The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Metaphor]

Yes, this proves the point. You 'prefer' to call him according to your norms and definitions not hers. If she asks you to refer to her as female - there is no 'rights' removed if you don't,

Of course my rights are removed, because trans activists have commanded the power of the State to stop free speech. My friend isn't female even if he says he is. Nor would I call him white if he asked me to, because he isn't.

Of course, trans activists already have extreme cultural power as well. Deadnaming is already forbidden. Wikipedia doesn't give birth names of trans-identified people, even though that is clearly historical information (it gives the birth names of anyone else, though). If somebody perceives that you have misgendered them on Twitter, you can be suspended or banned for life.

but she can also refer to you as an asshole without recourse, and you demanding that she insist she is a male is kind of the same as you demanding that Steve uses his first name.

No. "Male" and "female" are biological categories, and somebody insisting they are one when they are the other may be their preference, but I do not and cannot partake in their delusion.

Mostly in the context of you speaking with multiple people in the presence of a transgendered person of whom you are referring. (ie. introducing her to a friend and saying "she doesn't like being referred to as he").

I don't police people's speech.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...are you saying that someone will go through all the trouble of gender reassignment

Their gender is not reassigned. Indeed, their gender was never assigned in the first place. They are having surgery and hormone treatment so that their sex more closely matches their gender.

and hormone treatment, but you won't recognize a "male" with all the parts and facial hair without a genetic test to determine if they actually have a Y chromosome?

What somebody does to alter their appearance and internal chemistry does not obligate me to believe something I do not believe.

As for "male" with "all the parts" … that does not happen. A pseudopenis doesn't look or function like a real penis. Surgery does not turn ova into sperm.

In any case, that isn't what trans activists demand. Trans activists demand that one's gender is accepted as one's sex with no surgery, no hormones, no work at all to pass as the opposite sex. Indeed, trans activists now say even gender dysphoria is not necessary for somebody to be trans, and women can use he/him pronouns if they want, and if you think there should be any bureaucratic or medical barriers at all you are truscum.

And is that a real problem in Australia, or a perceived one?

How do you define the difference between a real problem and a perceived one? Is it a real problem if females don't want males in their changing rooms, or is that merely a perceived problem that does not need to be recognized or addressed?

Is it a problem if the facilities at a public space are based on sex and not gender? Would that pose a real problem or a perceived one?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

What a terrible analogy and point you just made. Your conclusion is "it does not mean there is no such thing as species," is analogous to me saying "there is no such thing as biological sex," which is a thing I didn't say. What I said is that it's a spectrum because of a host of things which comprise it which are themselves spectra with measurements in percents and observable qualities that vary needing specialists to determine.

What cracks me up about it is my mother--a biologist by education and profession--would occasionally gripe about the nonsensical pedantry with which some approached taxonomy. Categorization into species is a useful tool, but it clearly lacks the ability to really account for the level of complexity and diversity throughout life. It doesn't need to. And yet one does need to avoid conflating categorizations with the phenomena they attempt to describe or group.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sex redefined

The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.

 

[ruby sparks]

But to repeat the obviously false claim that trans women are women is nothing more or less than a religious incantation.

It still depends how ‘woman’ is defined though, and appealing to traditional biological definitions doesn’t help you much (see posts above and previously in the thread).

I think you just don’t get it. There’s something you’re just not getting. The entire situation is just much less simple and has more natural variety than you are trying to make it seem with your cookie-cutter.

Much of what you are saying about transgender is analogous to what used to be said about homosexuality, and sometimes still is, by the intolerant and inflexible.

 

[Metaphor]

But to repeat the obviously false claim that trans women are women is nothing more or less than a religious incantation.

It still depends how ‘woman’ is defined though, and appealing to traditional biological definitions doesn’t help you much (see posts above and previously in the thread).

​

Well, yes, it does depend on how 'woman' is defined, doesn't it? The definition of a woman is an adult human female.

What's your definition?

I've asked this of several posters now and I haven't gotten a response.​

I think you just don’t get it. There’s something you’re just not getting. The entire situation is just much less simple and has more natural variety than you are trying to make it seem with your cookie-cutter.

Sex in mammals is functionally binary and is almost always fixed before birth.

When you say the situation is 'less simple' than I imagine, what situation are you talking about?

Much of what you are saying about transgender is analogous to what used to be said about homosexuality, and sometimes still is, by the intolerant and inflexible.

Please tell me, specifically, what I've said that is analogous to what 'used to be said' about homosexuality?

 

[ruby sparks]

Please tell me, specifically, what I've said that is analogous to what 'used to be said' about homosexuality?

For example the suggestion that there is only one ‘proper’ binary set (pair) of orientations, that is (or should be) defined by a person’s genitals, and their usual functions. Your views on transgender seem to me quite a bit like a rehash of that dubious (and often prejudiced and bigoted and sometimes phobic) perspective.

Regarding the lack of simplicity, several others have already explained this.

 

[Metaphor]

Please tell me, specifically, what I've said that is analogous to what 'used to be said' about homosexuality?

For example the suggestion that there is only one ‘proper’ orientation, that is (or should be) defined by a person’s genitals, and their usual functions. Your views on transgender seem to me quite a bit like a rehash of that dubious (and often prejudiced and bigoted) perspective.

Nope, you'll have to explain this. As written, it makes no sense.

I have never said a person is defined by their genitals, though a person's sex is certainly defined by their sex.

Homosexual men have a feeling in their head. That feeling means they are attracted to men. They are attracted to the male sex. Homosexuals rightly demanded that the government stop criminalising same-sex sexual behavior between consenting adults.

One thing homosexuals did not do is demand to be called heterosexual.

 

[ruby sparks]

Please tell me, specifically, what I've said that is analogous to what 'used to be said' about homosexuality?

For example the suggestion that there is only one ‘proper’ orientation, that is (or should be) defined by a person’s genitals, and their usual functions. Your views on transgender seem to me quite a bit like a rehash of that dubious (and often prejudiced and bigoted) perspective.

Nope, you'll have to explain this. As written, it makes no sense.

I have never said a person is defined by their genitals, though a person's sex is certainly defined by their sex.

Homosexual men have a feeling in their head. That feeling means they are attracted to men. They are attracted to the male sex. Homosexuals rightly demanded that the government stop criminalising same-sex sexual behavior between consenting adults.

One thing homosexuals did not do is demand to be called heterosexual.

It’s only analogous to it, not identical to it. In essence it’s the same sort of thing in at least some ways, for example the ones I outlined.

 

[ruby sparks]

It may depend on what an individual person involved might assert, I suppose. I am not familiar with the case of the trans woman wanting to join the women’s health clinic. Did she actually say that she was as much a woman, or a woman in the same way, as the other members were, or did she merely want to be included in a general category with them?

well of course in these situations you can only get what information the news source decides to include, so who knows what the actual thoughts and feelings were.

some examples:
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/...after-being-turned-away-from-womens-only-gym/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...woman-loses-case-against-beauticians-refused/

i'll perhaps dig up the thread that was on here about another incident last year.

anyways, point is:
if we as a society are to agree that a business can be selective of its customers based on gender, then i support any business refusing a trans person admission.
i also support any business accepting a trans person if they so choose, ie if such a business were to take on a trans woman i wouldn't consider that offensive or wrong.

this clashes with the narrative that one must accept that a trans woman is a woman, full stop, and thus it would discrimination to not accept their business.

It's complicated (trite, I know, and I say it a lot, but it's true). I'm actually just glad it's not something I personally have had to deal with or adjudicate on.

In both the above cases there seem to be sufficient reasons involved for it not to be considered unfair discrimination against the transgender person, imo.

As to your concluding point, it feels to me like one of those things that is fine in principle but which may be problematic when the devil that is in the detail of individual instances is encountered.

In pragmatic terms, and temporarily assuming an absence of prejudicial attitudes, it often boils down to making reasonable accommodations. In the case of a gym, a third set of changing rooms (or a second set in a female-only gym) would at least help for instance. But that isn't always practical or viable, especially for existing premises. That said, many things (including physical segregations) that would, even last year, have been considered unviable and impractical, have been implemented as a result of Covid19. But I guess then we are talking, literally, about life and death.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

well of course in these situations you can only get what information the news source decides to include, so who knows what the actual thoughts and feelings were.

some examples:
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/05/...after-being-turned-away-from-womens-only-gym/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...woman-loses-case-against-beauticians-refused/

In the case of Yaniv, the tribunal decision is on record. Generally, Yaniv did not have a great deal of support from the transgender community, with a number of more prominent transgender activists publicly speaking out against her human rights complaint.

for reference: https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uplo...Various_Waxing_Salons_No_2_2019_BCHRT_222.pdf

anyways, point is:
if we as a society are to agree that a business can be selective of its customers based on gender, then i support any business refusing a trans person admission.
i also support any business accepting a trans person if they so choose, ie if such a business were to take on a trans woman i wouldn't consider that offensive or wrong.

Selectiveness on the basis of sex/ gender identity/ other protected characteristics isn't an 'anything-goes' proposition. In some cases, it persists because no one actually files a formal complaint. In some cases, it is allowed because the entity doing the segregating or the specific activities in the complaint against them don't fall under the human rights code. In some cases, there is a recognized bona fide reason for the segregation/ denial of service/ whatever.

In Yaniv's case, however, it wasn't any of those. The decision was broken into two groups of complaints brought forward by Yaniv.

• The first pertained to genital waxing. In those complaints, it was determined that scrotal waxing is a distinct serviced from what the businesses offered, so there was no denial of service to Yaniv in those cases.
• The second pertained to arm and leg waxing. In the decision summary, it states:

Most significantly, there is no material difference in waxing the arms or legs of a cisgender woman and a transgender woman. Ms. Barnetson confirmed this in her expert testimony, and no Respondent argued otherwise. I agree generally with Ms. Yaniv that a person who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs cannot discriminate between cisgender and transgender women absent a bona fide reasonable justification

The complaints were dismissed, however, because they were deemed to be in bad faith/ brought forward for improper reasons (targeting Asian women due to racial animus, and for personal financial gain).

 

[Metaphor]

The complaints were dismissed, however, because they were deemed to be in bad faith/ brought forward for improper reasons (targeting Asian women due to racial animus, and for personal financial gain).

It seems astonishing to me that discriminating against men is permitted when waxing arms, but that discriminating between trans women and cis women is not. That makes no sense.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The complaints were dismissed, however, because they were deemed to be in bad faith/ brought forward for improper reasons (targeting Asian women due to racial animus, and for personal financial gain).

It seems astonishing to me that discriminating against men is permitted when waxing arms, but that discriminating between trans women and cis women is not. That makes no sense.

I'm not sure where you're pulling that conclusion from. The idea that a service offered to women cannot generally refuse to offer that service to a transgender woman does not necessarily indicate they could refuse that service to a man. That wasn't in consideration for this complaint. It's been some time since I've read the whole thing, but I'd be surprised to find there was any commentary on it whatsoever anywhere in the decision.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not sure where you're pulling that conclusion from. The idea that a service offered to women cannot generally refuse to offer that service to a transgender woman does not necessarily indicate they could refuse that service to a man. That wasn't in consideration for this complaint. It's been some time since I've read the whole thing, but I'd be surprised to find there was any commentary on it whatsoever anywhere in the decision.

From the case notes:

Sukhi Beauty Dream Salon and Sukhdip Hehar: Mrs. Hehar is a Sikh woman who provides mobile beauty services in the homes of her clients through her business, Sukhi Beauty Dream Salon. Before opening her business, she reached an agreement with her husband that she would not perform services on any “male” body for religious and cultural reasons. She interprets a male body to mean a body with a penis and scrotum, which would include Ms. Yaniv. She refused to provide Ms. Yaniv with leg and arm waxing.

A business that does not wax male bodies obviously does not wax men. Yaniv's case against this business was dismissed not because the business had the right to discriminate against trans women, but because Yaniv's case was brought for 'improper purposes'. And yet the business has the right to discriminate against men.

Most significantly, there is no material difference in waxing the arms or legs of a cisgender woman and a transgender woman. Ms. Barnetson confirmed this in her expert testimony, and no Respondent argued otherwise. I agree generally with Ms. Yaniv that a person who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs cannot discriminate between cisgender and transgender women absent a bona fide reasonable justification: Eadie at paras. 139‐145.

I find this to be absolute fucking madness. Businesses are allowed to discriminate against males, unless the males are trans women.

Now, as it happens, I don't care that businesses discriminate against men. If somebody does not want to wax men's (or male) bodies, that should be their decision. And, if somebody does not want to wax trans bodies, that should also be their decision. Yaniv's behaviour was deranged, but trans activists and the Canadian government enabled the derangement.

I've had waxing done. I've gone to somebody who advertises waxing services for men. I would not fucking dream of going to a salon that did not advertise that it offered services for men, even though where I live waxing services for men are difficult to find. But in this Brave New World of you are whatever you say you are, I could simply rock up to a salon that doesn't want to service me (being a man), claim I'm a trans woman and they would have to service me.

Alternatively, maybe they wouldn't service me and I'd get my day in the tribunal. Maybe the salon's defense would be 'he isn't really a trans woman'. They could probably gather evidence that I'm not. And maybe the salon could defend itself that way. And we'd have a salon that can discriminate against cis male-bodied people, but not against any male-bodied people who have certain thoughts in their head about gender.

 

[repoman]

If the waxing woman was white and say a kooky Pentecostal or an atheist maybe Yaniv would have won. Inverted oppression stack is the law in Canuckistan.

 

[ruby sparks]

But in this Brave New World of you are whatever you say you are, I could simply rock up to a salon that doesn't want to service me (being a man), claim I'm a trans woman and they would have to service me.

I’m not sure where you get that conclusion from?

The outcome of this case seemed to be that, barring some specific acceptable reason to allow the contrary, if it was your genitals, a waxer offering a women-only service might reasonably be able to refuse, but if it was only your arms and legs, they might not, whether you were a trans woman or a cis man.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

From the case notes:

Sukhi Beauty Dream Salon and Sukhdip Hehar: Mrs. Hehar is a Sikh woman who provides mobile beauty services in the homes of her clients through her business, Sukhi Beauty Dream Salon. Before opening her business, she reached an agreement with her husband that she would not perform services on any “male” body for religious and cultural reasons. She interprets a male body to mean a body with a penis and scrotum, which would include Ms. Yaniv. She refused to provide Ms. Yaniv with leg and arm waxing.

A business that does not wax male bodies obviously does not wax men. Yaniv's case against this business was dismissed not because the business had the right to discriminate against trans women, but because Yaniv's case was brought for 'improper purposes'. And yet the business has the right to discriminate against men.

The portion you cited was not the tribunal's affirmation that Beauty Dream Salon has the right to refuse leg and arm waxing to men. It was a summary of the position taken by Mrs. Hehar. The tribunal answers questions put before it. Whether or not the business has the right to refuse service to men was not a question it sought to answer. Whether the business had a right to refuse arm and leg waxing services to Ms. Yaniv is a question it did not answer because that complaint was dismissed.

Most significantly, there is no material difference in waxing the arms or legs of a cisgender woman and a transgender woman. Ms. Barnetson confirmed this in her expert testimony, and no Respondent argued otherwise. I agree generally with Ms. Yaniv that a person who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs cannot discriminate between cisgender and transgender women absent a bona fide reasonable justification: Eadie at paras. 139‐145.

I find this to be absolute fucking madness. Businesses are allowed to discriminate against males, unless the males are trans women.

The decision neither states nor implies that. You're reading into the decision something which simply is not there. You can't go by implication because nothing is implied by the tribunal not addressing the issue of refusing to offer waxing service to men.

But in this Brave New World of you are whatever you say you are, I could simply rock up to a salon that doesn't want to service me (being a man), claim I'm a trans woman and they would have to service me.

I very much suspect the claim would be found disingenuous or at least unsubstantiated by a tribunal.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If the waxing woman was white and say a kooky Pentecostal or an atheist maybe Yaniv would have won. Inverted oppression stack is the law in Canuckistan.

Being a Canadian actually subject to the laws here, I can thankfully say I'm not such a sadsack piece of shit I need to oppress myself with imaginary scenarios.

But hey, if the Prime Minister of Canada was the Chancellor of Germany, we'd all be kicked to death by moose. That's the real concern.


Incidentally, those conspiratorial fuckers on the tribunal let the white people win one just because they sensed you were onto them you clever lad you. Clearly they needed to throw you off the scent before you blew the lid off their whole game:

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/white-workers...acial-discrimination-tribunal-finds-1.4161590

 

[ronburgundy]

Except the GLAAD guidelines tell you that the direct preferred alternative to saying "biological male" is "assigned male at birth", which is based upon direct inspection of reproductive organs and which you wouldn't know either about an given person. So, that exposes that it is not just about making assumptions about an individual. It is that even if you are accurately referring to people, including groups of people, who do have male reproductive organs, you should never imply they are "male" in any aspect but rather phrase it only as though the doctor made an error by assigning that label based biological sex as defined by reproductive organs.

Numerous uses of these terms to refer to hypothetical female or groups of females further show that you're wrong. Such as when biological females in general are being referred to preciously b/c they have female reproductive systems (like in a TV ad for an AIDS prep medication) and instead of referring to them as females or biological females the ad says "This drug has not been tested on people who were assigned female at birth."

You seem to understand that it would be silly to refer to a pond lily as "a man", simply because it contains male genetic material. It is similarly ridiculous to do this to a human being, especially if you don't actually know whether that is even true.

No, it's silly to call a pond lilly a man, b/c we know for certainty that it lacks the neccessary characteristics of being an adult human, which only when added to a lily having a male reproductive system would qualify it a man. And anytime that it is silly to call and individual a "biological male" it is equally silly and possibly untrue to refer to them as "assigned male at birth", which proves that the use of that phrase in place of biologically female has nothing to do with not being presumptive, it's about pretending that biological sex doesn't exist.

It might be true that the original objection was limited only to assuming the biological sex of individual persons, but as if often the case with political activism it's gone off the deep end into anti-science territory, and now is being used to coerce people from ever talking about people as having a biological sex, even when talking only about those people who do have female reproductive organs.

"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.

Biological female can be a factual statement as well. You don't know either one is true about any individual stranger unless they tell you or you track down their birth certificate. And many uses (such as the Aids Prep ad) of the "acceptable" phrase are inherently only in reference to abstract group of people who are in fact female by the standard scientific definition. There is no assumption being made about any individual. It's the difference between saying "College graduates" vs. "You are a college graduate". With the former, it is irrelevant what you know about any person and you aren't making assumptions about anyone. You are referring to the group of people who are in fact college graduates, and they personally can decide if that applies to them.

 

[Playball40]

She also is ignoring people that don't menstruate for other reasons. People on BC often don't menstruate, post menopausal, pregnant and many others Why is she so worried and dismissive of saying "people who menstruate" anyway? It's a proper descriptor and shouldn't offend any person.

I agree, her controversial tweet also denied the existence of intersex people. She gives them absolutely no consideration.

‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

 

[Politesse]

Unless you're talking to an actual scientist, who will happily point out that there is no real scientific definition of "maleness" and "femaleness", at least not one that would apply to all theoretical cases in a dichotomous fashion. Note how wildly inconsistent the proposed definitions in this thread have been; true to reality, some have focused on social affect, some the appearance of external genitalia, some on "genetics" (presumably referring to the presence of a Y chromosome), and others on hormones. Since these four things could all be considered "biological" but neither predictably line up with one another nor by themselves constitute a reasonable definition, none of them work as a standalone type characteristic nor do they work together. I know a lot of scientists, and while plenty are happy to ask people about their gender, describe people in gendered terms, etc, I seldom hear anyone conversant in genetic science try to reference "biological men" or "biological women". Those are social identifiers, which scientists know are wrapped around a much more complex empirical reality. We do this with a lot of things- race, age, healthiness. Socially, people latch on to certain visual identifiers they've been trained to be sensitive to, and try to turn those into uncomplicated statements of personal identity. But nature itself does not lend itself to unambiguous categories, and the more complex the system, the less likely it is that a folk taxonomy of gender, race, age, fatness, etc, will be helpful to a real scientist.