"A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man. Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support."
Also, to be clear, this is my position too. I've never said any different and have said this several times. Including in this very conversation with you on this article. It is impossible (and infuriating) to have a …
"A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man. Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support."
Also, to be clear, this is my position too. I've never said any different and have said this several times. Including in this very conversation with you on this article. It is impossible (and infuriating) to have a conversation with you if you're not reading what I say or are insisting that I hold a position I don't.
There are several ways that support could play out. The most obvious being that trans women create provisions for trans women. That's what women did, I don't understand this idea that it's impossible for trans women to do the same.
Another option, in some cases, is that we have a serious and careful conversation about what a trans woman is, so that we can all immediately and uncontroversially say that a man who commits rape twice and spontaneously declares himself a woman is not a woman.
You're hung up on this notion of "malicious men." But it's not only about malice. Women want and deserve private spaces from men. Spaces where they can get undressed or use the toilet or take refuge from the creepy guy in a bar, and know there won't be any men (however they're dressed) inside.
I'm not a malicious man, but they still wouldn't want me in there, because they can’t tell whether I’m malicious or not just by looking at me. And I completely understand and support this. It's that simple.
Of course the trans-community needs to lead in sorting out what a trans woman is versus a malicious man or what you identify as women who want and deserve private spaces from men and trans-women. (I use men for a person who identifies as cis-male. I don't call a trans-woman a man).
I don't have gender dysphoria. It seems clear you don't either. By your statement, you are an alley of both the trans-community and woman who want women only spaces.
If your an alley, how do you propose to support trans-woman (and trans-men).
No. This is why you never actually learn anything and end up repeating the same debunked talking points in the next conversation. Because you never stay with a topic, when you discover you're wrong, for long enough to absorb the new information.
Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals? And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?
Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?
You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognise that they've failed badly to do this?
Re-reading the whole thread. Realize I never responded to this question.
I agree that they (i.e. the trans activist community e.g. HRC) has created positions that don't include cis-woman who want only cis-woman spaces and activities views. There are many cis-woman who have no issues with a trans-woman in their spaces. There is no simple "side" to the debate.
My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion. It is anything but black and white when you consider all the opinions that people including many famous people have stated.
Your view is just one view. The UK court and Trump have confirmed one part of your view. Trans-man is not a man and a trans-woman is not a woman. Other countries and many people do not agree with these positions.
"Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals?
Yes, awareness of trans-people and the goals of trans-activists.
And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?"
Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them.
Pose as a series was a great way to understand the trans-community.
What else do you believe has changed?
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I accept that there is a set of cis-woman (e.g. JK Rowling) who want to have their traditional cis-woman only spaces not be open to trans-men.
Do you accept that it's not all cis women who want this?
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion. There are many in the trans-community that don't agree with the trans-activists and just want to continue their life. As as said above, there are man cis-woman who don't seem to have a problem with a trans-woman in woman only spaces and don't seem to be concerned about malicious men in their spaces as a big problem. Likely because they view that nothing has changed. They always had to be cautious about malicious men in their spaces.
Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion.
"No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion."
No, this is the point. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on what a woman is, it's up to the trans community to figure out what a trans woman is.
"Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them."
Here you have to be precise about what you mean by trans person. Trans person used to mean transsexual. But now it includes transvestites like Izzard, rapists like Bryson, and bandwagons like Mulvaney.
All of these people have been widely described as trans people. So if you're insisting on narrowly defining trans as transsexual, you're missing the point.
"Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion."
The legal system requires clarity. It is built on legal definitions and precedent. You can flounder around with equivocations forever if you like, but eventually, you have to be precise if you want to say anything meaningful.
The US Supreme Court has not ruled on what is a woman. UK Supreme Court did. Specifically from an English language perspective as related to the UK Equality Act 2010 where woman in the act refers to chromosomal sex. They also at the same time reaffirmed that trans-people are a protected class. Not clear what the UK parliament will do given the ruling.
As for your statement: "The legal system requires clarity."
You're likely a person that believes in the rule of law. Before I comment, wondering if that is true?
"My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion."
How have I done that? The entire thesis of the article is that we need a workable definition of what a trans woman is. How can we possibly talk about the grey areas of trans women's inclusion before we know what a trans woman is?
Tell me, specifically, preferably using quotes from the article, how I've framed trans inclusion as a "black and white discussion."
As I have written in my other posts, it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above. Seems pretty obvious to me. But I get, you seem to have trouble with the way I communicate.
In this statement:
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I clarified that non all women and I believe not all and not even necessarily a majority of women in the west (where women is defined by chromosomal sex) "have a right to and need for private spaces from men". You're attributing a black and white view to women.
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
You once again attributed your black and white views on the issue to the term "trans-community" and "woman".
I specifically clarified to "trans-activist-community" that believes a trans-woman = a woman. From my experience, many in the trans-community don't hold that position.
Hopefully that helps you understand why from my perspective you seem to hold black and white beliefs.
"it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above"
I use terms like women and trans community because I'm writing about women and the trans community. What am I supposed to do?!
I'm using them both as umbrella terms and obviously don't mean every single member of either group. Even every single member of the trans activist community doesn't hold identical views on gender. Far from it.
This is just so painfully obvious that I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Everybody else seemed to understand just fine. If I need to couch every single statement behind conditionals and "not all Xs" it becomes unreadable very quickly.
"not all women [...] "have a right to and need for private spaces from men"
Maybe you don't understand how rights work. All women have a right to and need for specialised healthcare in the form of pregnancy-related care. But, of course, not all women can get pregnant or wish to get pregnant. But any women who DO get pregnant need this care and have a right to it.
The fact that some people don't use a right or even don't care about it doesn't mean they don't have that right.
BTW: you never asked why I have such a passion about the trans debate. I have referenced that in another comment:
a. I have daughters and granddaughters. Also my daughter is a psychologist who works with adolescents. We discuss what the right support is for a trans adolescent.
b. I have trans-people working for me. Want to be educated on how to best support them.
The concept of health care being a "right" is a whole 'nother debate. Lets not bring that into this discussion.
I'm not sure why you reference your comment. You seem to want to question another persons feelings when you have no real ability to step in the shoes of a trans-woman or a woman. Not clear how that works.
Interesting that you fault me for clarifying by being specific. Wonder where the need to do that comes from?
"A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-man is not a man. Gender dysphoria is real and those who experience it need support."
Also, to be clear, this is my position too. I've never said any different and have said this several times. Including in this very conversation with you on this article. It is impossible (and infuriating) to have a conversation with you if you're not reading what I say or are insisting that I hold a position I don't.
There are several ways that support could play out. The most obvious being that trans women create provisions for trans women. That's what women did, I don't understand this idea that it's impossible for trans women to do the same.
Another option, in some cases, is that we have a serious and careful conversation about what a trans woman is, so that we can all immediately and uncontroversially say that a man who commits rape twice and spontaneously declares himself a woman is not a woman.
You're hung up on this notion of "malicious men." But it's not only about malice. Women want and deserve private spaces from men. Spaces where they can get undressed or use the toilet or take refuge from the creepy guy in a bar, and know there won't be any men (however they're dressed) inside.
I'm not a malicious man, but they still wouldn't want me in there, because they can’t tell whether I’m malicious or not just by looking at me. And I completely understand and support this. It's that simple.
Lets redirect the conversation.
Of course the trans-community needs to lead in sorting out what a trans woman is versus a malicious man or what you identify as women who want and deserve private spaces from men and trans-women. (I use men for a person who identifies as cis-male. I don't call a trans-woman a man).
I don't have gender dysphoria. It seems clear you don't either. By your statement, you are an alley of both the trans-community and woman who want women only spaces.
If your an alley, how do you propose to support trans-woman (and trans-men).
"Lets redirect the conversation."
No. This is why you never actually learn anything and end up repeating the same debunked talking points in the next conversation. Because you never stay with a topic, when you discover you're wrong, for long enough to absorb the new information.
Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals? And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?
Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?
You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognise that they've failed badly to do this?
Re-reading the whole thread. Realize I never responded to this question.
I agree that they (i.e. the trans activist community e.g. HRC) has created positions that don't include cis-woman who want only cis-woman spaces and activities views. There are many cis-woman who have no issues with a trans-woman in their spaces. There is no simple "side" to the debate.
My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion. It is anything but black and white when you consider all the opinions that people including many famous people have stated.
Your view is just one view. The UK court and Trump have confirmed one part of your view. Trans-man is not a man and a trans-woman is not a woman. Other countries and many people do not agree with these positions.
You haven't directly answered the questions from the comment above. Stop trying to gloss over them.
"Do you accept that some things are in fact different from the old days of transsexuals?
Yes, awareness of trans-people and the goals of trans-activists.
And that your repeated insistence that "nothing has changed" is wrong?"
Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them.
Pose as a series was a great way to understand the trans-community.
What else do you believe has changed?
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I accept that there is a set of cis-woman (e.g. JK Rowling) who want to have their traditional cis-woman only spaces not be open to trans-men.
Do you accept that it's not all cis women who want this?
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion. There are many in the trans-community that don't agree with the trans-activists and just want to continue their life. As as said above, there are man cis-woman who don't seem to have a problem with a trans-woman in woman only spaces and don't seem to be concerned about malicious men in their spaces as a big problem. Likely because they view that nothing has changed. They always had to be cautious about malicious men in their spaces.
Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion.
"No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion."
No, this is the point. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on what a woman is, it's up to the trans community to figure out what a trans woman is.
"Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them."
Here you have to be precise about what you mean by trans person. Trans person used to mean transsexual. But now it includes transvestites like Izzard, rapists like Bryson, and bandwagons like Mulvaney.
All of these people have been widely described as trans people. So if you're insisting on narrowly defining trans as transsexual, you're missing the point.
"Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion."
The legal system requires clarity. It is built on legal definitions and precedent. You can flounder around with equivocations forever if you like, but eventually, you have to be precise if you want to say anything meaningful.
The US Supreme Court has not ruled on what is a woman. UK Supreme Court did. Specifically from an English language perspective as related to the UK Equality Act 2010 where woman in the act refers to chromosomal sex. They also at the same time reaffirmed that trans-people are a protected class. Not clear what the UK parliament will do given the ruling.
As for your statement: "The legal system requires clarity."
You're likely a person that believes in the rule of law. Before I comment, wondering if that is true?
"My biggest issue with your initial article and your reply here is that you frame it as a black and white discussion."
How have I done that? The entire thesis of the article is that we need a workable definition of what a trans woman is. How can we possibly talk about the grey areas of trans women's inclusion before we know what a trans woman is?
Tell me, specifically, preferably using quotes from the article, how I've framed trans inclusion as a "black and white discussion."
As I have written in my other posts, it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above. Seems pretty obvious to me. But I get, you seem to have trouble with the way I communicate.
In this statement:
"Do you accept that this is about more than "malicious men" and that women have a right to and need for private spaces from men, even if those men aren't malicious?"
I clarified that non all women and I believe not all and not even necessarily a majority of women in the west (where women is defined by chromosomal sex) "have a right to and need for private spaces from men". You're attributing a black and white view to women.
"You appear to have accepted that it's up to the trans community to lead in the definition of what a trans woman is, which is the entire thesis of the article you're arguing with. Do you recognize that they've failed badly to do this?"
You once again attributed your black and white views on the issue to the term "trans-community" and "woman".
I specifically clarified to "trans-activist-community" that believes a trans-woman = a woman. From my experience, many in the trans-community don't hold that position.
Hopefully that helps you understand why from my perspective you seem to hold black and white beliefs.
"it refers to how you use broad concepts like women and trans-community as I have written above"
I use terms like women and trans community because I'm writing about women and the trans community. What am I supposed to do?!
I'm using them both as umbrella terms and obviously don't mean every single member of either group. Even every single member of the trans activist community doesn't hold identical views on gender. Far from it.
This is just so painfully obvious that I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you. Everybody else seemed to understand just fine. If I need to couch every single statement behind conditionals and "not all Xs" it becomes unreadable very quickly.
See also:
https://commentary.steveqj.com/p/the-long-overdue-question-of-what/comment/114338834
"not all women [...] "have a right to and need for private spaces from men"
Maybe you don't understand how rights work. All women have a right to and need for specialised healthcare in the form of pregnancy-related care. But, of course, not all women can get pregnant or wish to get pregnant. But any women who DO get pregnant need this care and have a right to it.
The fact that some people don't use a right or even don't care about it doesn't mean they don't have that right.
BTW: you never asked why I have such a passion about the trans debate. I have referenced that in another comment:
a. I have daughters and granddaughters. Also my daughter is a psychologist who works with adolescents. We discuss what the right support is for a trans adolescent.
b. I have trans-people working for me. Want to be educated on how to best support them.
The concept of health care being a "right" is a whole 'nother debate. Lets not bring that into this discussion.
I'm not sure why you reference your comment. You seem to want to question another persons feelings when you have no real ability to step in the shoes of a trans-woman or a woman. Not clear how that works.
Interesting that you fault me for clarifying by being specific. Wonder where the need to do that comes from?