Bill C 16 What say you?

264 posts / 0 new
Last post
Misfit

Maybe the appropriation goes a bit deeper. When boys in school claim that they are girls and then compete as women in sports, that gives them a strong physical advantage and then they take all the awards, trophies, and athletic scholarships that are set out for the girls because they have a distinct physical advantage.

Edit to add:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/04/transgender-athlete-beats-girls-but-wouldve-placed-last-against-boys-video/

6079_Smith_W

Magoo, I thought we were talking about the comparison between transgenderism and cultural appropriation. I think you might be mixing up gender identity with what I was talking about, which is gender expression.

Most people have some degree of gender expression regardless of whether they are trans or not. My question is how it can be appropriation if it is something which is also exhibited by most non trans people.

And Misfit, the most recent case I have heard of that was a transgender boy in Texas who was forbidden from competing in wrestling with boys, and was forced to compete with girls. It is a complicated issue:

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

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Magoo, I thought we were talking about the comparison between transgenderism and cultural appropriation. I think you might be mixing up gender identity with what I was talking about, which is gender expression.

You could be right here.

But I would think that perhaps even those who would self-describe as "transgender" are also simply "expressing".

So I wondered what it's supposed to mean if someone who's transgendered, and who always "knew" this, points out their love of (some gender expresssion -- let's say "girly dresses") as proof that they're actually a different sex?

To be clear, I get that some people may like to wear "girly dresses" but not believe that they're a woman.  But if all sorts of people do this and it doesn't seem to mean anything then how can it prove that someone is actually a woman?  If this sort of expression is common -- and I'm not arguing with that idea -- then what is it supposed to prove, other than that we're all sort of complex?

6079_Smith_W

It is a different gender, not a different sex.  And what you are talking about is the difference between gender identity and gender expression.

I am not sure proof is the operative word when it comes to how one sees one's self. After all, how would you prove to someone that you are straight? You might just be faking, or perhaps you haven't met Mr. Right yet.

Though there sure seem to be a lot of people who see it as their business to demand proof of others, absurd as it is.

And to be clear, I wasn't just talking about men and women who have non-stereotypical expression. I am more talking about men who are masculine, and women who are feminine, which is a fair percentage of the population. I am saying that challenges the comparison between transgenderism and cultural appropriation.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It is a different gender, not a different sex.  And what you are talking about is the difference between gender identity and gender expression.

I am not sure proof is the operative word when it comes to how one sees one's self. After all, how would you prove to someone that you are straight? You might just be faking, or perhaps you haven't met Mr. Right yet.

Though there sure seem to be a lot of people who see it as their business to demand proof of others, absurd as it is.

And to be clear, I wasn't just talking about men and women who have non-stereotypical expression. I am more talking about men who are masculine, and women who are feminine, which is a fair percentage of the population. I am saying that challenges the comparison between transgenderism and cultural appropriation.

So if a man who likes to wear frilly clothes wants to go to a womens shelter he has only to say that he thinks he feels like a woman to gain the right to enter what is supposed to be a safe space. However a man who likes to wear frilly clothes and make-up would be barred if he said he feels a little more like a man than a woman. It all seems rather arbitrary and impossible to police. In fact if there is an absolute right for transgendered women to access all womens spaces then the spaces are no longer womens spaces but instead women and transgendered spaces. So why would a man of any kind be barred. After all it if isn't about the hardware a person is endowed with then it must be about their thoughts and men can claim to be feminist enough to pose no threat. So what is it about men's thoughts that sets them apart from a transgendered person that makes them demonstrably a greater risk to women.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I am not sure proof is the operative word when it comes to how one sees one's self. After all, how would you prove to someone that you are straight? You might just be faking, or perhaps you haven't met Mr. Right yet.

OK.  I guess I need to have sex with a woman and enjoy it then!  I'll ask my wife about this, just to settle things once and for all.

But I get where you're coming from and just being silly otherwise.

Quote:
And to be clear, I wasn't just talking about men and women who have non-stereotypical expression. I am more talking about men who are masculine, and women who are feminine, which is a fair percentage of the population. I am saying that challenges the comparison between transgenderism and cultural appropriation.

If you're saying that some regular ol' men, surely "cis" men, still feel a need to punch a whale* to prove that they're not the other then, OK.  I only wonder how, when someone says "I'm a straight male and I prefer needlepoint to Soccer"  that means nothing, but when someone says "I always knew I was a woman because I prefer needlepoint to Soccer" that means something.

* anyone who identifies this reference gets an automagic golf clap

6079_Smith_W

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about, kropotkin. And as we have already repeated a couple of times, the Kimberly Nixon case ended with a ruling that the shelter had the right to bar people based on the identifiable group it serves.

And if some presume this law makes all the difference, well we already had protection based on sex, so by that reckoning it should be discrimination to bar any man from a woman's shelter, right? Fact is, the legislation is not applied that way.

To repeat, what I am actually talking about is how transgenderism can be compared to cultural appropriation when there are far more non-trans women expressing the same form of that alleged patriarchal construct - feminine gender

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The Nixon case is interesting however you dismiss the problems because they might be settled okay in a court. However in Victoria and Vancouver transgender activists are demanding the right to access womens only spaces. It is not merely about the strict interpretation of the law it is also about the fact that now women have to fight people who claim to be women for the right to be in womens only spaces. Personally I think gender is like sexual orientation and most every other human trait. They all exist on a spectrum not in a bi-polar relationship. To me the question is how far alone the spectrum does one have to be to demand treatment as a woman? Is it really just a matter of saying I think I am a woman and then you as a biological male can then demand that women accept you as one of them.  Sorry but that is not good for womens spaces no matter how many times you cite an old precedent that nearly backrupted the organization that won it.

6079_Smith_W

I'm not dismissing anything. I have said a number of times that most of these disputes and accomodations are happening quite independent of the law.

But on the topic of this thread - rights legislation - that finding was in favour of the shelter, even though they found that Nixon had been discriminated against on the basis of gender.

If you want to talk about that other aspect of it, go ahead (we also had another thread where we were doing so before this got started) but we have been talking about rights legislation, the topic of this thread. And most recently another matter entirely.

I think seeing it as how far one has to go to demand is defaulting to confrontation. More important I think is making sure there are services available to those who need them. There are shelters which do not discriminate in that way, so how do we make sure people get access to them?  And how do we make sure that people who want exclusive spaces protected get support?

This whole line of how do you prove who is what and do they need a transgender membership card is a blind alley, IMO. If we want to get strict about it, I suppose a diagnosis of gender dysphoria might do, but not everyone has access to those services, and there are plenty of people who wouldn't believe it if someone did have it. Especially with all the rhetoric that has been flying around in the wake of this.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It sometimes seems to me that maybe we made a bit of a mistake, way back when, when we decided that "male/man" and "female/woman" would be nice polite ways of saying "has a penis" and "has a vagina" respectively.  I have to think that was the original purpose of segregated washrooms and changerooms -- so that someone with the other genitals doesn't see your genitals and vice-versa.

If we had always had "the penis washroom" and "the vagina washroom" or "the penis changeroom" and the "vagina changeroom" then at least washrooms and changerooms wouldn't be bones of contention.  I guess we'd still have to consider transwomen in women's sports and suchlike, but at least a few things could be easy.

quizzical

Misfit wrote:
Maybe the appropriation goes a bit deeper. When boys in school claim that they are girls and then compete as women in sports, that gives them a strong physical advantage and then they take all the awards, trophies, and athletic scholarships that are set out for the girls because they have a distinct physical advantage.

i've been thinking about how to define the appropriation going on and the harm it causes. i realized it's on many levels. so not easy to define in one go. yours of sports and educational space appropriation is tangible. others not so much.

i guess the one which triggers me the most is the appropriation of stereotypes imposed upon women. the appropriation furthers and entrenches the stereotypes.

i know people are going to say 'what do you care for it's a stereotype'.

because appropriating the "bimbo" stereotype for example hurts both biological women and transwomen.  yet i see on my social media feeds more transwomen playing the role of bimbo than any other. even more than my biological women friends who sometimes like playing the bimbo stereotype.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Ontario puts off writer's quest for a non-binary birth certificate

Quote:
According to a news release issued Thursday, the letter from the province says that "at this time a change of sex designation to non-binary is unavailable" and notes that the Ministry is "working to develop a gender-neutral option for the Ontario birth certificate and is currently conducting a policy review." 

So a child was literally born with no gender?

Some might say that all children are, and then -- based on genitals and such -- we encourage them to either play with plastic army men or with dolls.

Maybe we should stop calling it "gender" -- an assigned role for everyone, after all -- and just go with sex. 

But I did have to laugh at this part:

Quote:

"In effect, this denial and/or delay forces me to continue using all forms of identification that do not match who I am," said Ferguson. They went on to say that presenting such documents is difficult.

"These experiences, ranging from liquor stores, picking up parcels at a post office, dealing with hospitals and health professionals, professional experiences and travel both personal and professional, all come with stress and anxiety when I must present my false and discriminatory IDs," said Ferguson.

Riiiiight.

You went to pick up a package at the post office and the clerk was reluctant to release it to you because you're OBVIOUSLY non-gendered, and yet your official ID lists a gender.

"I'm sorry, xir, but clearly you are neither male nor female, but your card here says otherwise!  If only your card said "xir", I could give you this parcel with your name and address on it."

6079_Smith_W

quizzical wrote:

i guess the one which triggers me the most is the appropriation of stereotypes imposed upon women. the appropriation furthers and entrenches the stereotypes.

i know people are going to say 'what do you care for it's a stereotype'.

because appropriating the "bimbo" stereotype for example hurts both biological women and transwomen.  yet i see on my social media feeds more transwomen playing the role of bimbo than any other. even more than my biological women friends who sometimes like playing the bimbo stereotype.

But again, how is it appropriation if the majority of people who express that stereotype are non-trans women? Transwomen are actually a very small minority.

Never mind the question of how many transpeople actually fit that stereotype (whatever it is you are describing), as opposed to what we are shown in the media.

Frankly, I am talking about gender expressions on the order of what one would wear to a regular workplace, not to go clubbing.

 

Pages