is to unfairly bar transgender women from using the bathrooms which correspond with their gender.

Do you understand why I do not agree with your approach?

You are close to my point, and I sincerely appreciate the steelman My point is that we should not make normal the idea that people who look like men can enter women's safe spaces unquestioned.

Yes, you are correct, because of the problem I just mentioned I think we need to benefit the many over the few. And as a society we make these kinds of decisions all the time. People have put forth ideas like making more single user rest rooms, that would be a fine solution.

I'm not sure I can steelman you here? And I don't want to be insulting if I cannot. I'm guessing that in this case you disagree with "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few"? but I really don't know.

I am a woman. Other cisgender women, in this thread, have been agreeing with my posts and support allowing transgender women to use women's restrooms.

Other cisgender women have also advocated for allowing transgender women into safe spaces meant for women, too. I understand that you care about the safety of women and that is, in my opinion, a good thing. You are also not the only who cares.

This is not a "cisgender woman vs transgender woman" issue. This is a transgender rights issue. You are, by your own admission, taking an active stance against transgender rights.

I would say this is a sort of zero-sum women's rights vs. trans women's rights issue. And yes, I'll say it again, as we usually do in society, we make laws and customs that follow the "good of the many" perspective.

So to be clear, I think it is a mistake to allow trans women into women's safe spaces. If anything, you should be railing against those trans women whose goal it appears to be to troll everyone and look like men. This is an extremely selfish and dangerous activity.

If you are concerned about women's rights and safety, then I think you should look into intersectional feminism. There is a reason why support transgender women is, in the broader picture, actually a good way to support all women in general. You are focusing on this single issue without an understanding of the issue itself or the bigger picture that it fits into.

This is a new conversation, I'll be happy to respond if you want to start a new thread.

I have given you further avenues to try to understand. However, you are mischaracterizing my statements and flat-out ignoring large, relevant points that I am making. You have tried to derail the subject with a number of tangents. You demand to receive special treatment towards your ideas and concerns when you cannot even do the bare minimum to understand the perspective of those who disagree with you. You demand that I avoid using pointed language towards you while you use it against everyone else.

I feel the same way about your posts. That said, I'm finding our debate to be one of the most civil and thoughtful I've encountered on this topic. So if you want, we can both go back and take inventory of points we've made that we think have been ignored, and we can revisit those. Kind of a pain, but I'd do it.

You demand that I avoid using pointed language towards you while you use it against everyone else.

My policy is to never initiate a slur. But if I slur is aimed at me, I often respond in kind.

I don't mind pointed language, I mind slurs.

You are being unreasonable and illogical.

Sorry, that's example of a slur. I understand that we disagree. But from my perspective, your arguments have not been bomb proof or rock solid. Nobody appointed you the arbiter here, so your conclusions about my logic or lack thereof are - at this point - just your opinions. If you want to lay out a chain of my claims and demonstrate the lack of logic, that's fine. But your "opinion" on the topic is meaningless.

If you are genuinely concerned about the well-being of anyone, then you need to enter these discussions with a desire to understand, not this anger towards transgender activists and general disregard for transgender rights.

I'm looking for good solutions. I believe I understand the TRA agenda pretty well. From my perspective, you've mostly just reiterated the TRA talking points and have sidestepped many of my questions and responses.

So again, we can take inventory if you want to...

 

[Secret Chief]

Just seen this! Got to annoy the hell out of some folk...

- Edinburgh Fringe: Musical set in gender neutral toilet becomes hot ticket

 

[anna.]

When a person uses a slur, they might be correct or they might be incorrect. The correctness of their position is independent of using the slur. A slur, is a slur, is a slur.

I would hope that we could debate IDEAS, and never start phrases with "you are a ....".

Sorry, your answer wasn't clear to me. Did you hope to never start phrases with "your bullying allies?"

 

[anna.]

I am a woman. Other cisgender women, in this thread, have been agreeing with my posts and support allowing transgender women to use women's restrooms.

Other cisgender women have also advocated for allowing transgender women into safe spaces meant for women, too. I understand that you care about the safety of women and that is, in my opinion, a good thing. You are also not the only who cares.

This is not a "cisgender woman vs transgender woman" issue. This is a transgender rights issue. You are, by your own admission, taking an active stance against transgender rights.

You can care about cisgender women and support transgender women. The false dichotomy you are creating here where it is women against "EVIL STRAIGHT MEN...under the guise of being trans" is one of prejudice towards trans people, not concern towards women.

I support allowing transgender women to use women's restrooms and I agree with you that this is a transgender rights issue. The bathroom danger issue has been hyped by those who think the danger comes from transgenders being allowed to use the women's restroom. As a woman, I have always known that the danger doesn't come from men who "dress up" in order to get into the women's restroom. The danger comes from men who don't.

 

[icehorse]

Sorry, your answer wasn't clear to me. Did you hope to never start phrases with "your bullying allies?"

As I said before, I don't initiate slurs, but I will respond in kind.

 

[anna.]

As I said before, I don't initiate slurs, but I will respond in kind.

So a slur is acceptable as long as it's a reciprocated slur? Just trying to understand you, in case I've been lumped in by extension with "bullying allies" and I initiate reciprocation.

Also you rated my previous post a winner, but you may not have understood my intent, or my intent wasn't clear. For me, as a woman, it isn't transgender inclusive bathroom policies where the danger lies.

 

[icehorse]

So a slur is acceptable as long as it's a reciprocated slur? Just trying to understand you, in case I've been lumped in by extension with "bullying allies" and I initiate reciprocation.

I'd rather slurs be eliminated all together. According to forum guidelines we're all meant to avoid them. But I don't think turning the other cheek is healthy. As for whether you've been lumped in, I don't recall whether you've initiated a slur or not?

Also you rated my previous post a winner, but you may not have understood my intent, or my intent wasn't clear. For me, as a woman, it isn't transgender inclusive bathroom policies where the danger lies.

I support allowing transgender women to use women's restrooms and I agree with you that this is a transgender rights issue. The bathroom danger issue has been hyped by those who think the danger comes from transgenders being allowed to use the women's restroom. As a woman, I have always known that the danger doesn't come from men who "dress up" in order to get into the women's restroom. The danger comes from men who don't.

And this is what I've been trying to say. My worry is about men going into women's safe spaces.

Here's where it seems people get confused: Many trans women no longer care about looking like women, i.e. they look like men. When it becomes acceptable for people-in-general, who look like men, to enter into women's safe spaces, evil-non-trans-men will take advantage of that new normal.

 

[anna.]

I'd rather slurs be eliminated all together. According to forum guidelines we're all meant to avoid them. But I don't think turning the other cheek is healthy. As for whether you've been lumped in, I don't recall whether you've initiated a slur or not?

I don't know that we'd both agree on what a slur is. Being told you're being unreasonable, as someone said to you, doesn't mean you've been slurred, as you said you were. I've watched you complain about being bullied when it doesn't appear that you're being bullied at all. It seems more of a debate tactic of yours, a badge of honor, a way of setting yourself above the fray as a better debater when you're actually in the fray like all the rest of us plebes, you're just using distancing words to reduce your culpability.

And this is what I've been trying to say. My worry is about men going into women's safe spaces.

Here's where it seems people get confused: Many trans women no longer care about looking like women, i.e. they look like men. When it becomes acceptable for people-in-general, who look like men, to enter into women's safe spaces, evil-non-trans-men will take advantage of that new normal.

I don't agree with you or with your argument. I'm the woman here, not you. I'm using the women's room, not you. And I'm the one who stands to be concerned if concern was indicated. Not you.

I'm not confused. Your "many trans women no longer care about looking like women" allegation hasn't been supported with facts or figures (and no, I didn't need the "i.e.", which should actually be e.g.); neither are you inclined to provide support for your allegations, since you leave to others the work of supporting your allegations. (You literally said this recently.)