Transgender

[ShanDog]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[biggiemediums]

Geez guys, you are getting hung up on semantics.

The problem being that words "xxxxphobic" are no longer descriptors as much as they are out-and-out labels that when applied to people seem to make them 100% a bad person, end of discussion.

No longer wanting to be intimate with a woman once you find out they have a penis is transphobic. sh*t, it's almost an example definition of the word. I can't see how you could argue against it.

But does ot make you a bad person? No. You are not refusing to hire them for work or excluding them from a club or anything.

Does it make you a bit behind the times or closed off to different experiences? Yeah it does. If you gave it a go and everything else about this person is great you might have a fantastic long term relationship. Same with any other 'criteria' that people use for partners (particular religion, race, kids/no kids, employed/unemployed, attractive/ugly). But by the same token you are allowed to have your criteria of what you like / don't like.

Hard disagree on the bolded. That is not transphobic. The same way not wanting to * a guy isn't homophobic.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The only answer here is “so what?”

I can’t see that you’ve come up with an argument that this has any impact on anyone or anything.

I've made my point several times. You say "so what?" I say these are the radical implications of some of the thinking within the trans rights movement.

The principle that "trans women are women regardless of biology" has been embraced as a fundamental tenet of the trans rights movement and within the progressive left. I think that's an uncontroversial statement.

The issue is that a section of trans activists have taken this principle and extrapolated it to its radical conclusion i.e. any discrimination based on genitalia is transphobic. When it comes to straight men not wanting to have sex with trans women who have penises, the argument would be that this discriminates based on genitalia and "excludes trans women from womanhood" and is therefore transphobic.

If folks think no one is making this argument, they're simply wrong or not paying attention. Look at the heat directed at JK Rowling for challenging the premise. And if folks object to the above conclusion about it being considered transphobic, it may also be the case that the principle that "trans women are women regardless of biology" needs to be challenged as well, because one begets the other.

The fact that you can't see the point here is immaterial. You've got quite a bit of form when it comes to refusing to acknowledge arguments you don't like. How many times have I had to explain cancel culture to you? Now you refuse to acknowledge some of the radical implications inherent in certain aspects of trans activism even though they're obvious. The truly irritating part is that you don't argue the point, which I would welcome. You simply insist "nah this isn't a thing" even after it's been repeatedly explained/demonstrated.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Hard disagree on the bolded. That is not transphobic. The same way not wanting to fu** a guy isn't homophobic.

That analogy doesn't hold.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Chief Let me simplify it for you all with this helpful flow chart:

Step 1: Do you agree that trans women are women regardless of biology?

If no, you're excluding trans women from womanhood and that's transphobic. If yes, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: If you met an otherwise attractive woman, would you still be willing to have sex with her after discovering she was in fact trans and had a penis?

If no, why not? You agreed trans women are women regardless of biology. So what's the problem if this beautiful woman has a penis? Are you excluding trans women from womanhood? Are you discriminating on the basis of genitalia? That's transphobic.

Step 3: Return to Step 1 and repeat.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Good for you!

You've just lost whatever you had left in credibility. Good for you!

 

[Suspense]

The principle that "trans women are women regardless of biology" has been embraced as a fundamental tenet of the trans rights movement and within the progressive left. I think that's an uncontroversial statement.

The issue is that a section of trans activists have taken this principle and extrapolated it to its radical conclusion i.e. any discrimination based on genitalia is transphobic. When it comes to straight men not wanting to have sex with trans women who have penises, the argument would be that this discriminates based on genitalia and "excludes trans women from womanhood" and is therefore transphobic.

If folks think no one is making this argument, they're simply wrong or not paying attention. Look at the heat directed at JK Rowling for challenging the premise. And if folks object to the above conclusion about it being considered transphobic, it may also be the case that the principle that "trans women are women regardless of biology" needs to be challenged as well, because one begets the other.

Not necessarily. The 'radical extrapolation' expressed by a small section of the community can be challenged in and of itself - without necessarily detracting from the validity of the commonly-held principle.

For example, I am a proponent of the principle of 'equality of opportunity' - but there are interpretations - both on the far-left and right - where I disagree with their views with respect to what this principle means/intends.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Not necessarily. The 'radical extrapolation' expressed by a small section of the community can be challenged in and of itself - without necessarily detracting from the validity of the commonly-held principle.

How?

If you agree that "trans women are women regardless of biology" then what is the rationale to discriminate on the basis of genitalia?

If you agree that "trans women are women regardless of biology" then how can you exclude a trans woman from womanhood simply because she has a penis?

Show me specifically where this chain of logic breaks down or how the dots don't connect.

Or perhaps the premise that "trans women are women regardless of biology" needs to be re-examined?

For example, I am a proponent of the principle of 'equality of opportunity' - but there are interpretations - both on the far-left and right - where I disagree with their views with respect to what this principle means/intends.

I'm not considering your totally unrelated analogy.

 

[Suspense]

How?

If you agree that "trans women are women regardless of biology" then what is the rationale to discriminate on the basis of genitalia?

If you agree that "trans women are women regardless of biology" then how can you exclude a trans woman from womanhood simply because she has a penis?

Or perhaps the premise that "trans women are women regardless of biology" needs to be re-examined?

No, just your literalist interpretation does - the principle in itself is fine.

Do you think most transwomen ask their doctor for a pap smear every three years? After all, don't they all believe "that trans women are women regardless of biology"?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No, just your literalist interpretation does - the principle in itself is fine.

The fact you fail to address the question speaks volumes.

And I don't know what you mean by my "literalist interpretation". I'm simply connecting the dots.

Do you think most transwomen ask their doctor for a pap smear every three years? After all, don't they all believe "that trans women are women regardless of biology"?

More evasion. And it makes no point. I'm not interested in your tangents and parallel arguments.

Refer to my previous post. If you can't break down that chain of logic, there's no point trying to reframe the question to something else.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I realise this wasn't addressed to me, but let me have a go;

Let me simplify it for you all with this helpful flow chart:

Step 1: Do you agree that trans women are women regardless of biology?

I think that in most facets of everyday life they should be treated as the gender they assert themselves to be. With one notable exception now, and maybe with another pending as soon as the 'equality in sports' question is settled beyond doubt.

If no, you're excluding trans women from womanhood and that's transphobic. If yes, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: If you met an otherwise attractive woman, would you still be willing to have sex with her after discovering she was in fact trans and had a penis?

If no, why not? You agreed trans women are women regardless of biology. So what's the problem if this beautiful woman has a penis? Are you excluding trans women from womanhood? Are you discriminating on the basis of genitalia? That's transphobic.

Trans women are women and should be treated that way. However, personal preference in sexual matters should and does overrule all. Consent matters more in every legal sense. If the existence of an unexpected body part is a dealbreaker then its a dealbreaker. The rejected will likely feel badly about themselves and may feel humiliated especially if things were going well just beforehand. But human agency is a powerful thing, and consent informed by preference is the sole driver here. The feelings of the rejected have no real bearing if a perspective partner up and leaves and the interaction is ended. This is not transphobia in a criminal sense. Nobody will be persecuted for this.

 

[Suspense]

The fact you fail to address the question speaks volumes.

Your questions are based on a false premise and a narrow literalist interpretation - held only by a radical minority of people within the trans community.

More evasion. And it makes no point. I'm not interested in your tangents and parallel arguments.

Refer to my previous post. If you can't break down that chain of logic, there's no point trying to reframe the question to something else.

Answer the question.

Do you think most transwomen ask their doctor for a pap smear every three years?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think that in most facets of everyday life they should be treated as the gender they assert themselves to be. With one notable exception now, and maybe with another pending as soon as the 'equality in sports' question is settled beyond doubt.

Why are there exceptions?

Do you agree that trans women are women regardless of biology or don't you?

Trans women are women and should be treated that way.

OK, so why would you discriminate on the basis of genitalia? Why would exclude trans women from womanhood? That's transphobic.

However, personal preference in sexual matters should and does overrule all. Consent matters more in every legal sense. If the existence of an unexpected body part is a dealbreaker then its a dealbreaker. The rejected will likely feel badly about themselves and may feel humiliated especially if things were going well just beforehand. But human agency is a powerful thing, and consent informed by preference is the sole driver here. The feelings of the rejected have no real bearing if a perspective partner up and leaves and the interaction is ended. This is not transphobia in a criminal sense. Nobody will be persecuted for this.

Yeah, I'm not interested in your constant reframing around consent. It's simply shifting the goal posts to avoid the salient point to talk about something unrelated instead.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Your questions are based on a false premise and a narrow literalist interpretation - held only by a radical minority of people within the trans community.

They're not. Your unwillingness to engage them or break down the chain of logic is telling.

Because you can't?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Yeah, I'm not interested in your constant reframing around consent. It's simply shifting the goal posts to avoid the salient point to talk about something unrelated instead.

Shifting the goalposts? It's the only framework that matters in human sexual relations! All sexual interaction must go through the goalmouth of consent, otherwise it aint lawful intercourse! I realise you're Jesus and you roll Your own way, but s**t has CHANGED since You were last here!!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Shifting the goalposts?

That's right.

Do you agree that trans women are women regardless of biology or don't you?

If so, why would you discriminate on the basis of genitalia? Why would you exclude trans women from womanhood? That's transphobic.

Or maybe biology is a factor after all?

It's the only framework that matters in human sexual relations! All sexual interaction must go through the goalmouth of consent, otherwise it aint lawful intercourse! I realise you're Jesus and you roll Your own way, but sh*t has CHANGED since You were last here!!

No one is talking about whether the intercourse is lawful or unlawful so it's irrelevant. It's not the issue yet you want to keep circling back to it in the hope it nullifies the uncomfortable conclusions.

 

[Suspense]

They're not. Your unwillingness to engage them or break down the chain of logic is telling.

Because you can't?

I've already explained this to you. It is possible to be a proponent of the principle that "trans women are women regardless of biology" within the social sphere/gender roles - whilst acknowledging there are other spheres in which one's biological sex is a relevant consideration.

Not only am I a proponent of this view - it is the commonly-held view within the community - which is why most transwomen do not ask their doctor for a pap smear every three years (because, privately [not publicly/socially], they acknowledge that they are both a woman and a biological male).

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That's right.

Do you agree that trans women are women regardless of biology or don't you?

If so, why would you discriminate on the basis of genitalia? Why would you exclude trans women from womanhood? That's transphobic.

You either want to sleep with someone or you don't. Saying 'no' to a trans person is not transphobic even within the trans community. To force someone to have sexual intercourse unwillingly is rape. Pure and simple. Consent is the only thing that matters here and it's the one thing we can all exercise without fear of legal reprisal.

You have nothing left.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I've already explained this to you. It is possible to be a proponent of the principle that "trans women are women regardless of biology" within the social sphere/gender roles - whilst acknowledging there are other spheres in which one's biological sex is a relevant consideration.

So you would exclude trans women from womanhood when it comes to sex and dating?

Because apparently sex and dating are not part of the "social sphere"? Your whole argument rests of this obviously broken premise.

You need to somehow contrive a distinction and this is the straw you've grasped.

Are there other areas where biological sex should be a consideration? What about prisons and public bathrooms? Biological sex seems pretty relevant there? So trans women should be treated as biological males in those instances?

You either want to sleep with someone or you don't. Saying 'no' to a trans person is not transphobic even within the trans community. To force someone to have sexual intercourse unwillingly is rape. Pure and simple. Consent is the only thing that matters here and it's the one thing we can all exercise without fear of legal reprisal.

You have nothing left.

This is pure evasion.

No one is talking about "forcing someone to have sexual intercourse unwillingly". You keep trying to inject this standard when it's not relevant.

 

[Suspense]

So you would exclude trans women from womanhood when it comes to sex and dating?

Because apparently sex and dating are not part of the "social sphere"? Your whole argument rests of this obviously broken premise.

I didn't say anything about excluding womanhood - simply that it is reasonable for a prospective partner to not want to engage in sex with someone who doesn't have what they are 'looking for' biologically. The transwomen in this instance is still a woman (gender role) and should be treated as one.

This is the commonly-held view in the community.

You need to somehow contrive a distinction and this is the straw you've grasped.

Still waiting for you to answer this:

Do you think most transwomen ask their doctor for a pap smear every three years?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

This is pure evasion.

No one is talking about "forcing someone to have sexual intercourse unwillingly". You keep trying to inject this standard when it's not relevant.

It's you who is evading the one absolute truth in all this; the individual decides. All sexual interaction is discriminatory and because consent matters most transphobia, homophobia, heterophobia and every other human-oriented sexual phobia you can name is not a factor.

You either want to do it or you don't.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I didn't say anything about excluding womanhood - simply that it is reasonable for a prospective partner to not want to engage in sex with someone who doesn't have what they are 'looking for' biologically.

That would be to exclude them from womanhood because they have a penis. That's exactly what you've just described.

The transwomen in this instance is still a woman (gender role) and should be treated as one.

So a straight man should treat the trans woman as a woman, even if she has a penis.

So, everything else being equal, what would be the reason for not being interested in her sexually? Unless he's discriminating on the basis of genitalia.

Still waiting for you to answer this:

Do you think most transwomen ask their doctor for a pap smear every three years?

I assume they don't but this makes no point.

Are there other areas where biological sex should be a consideration? What about prisons and public bathrooms? Biological sex seems pretty relevant there? So trans women should be treated as biological males in those instances?

Is Laurel Hubbard's biological sex relevant when she competes in women's weightlifting?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's you who is evading the one absolute truth in all this; the individual decides. All sexual interaction is discriminatory and because consent matters most transphobia, homophobia, heterophobia and every other human-oriented sexual phobia you can name is not a factor.

You either want to do it or you don't.

I'm done with your evasions.

 

[Suspense]

That would be to exclude them from womanhood because they have a penis. That's exactly what you've just described.

I literally just said they are still a woman - even if they have a penis. It's practically the complete opposite of 'excluding them from womanhood'.

So a straight man should treat the trans woman as a woman, even if she has a penis.

Yes - but it doesn't necessarily follow that you are obligated to have sex with her - just because she is a woman.

So what would be the reason for not being interested in her sexually? Unless he's discriminating on the basis of genitalia.

It is perfectly reasonable to not be sexually interested in someone on the basis of their genitalia. However, it would be transphobic to misgender them on the basis of the genitalia.

I assume they don't but this makes no point.

But isn't it the view of the 'radical new orthodoxy' that "trans women are exactly the same as biological women". If so, why wouldn't they be booking for a pap smear appointment? Do they not know the risks of cervical cancer?

Are there other areas where biological sex should be a consideration?

Sure. Sport is most controversial at the moment - even then most transpeople/allies I've spoken with have mixed views on the topic (with most not giving the remotest of *s about sports).

 

[Chief]

You've just whatever you had left credibility. Good for you!

Wrong the order words your are in.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I literally just said they are still a woman - even if they have a penis. It's practically the complete opposite of 'excluding them from womanhood'.

You said "it is reasonable for a prospective partner to not want to engage in sex with someone who doesn't have what they are 'looking for' biologically".

Yeah, so if the trans woman has a penis, it is reasonable for a straight man, who might otherwise be interested, to exclude her on that basis?

Yes - but it doesn't necessarily follow that you are obligated to have sex with her - just because she is a woman.

Sure, but we are clearly talking about a situation where, all else being equal, the straight man is interested in the woman but then learns she is trans and has a penis.

Clearly I have not been arguing that a straight man should be willing and eager and "obligated" to have sex with literally every woman on the planet.

It is perfectly reasonable to not be sexually interested in someone on the basis of their genitalia.

How? If trans women are women regardless of biology then how can it be reasonable to discriminate on the basis of genitalia?

On one hand, you're saying biology/genitalia is irrelevant but then on the other hand saying it's not.

But isn't it the view of the 'radical new orthodoxy' that "trans women are exactly the same as biological women".

No. I never said that.

No one disputes that biological differences exist. The question is whether everyone else, society at large, should disregard those differences, or whether they are still a factor in the various contexts and spaces we're discussing.

Sure. Sport is most controversial at the moment - even then most transpeople/allies I've spoken with have mixed views on the topic (with most not giving the remotest of fu**s about sports).

What about prisons, women's shelters and public bathrooms? Biological sex seems pretty relevant there. That's your standard, so trans women should be treated as biological males in those spaces?