Article on "arguing with a TERF"

[MyAmpleSheep]

I love to keep up with the other side, so here's a lot of words just to say "it's complicated." meanwhile he ignores the obvious answer to his own question.

www.fasttrackfemme.com/p/why-you-cant-win-an-argument-with

It wouldn’t surprise me.

By answering that we are legally forced to ignore the specific statistical variables in favor of a broad legal category, you are confirming that the boundary being drawn isn't actually about the actuarial risk data, but about a categorical rule.

And again: the categorical rule is directly based on the actual risk data. Transwomen (as the group they are) present at least as much danger to women as other men.

If you want to argue that a sub-sub-category of men (transwomen who have undergone unspecified medical interventions for an unspecified amount of time) are less of a danger to women, then by all means, feel free to do so. Be aware, however, that this cannot have any influence on the legal policy of keeping all transwomen out of women's spaces: Basically, it's an exercise in futility.

No consideration of the cost to women, any woman, of sharing a space with a strange man where she may be vulnerable. Just like the risk assessments the SPS did on deciding which men to put in women's prisons. If I were in a changing room and a man walked in I'd freak out. Even if it was someone I knew (a work colleague, a friend, one of my nephews).

Eta. I wouldn't spend anytime wondering whether or not he was 'safe'. If he was a stranger to me how could I possibly know?

It is right there: "what is the actual risk... weighed against the actual cost of excluding them."
"Them" refers directly to trans women.
The author is explicitly asking the reader to calculate

That's precisely what I was talking about: the author is not presenting those risks: He's asking the reader to do it. Bluntly put: why would we do that? It's not our problem, so why would we be the ones to put the work in? If the author wants to discuss that cost, then let him do the legwork.

A true statistical cost-benefit analysis requires weighing the impact on all stakeholders.

Then by all means, tell us what the cost is to transwomen.

The author is saying that we need to balance the cost to men using mens spaces with the cost to women if they use women's spaces.

We do this already. We recognise that very small boys cannot use mens spaces alone, therefore their mother may take them into the female toilet or changing room.

Legislators assessed the risk of male people in male spaces and concluded that 4 year old boys sometimes needed the protection of the women's spaces.

Not short men, old men, gay men, disabled men, not men on medication, not men who've had surgery.

Its been thought out already, and the conclusion is small boys sometimes need to use the space, not men.

I believe I did my best to discuss in good faith. Well, if I appear to be "excessively serious", then I get it, yeah, I guess I'm a bit of a nerd about this stuff

True, that will save a lot of time

Well it doesn't become female strength because no degree of hormones undo larger lungs, greater blood volume, different q angles, bigger hearts, differences in muscle and bone, height difference, longer limbs (remember the thing we were all taught at school about give me a long enough lever and I shall move the earth? Well spoiler alert no amount of female hormones will shirk male arms.) Or any of the 100s of other differences that there are between male and female bodies. Men aren't stronger than women just because they have testosterone in their system, they are stronger than women because testosterone makes them develop differently.

The author is explicitly asking the reader to calculate the real-world harm that exclusion inflicts upon that specific group (for example, the physical danger of forcing a medically transitioned, testosterone-suppressed individual into a men's facility).

What physical danger? Do you have some statistics to back up this claim which is wheeled out regularly to try to persuade us that some men belong in women's spaces?

Even if you can supply some evidence that this actually happens, it just shows that men need to be more welcoming of trans identifying men, and it's nothing to do with women. And it doesn't change the Supreme Court judgment or the law.

Most of us are not professional debaters, myself included, and I certainly don't think there is a universally "wrong" way to advocate for something you care about. What makes a debate "effective" is entirely subjective.

The author isn't saying you are "doing it wrong." The author, who also has a subjective view of what makes an efficient debate, is simply pointing out why you have to argue over and over again on the same thing.
The essay identifies the core loop that stops the conversation from progressing: the two sides are arguing past each other using entirely different metrics.

Identifying that core loop seems like the only way to finally break it so people don't have to keep having the exact same exhausting argument for another decade

Also, we’re not “forcing” anyone to use a men’s facility- we’re just saying that women’s facilities are not for men. By all means campaign for your own space.

So what 'medical marker' should we use when it comes to letting some.men into women's spaces. Have you discovered a trans gene? Or confirmed the existence of 'lady brains'. If trans women are allowed into women spaces then any man is allowed in because any man can claim to be trans. So how do we stop the ones that are 'at it' for dodgy reasons from waltzing in along with the ones who really, really mean it when they say they think they are women?

The way to break the loop is for men like him to accept that people can't change sex.

It's biologically impossible and it's enshrined in law as well.

I personally am not advocating for trans women in women's bathrooms, thus, I don't think we have to square that little circle, so it's best to discuss it with someone who thinks that.
Well, I could offer solutions if you want, but again, I'm not a representative of that opinion.

Identifying that core loop seems like the only way to finally break it so people don't have to keep having the exact same exhausting argument for another decade

The only way to break that loop is for men to stop pretending that some carefully selected men should be counted as women when it comes to single-sex spaces. No, they shouldn't, ever. Once men accept that, they can start working on solutions other than "force women to accept some men into their spaces".

The loop is men refusing to take no for an answer.

This data does not show that 58.9% of transitioned trans women in the general public are sex offenders. It shows that within the already-incarcerated population, a significant number of male sex offenders are utilizing the prison system's self-identification policies to change their status.

That interpretation tells us that sex offenders will use self-id to their advantage. You’re not improving your argument.

The stats still don’t look good.

oh, natch. Of course you don’t have an answer to that, you just want to frame it in totally hypothetical terms which suit your apparent need to tell us where we’re all going wrong 🤣

Exactly.

And when you consider the low conviction rates for sex offenders, there are far more walking around outside prison than are incarcerated. How many of them would also adopt a transwoman identity if there is some personal benefit for them to do so?

Please respond to this point if you’re here in good faith, @MedicalConsensus

Just to add to this, when you consider the large number of male sex offenders and the relatively low number of TIMs, it wouldn't be surprising if there are more male sex offenders or potential sex offenders (both in prison and in the general population) pretending to be 'transwomen' than there are actual 'transwomen' (i.e. men who genuinely believe they're women and aren't doing it for sexual motives).

How do we tell the difference between them?

Another day, another condescending dickhead woefully underestimating women.

Uh, thanks, I guess, I hope she in reading this. Seems I'm doing a good job at interpreting your blog lol

I don’t think it’s exactly a compliment mate