Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[Jarhyn]

Which is my whole point, here. There are appropriate contexts for "scientific/academic" classification. These contexts relate specifically to the understanding of root causative conditions for similar outcomes so they may be inflicted or prevented or reversed as the case may be.

They do not relate to social interactions. The rules there acknowledge concepts of privacy. That acknowledgement of privacy involves that we have public lives and private lives and public parts and private parts as well.

Do we not, in this thread (or perhaps one of the other bullshit threads) have an example posted of a disastrous false identification?

You miss the point, and you seem to not get why it ends up back at language. Let me try to lay it out in clear terms.

A: I'm a woman and it's a violation of my civil rights to prohibit me from being housed with other women in prison.
B: You look like a man, you have a beard, and you have a penis.
A: That doesn't matter. I'm a transwoman.
B: Yes, and that's great, I'm happy for you, you be you and fly your flag proudly! But you're a transwoman, which means you're male. And prisons house males and females separately for some very good reasons.
A: No, Tanswomen ARE women! End of discussion, no debate!
B: You're perfectly free to be socially a woman, and to dress and behave as it pleases you, and to expect decent treatment and respect from everyone else without mistreatment due to your presentation or your identity... but prisons are segregated on the basis of sex, not on the basis of gender identity. It's not fair to female prisoners to place a male with them against their will.
A: None of that matters, only gender matters! And I'm a woman! They're not called "female prisons" they're called "women's prisons", duh, the gender is right there in the name!
B: Uh, no, it's just that historically and up until very recently, 'woman' was the word used for adult females of the human species, just like 'mare' is the word for an adult female of the equine species. When they were labeled as 'women's prisons' it was completely understood that it meant female humans.
A: Well, you're just using outdated meanings. Woman now refers to gender not to sex, and sex doesn't matter. Therefore I demand to be in the women's prison, it's where I belong because I'm a woman!
B: How exactly are you a woman? What makes you a woman in a way that should override sex segregation of prisons?
A: Because I say so!
B: We seriously need to get a definition that makes sense for this discussion to even happen...

We have been over this. There is a different resil

I don't even claim to be transgender "because of" my husband. I claim that he is the one that encouraged me to finally walk through my transition. And as to genitals, well, there are a couple people who know the shape of where that is going. Anyway, that reveal is going to simmer probably a few years before I come out with it.

Jarhyn is transgender because his gender identity is 'wizard' and his sex is male.

I am interested in what sex-segregated facility he intends to use after he's come out.

I most certainly and a number of other folks here are most probably laughing at this statement because you have made some grand assumptions about "why" my gender identity is any given thing, or what "coming out" entails.

Oh this is going to be spicy~

 

[Metaphor]

The 14th Amendment to the US requires equal treatment under the law regardless of sex, and the 4th prohibits unlawful search and seizure. Your proposed policy cannot be enforced without violating both.

Ah, I see. It's the enforcement that's a violation. What do you think prevents males entering single-sex female facilities right now? It was the honour system, essentially. Also, why haven't bathroom bills been struck down, if they are unConstitutional?

 

[Metaphor]

I most certainly and a number of other folks here are most probably laughing at this statement because you have made some grand assumptions about "why" my gender identity is any given thing, or what "coming out" entails.

Oh this is going to be spicy~

It seems I am off your 'ignore' list. It is indeed going to be spicy.

I haven't assumed anything about your gender identity. You already explained it on another thread on the old forum.

EDIT: Just because you had me on 'ignore' didn't mean I couldn't read your posts. It just meant you responded to responses to my posts without the context, and often made idiotic claims and conclusions because you lacked context but were just dying to criticise me.

 

[Toni]

Or when a penis gets housed with female prisoners. My care is for situations where sex actually does matter.

You do realize women rape women in prison and men rape men in prison, don't you?

Sure, but neither of those is capable of ending up with an unwanted pregnancy. And generally speaking, a female has a decent chance of being able to fight off another female; a male has a decent chance of being able to fight off another male. A female has a very low chance of being able to fight off a male; a male has an extremely high chance of being able to fight off a female.

Additionally, the propensity to sexual violence is extremely one-sided. This is not at all a case where the risk levels are the same.

Unwanted pregnancy is only one horrific potential to consequence of rape. It is not less horrific to be raped by a member of your own sex.
Involuntary congregate housing does not tend to bring out the best in people who are angry and looking for ways to exert power. A large individual usually has a distinct advantage over a smaller individual. A very determined highly motivated individual has a great advantage over an individual who is passive when frightened.

You are using the ‘ most likely scenario’ with regards to rape. But at the same time, you are focusing on an exceptionally small percentage of possible cases. Or do you not see that?

As for women needing to be worried about being raped in prison: their biggest worry would be male guards…..

 

[Metaphor]

As for women needing to be worried about being raped in prison: their biggest worry would be male guards…..

But not male transwomen housed with them?

 

[SigmatheZeta]

A lot of people, now, are transitioned as children, so it's getting harder, these days, to tell. I started a little bit later in life, so in my case, it does kind of stand out. If I had started in adolescence, it would have been a little bit different.

Actually, I take that back. I look reasonably attractive, by feminine standards, and if I had enough foundation make-up on, then I could go stealth if I really wanted to. I just don't have the inclination.

In the highly unlikely event that you ended up in prison, which ward would you expect to be placed in? Would you be deeply offended if you were placed in a men's prison?

Do you routinely strip down to nothing in the presence of nekkid girls and women?

Aside from those sorts of situations, you should have no obligation or expectation to pass, or even to bother trying. But if you expect to be naked while in the presence of naked female humans... it would be polite to at least put in some effort

American prisons have the best healthcare system in the world. I would probably go ahead and get the operation, and after that, I would probably be placed with the women. However, my motive would be largely based on the fact that it's free, and I kind of want to get the operation, anyhow.

Then again, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of women's housing...if they are in there for violent crimes, I have a feeling that I would not benefit very well from the switch. I know how to deal with guys. Most of the time, physical aggression is just how they make friends with you, and they really don't mean any harm. I've gotten worse injuries from handling grain-crazed thoroughbreds if I am honest, and that's when they were in a good mood: they'll bite you black-and-blue just to flirt. I honestly am not afraid of men, even violent ones. I'm not as sure about the psychology of cis-women, though, especially ones that have gone down a bad path. If I had had the operation, I would probably be expected to move into women's housing, but I am not entirely sure if I would actually be safer or happier.

On the other hand, I do not really have any knowledge regarding prison administration. I know what I can deal with, but how do you make those kinds of decisions for other people? I would want whoever has the authority to make administrative decisions at a prison to act with the best interests of the people that have to live there. Regardless of what those people have done, all of those people are somebody's sons and daughters. I would not want to keep the system going unless I would be able to sleep with my own kid living in there. If that's not how the prison administrator thinks, then shut the whole system down, and let them all go. I would never want to have to make those kinds of decisions. They are hard decisions to make, and each way you roll, you are gambling with people's lives.

Therefore, I am not sure how to answer that question, and I would not want to be in charge of it.

 

[KeepTalking]

Which is my whole point, here. There are appropriate contexts for "scientific/academic" classification. These contexts relate specifically to the understanding of root causative conditions for similar outcomes so they may be inflicted or prevented or reversed as the case may be.

They do not relate to social interactions. The rules there acknowledge concepts of privacy. That acknowledgement of privacy involves that we have public lives and private lives and public parts and private parts as well.

Do we not, in this thread (or perhaps one of the other bullshit threads) have an example posted of a disastrous false identification?

You miss the point, and you seem to not get why it ends up back at language. Let me try to lay it out in clear terms.

A: I'm a woman and it's a violation of my civil rights to prohibit me from being housed with other women in prison.
B: You look like a man, you have a beard, and you have a penis.

B (cont.): So welcome to Block D, where we house the trans women with penises, since so many of you have been popping up in the system these days.

In reality, prison populations are segregated for all kinds of reasons. There is no reason they could not segregate the trans populations as well.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Jarhyn is trying really, really hard to convince people that there is no difference at all between males and females except for genitals. As long as someone has a tower wrapped around their nethers, it's nothing more than a coin-flip whether they're male or female. @Jarhyn is very deeply invested in denying that sex is relevant to anything.

There is "no difference" because "males" and "females" are made up fuzzy categories that don't actually mean "is rapist" like you seem to think.

It is coincidental to any thing you have expressed wish to filter on except "who is filtered by the mechanics of how someone enjoys fucking", and that only enters in when a mutual acceptance of shallow and deep factors known thus far has facilitated mutual discussion of "what is in the pants".

"Made up fuzzy categories" that are a fundamental element of every single mammalian species on the planet, and the only way that offspring can be produced.

This right here, @Jarhyn, this is ideology. Sex is NOT "made up" nor is it "fuzzy". You continuously imply that sex is some weird, almost random assignation that is irrelevant and completely arbitrary. That is flat-earth thinking, it's completely anti-science. Male and female are well-defined, well-documented, and extremely clear categories. The existence of some very few deleterious medical conditions that are not *unambiguous* at a glance does not in any way negate the clarity of those categories. And ambiguous does not mean "in between" nor does it mean "third sex". Each individual is either male or female, even those with DSDs. And once again, for those in the back, DSDs have NOTHING AT ALL to do with gender identity.

No, "made up fuzzy categories" are not "a part of the species". They are not even the only way things reproduce.

And things reproducing (within the bounds of consent) is not germane to the conversation.

We aren't talking about reproduction, we are talking about how we treat each other in public and why.

You reserve the right to be nasty to anyone who you think might have a penis on account of them having a penis, because you are afraid of the penis rather than the person behind it.

Personally, I don't care about the penis. I care about the person behind it, because it doesn't take a penis to hurt someone.

I have already discussed ad nauseum the things that I think actually matter here, the things that need to be exercised to make the world right, or at least less wrong, and that involves taking the time and care to not house any person with any other person in such a way that anyone will be liable to be raped.

The shape of genitals is not the shape of brains, nor even the shape of bodies. It is the shape of brains that determines who wants to rape and it is the shape of bodies that determines who can force the issue in terms of physical stature.

As a question, do either of you think that I am liable to rape or be violent to any person in such a way that warrants warehousing me with rapists or violent people who would be liable to rape me, short of having been raped or had violence visited on me and my original crime were in response to such?

My argument has been "we have the time, resources, and wealth to segregate not by sex but by propensity to rape and be violent. Let us at least segregate such that nobody gets raped."

 

[Toni]

As for women needing to be worried about being raped in prison: their biggest worry would be male guards…..

But not male transwomen housed with them?

It is rare for a trans woman to be housed in a women’s prison compared to the number of guards in women’s prisons who are male.

It is also clear that housing sexual predators with those who are among their preferred targets is unconscionable and cannot be allowed. This is true no matter the anatomy of the prisoner: someone who has been convicted of raping women should not be housed with vulnerable women in such a manner that would allow intimate contact or place women in vulnerable positions. Someone who has been convicted of raping makes should not be housed such that they have access to vulnerable males.

 

[Jarhyn]

I most certainly and a number of other folks here are most probably laughing at this statement because you have made some grand assumptions about "why" my gender identity is any given thing, or what "coming out" entails.

Oh this is going to be spicy~

It seems I am off your 'ignore' list. It is indeed going to be spicy.

I haven't assumed anything about your gender identity. You already explained it on another thread on the old forum.

EDIT: Just because you had me on 'ignore' didn't mean I couldn't read your posts. It just meant you responded to responses to my posts without the context, and often made idiotic claims and conclusions because you lacked context but were just dying to criticise me.

I explained parts of it in arcane ways that you clearly didn't understand, and which you weren't supposed to, so that when you finally do come to understand, if you have not learned better by then, you will feel all the more foolish over it.

Your post contains assumptions about a number of things, and it will be very funny when you are disabused of them; even so, I would admittedly be happier if between now and then you figured some things out and disarmed this slow and otherwise inexorable trap.

If you didn't notice, btw, this forum has this new feature to "show ignored content". It's nice. I get to occasionally look at what you blather about without having to care about most of it or look.

At any rate, your question relies on spilling the beans as it were, and we both have some time yet before that happens.

 

[Metaphor]

It is rare for a trans woman to be housed in a women’s prison compared to the number of guards in women’s prisons who are male.

How do you know? The ACLU blocks freedom of information requests to get statistics of the number of transwomen in the female estate.

Also, are you implicitly agreeing that transwomen are in fact male and that maleness is a threat to the women in the female estate?

 

[Metaphor]

I explained parts of it in arcane ways that you clearly didn't understand, and which you weren't supposed to, so that when you finally do come to understand, if you have not learned better by then, you will feel all the more foolish over it.

Ah, so you 'explained' it in a way to facilitate your revenge and maximise the future suffering of others, or at least in a way you think will do that. Gotcha.

Your post contains assumptions about a number of things, and it will be very funny when you are disabused of them; even so, I would admittedly be happier if between now and then you figured some things out and disarmed this slow and otherwise inexorable trap.

"It's a trap!"

If you didn't notice, btw, this forum has this new feature to "show ignored content". It's nice. I get to occasionally look at what you blather about without having to care about most of it or look.

No, I hadn't noticed, because I don't have anyone on ignore. But thank you for clarifying. I'm still on ignore, except when, like any addict, you can't resist indulging and you read my posts and respond to them anyway.

At any rate, your question relies on spilling the beans as it were, and we both have some time yet before that happens.

Such intrigue!

 

[Politesse]

The 14th Amendment to the US requires equal treatment under the law regardless of sex, and the 4th prohibits unlawful search and seizure. Your proposed policy cannot be enforced without violating both.

Ah, I see. It's the enforcement that's a violation. What do you think prevents males entering single-sex female facilities right now? It was the honour system, essentially.

And must be. Because that's the law. It's not actually legal to do what they're trying to do.

As for the Constitutionality of these bathroom bills, the matter has yet to come before a Court with the authority to definitively decide the matter.

Despite the recent changes in the composition of the Supreme Court, I am still hopeful that, as with the state-level marriage bans that unintentionally led to the wholesale liberation of gays from marriage discrimination, conservatives will end up ruing their choice to overstep the Constitution with these stupid bathroom bills. Here in the US, at least. As I said, I know little about the legal situation elsewhere.

The case history that does exist up to this point has not generally confirmed your view.

Transgender Girl Banned From Bathroom Wins Case

The parents of Coy Mathis said the ruling was "amazing because it is not just a win for Coy, but a win for every transgender child in the entire state. ... It lets them be who they are. They don't have to spend their childhood being discriminated against."

abcnews.go.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/transgender-bathroom-settlement-gavin-grimm/2021/08/26/0f186784-0699-11ec-a266-7c7fe02fa374_story.html

North Carolina Reaches Settlement on ‘Bathroom Bill’ (Published 2019)

Transgender people cannot be prevented from using bathrooms that match their gender identity in public buildings.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Jarhyn]

I explained parts of it in arcane ways that you clearly didn't understand, and which you weren't supposed to, so that when you finally do come to understand, if you have not learned better by then, you will feel all the more foolish over it.

Ah, so you 'explained' it in a way to facilitate your revenge and maximise the future suffering of others, or at least in a way you think will do that. Gotcha.

Your post contains assumptions about a number of things, and it will be very funny when you are disabused of them; even so, I would admittedly be happier if between now and then you figured some things out and disarmed this slow and otherwise inexorable trap.

"It's a trap!"

If you didn't notice, btw, this forum has this new feature to "show ignored content". It's nice. I get to occasionally look at what you blather about without having to care about most of it or look.

No, I hadn't noticed, because I don't have anyone on ignore. But thank you for clarifying. I'm still on ignore, except when, like any addict, you can't resist indulging and you read my posts and respond to them anyway.

At any rate, your question relies on spilling the beans as it were, and we both have some time yet before that happens.

Such intrigue!

Indeed. And as stated: it's entirely a function of you getting it by then, and all the misery will be misery you heaped on yourself.

For what it's worth, it's going to be a complicated amusement, a shaudenfreude for the ages, mostly centered around what I keep saying: you don't know what is or is not in another person's pants.

At any rate I will repeat what I keep saying: your assumptions of what are in any given person's pants are merely that, and rude to boot. No person should ever be housed with people liable to rape, injure, or even harass them, especially not housed as such by force.

They do not have any intrinsic right to "not be housed with people who have penises". The "right" doesn't make sense in any well founded academic discussion of what rights could be or where they really derive from, metaphysically.

It is one's right to freedom from molestation that drives these discussions. Generally this means that people with penises will tend to be grouped together, or confined in solitary "together" because such people that require such treatment owing to demonstrated propensity to rape tend to have penises. The tending of people of a quality to be a way does not forgive the assumption that they are that way.

The danger comes in leveraging on the corollary rather than the causality, and then ending up throwing people who are liable to be raped in with those liable to rape.

 

[Enigma]

Jebus! We are talking about a school. A school where there are lots of students, that have been attending these schools for years! The teachers know the kids, the staff knows the kids. There is a sense of humanity that exists in the real world that involves the real world history of the students at these schools, instead of these scary hypotheticals where some random person magically appears before a principle (with a beard while wearing a skirt) and demands access to the girls' locker room because they are trans... and the staff is shaking in their boots over potential lawsuits if they don't abide this person they've never before seen in their life.

Why do you believe that some random new person needs to show up for this to be an issue?

A male student has been in the school for years. That student is starting to go through puberty and now claims to be trans.
What knowledge known by the teachers and staff is both necessary and sufficient to be able to 99.9%+ reliably determine whether or not the student in question is a transgirl or a naughty, naughty boy?

You mean other than, excluding the parents, having teachers, who have been around the child more than anyone else and that experience to draw from? Other than that?

No, I mean including that.

Let me clarify my inquiry in another way, using a "scary hypothetical":

One night, while you are sleeping, you get kidnapped and taken out to some random bunker in the middle of nowhere.
You wake up, tied up to a chair while a masked man holds a gun to your head.
They tell you about the student I previously mentioned and want you to answer the question about whether or not they are really a transgirl.
They say that they know whether or not the student is trans and will kill you if you get it wrong and take you back home, safe and sound, if you get it right. You believe them.
They are allowing you to phone-a-friend or zoom call literally any number of teachers and/or staff members of the school and ask them anything you want, with the understanding that if you try any shenanigans to get yourself free without answering the question that you will be dead long before any help arrives.

With that setup in mind: What do you need to ask the teachers and/or staff in order for you to be able to be confident that you can answer correctly?

If your answer amounts to "just ask the teachers if they think the student is trans", then I hate to break it to you, but rural counties in red states have teachers too.
Such teachers aren't guaranteed to believe that being trans is a real thing, much less be able to confidently tell whether or not a student is trans.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jebus! We are talking about a school. A school where there are lots of students, that have been attending these schools for years! The teachers know the kids, the staff knows the kids. There is a sense of humanity that exists in the real world that involves the real world history of the students at these schools, instead of these scary hypotheticals where some random person magically appears before a principle (with a beard while wearing a skirt) and demands access to the girls' locker room because they are trans... and the staff is shaking in their boots over potential lawsuits if they don't abide this person they've never before seen in their life.

Why do you believe that some random new person needs to show up for this to be an issue?

A male student has been in the school for years. That student is starting to go through puberty and now claims to be trans.
What knowledge known by the teachers and staff is both necessary and sufficient to be able to 99.9%+ reliably determine whether or not the student in question is a transgirl or a naughty, naughty boy?

You mean other than, excluding the parents, having teachers, who have been around the child more than anyone else and that experience to draw from? Other than that?

No, I mean including that.

Let me clarify my inquiry in another way, using a "scary hypothetical":

One night, while you are sleeping, you get kidnapped and taken out to some random bunker in the middle of nowhere.
You wake up, tied up to a chair while a masked man holds a gun to your head.
They tell you about the student I previously mentioned and want you to answer the question about whether or not they are really a transgirl.
They say that they know whether or not the student is trans and will kill you if you get it wrong and take you back home, safe and sound, if you get it right. You believe them.
They are allowing you to phone-a-friend or zoom call literally any number of teachers and/or staff members of the school and ask them anything you want, with the understanding that if you try any shenanigans to get yourself free without answering the question that you will be dead long before any help arrives.

With that setup in mind: What do you need to ask the teachers and/or staff in order for you to be able to be confident that you can answer correctly?

If your answer amounts to "just ask the teachers if they think the student is trans", then I hate to break it to you, but rural counties in red states have teachers too.
Such teachers aren't guaranteed to believe that being trans is a real thing, much less be able to confidently tell whether or not a student is trans.

Well, I would be dead. I would say "you are a murderer, and you will murder someone for such a petty reason as they will not violate the privacy of another person for your sick amusement. You will make that choice and nobody else. I don't care whether she is trans. You are evil."

 

[KeepTalking]

Jebus! We are talking about a school. A school where there are lots of students, that have been attending these schools for years! The teachers know the kids, the staff knows the kids. There is a sense of humanity that exists in the real world that involves the real world history of the students at these schools, instead of these scary hypotheticals where some random person magically appears before a principle (with a beard while wearing a skirt) and demands access to the girls' locker room because they are trans... and the staff is shaking in their boots over potential lawsuits if they don't abide this person they've never before seen in their life.

Why do you believe that some random new person needs to show up for this to be an issue?

A male student has been in the school for years. That student is starting to go through puberty and now claims to be trans.
What knowledge known by the teachers and staff is both necessary and sufficient to be able to 99.9%+ reliably determine whether or not the student in question is a transgirl or a naughty, naughty boy?

You mean other than, excluding the parents, having teachers, who have been around the child more than anyone else and that experience to draw from? Other than that?

No, I mean including that.

Let me clarify my inquiry in another way, using a "scary hypothetical":

One night, while you are sleeping, you get kidnapped and taken out to some random bunker in the middle of nowhere.
You wake up, tied up to a chair while a masked man holds a gun to your head.
They tell you about the student I previously mentioned and want you to answer the question about whether or not they are really a transgirl.
They say that they know whether or not the student is trans and will kill you if you get it wrong and take you back home, safe and sound, if you get it right. You believe them.
They are allowing you to phone-a-friend or zoom call literally any number of teachers and/or staff members of the school and ask them anything you want, with the understanding that if you try any shenanigans to get yourself free without answering the question that you will be dead long before any help arrives.

With that setup in mind: What do you need to ask the teachers and/or staff in order for you to be able to be confident that you can answer correctly?

If your answer amounts to "just ask the teachers if they think the student is trans", then I hate to break it to you, but rural counties in red states have teachers too.
Such teachers aren't guaranteed to believe that being trans is a real thing, much less be able to confidently tell whether or not a student is trans.

I would ask them when the LSD was supposed to wear off, because somebody is tripping.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Enigma I am coming into your part of the exchange a little bit late, but what exactly are you on about, mate?

 

[Metaphor]

And must be. Because that's the law. It's not actually legal to do what they're trying to do.

You claim it's not Constitutional to enforce it in America, but that is a failure of your imagination to understand how something might be enforced other than strip searches.

The case history that does exist up to this point has not generally confirmed your view.

The link the the full ruling is missing in the first case - I cannot tell if it was ruled unConstitutional based on the American Constitution, or something particular in Colorado.

The Grimm case seems closest to the idea that Grimm was discriminated against by sex, though I find that to be an unbelievable stretch. Grimm was asked to use the female toilets, like any female in the school. So if Grimm was discriminated against, all people of all sexes are whenever there are sex-segregated facilities.

 

[Metaphor]

Indeed. And as stated: it's entirely a function of you getting it by then, and all the misery will be misery you heaped on yourself

For what it's worth, it's going to be a complicated amusement, a shaudenfreude for the ages, mostly centered around what I keep saying: you don't know what is or is not in another person's pants.

I assure you, there is nothing you can say about what is in your pants that will heap misery upon me.

At any rate I will repeat what I keep saying: your assumptions of what are in any given person's pants are merely that, and rude to boot.

There is nothing rude about being aware of somebody's sex.