Gender again. Sorry!

[matticus]

Because it's clearly a simple binary argument. 100% right vs 100% wrong.

I'm going to be optimistic and state that jim is being ludic.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I'm going to be optimistic and state that jim is being ludic.

I learned that word last week from a theClaud post. Everyday is a school day here.

Optimism is always the best option.

 

[winjim]

 

[Ian H]

View attachment 2812

That is somewhat ludicrous.

 

[multitool]

That's my point though, Winjim. Multitool wants to narrow 'harm' to such a specific thing that no statistics could show it because the stats for most countries don't differentiate between where offences took place and most infringements aren't even recorded.

I'm after discussing something tangible, rather than somebody's well-trodden rhetoric. Proof by assertion is not proof. WRT collection of statistics in S-Id countries, I'm not going to take your word for it. But I will say this, there is therefore no proof (for whatever reason) of an increase in attacks or abuse of self ID by predatory men that did not happen prior to legal changes.

Last year Tasmania ruled that lesbians cannot exclude men from meetings because they have self-ID laws. Lesbian women literally cannot meet now knowing that the meeting will be all same sex attracted women. It's not rape in a toilet, it's not filming under cubicles even, but it's a harmful effect of self-ID and it matters.

Good. Something tangible, at last.

And Multitool doesn't even want to say how much of an increase in recorded sex crimes would be too many. He wants to see the stats before he can decide if it's a price it's worth making women pay.

No. I just want to see some stats. Why? Because in some of the oft-quoted examples of women's spaces being under threat I'm trying to establish if the legal change to self-ID will make any difference to how self-ID works WRT entry to these places currently. For example, many women's refuges rely on self ID already. Many accept trans women. All of them exclude people for all sorts of reasons, for example if they feel the person is not in danger. I'm asking you to give some examples of when a man has, can or will gain access to these places on a whim. In other words, access to these places is not contigent upon merely presenting yourself and declaring "I am a woman".

You are very keen on dishing out emotion-based attacks, casting aspertions on my mindset and my motivations, to which I will say this: you represent one view of one group of people. You do not represent the views of all women, and to illustrate this I will draw your attention to the details of the vote for Self ID in the Scottish Parliament. Of the 53 women who voted, 42 voted in favour of Self ID. That is 80%. Are these women (the 80%) agents of the patriarchy? Are they dismissive of issues around women's safety? Do they prioritise the rights of men over those of women?

Their debate was, for the most part, fact based and evidenced. This is what I had hoped for here. Philosophical discussions of 'what is a woman', or 'what us a man' are a related but separate issue.

 

[Rusty Nails]

That is somewhat ludicrous.

Ludo was not often ludic, but always Ludovic.

 

[multitool]

Many, many years ago, I knew his daughter

 

[Rusty Nails]

Many, many years ago, I knew his daughter

I sat next to him on a train out of London once. He didn't mention you, mind you he said nothing at all, just read.

 

[multitool]

Yes, he told me about it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Currently, refuges and, say, women only gyms, could refuse entry to men who identify as women because the law allows them to do so. The fact that some already allow transwomen to enter is neither here nor there.

If self-ID becomes law, then their chosen gender becomes the same as a legal sex and there would be no grounds to exclude them. At the moment women's single sex services can exclude men if they wish; under self-ID they could not. Just like the lesbian groups in Tasmania can no longer exclude them.

What we have at the moment is a polite/legal fiction where trans people are treated in many circumstances as their chosen sex not their birth sex, but can be excluded if 'proportionate'. Self-ID does away with that.

On what grounds would a hospital refuse to place a transwoman in a female ward if legally they are considered female? There wouldn't be any grounds.

Are these women (the 80%) agents of the patriarchy? Are they dismissive of issues around women's safety? Do they prioritise the rights of men over those of women?

Yes, unwitting agents of the patriarchy who imagine they are being kind and progressive. It's nothing new; plenty of women didn't want the vote a hundred years ago. Plenty of women don't see a problem with porn or prostitution either.

Yes, they are dismissive of issues. The chances of one of them being in prison or a refuge is near zero. Those kind of women are invisible to all of us. Which is why sports becomes the wedge issue - the unfairness is in front of your eyes not hidden.

Yes, they are prioritising the rights of men over women. A tiny percentage of men too. The patriarchy couldn't operate without willing or naive women who put men's needs first out of wanting to appear kind or progressive.

There is no public support for self-ID. Surveys in Scotland showed the public were against it. It wasn't on the SNP manifesto; it was pushed through, just like in Ireland. The UN Special Reporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalam, cautioned against it.

They still pushed it through because it has more to do with Nicola Sturgeon's ambition to draw lines between Scottish policy/laws and laws in England and Wales than anything else. It's another chance to establish Scotland as a nation apart.

So, yeah, we'll done Scotland. An end to exclusively female services in order to appease a tiny cohort of men, pushed through with very little public support, all done to boost Nicola Sturgeon's ego.

I've never claimed to speak for all women. Sadly, I think you speak for a lot of men who don't really think that men can be women but think that the chaps should always get what they want regardless.

 

[theclaud]

My concern I think comes from a dislike of the 'perp walk' favoured by American police

I'm with you there. My point really is that a bit of context is called for. There are obvious situations in which harping on about a person's pre-transition history against their wishes clearly amounts to discrimination or victimisation, and there are situations in which it might be relevant or necessary to refer to it in order to make sense of what's going on, especially when it comes to the prioritising the experience of others. Gender is a social phenomenon, not a property of individuals - that's a point that I think is going to have to be conceded by advocates for trans rights, and it's no more popular a point with the likes of Stonewall than it is with old-skool gender conservatives. I've said before that I think it's a shaky area of law - Aurora's wheeling out Winston as an authority in support of her argument, but he was instrumental in getting the GRA, which people on her 'side' of the row are now looking to abolish, through the Lords. It's not the fault of trans or other gender non-conforming people that respected and highly influential lawmakers don't seem to have much idea what they're talking about, and it isn't a reason to roll back protections.

 

[multitool]

Sadly, I think you speak for a lot of men who don't really think that men can be women but think that the chaps should always get what they want regardless.

I'm struggling to get my head round this putative subset of men who go around with two completely contradictory notions in their heads.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Personally, I wouldn't roll back the GRA. I know a lot of feminists think it's poor and confusing legislation but it does serve a purpose. I can see the issues with it but it does ensure some legal accommodation.

The contradictory notion is seen throughout this thread with some of you guys seeming to suggest that men can be women in some contexts but not others. How can that possibly be?

For example, there really doesn't seem to be much full on support for self ID in to the women's category in all sports on here. Or at least noone is coming out and saying it directly. But yet there's support for the general idea of self-ID. But if they aren't women in sport, they can't really be women anywhere, can they?

And whilst it's not really 'All or nothing' I think you'll find that if you don't support transwomen self-IDing into all women's sport, and/or aren't willing to include trans people in your dating pool, then transactivists would probably regard you as as big a 'Terf' as I am.

So welcome to the dark side, fellas.

 

[newfhouse]

The contradictory notion is seen throughout this thread with some of you guys seeming to suggest that men can be women in some contexts but not others. How can that possibly be?

For me the context is that in anything but the difficult areas - the ones we all agree are difficult - it doesn’t matter much if they are “real” men or women.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I almost agree. I think the change in language is important too though. I think 99% of the time sex doesn't matter, but when it does matter it can really matter. (Leaving aside all the kids puberty blocker/clinics stuff obvs).

I don't think transactivists would agree with you though as validation is a huge part of the issue.