ACLU blocks woman's request for data on numbers of transgender inmates in women's prisons

[repoman]

No, only females can be females

Even this Canadian website definition is fairly conservative by your standards


https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html

'Sex' and 'gender' are often used interchangeably, despite having different meanings:

Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society.

Maybe whoever wrote this should be given a struggle session.

 

[bilby]

Hey Bilby,

remember when the social deal was that gender expression would be respected and the terms man and woman were mostly detached from genital/chromosomal/gamete sex? That male meant XY and female XX chromosomes, barring the rare intersex conditions that are not inherently related to gender expression.

No, I don't remember that at all, largely because it was never true.

Was that just the thin edge of the wedge to get to the total bullshit that you and your side are peddling now. Boiling society like a frog.

No, it's just something that conservatives invented so that their desire to change society could be couched in terms of restoring a past society that was far better than the one in which they actually lived.

This is a very common approach used by conservatives in a wide range of contexts.

It does, however, depend on people not generally having a good memory, or a solid understanding of history. The attempt to gaslight people into "remembering" something that never happened will inevitably fail if they know damn well that it's bullshit.

Chromosomes weren't even known to exist at all until 1882, and sex chromosomes weren't identified until 1905. That might seem like the distant past to an American, but it's basically yesterday in terms of societal development. No "social deal" based on a widespread knowledge of the link between chromosomes and sex has had sufficient time to develop, much less become dominant.

The past was basically shit, and the imaginary past conservatives long for was both nonexistent and shit.

 

[Metaphor]

No, Metaphor, you are confusing an ideology that you made up with what most people would call the  Transgender Rights Movement, which does not espouse your list of characteristic beliefs of "trans activists". I don't know whether you made those up off the top of your head or whether you picked it up from reading some anti-trans literature,

This speculation was asked and answered already. Your false dichotomy aside, I neither 'made those up' nor did I read some 'anti-trans' literature. Every single one of the beliefs and positions I listed I have head people express and champion, including people on this board, including people writing in this thread.

 

[Copernicus]

No, Metaphor, you are confusing an ideology that you made up with what most people would call the  Transgender Rights Movement, which does not espouse your list of characteristic beliefs of "trans activists". I don't know whether you made those up off the top of your head or whether you picked it up from reading some anti-trans literature,

This speculation was asked and answered already. Your false dichotomy aside, I neither 'made those up' nor did I read some 'anti-trans' literature. Every single one of the beliefs and positions I listed I have head people express and champion, including people on this board, including people writing in this thread.

IOW, you think you remember seeing some people on the internet espousing these principles, or maybe this is just your restatement of what you thought they were advocating. Fair enough, but that does not constitute a "transactivist ideology". If you try to google "transactivist", what you come up with are a few references to "trans activist", which is often a way of describing anyone who happens to be trans and an activist or anyone who happens to participate in social actions to promote transgender rights. There is no specific list of beliefs that goes along with those two classes of people that matches your list. In fact, it is just something that you made up. There is no such thing as "transactivist" in the sense that you use the term.

 

[Metaphor]

IOW, you think you remember seeing some people on the internet espousing these principles, or maybe this is just your restatement of what you thought they were advocating.

I don't think I remember. I know. On this board (and probably within this thread), Jarhyn has expressed the transactivist belief that there is no such thing as same-sex orientation, because people are attracted to genders and not sexes. This is an unhinged and deeply damaging belief.

If you are asking for sources of people saying these things, that's okay. I can produce evidence of all of them.

Fair enough, but that does not constitute a "transactivist ideology". If you try to google "transactivist", what you come up with are a few references to "trans activist", which is often a way of describing anyone who happens to be trans and an activist or anyone who happens to participate in social actions to promote transgender rights. There is no specific list of beliefs that goes along with those two classes of people that matches your list. In fact, it is just something that you made up. There is no such thing as "transactivist" in the sense that you use the term.

I use the term 'transactivist' to describe a specific kind of person, who may or may not be trans, and who actively endorses certain beliefs about gender and sex. These people write articles that re-cast biological sex as a product of white supremacy. Other people are not 'transactivists' but say and endorse obvious falsehoods, such as 'trans women are women' or 'a trans woman is literally, biologically female.'

Transactivists also endorse certain kinds of policies based on their beliefs. On this board, there are people who regard the absence of a male puberty to be sufficient to allow a trans woman to play in women's sports. That is a less radical demand than what some transactivists demand, which is nothing less than sports segregation based on the uttered gender identity of a person.

 

[bilby]

IOW, you think you remember seeing some people on the internet espousing these principles, or maybe this is just your restatement of what you thought they were advocating.

I don't think I remember. I know. On this board (and probably within this thread), Jarhyn has expressed the transactivist belief that there is no such thing as same-sex orientation, because people are attracted to genders and not sexes. This is an unhinged and deeply damaging belief.

If you are asking for sources of people saying these things, that's okay. I can produce evidence of all of them.

Fair enough, but that does not constitute a "transactivist ideology". If you try to google "transactivist", what you come up with are a few references to "trans activist", which is often a way of describing anyone who happens to be trans and an activist or anyone who happens to participate in social actions to promote transgender rights. There is no specific list of beliefs that goes along with those two classes of people that matches your list. In fact, it is just something that you made up. There is no such thing as "transactivist" in the sense that you use the term.

I use the term 'transactivist' to describe a specific kind of person, who may or may not be trans, and who actively endorses certain beliefs about gender and sex. These people write articles that re-cast biological sex as a product of white supremacy. Other people are not 'transactivists' but say and endorse obvious falsehoods, such as 'trans women are women' or 'a trans woman is literally, biologically female.'

Transactivists also endorse certain kinds of policies based on their beliefs. On this board, there are people who regard the absence of a male puberty to be sufficient to allow a trans woman to play in women's sports. That is a less radical demand than what some transactivists demand, which is nothing less than sports segregation based on the uttered gender identity of a person.

People are attracted to individuals, not sexes or genders.

This is very obvious, and very easily tested. Nobody I have ever encountered finds every member of their preferred gender or their preferred sex attractive, and very few find zero members of the opposite sex or gender attractive.

 

[Metaphor]

People are attracted to individuals, not sexes or genders.

This is very obvious, and very easily tested. Nobody I have ever encountered finds every member of their preferred gender or their preferred sex attractive, and very few find zero members of the opposite sex or gender attractive.

A same-sex attraction has never implied that you find every member of a particular sex sexually attractive. It means that your sexual arousal is predominantly or exclusively restricted to individuals of a particular sex.

 

[Trausti]

People are attracted to individuals, not sexes or genders.

So why does pornography exist?

 

[bilby]

People are attracted to individuals, not sexes or genders.

So why does pornography exist?

Why does pornography have such a wide range of categories and specialisations, if people are simply attracted to sexes or genders? And why are there a small number of particularly successful porn stars, rather than every participant being equally popular?

The prediction made by the hypothesis that one or both of sex and gender are the only major contributing factors is that there would be maybe four categories of porn. That's a very serious underestimate, which explodes the hypotheses very effectively.

Reality isn't as simple as you wish it was, and pretending that it is doesn't make you smart, it just makes you wrong.

 

[none]

you didn't answer his question??

 

[bilby]

you didn't answer his question??

Pornography exists because people are sexually aroused by it.

This tells us exactly nothing useful about either sex or gender. I didn't answer the question because it's completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion - it's the wrong question, arrived at by an overly simplistic belief about the subject, so it doesn't require an answer, it requires a counter question.

The answer is simple, uncontroversial, and valueless: Pornography exists because people are sexually aroused by it. If that's not obvious, I don't know what is.

 

[Metaphor]

Why does pornography have such a wide range of categories and specialisations, if people are simply attracted to sexes or genders? And why are there a small number of particularly successful porn stars, rather than every participant being equally popular?

The prediction made by the hypothesis that one or both of sex and gender are the only major contributing factors

How does positing the existence of same-sex attraction imply that sex is the only contributing factor to attraction?

 

[none]

you didn't answer his question??

Pornography exists because people are sexually aroused by it.

disagree.
are you aroused by snuff? I'm not.
try again.

This tells us exactly nothing useful about either sex or gender. I didn't answer the question because it's completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion - it's the wrong question, arrived at by an overly simplistic belief about the subject, so it doesn't require an answer, it requires a counter question.

The answer is simple, uncontroversial, and valueless: Pornography exists because people are sexually aroused by it. If that's not obvious, I don't know what is.

meh, no.
yeah it was a bit of a non sequitur, still a a question which you didn't answer accurately??

 

[bilby]

disagree.
are you aroused by snuff? I'm not.
try again.

Some people are, or it wouldn't exist.

"people" <> "all people". Try responding to what I write, rather than what you imagine I might have written.

This tells us exactly nothing useful about either sex or gender. I didn't answer the question because it's completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion - it's the wrong question, arrived at by an overly simplistic belief about the subject, so it doesn't require an answer, it requires a counter question.

The answer is simple, uncontroversial, and valueless: Pornography exists because people are sexually aroused by it. If that's not obvious, I don't know what is.

meh, no.
yeah it was a bit of a non sequitur, still a a question which you didn't answer accurately??

Which I didn't answer at all until you made a point of it, at which time I answered completely accurately.

Your disagreement or lack of understanding doesn't constitute a lack of accuracy on my part.

 

[Copernicus]

IOW, you think you remember seeing some people on the internet espousing these principles, or maybe this is just your restatement of what you thought they were advocating.

I don't think I remember. I know. On this board (and probably within this thread), Jarhyn has expressed the transactivist belief that there is no such thing as same-sex orientation, because people are attracted to genders and not sexes. This is an unhinged and deeply damaging belief.

If you are asking for sources of people saying these things, that's okay. I can produce evidence of all of them.

You broke off before reading the rest of my comment below, which points out that hearing some individuals express some opinions on the internet does not constitute an "ideology". What you gave us was a sweeping generalization that does not identify "transactivists" in general, except in your mind. You made the whole thing up. As for Jahryn, he can endorse your interpretation of what he said or not. That has nothing to do with my point. If you want to go back to talking about the FOI or something more in line with your beef concerning the injunction against the WoLF FOI, that would be of more interest than just grumbling about disagreements with individuals. An ideology is a doctrine or system of ideals, not just an individual's set of opinions.

Fair enough, but that does not constitute a "transactivist ideology". If you try to google "transactivist", what you come up with are a few references to "trans activist", which is often a way of describing anyone who happens to be trans and an activist or anyone who happens to participate in social actions to promote transgender rights. There is no specific list of beliefs that goes along with those two classes of people that matches your list. In fact, it is just something that you made up. There is no such thing as "transactivist" in the sense that you use the term.

I use the term 'transactivist' to describe a specific kind of person, who may or may not be trans, and who actively endorses certain beliefs about gender and sex. These people write articles that re-cast biological sex as a product of white supremacy. Other people are not 'transactivists' but say and endorse obvious falsehoods, such as 'trans women are women' or 'a trans woman is literally, biologically female.'

Transactivists also endorse certain kinds of policies based on their beliefs. On this board, there are people who regard the absence of a male puberty to be sufficient to allow a trans woman to play in women's sports. That is a less radical demand than what some transactivists demand, which is nothing less than sports segregation based on the uttered gender identity of a person.

Yes, I get that you have created the term "transactivist" and used it to describe your stereotype of a specific kind of person, although I don't think there is anyone who actually believes all of the things you attribute to your invented ideology. And I don't know why you are now bringing the topic of white supremacy into this, which is orthogonal to the transgender issue. I guess that you recall reading an article that blended the two, and now you imagine that there is a whole movement behind the author's opinion. There is a difference between someone's opinions and an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals. Opinions are just beliefs that an individual may hold that are not necessarily connected with any ideology.

 

[none]

Some people are, or it wouldn't exist.

"people" <> "all people". Try responding to what I write, rather than what you imagine I might have written.

the correlation between the incomplete "all people" is not my point.

meh, no.
yeah it was a bit of a non sequitur, still a a question which you didn't answer accurately??

Which I didn't answer at all until you made a point of it, at which time I answered completely accurately.

I didn't ask the question.
my contention is that you didn't answer accurately..

Your disagreement or lack of understanding doesn't constitute a lack of accuracy on my part.

I never suggested my disagreement was justification for the lack of accuracy of your answer.

 

[Metaphor]

You broke off before reading the rest of my comment below, which points out that hearing some individuals express some opinions on the internet does not constitute an "ideology". What you gave us was a sweeping generalization that does not identify "transactivists" in general, except in your mind.

What I gave you was the opinions and beliefs expressed by people speaking on behalf of 'trans rights'. That not every single person in the 'trans rights' space agrees with each other is no more surprising than when feminists don't agree with each other. Yet feminism is still an ideology.

You made the whole thing up. As for Jahryn, he can endorse your interpretation of what he said or not. That has nothing to do with my point. If you want to go back to talking about the FOI or something more in line with your beef concerning the injunction against the WoLF FOI, that would be of more interest than just grumbling about disagreements with individuals. An ideology is a doctrine or system of ideals, not just an individual's set of opinions.

The FoI request was not from WoLF.

But, if your objection is the word 'ideology' to describe the arguments and beliefs people who defend 'trans rights', the word 'ideology' is not the point (though I do believe there is a gender ideology that underpins many of the beliefs). The point is the things people say when arguing for trans rights.

Yes, I get that you have created the term "transactivist" and used it to describe your stereotype of a specific kind of person, although I don't think there is anyone who actually believes all of the things you attribute to your invented ideology.

That's no more to the point than the fact that not a single feminist subscribes to every idea ever espoused by a feminist. They couldn't, since many of the ideas are contradictory.

And I don't know why you are now bringing the topic of white supremacy into this, which is orthogonal to the transgender issue.

I didn't invent it. It was an example of something transactivists do. If something can be associated with 'white supremacy' then transactivists can exploit that association for rhetorical purposes.

I guess that you recall reading an article that blended the two,

No, I read a Tweet that said biological sex is an example of white supremacy. I have also read a different article that has posited the sex binary was an invention of white colonialism.

and now you imagine that there is a whole movement behind the author's opinion. There is a difference between someone's opinions and an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals. Opinions are just beliefs that an individual may hold that are not necessarily connected with any ideology.

All transactivists believe that trans women are women. It's a belief core to transactivist ideology. Some believe it as biological fact; others believe that gender identity has primacy over biological sex and that trans women should be treated as if they were natal females for all social purposes.

From this core belief many other transactivist beliefs follow.

But as I said above, if the word 'ideology' bothers you, it doesn't have to be part of the conversation. People who are defending 'trans rights' make claims and demands that infringe on other people.

 

[repoman]

Actual facts like sex at birth are transphobic. This is truly




https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aba95fce-9ef0-11eb-a908-ec96e110073e?shareToken=a5cec07acaf5e4d6db9139429bda3e5b

Rape suspects are able to self-identify as female, it was revealed after a freedom of information request by a feminist policy think-tank.

Police Scotland said that if a rape or attempted rape was perpetrated by a “male who self-identifies as a woman . . . the male who self-identifies as a woman would be expected to be recorded as a female on relevant police systems.”

Campaigners claim that the position could lead to a “distortion” in society’s understanding of crime and the measures needed to tackle it. They also say the policy is at odds with what Humza Yousaf, the justice secretary, has said should be legal proof that a suspect is female.

The issue is the latest in the controversial debate around sex and gender identity and Scottish government attempts to change the law and follows concern over moves by public bodies to “erase” biological sex data from official records.

Dr Kath Murray, of the Edinburgh-based policy analysts Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, said that a person’s sex at birth was hugely relevant information in the case of rape.

 

[Trausti]

Actual facts like sex at birth are transphobic. This is truly

View attachment 33000


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aba95fce-9ef0-11eb-a908-ec96e110073e?shareToken=a5cec07acaf5e4d6db9139429bda3e5b

Rape suspects are able to self-identify as female, it was revealed after a freedom of information request by a feminist policy think-tank.

Police Scotland said that if a rape or attempted rape was perpetrated by a “male who self-identifies as a woman . . . the male who self-identifies as a woman would be expected to be recorded as a female on relevant police systems.”

Campaigners claim that the position could lead to a “distortion” in society’s understanding of crime and the measures needed to tackle it. They also say the policy is at odds with what Humza Yousaf, the justice secretary, has said should be legal proof that a suspect is female.

The issue is the latest in the controversial debate around sex and gender identity and Scottish government attempts to change the law and follows concern over moves by public bodies to “erase” biological sex data from official records.

Dr Kath Murray, of the Edinburgh-based policy analysts Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, said that a person’s sex at birth was hugely relevant information in the case of rape.

This will help narrow the gap between male and female rapists. Rape equity.

 

[Trausti]

you didn't answer his question??

Pornography exists because people are sexually aroused by it.

This tells us exactly nothing useful about either sex or gender. I didn't answer the question because it's completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion - it's the wrong question, arrived at by an overly simplistic belief about the subject, so it doesn't require an answer, it requires a counter question.

The answer is simple, uncontroversial, and valueless: Pornography exists because people are sexually aroused by it. If that's not obvious, I don't know what is.

Sexually aroused at what? If people were attracted to individuals and not sex, then you’d see parity between same-sex and opposite-sex attraction. But you don’t. Almost all attraction is opposite-sex; like with every other animal. Does sexual evolution just not apply to humans?