Is this woman a transphobe?

[Santino]

The law is blind to that. In the same way that a white man who had been attacked in public by a black man could not use his fear as a reason to exclude all black men from certain spaces so that his fear was reduced.

But women are entitled to exclude men from their spaces. So your analogy is no good here.

 

[Athos]

It is warranted. But like warranted fear of racists it cannot be lawfully accommodated by removing rights of other people who are not actually a threat.

I think your characterisation is a gross oversimplification, and one that's quite dismissive of the fears of some particularly vulnerable people.

Not only does your framing of the issue fail to take into account psychological harm that arises from fear (which occurs regardless of how 'legitimate' that fear is), but, also, it plays fast and loose with the idea of threat. Women are well aware that they live under constant threat from people with penises (the only people in law who can commit rape); as a group, they represent a threat - that's the basis of single-sex protections for women. It's quite possible to argue that some individuals or sub-groups within that group represent less risk, but there might be good policy reasons not to favour such exceptionalism. For instance, any individual could argue that, absent any specific evidence that he is more likely to harm someone than a woman who is allowed into a space, he should be let in. But I don't need to explain why that's resisted.

Now, as it happens, I agree with you that the empirical evidence from places which have allowed inclusion suggests that it does not result in more attacks on the women who would already be in those spaces (and reduces harm to women who might otherwise be excluded). And so I'd like to see a world where women are keen to welcome trans women into their spaces (albeit I'm less keen on that being imposed on those who aren't). But I don't think that necessarily means all counter-arguments are analogous to racism.

 

[Border Reiver]

But women are entitled to exclude men from their spaces. So your analogy is no good here.

No they are not if "women" excludes trans-women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, or persons currently formally transitioning, and the space is public.

 

[Border Reiver]

I think your characterisation is a gross oversimplification, and one that's quite dismissive of the fears of some particularly vulnerable people.

Not only does your framing of the issue fail to take into account psychological harm that arises from fear (which occurs regardless of how 'legitimate' that fear is), but, also, it plays fast and loose with the idea of threat. Women are well aware that they live under constant threat from people with penises (the only people in law who can commit rape); as a group, they represent a threat - that's the basis of single-sex protections for women. It's quite possible to argue that some individuals or sub-groups within that group represent less risk, but there might be good policy reasons not to favour such exceptionalism. For instance, any individual could argue that, absent any specific evidence that he is more likely to harm someone than a woman who is allowed into a space, he should be let in. But I don't need to explain why that's resisted.

Now, as it happens, I agree with you that the empirical evidence from places which have allowed inclusion suggests that it does not result in more attacks on the women who would already be in those spaces (and reduces harm to women who might otherwise be excluded). And so I'd like to see a world where women are keen to welcome trans women into their spaces (albeit I'm less keen on that being imposed on those who aren't). But I don't think that necessarily means all counter-arguments are analogous to racism.

I am merely quoting the law. Persons who wish to remove rights from trans women are little different from other racists, sexists, and other people who support unlawful discrimination.

 

[bmd]

No they are not if "women" excludes trans-women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, or persons currently formally transitioning, and the space is public.

But he's right, isn't he? That invalidates your analogy.

Are you ok with Trans people being treated separately?

 

[Border Reiver]

But he's right, isn't he? That invalidates your analogy.

Are you ok with Trans people being treated separately?

I am supporting trans women's rights over women who seek to exclude them from female spaces.

 

[Santino]

No they are not if "women" excludes trans-women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, or persons currently formally transitioning, and the space is public.

That wasn't my point. My point is that women are entitled to exclude men on the basis of their safety, even if some or most men aren't a threat to them. Your analogy about racism is no good here.

 

[bmd]

I am supporting trans women's rights over women who seek to exclude them from female spaces.

But there is a precedent for excluding one group from a space for a certain reason. Why can't women do that with another group?

 

[Santino]

Sealioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't think kabbes' behaviour qualifies as sealioning then. Can you explain why you think it does?

Could you address this?

 

[Border Reiver]

But there is a precedent for excluding one group from a space for a certain reason. Why can't women do that with another group?

That does not affect the rights of trans women enshrined in law. You are arguing for separate but equal.

 

[bmd]

That does not affect the rights of trans women enshrined in law. You are arguing for separate but equal.

Ok, that then. Now can women have their own space?

 

[Border Reiver]

Could you address this?

"pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations"

I repeatedly said that he was asking questions that were diversions. He continued asking such questions. He is on ignore as he was taking up too much bandwidth.

 

[Border Reiver]

Ok, that then. Now can women have their own space?

Only if they admit trans women. Unless the law is changed (it is not going to be).

 

[bmd]

Only if they admit trans women. Unless the law is changed (it is not going to be).

Are there actually any trans women who would want to frequent a space set up for natural born women? I can't imagine that it would be a very fun night out. In fact, who would set up the space anyway? It's a complete non-argument now I come to think of it.

 

[Athos]

No they are not if "women" excludes trans-women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, or persons currently formally transitioning, and the space is public.

Males (including trans women (with or without a GRC)) can be lawfully excluded from female-only spaces in certain conditions.

 

[Border Reiver]

Males (including trans women (with or without a GRC)) can be lawfully excluded from female-only spaces in certain conditions.

Extremely limited conditions. Quoted in a post above. The massive majority of trans-wonrn with a GID or working towards one are protected in the vast majority of cases.

 

[kabbes]

"pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations"

I repeatedly said that he was asking questions that were diversions. He continued asking such questions. He is on ignore as he was taking up too much bandwidth.

I wasn’t asking you questions. I was directly and in good faith pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re using terms you don’t understand and you’re presenting a hopelessly oversimplified view of humans as atomised monads whose only self-definition comes from within, thus ignoring the fact that people always exist embedded within wider social relations. You are ignoring all power relations, all politics, all history. Yours is just a neoliberal triumph of personal freedom and choice over all social considerations.

You’re doing it again now by insisting that women never have a need to create single-sex places of safety.

You can ignore me if you want — you were ignoring me anyway, frankly — but I’m not going to ignore your nonsense.

 

[Border Reiver]

Are there actually any trans women who would want to frequent a space set up for natural born women? I can't imagine that it would be a very fun night out. In fact, who would set up the space anyway? It's a complete non-argument now I come to think of it.

Whether or not there is demand, access cannot be lawfully denied. Protection does not include personal association, as with other race and gender protections.

 

[Edie]

Only if they admit trans women. Unless the law is changed (it is not going to be).

This is wrong. Women should be able to have single sex wards, refuges, and prison cells. Trans women should be accomodated separately. Public facilities like toilets and changing rooms should be all-in-one single use as that simply resolves the issue.

 

[Border Reiver]

This is wrong. Women should be able to have single sex wards, refuges, and prison cells. Trans women should be accomodated separately. Public facilities like toilets and changing rooms should be all-in-one single use as that simply resolves the issue.

You are entitled to that opinion. The law differs (except for refuges). Your views are no more powerful than people arguing against racial equality laws.

 

[Athos]

I am merely quoting the law. Persons who wish to remove rights from trans women are little different from other racists, sexists, and other people who support unlawful discrimination.

I don't think you are just quoting the law.

I would argue against any rolling back of the current legal protections for trans people.

But much of women's concerns arises from proposals to change the law, which they say weakens their protections. I think it'd be more positive to engage with those fears than dismiss them as analogous to racism. (Though I appreciate that this is made harder by the fact that there are transphobes using prima facie reasonable points in bad faith.)

 

[Border Reiver]

I don't think you are just quoting the law.

I would argue against any rolling back of the current legal protections for trans people.

But much of women's concerns arises from proposals to change the law, which they say weakens their protections. I think it'd be more positive to engage with those fears than dismiss them as analogous to racism. (Though I appreciate that this is made harder by the fact that there are transphobes using prima facie reasonable points in bad faith.)

Current legal protections allow almost all trans women with GIDs, or working towards one, access to almost all women only spaces. It is that simple.

I am not arguing here for further extensions such as self identification (although I support reviewing the law in that direction).

 

[bmd]

You are entitled to that opinion. The law differs (except for refuges). Your views are no more powerful than people arguing against racial equality laws.

Why do you keep saying this? Are you attempting to invalidate any views except your own? You realise that anything you say here is not legally binding, nor will your words be used against you in a court of law.

 

[Athos]

Current legal protections allow almost all trans women with GIDs, or working towards one, access to almost all women only spaces. It is that simple.

I am not arguing here for further extensions such as self identification (although I support reviewing the law in that direction).

I'm not arguing with your (current*) claim about what the law says.

(*Now you've tweaked it to acknowledge it is legal to exclude in some circumstances.)

 

[Border Reiver]

Why do you keep saying this? Are you attempting to invalidate any views except your own? You realise that anything you say here is not legally binding, nor will your words be used against you in a court of law.

No. It is a fact. Certain groups are protected by law against discrimination in certain spheres of social interaction. This includes race, gender, gender identification, and many other categories.

Denying legal rights to one class of that group is no different from denying it to another. There is a direct equivalence.

 

[Border Reiver]

I'm not arguing with your (current*) claim about what the law says.

(*Now you've tweaked it to acknowledge it is legal to exclude in some circumstances.)

I have not denied some minor exceptions (see discussion above).

 

[bmd]

No. It is a fact. Certain groups are protected by law against discrimination in certain spheres of social interaction. This includes race, gender, gender identification, and many other categories.

Denying legal rights to one class of that group is no different from denying it to another. There is a direct equivalence.

And yet the Racial Discrmination Act came about from a set of circumstances that could not, wholly, be applied to Trans history. You simply saying "that's the same, treat it as such" isn't helpful. Imo, of course.

 

[Border Reiver]

Why do you keep saying this? Are you attempting to invalidate any views except your own? You realise that anything you say here is not legally binding, nor will your words be used against you in a court of law.

People are entitled to believe that people should be denied their legal rights. I do not share that belief.

Believing that does not change the rights of the persons protected by such legislation. People who refuse admission are potentially acting unlawfully.

 

[bmd]

I'm not arguing with your (current*) claim about what the law says.

(*Now you've tweaked it to acknowledge it is legal to exclude in some circumstances.)

How rude! Who else do we know who does that whenever it suits them?

 

[Edie]

You are entitled to that opinion. The law differs (except for refuges). Your views are no more powerful than people arguing against racial equality laws.

I’m talking about what I think it morally right, not the law.