Eric the .5b wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 22:20
Jennifer wrote: ↑04 Aug 2019, 21:48
Regarding this specific ACLU business -- I have definite qualms about the suggestion "supporting trans rights requires the deliberate denial of reality (especially in regard to sexual dimorphism)." Indeed, I fear the opposite is likely to be true: requiring the denial of reality is likely to lead to more opposition to trans rights
As far as I've noticed, doing anything
that involves supporting trans rights picks up a lot of fresh opposition, and not just from Team Red. "This is why Trump won" if an online service offers too many pronoun options or whatever...
I know, and I'm being hyper-careful in this discussion (thought not NEARLY as careful and diplomatic as I was in my discussion with my IRL acquaintance on Facebook), but: I maintain this is different because, again, we're talking about requiring the denial of reality, which is NOT the case with most "This is why Trump won" shit.
Building on my "racism" analogy upthread: I'm sure you and I both agree "Yo, fuck those alt-right assholes who go on about 'Black Lives Matter is racist' and 'any complaint about police brutality or police racism is why Trump won', and 'complaining about racism is the REAL racism' and whatnot," right? They're not even arguing in good faith, IMO.
But suppose -- and I admit, this is the part where the analogy starts getting ludicrous -- suppose that all racism-fighting organizations ranging from BLM and the ACLU plus any other ones you personally support started insisting that, in order to "fight racism" and avoid being a racist bigot yourself, you must deny that ANY racial differences exist at all -- even such straightforward (and not even "racial," strictly speaking) observations as "Extremely pale people like Jennifer get sunburned far faster than people with darker skin."
Or, even worse: "Now that Jennifer lives in Georgia, she refuses to go outside on summer days without every square inch of skin covered with either fabric or sunblock. When asked why she doesn't adopt the much cooler (and cheaper) shorts-and-tees plus no sunblock outfits worn by her neighbors, she said she can't because she sunburns more easily than they do, due to her paler skin. That's racist! Only a racist bigot would claim any differences exist between people of noticeably different skin tones! If Jennifer wants to avoid sunburn, she ought to abandon her coverup clothes and expensive lotions ... and more importantly, abandon her racist belief that being descended exclusively from northern Europeans these past few centuries has made her somehow physically different from those whose post-medieval ancestors include LOTS of people from sub-Saharan Africa."
And yet, as ridiculous and ludicrous as that is, it's just as ludicrous to say "There are no biological differences between the sexes, including no difference in strength and speed between the sexes -- at least, nothing a woman couldn't overcome and do better than a man if she were willing to work hard enough. Anyone claiming otherwise is a misogynistic bigot and most likely a transphobe, too."
Though, hammering the point of how women must be protected from any competition with any possible number of physically male athletes (or insufficiently weak physically female athletes) makes me think more and more about Thoreau's "macro-level" discomfort with the possibility of transwomen getting asterisk-free entries in record books. I mean, from that standpoint, isn't it a farce to even track womens' records? Do the record books have entries for "Best Short, White NBA Players"? "Best Ice Hockey Teams (Tropical Countries Only)"?
Not to speak for Thoreau, but -- personally, I wouldn't even go as far as he did here -- I have no idea what decision should be made regarding transgirls who have actually undergone hormone changes so that their actual muscle density* and testosterone/estrogen ratio and etc. are comparable to a cisgirl, but regarding transgirls who identify as female but still have entirely male biology, I don't think they should be competing as women at all -- or at least, not competing against
*For that matter -- if a transgirl stays biologically male long enough to develop adult male levels of muscle-fiber density ... does the density level drop to female levels once the transgirl starts taking hormones to alter her sex and bring it in line with gender -- or is fiber density something that, once it's built, you don't lose it? Sorta like height -- a poor diet in childhood might stunt your growth and leave you shorter than you'd otherwise be (see modern North v. South Koreans for exhibit A), but once you've achieved a certain height, poor diet won't make you lose any of it (outside of hunched backs and other posture-related issues). I have no idea if something similar holds true for muscle-fiber density.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b