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

this poster has just referred to themselves as 'us' on another thread. i'd guess they're a return of that collective we had posting a while back and are currently attempting to work their way up to a banning

it just seems quite a tiring way to go about life especially in this heat

Everyone needs a hobby @BernardBlacksMolluscs

Oh! What kind of collective? A collective of people under a single username, or a supposed system of several alters in a single head? Or something else?

@MarieDeGournay

"I think 'because they are male' is a perfectly satisfactory reason for excluding transwomen from spaces designated for women. ... Statistical data about the risk... is an interesting and very serious topic, but it's not the only reason"

By stating that the biological category is a "perfectly satisfactory reason" on its own, you are confirming that for you, this isn't fundamentally a debate about statistical safety or physical threat. It is a debate about categorical definitions.

This validates the essay's point. She was trying to have a conversation based on risk and harm reduction, but she felt people were swapping her question for a question about definitions.
Your comment confirms that you aren't swapping the question maliciously - you believe the definition is the only answer needed, making the risk data irrelevant to your boundary.

"I don't see any 'societal cost' to this excluding men however they identify from women's toilets"

You don't see a societal cost because you are looking at it from the perspective of the majority, prioritizing tradition and privacy.
The author, however, is looking at the cost to that specific demographic - for example, the practical danger and distress a fully transitioned, older trans woman faces if forced by law to use a men's facility.

It comes down to a disagreement on whose distress carries more weight when crafting policy, and whether policies should be based on strict biological categories or practical risk assessments.

@Seethlaw
"These people are male, therefore we can assume that they present the same risk as the general population of males' is perfectly logical and sufficient."

Sure, that's a start. If you articulate that argument, then your opponent will then have to explain why that is not the case.
To move the conversation somewhere, you do need to make it clear why your statement is a counter to their question, else you'll be assumed to be the same as the 3 caricatures the author potrayed.

While you won't see me advocating for trans women in women's spaces (I will, however, debate the data surrounding it), I do want to be the change I want to see in the world and bring more good-faith debate around.
Seeing how many people misinterpret the essay, I want to make it clear to as many people as I can what the essay is actually about, so we can all be on the same page.

@MedicalConsensus are you the author of the blog post?

Well, what do you think? Is the distress of 0.25% of the population at not being allowed to go in the women's facilities, and maybe having to use a gender-neutral alternative instead, more or less important than the distress of 51% of the population at being forced to share intimate spaces with men or do without (transwomen don't want to share with other men either, so you'd think they'd sympathise)?

Don't bother to answer. We know what you think.

51% of women don't agree with exclusion so stop pretending to speak for all women & 'comfort' isn't a legitimate reason to exclude people.

Fewer than 20% of British people think it's OK for men to use women's facilities.

And if 'comfort' isn't a legitimate reason to do anything, great! We can ignore transwomen's discomfort and send them off to the men's facilities. Job done.

@Seethlaw
"May I ask what you mean by "transitioned trans women"? Transwomen are transwomen, whatever measures they may or may not take with regards to transitioning."

That is a very fair question.
The baseline male advantage in physical strength and male-pattern aggression is heavily tied to testosterone.
If a specific sub-cohort undergoes medical transition, specifically long-term testosterone suppression, their physical risk profile fundamentally alters.
I do not think you should lump a group with female-typical hormone levels into the exact same physical threat category as a group with male-typical hormone levels, as that would corrupt the data set.
That is why the distinction is necessary when calculating physical risk.

"'If the statistics prove... then the exclusion is perfectly justified. By providing that data, you would be the exception to what the essay is talking about.' So... Debate closed?"

If the data is correct, then yes, absolutely!

Whether the data is actually correct or not, is a separate topic which the essay isn't about.
What I'm saying is that by providing that data, you would be different from the 3 caricatures specified.
You would be moving the debate from "what is a woman" to "what is the actual risk," which is the kind of conversation the author was asking for.

No, but I do know she reads the comments here.

Citation please.

@IcakethereforeIam
"Gatekeepers! Someone is trans if they say they are trans. Acceptance without exception, remember."

That slogan shows exactly why such conversations require nuance and why I brought up medical markers.
If 'acceptance without exception' means literally any man can just say the words and instantly gain access to a space, then you obviously cannot run an accurate risk assessment. The data pool would be corrupted by bad actors taking advantage of the rule.

That is exactly why, for the purpose of calculating statistical risk, we have to look at the medical/biological reality of transition (like long-term hormone suppression), rather than just social self-identification.

Socially, yes, anyone can just declare it. But the physical risk to women in these spaces is tied to male-pattern strength and aggression, which are driven by testosterone.
The biological markers and phenotypic expressions I am referring to are endocrinological: long-term testosterone suppression, and the resulting phenotypic changes in muscle mass, fat distribution, and physical strength.

If a policy is going to be based on physical risk, 'just declaring it' is obviously not enough. You cannot run a statistical risk assessment on people who just say words. You have to run it on the cohort that has actually went through the process to alter that physical risk profile.

I see that there is a link to this thread in the comments of his blog post. From your writing style and the timing it seems likely you are the other guy who responded to that comment, in addition to the author. Is that correct?

@BernardBlacksMolluscs
"didn't it used to be utility bills back in the day? ... does having been born with a cock count as a biological marker do we think?"

The 'utility bill' was part of the requirement to prove social transition. But as your comment implies, just a different name on a bill doesn't change a physical risk profile. That is exactly why I am arguing against using social identification or paperwork as a metric for safety.

And to answer your question directly: yes, absolutely. Natal anatomy is a primary biological marker.

But when calculating ongoing physical risk, like male-pattern strength, which is driven by testosterone, the biological markers that matter for the data are the endocrinological ones. Specifically, what happens to that physical baseline after years of testosterone suppression.

I haven't made a comment in the original post yet

The comment arguments he has with women objecting on other posts are quite revealing, he’s all pious and high minded then every so often gets provoked into narcissistic rage.

To answer your question directly: if the metric we are using for the space is "psychological distress," then your math is flawless.
The distress of 51% of the population objectively outweighs the distress of 0.25% of the population. In a strictly utilitarian society, the majority's comfort dictates the policy.
Furthermore, I completely agree with your practical solution. Providing safe, third-space gender-neutral alternatives solves the distress equation for literally everyone involved.

You successfully argued for the boundary, but you didn't use "physical risk" or "safety data" to do it. You used categorical distress.
Which is exactly what the essay author was saying. The author was asking for data on physical danger, and the response is usually about categorical definitions and psychological distress. It is a perfectly valid reason to want a boundary. But it proves the author's point that the two sides are arguing completely different metrics.

I can’t get past the basic dishonesty of portraying his straw “terfs” as men. It makes me disinclined to indulge the silly language and logic games.

We don’t have to use any metrics at all. Female only spaces are not for men, however they identify. For a whole host of reasons, not least because U.K. women in the majority do not consent to men in their spaces, however harmless you and they think they are. And luckily the law agrees. Can I ask why it was so important for you to bustle over here to put us in our place?

Exactly.

It’s irrelevant whether trans people have a difficult time, are abused, or are routinely “genocided” on a daily basis, because the solution to any and all of these things doesn’t lie in admitting men into women-only services.

Trans people’s life difficulties are not a problem women have to fix for them. It really is that simple.

The claim was 51% of women. Not British people & not British women. The claim is demonstrably false in Britain AND globally since most egalitarian countries don't give a pig's arse about dunny etiquette.