The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Emily Lake]

(huh, while posting this just discovered another little internal bias there i wasn't aware of - i don't seem to have this issue with trans men. i guess that's kind of like the whole 'punching up' thing about what groups it's OK to target in comedy for mockery)

Transmen represent no risk and no threat to cis-men. If a transman uses the men's restroom, they're probably going to use the stall unless they've surgically transitioned. It they have surgically transitioned and use a urinal... well, men are raised and conditioned not to start at other men's junk, and probably aren't going to give it any notice. At best, they'll perceive a small man, or an effeminate man. But they're not going to comment on it, and they're not going to feel threatened by it. The implied threat of being leered at in a sexual way, or of potentially being assaulted or raped, just isn't there. A person with a female physique just isn't likely to be a physical threat at all. Same goes in locker rooms. If there's an intact transman in the men's locker room, they're much more likely to get lecherous looks (boobs!) than the other way around. In fact, they're much more likely to be assaulted or raped than the other way around.

If a transman gets placed in a men's prison, they don't represent an increased risk of rape to the cis-men housed there. Rather, they themselves face increased risk of rape - especially if they haven't surgically transitioned.

If a transman wants to compete in a men's sport, they're unlikely to be competitive. And if they are, then that's incredibly impressive all around. But given that they have the skeletal structure, muscular attachment points, and physiology of a human female, the likelihood of a transman dominating a men's sport is infinitesimal. If it's high school or college sports, where scholarships are on the line, there no feasible chance that a transman will win a men's sports scholarship. If a transman competes in the Olympics in a men's sport, they're unlikely to win or even to place... and the chances of them smashing a record so thoroughly that a cis-man stands no likelihood of ever coming close to it pretty much nil.

Transmen don't dilute the privileges of men, nor do they threaten any hard won progress. They don't reinforce social biases that hold men back from success, independence, and status. Transmen aren't realistically in competition with cis-men for limited opportunities.

And lastly, transmen don't enter the world of men with a feeling of entitlement, and with the expectation that their desires and needs will be met by society as a whole. They don't transition by demanding that they are every single bit as much of a man as a person who has a prostate or a person who has organic testicles capable of producing sperm, or a person with the capacity for impregnating a human female, or a person with an adam's apple... and they don't demand that the term "man" must always refer to them, and if it's used in the traditional manner of referring to a human male, they don't view that as being intentionally and unforgivably exclusionary.

 

[Emily Lake]

For the record, I'm very supportive of trans rights, respect, and dignity. But as a woman, I don't think i should have to surrender the term "woman" in all cases and all context or risk being called a TERF. I don't think that transwomen should be allowed to compete in women's sports without strict testosterone level reductions. And I think that acceptance into school dormitories, bathrooms, and locker rooms should be determined on a case-by-case basis with consideration for the other women who use those facilities. I am rather against self-id alone obligating anyone to treat a person who bears the experiences, physiology, and likeness of a man as if that person were a woman.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why would we accord you the "right" to deny someone else existence on their own terms?

There's a difference between treating someone with dignity and respect in the fashion that they want to be treated... and granting that person complete access to limited resources on that basis.

For consideration, think about the discussion around Elizabeth Warren identifying, even in a minuscule fashion, as Native American. If we were required to accept each person's existence only on their terms... then wouldn't we all have been expected to accept Elizabeth Warren's claim on her word alone, and grant her access to Indian health systems, scholarships, etc.? Wouldn't we be expected to vilify and deride any Native American person who dared object to her self-identification?

 

[TSwizzle]

Why would we accord you the "right" to deny someone else existence on their own terms?

I identify as part of the British Monarchy, from now on you must address me as "Your Royal Highness" or "Your Majesty".

 

[Emily Lake]

This is pure bigotry, and just as irrational and anti-science as the denial of biological sex based on reproductive systems. Psychological gender is real and a product of brain biology. The brain undergoes sexual differentiation that is only partly influenced by chromosomes but also influenced by factors that do not impact the development of reproductive organs. That leads to people having brains that have structural features far more similar to what is typical of people with reproductive systems of the "opposite" sex.

This is one of the aspects of transgender activism that I bristle at. It comes full circle right back to "lady brain". It puts women, in general, right back into the box of stereotypes that have been a barrier for ages. It lends credence to arguments that women aren't "suited" for certain kinds of roles, like leadership, politics, etc. It reinforces gender bias. And it tacitly supports misogyny.

 

[Emily Lake]

"Assigned male at birth" is a factual statement, and is not contingent on that assignment having been correct or arrived at by any particular means.

Wouldn't that imply that eh obstetrician could look at a freshly delivered infant with ten fingers, ten toes, two testicles and a penis... and "assign" that child the sex of female?

Wouldn't that imply that for the 99% of cis-gender people out there, we might be wrong about what our actual gender is, since it's not related to our biology but is just whatever the doctor "assigned" us?

Honestly, I don't have any problem with someone saying that their perception of themselves doesn't match what they see in the mirror. I just find the terminology to be strange and misleading. As if biological sex is just a human fallacy with no relation to reality.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Does anyone here seriously believe that the only reasons why someone would go through the extraordinary step of transitioning to another sex is so that they could have a slight advantage in sports and/or so they could openly walk into bathrooms?

Split my penis down the middle and make me a fake vagina--while I take painful hormone shots for the rest of my life--just so that I can win occasionally at basketball and go into the women's dressing room! Yeah! That's the ticket! WINNING!!

 

[Emily Lake]

That would be an EXCELLENT analogy if 2% of the population born to humans were non-human. Unfortunately, for you, no. I don't know why you are forcing us all to give you logic lessons. Is it all your pretense of not knowing? Some kind of drama fulfillment?

That 2% figure includes people with reproductive disorders that otherwise have no discernible impact on gender. For example, it includes conditions that accelerate the onset of puberty, or which retard or even fail to launch puberty. My god-daughter has Kalman Syndrome, and puberty won't trigger without her taking estrogen. But in every other medically meaningful sense, she's a human female. It's estimated that about 80% of the cases in that 1.7% figure are congential adrenal hyperplasia, which really isn't an intersex condition at all. IIRC, something less than half a percent are actual non-binary intersex conditions.

Humans are sexually dimorphic. The very small percentage that don't conform to one biologic sex or the other are all considered disorders or genetic errors.

FYI - having a genetic error doesn't justify treating anyone poorly. I myself have a genetic error. I don't feel I should have to hide the fact that I'm epileptic, but I also don't expect anyone else on the planet to pretend that epilepsy is just perfectly normal human variation either.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think that transwomen should be allowed to compete in women's sports without strict testosterone level reductions.

What about other categories of woman who have higher than normal levels of testosterone? For example, I've made a few posts about intersexed persons and how the legal system currently forces a binary label upon them. Some of these persons may have testes but be declared a woman. OR since testosterone production is a spectrum and the cells in the body a mosaic, it is theoretically possible for women to produce n% testosterone (whatever that means doesn't matter--it's abstract). So, would you support some kind of threshold where you say, if you produce above n%, you are excluded from women's sports? Or does any person have to take the testosterone reduction hormones?

What about other genetic anomalies that purportedly give unfair advantage to people...whatever those factors are...are you trying to eliminate anything that makes a person have higher performance in lieu of hard work or do you merely, arbitrarily stop at testosterone?

Anyway, here's a relevant case:

Mokgadi Caster Semenya OIB (born 7 January 1991) is a South African middle-distance runner and 2016 Olympic gold medalist.[4][5] She won gold in the women's 800 metres at the 2009 World Championships with a time of 1:55.45, the 2016 Summer Olympics, and the 2017 World Championships in her new personal best, 1:55.16. After the doping disqualification of Mariya Savinova, she also was awarded gold medals at the 2011 World Championships and the 2012 Summer Olympics, all in the 800 metres.[6][7][8]

Semenya was "assigned female at birth, raised as a girl and identifies as a woman"[9] but has XY chromosomes and exceptionally high testosterone levels ("hyperandrogenism") due to a disorder of sex development.[10][11] Following her victory at the 2009 World Championships, it was announced that she had been subjected to sex testing.[5] She was withdrawn from international competition until 6 July 2010 when the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) cleared her to return.[12][13] In 2019, new IAAF rules came into force preventing women such as Semenya from participating in 400m, 800m, and 1500m events unless they take medication to lower their testosterone levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

Here also is some other food for thought. It appears that some people are in thread supporting this idea that biological sex is binary. And really it's a legal requirement to classify intersexed persons as either male or female, not a biological, scientific one. The sexual segregation of sports has what appears to be a congruent categorization of these persons and so has the same "issue." Hypothetically, this XY woman could have been classified male at birth...let's say she was...and let's say that at adolescence chemistry got more on track to her current chemistry...and she objected to her legal classification, having it changed from male to female. Now, in this hypothetical, she's now a "trans woman"--because the sex she was assigned at birth is not the same as the sex she was assigned later.

Should she be treated any differently than she is now treated? Btw, I realize this doesn't match completely to all cases of trans woman and I am not trying to make it match to all cases, but I do want to demonstrate that persons are within a spectrum of biological sex but both the legal assignment and sports segregation are binary.

Lastly, getting back to J.K. Rowling... "people who menstruate..." there used to be a name for them... aren't we possibly excluding this female athlete or anyway some other person who is similar having XY chromosomes at some level of expression but otherwise being female, not being able to menstruate?

 

[repoman]

I don't think that transwomen should be allowed to compete in women's sports without strict testosterone level reductions.

What about other categories of woman who have higher than normal levels of testosterone? For example, I've made a few posts about intersexed persons and how the legal system currently forces a binary label upon them. Some of these persons may have testes but be declared a woman. OR since testosterone production is a spectrum and the cells in the body a mosaic, it is theoretically possible for women to produce n% testosterone (whatever that means doesn't matter--it's abstract). So, would you support some kind of threshold where you say, if you produce above n%, you are excluded from women's sports? Or does any person have to take the testosterone reduction hormones?

What about other genetic anomalies that purportedly give unfair advantage to people...whatever those factors are...are you trying to eliminate anything that makes a person have higher performance in lieu of hard work or do you merely, arbitrarily stop at testosterone?

Anyway, here's a relevant case:

Mokgadi Caster Semenya OIB (born 7 January 1991) is a South African middle-distance runner and 2016 Olympic gold medalist.[4][5] She won gold in the women's 800 metres at the 2009 World Championships with a time of 1:55.45, the 2016 Summer Olympics, and the 2017 World Championships in her new personal best, 1:55.16. After the doping disqualification of Mariya Savinova, she also was awarded gold medals at the 2011 World Championships and the 2012 Summer Olympics, all in the 800 metres.[6][7][8]

Semenya was "assigned female at birth, raised as a girl and identifies as a woman"[9] but has XY chromosomes and exceptionally high testosterone levels ("hyperandrogenism") due to a disorder of sex development.[10][11] Following her victory at the 2009 World Championships, it was announced that she had been subjected to sex testing.[5] She was withdrawn from international competition until 6 July 2010 when the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) cleared her to return.[12][13] In 2019, new IAAF rules came into force preventing women such as Semenya from participating in 400m, 800m, and 1500m events unless they take medication to lower their testosterone levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

Here also is some other food for thought. It appears that some people are in thread supporting this idea that biological sex is binary. And really it's a legal requirement to classify intersexed persons as either male or female, not a biological, scientific one. The sexual segregation of sports has what appears to be a congruent categorization of these persons and so has the same "issue." Hypothetically, this XY woman could have been classified male at birth...let's say she was...and let's say that at adolescence chemistry got more on track to her current chemistry...and she objected to her legal classification, having it changed to male. Now, in this hypothetical, she's now a "trans woman"--because the sex she was assigned at birth is not the same as the sex she was assigned later.

Should she be treated any differently than she is now treated? Btw, I realize this doesn't match completely to all cases of trans woman and I am not trying to make it match to all cases, but I do want to demonstrate that persons are within a spectrum of biological sex but both the legal assignment and sports segregation are binary.

Lastly, getting back to J.K. Rowling... "people who menstruate..." there used to be a name for them... aren't we possibly excluding this female athlete or anyway some other person who is similar having XY chromosomes at some level of expression but otherwise being female, not being able to menstruate?

XY - female

You are either dumb or an ideologue.

 

[Emily Lake]

Interesting, so you saying there is 1, 0 and something in between, but it is binary. Are we talking like a quantum binary?

Interesting thought. Does the existence of congenital twins mean we can't say humans have one head? Does the existence of polydactyl people mean that humans we can't say that humans have ten fingers and ten toes?

 

[Emily Lake]

You can't change your sex, though.

Yes, you physically can through an operation.

Quibble... through surgery you can change the appearance of your genitalia. But surgery cannot make a penis that generates sperm, and it can't implant a prostate. Surgery can't create mammary glands that produce milk, nor can it create ovaries, fallopian tubes, and a uterus capable of bearing children.

Surgery can make a female human look like a male human, but it cannot actually make that female into a male. I can dye my hair so I look like a redhead, but I can't make my scalp grow red hair. I am naturally brunette.

 

[repoman]

Interesting, so you saying there is 1, 0 and something in between, but it is binary. Are we talking like a quantum binary?

Interesting thought. Does the existence of congenital twins mean we can't say humans have one head? Does the existence of polydactyl people mean that humans we can't say that humans have ten fingers and ten toes?

If they were not ideologically motivated they would not use the examples they do.

Everyone sees through them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That would be an EXCELLENT analogy if 2% of the population born to humans were non-human. Unfortunately, for you, no. I don't know why you are forcing us all to give you logic lessons. Is it all your pretense of not knowing? Some kind of drama fulfillment?

That 2% figure includes people with reproductive disorders that otherwise have no discernible impact on gender. For example, it includes conditions that accelerate the onset of puberty, or which retard or even fail to launch puberty. My god-daughter has Kalman Syndrome, and puberty won't trigger without her taking estrogen. But in every other medically meaningful sense, she's a human female. It's estimated that about 80% of the cases in that 1.7% figure are congential adrenal hyperplasia, which really isn't an intersex condition at all. IIRC, something less than half a percent are actual non-binary intersex conditions.

Humans are sexually dimorphic. The very small percentage that don't conform to one biologic sex or the other are all considered disorders or genetic errors.

FYI - having a genetic error doesn't justify treating anyone poorly. I myself have a genetic error. I don't feel I should have to hide the fact that I'm epileptic, but I also don't expect anyone else on the planet to pretend that epilepsy is just perfectly normal human variation either.

Not everything is a "disorder"--your word. Many things are just variation and people call them disorders sometimes and sometimes not. So, not every male who produces low testosterone has a disorder. If it gets below X% suddenly, arbitrarily it's called a disorder but it is also part of human variation. Likewise, women who have higher than normal testosterone don't necessarily have a disorder. They might fit into a category or they might not. Some number of their cells may be XY due to a host of reasons, not all of which are classified as disorders.

Biologists today consider people to be more of a system than in previous decades....and when we look at genetics, we're including a microbiome which at times even has far more DNA than the human genome....and as such, somewhat related, is that we could be a mosaic of dead twins or fetal dna or maternal dna at times in addition....none of which is most often classified as a disorder necessarily.

I recommend before responding further that you review my link to the Nature article so we have a basis for technical discussion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What about other categories of woman who have higher than normal levels of testosterone? For example, I've made a few posts about intersexed persons and how the legal system currently forces a binary label upon them. Some of these persons may have testes but be declared a woman. OR since testosterone production is a spectrum and the cells in the body a mosaic, it is theoretically possible for women to produce n% testosterone (whatever that means doesn't matter--it's abstract). So, would you support some kind of threshold where you say, if you produce above n%, you are excluded from women's sports? Or does any person have to take the testosterone reduction hormones?

What about other genetic anomalies that purportedly give unfair advantage to people...whatever those factors are...are you trying to eliminate anything that makes a person have higher performance in lieu of hard work or do you merely, arbitrarily stop at testosterone?

Anyway, here's a relevant case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

Here also is some other food for thought. It appears that some people are in thread supporting this idea that biological sex is binary. And really it's a legal requirement to classify intersexed persons as either male or female, not a biological, scientific one. The sexual segregation of sports has what appears to be a congruent categorization of these persons and so has the same "issue." Hypothetically, this XY woman could have been classified male at birth...let's say she was...and let's say that at adolescence chemistry got more on track to her current chemistry...and she objected to her legal classification, having it changed to male. Now, in this hypothetical, she's now a "trans woman"--because the sex she was assigned at birth is not the same as the sex she was assigned later.

Should she be treated any differently than she is now treated? Btw, I realize this doesn't match completely to all cases of trans woman and I am not trying to make it match to all cases, but I do want to demonstrate that persons are within a spectrum of biological sex but both the legal assignment and sports segregation are binary.

Lastly, getting back to J.K. Rowling... "people who menstruate..." there used to be a name for them... aren't we possibly excluding this female athlete or anyway some other person who is similar having XY chromosomes at some level of expression but otherwise being female, not being able to menstruate?

XY - female

You are either dumb or an ideologue.

wut

 

[Emily Lake]

Does anyone here seriously believe that the only reasons why someone would go through the extraordinary step of transitioning to another sex is so that they could have a slight advantage in sports and/or so they could openly walk into bathrooms?

Split my penis down the middle and make me a fake vagina--while I take painful hormone shots for the rest of my life--just so that I can win occasionally at basketball and go into the women's dressing room! Yeah! That's the ticket! WINNING!!

First, no, I don't think people who surgically transition are doing it for the purpose of a significant advantage in sports or access to bathrooms and locker rooms.

Second, however, there's been a pretty significant push over the past few years to allow people to self-identify their gender, and to then be granted access to those sports and locker rooms on the basis of their belief, without any sort of transition or hormone therapy at all.

And there have already been multiple cases where a women's sports record has been irrevocably shattered by a transwoman. These are transwomen who would not be competitive against male-bodied people, but who have an unquestionably advantage over female-bodied people.

 

[repoman]

hearing reports that in the woke space of roller derby pretransitioned "trans" women are demanding to be on the women's teams.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Does anyone here seriously believe that the only reasons why someone would go through the extraordinary step of transitioning to another sex is so that they could have a slight advantage in sports and/or so they could openly walk into bathrooms?

Split my penis down the middle and make me a fake vagina--while I take painful hormone shots for the rest of my life--just so that I can win occasionally at basketball and go into the women's dressing room! Yeah! That's the ticket! WINNING!!

First, no, I don't think people who surgically transition are doing it for the purpose of a significant advantage in sports or access to bathrooms and locker rooms.

And yet you then resort to this red herring:

Second, however, there's been a pretty significant push over the past few years to allow people to self-identify their gender, and to then be granted access to those sports and locker rooms on the basis of their belief, without any sort of transition or hormone therapy at all.

And there have already been multiple cases where a women's sports record has been irrevocably shattered by a transwoman. These are transwomen who would not be competitive against male-bodied people, but who have an unquestionably advantage over female-bodied people.

Who cares about either utterly pointless scenario? Is your life radically altered in any way if a person uses the "wrong" bathroom for completely innocent reasons? No, it is not. It would ONLY matter if some pervert were pretending to be trans in order to fulfill some sort of sexual or abusive urge, in which case you're no longer talking about transsexualism and are instead talking about a pervert. Guess what? There are perverts who do that already without going through the extraordinarily unnecessarily steps of having their penises cut in half.

In regard to sports records being shattered, these are beyond trivial and do not occur in anywhere near the percentages necessary for it to ever be an issue. All you just said in regard to sports is that someone beat someone else's record. So what? That literally happens all the time, where biological "men" shatter biological "women's" records--and vice versa--constantly. You have simply artificially separated competitors as an unjustifiable means of awarding them utterly meaningless medals.

You are either the best at running the 100K in a particular race or you are not. What plumbing you have is entirely irrelevant to that already irrelevant and utterly trivial temporarily held title:

It is hard to comprehend that someone could be two or three seconds faster than the current World Record in the men’s 50 freestyle, but it has happened time and time again. 31 years ago, Joe Bottom held the World Record in the men’s 50 freestyle with his time of 23.74. Today, his world record time from 1978, the fastest time ever swum at the time, is slower than the current women’s record (23.73, Britta Steffen) and almost three seconds slower than the current men’s world record (20.94, Cesar Cielo).
...
Thanks to an email from Jim Dannenberg, we looked through the history books to find out how long ago the current women’s world records would have stood as the men’s world record. To our surprise, it wasn’t that long ago that the best women in 2015 would have beat the top men in the world. As a community, we revere Olympic legend Mark Spitz and everything he accomplished, but currently, both the women’s 200 freestyle and the 200 butterfly world records are faster than Spitz’s former World Records.

It's clearly a question of time (and training), not a question of plumbing and it is far more important that someone's rights be upheld than whether or not you get a blue ribbon next Tuesday for kicking a ball around for an hour or so, that will then go to someone else the following Tuesday and will then go to someone else the following Tuesday ad infinitum.

 

[Toni]

You can't change your sex, though.

Yes, you physically can through an operation.

Quibble... through surgery you can change the appearance of your genitalia. But surgery cannot make a penis that generates sperm, and it can't implant a prostate. Surgery can't create mammary glands that produce milk, nor can it create ovaries, fallopian tubes, and a uterus capable of bearing children.

Surgery can make a female human look like a male human, but it cannot actually make that female into a male. I can dye my hair so I look like a redhead, but I can't make my scalp grow red hair. I am naturally brunette.

Not such a quibble: all of ushave mammary glands. Under the right circumstances, men ( in common parlance, XY, cis, etc.) can indeed lactate. In the wrong circumstances, a woman (cis, XX, etc) might be unable to lactate despite having given birth.

But: trans women do not have eggs; trans men do not produce sperm.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Quibble... through surgery you can change the appearance of your genitalia. But surgery cannot make a penis that generates sperm, and it can't implant a prostate. Surgery can't create mammary glands that produce milk, nor can it create ovaries, fallopian tubes, and a uterus capable of bearing children.

Surgery can make a female human look like a male human, but it cannot actually make that female into a male. I can dye my hair so I look like a redhead, but I can't make my scalp grow red hair. I am naturally brunette.

Not such a quibble: all of ushave mammary glands. Under the right circumstances, men ( in common parlance, XY, cis, etc.) can indeed lactate. In the wrong circumstances, a woman (cis, XX, etc) might be unable to lactate despite having given birth.

But: trans women do not have eggs; trans men do not produce sperm.

But males could carry a baby to term.