4 ms·

Is it a dichotomy though? One can consider transwomen to be a variety of cross-dressing man, while also supporting their rights to live their lives freely witho

Is it a dichotomy though? One can consider transwomen to be a variety of cross-dressing man, while also supporting their rights to live their lives freely without abuse or harassment.

drekk 4y ago
You don't support their right to live freely without abuse or harassment if you call them "cross-dressing men". You can't have it both ways. There's no way to say "I think trans women are perverted deviant men in costumes trying to sexually assault people in women's restrooms" while also supporting trans rights. You are dehumanizing them with that statement.
- brengola 4y ago
  This: > if you call them "cross-dressing men" is a very different viewpoint to this: > to say "I think trans women are perverted deviant men in costumes trying to sexually assault people in women's restrooms" The first statement just points out that they are not really women. No big deal, just a statement of fact, and not at all incompatible with upholding their human rights. The second statement is full of unsubstantiated accusations about their conduct. I agree that it's intended to demonise and dehumanise. However, it's nothing at all like the first statement - to conflate the two is a nonsense.
  - drekk 4y ago
    The second statement is what is implied by Rowling's call for "biological women only restrooms". The first statement is not fact. "Not really women" according to whom? Do we have to test all "women" for karytotypes nowadays? What if their primary and secondary sex characteristics don't line up. If it's about reproduction then are sterile women not women? The fact of the matter is you cannot come up with a definition of womanhood that ONLY excludes trans women. It's kind of incredible people don't understand the dehumanization behind "you're just pretending sweetie I know your gender better than you" EDIT: it's also very much the case that these laws about ascertaining "biological sex" hurt cis women too. see Caster Semenya as an example. so if Rowling really cared about cis women she wouldn't be advocating for segregating trans people into their own spaces.
    - brengola 4y ago
      > The first statement is not fact. "Not really women" according to whom? Do you agree that they are male, though? And that they typically prefer to wear clothing and other adornments that are culturally associated with being female? > The second statement is what is implied by Rowling's call for "biological women only restrooms". It is not implied. The argument for excluding transwomen from female-only spaces is the same as for excluding any other male, and doesn't equate to the second statement you made. > see Caster Semenya as an example Caster Semenya is a male with testes, who has 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, a DSD which causes a highly undervirilized penis. Not the best example to cite considering that Semenya has competed and won in female athletics competitions, using the strength and endurance advantages of having undergone male puberty.

Is it a dichotomy though? One can consider transwomen to be a variety of cross-dressing man, while also supporting their rights to live their lives freely without abuse or harassment.

drekk 4y ago

You don't support their right to live freely without abuse or harassment if you call them "cross-dressing men". You can't have it both ways. There's no way to say "I think trans women are perverted deviant men in costumes trying to sexually assault people in women's restrooms" while also supporting trans rights. You are dehumanizing them with that statement.

brengola 4y ago
This: > if you call them "cross-dressing men" is a very different viewpoint to this: > to say "I think trans women are perverted deviant men in costumes trying to sexually assault people in women's restrooms" The first statement just points out that they are not really women. No big deal, just a statement of fact, and not at all incompatible with upholding their human rights. The second statement is full of unsubstantiated accusations about their conduct. I agree that it's intended to demonise and dehumanise. However, it's nothing at all like the first statement - to conflate the two is a nonsense.
- drekk 4y ago
  The second statement is what is implied by Rowling's call for "biological women only restrooms". The first statement is not fact. "Not really women" according to whom? Do we have to test all "women" for karytotypes nowadays? What if their primary and secondary sex characteristics don't line up. If it's about reproduction then are sterile women not women? The fact of the matter is you cannot come up with a definition of womanhood that ONLY excludes trans women. It's kind of incredible people don't understand the dehumanization behind "you're just pretending sweetie I know your gender better than you" EDIT: it's also very much the case that these laws about ascertaining "biological sex" hurt cis women too. see Caster Semenya as an example. so if Rowling really cared about cis women she wouldn't be advocating for segregating trans people into their own spaces.
  - brengola 4y ago
    > The first statement is not fact. "Not really women" according to whom? Do you agree that they are male, though? And that they typically prefer to wear clothing and other adornments that are culturally associated with being female? > The second statement is what is implied by Rowling's call for "biological women only restrooms". It is not implied. The argument for excluding transwomen from female-only spaces is the same as for excluding any other male, and doesn't equate to the second statement you made. > see Caster Semenya as an example Caster Semenya is a male with testes, who has 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, a DSD which causes a highly undervirilized penis. Not the best example to cite considering that Semenya has competed and won in female athletics competitions, using the strength and endurance advantages of having undergone male puberty.