TERFy Arguments On Twitter

Today turned out to be "Day of the TERFs" on Twitter for me.  I realize that for all that TERFs and GCs like to think of themselves as "clever" and being "the smart person in the room", they really aren't all that well informed.  Most of their arguments are fundamentally emotional arguments which have little real world evidence to back them up. 

Let me give you an example of the structure of the typical argument (and for the sake of the guilty, I'll paraphrase):

TERF:  "We have to keep men out of gender segregated facilities!!!"

Challenger: "So you want to ban transgender women from using the bathroom?" 

TERF: "No, I don't have a problem with transgender women, but we have to keep male predators out."

Challenger: "Then what do you want?" 

TERF: "Men have no place in women's facilities"

Challenger: "So, you propose what?"

TERF: "Men have penises.  They have no business in a women's washroom" 

Challenger: "So you want to ban transgender women?" 

TERF: "We have to keep sexual predators out so that women and girls are safe"

Challenger: "Then the real problem is sexual predators, not transgender women" 

TERF: "But what about all the women and girls who have been sexually assaulted in bathrooms?" 

Challenger: "Were the people who assaulted them transgender women?" 

TERF: "... no, but we're letting potential sexual predators with penises into women's spaces!"

Challenger: "Wait ... so you're saying that everybody with a penis is a predator now?" 

TERF: "No, but if we're allowing transgender women into bathrooms, what's stopping a man from dressing up and saying he's a woman?" 

Challenger: "Transgender women have been using public washrooms for decades.  Do you have any evidence this has ever happened?" 

TERF: <* Throws up random news article about a sexual assault in a bathroom *> 

Challenger:  "The attacker here clearly wasn't transgender ..."

TERF:  "Oh, so you want more sexual assaults to happen!"

Challenger:  "Most such assaults are committed by people known to the victim. Random assaults are comparatively rare, and ones involving transgender women even more so"

<It goes on from here, but I'll stop at this point because there's only so many times you can chase around the same mulberry bush> 

There's a series of underlying patterns here that I want to point out:  

1)  The automatic assumption that because someone has a penis, they are automatically a threat to women and girls.  

Simple observation of the world around us shows that this is simply false. By far the vast majority of male-bodied people simply aren't a problem.  So, why is it they keep banging away at transgender women as if they are some kind of threat?  

2) The minute that you challenge them directly, they pivot to "sexual predators"

It's a quaint 19th century type of notion that predators won't go into a room because it's marked "Ladies".  Sexual predators are a special subset of the population, and if you think a sign is going to stop them, you're missing a whole lot of bits of reality. We used to call them "peeping toms" back in the day, and every so often, one would get found hiding in a stall in the ladies' bathroom.

However, the claim now gets twisted into "but you're creating more opportunities for them by accommodating transgender women". Again, not really. These people would find / create opportunities before, they'll create them now. 

The idea that a predator would do the "wolf in sheep's clothing" routine to gain access to their prey is somewhat laughable. That isn't how the "predator-prey" thing works.

3) "But What About Women/Girls Who Have Been Sexually Assaulted?" 

This is a guilt play. They're demanding that the transgender woman live some kind of shadowy existence ultimately to "comfort" those who have been sexually assaulted. There is no justification for this, since nobody has shown that transgender women are more likely to commit sexual assaults than other women (and yes, such things do happen).

Access to appropriate therapy in the wake of a sexual assault is absolutely important, and needs to exist and be augmented from where it is today. Punishing transgender women because sexual assaults do happen seems unnecessarily harsh and unreasonable.

All of this is to say you will encounter a lot of twisting about to justify what amounts to "concern trolling" - which is to say, they don't actually have any valid concerns beyond their own discomfort with the fact that a transgender woman may in fact possess (or once possessed) a penis. Frankly, like everybody else, the transgender woman is in there for the same reason everybody else is - usually to pee, wash their hands, and leave.  (and maybe refresh their make-up a little) 

Lastly, on the subject of gender neutral facilities, there are no doubt design issues with what is currently done in public bathrooms and changing room facilities. Those issues need to be identified and appropriately dealt with. Collectively punishing transgender women because of these shortfalls is ... silly.   

 

Alberta's Conservatives Are Abusers

 It should come as no surprise to most readers that I have little use for conservatism in its current form. I think it has become something to be reviled, and today, I was introduced to an article that reinforced my thoughts on the matter, and in some key respects highlights the nature of how conservatives have been abusing Albertans - for decades.  

The article is in Alberta Views:  "Rural Resentment"

When I saw this article reposted on Facebook, I started to write out a comment, but I quickly found it was getting too long to be a comment, so I'm moving it here. 

Junk Science Masquerading As Political Advocacy

 Yesterday, I learned of the existence of a group calling themselves "Gender Dysphoria Alliance Canada". I was not happy with what I saw. 

They claim to be "evidence-based", and that's the first red flag when I wandered over to their website and started perusing it.  To me, the term "evidence-based" means something quite specific.  It means that you are using the best available science to inform your positions and advocacy. This is not particularly difficult to understand ... I hope. 

However, this group is not representing gender dysphoria, or its treatment in a reasonable  and evidence-based manner.  Far too much of the material presented is far from the mainstream of treatment and support for transgender people, and far too many talking points come straight out of the anti-transgender "Gender Critical" world. 

As far as I can tell, nobody involved with this group is actually involved in the science or treatment aspects related to Gender Dysphoria, and given the nature of what they are presenting, that is deeply concerning. 

It's Time To Blow Up The Party System

I have never been a political partisan.  That isn't to say I don't have political beliefs, or positions.  But I simply don't buy into the broad idea of being a member of a political party.  My own politics are fairly complex, and I don't wish to find myself in the position of having to conform with some "party policy" or another on the basis of creating the appearance of unity.  

However, over the last decade or so, I have observed a disturbing change in the nature of our political parties in Canada. They have become businesses - businesses that sell access to power.  Perhaps most disturbingly, they do so on the backs of what is largely a volunteer workforce.  While a small number of people are employed by these parties, the vast majority of the work of fundraising (cash flow) is really done by the active volunteer base.  Meanwhile, the proposition to the voter is "if our party gets into power, we can give you what you want".  

This is true of all parties - everybody is jockeying for a position of influence somewhere.  However, it has also created a more disturbing industry of groups that are attempting to control the parties themselves.  Don't get me wrong, factions in a party are a normal social consequence of putting a group of people together to accomplish a common goal.  I'm talking about organizations like Campaign Life who have spent decades organizing their base in a bid to assert covert control over the Conservative Party. 

But there's more to this whole picture. 

Faking Incidents To Attack Rights

The recent Wi Spa video incident in Los Angeles raises some very troubling implications about both the tactics that the Gender Critical / TERF crowd are now adopting, as well as the role of emerging technologies in facilitating those tactics.  

The first point is that the Wi Spa incident suggests that in the absence of real incidents supporting the claim that allowing transgender women to access female spaces will enable sexual predators, the next step is to start manufacturing the incidents needed.  We've certainly heard threats along these lines in the past, where RW organizers have threatened to enter women's spaces on the basis of claiming a female gender identity. I'm not aware of any such incidents actually happening. 

A willingness to manufacture incidents to support a political narrative strikes me as both dishonest and dangerous.  

The potential role of technologies like Deep Fake to enable the creation of "evidence" for these moments is profoundly worrisome.  It is now perfectly plausible that someone could make a video of a space, and then insert the desired person - complete with verbal cues etc. - into the video.  This is a very dangerous situation for anyone, because it means that "the camera never lies" evidence is now subject to overt manipulation and outright fakery.  

Now we are in the situation where "events" can be manufactured on someone's laptop and distributed around the internet very quickly.  Just as the Wi Spa incident has resulted in two transgender women being violently attacked, the potential for the fundamental safety of people to be violated is much higher now. 

Senator Plett's Speech On Bill C-6

 So, the other day, Bill C-6 passed from the House of Commons to the Senate.  As I had expected, Senator Don Plett led the conservative attack on the bill with a lengthy, long-winded speech full of utter nonsense.  

Let's take a closer look at the speech now that it's in the Hansard, and I've had some time to read it and digest the nonsense that Senator Plett has uttered. 

On Transgender Athletic Performance

There is an enormous amount of noise being made about the alleged advantage that transgender women have in athletics.  First, let me start off by saying that the topic of athletic performance is not an area of expertise for me, so what follows is largely my opinion, bolstered by observations about what I see in the academic materials published. 

Broadly speaking, the claims of "an advantage" hinge around the development of secondary sex characteristics from a male puberty.  Generally speaking, these claims fall into a small range of categories relating to skeletal structure, muscle mass, and height, and so on.

A superficial look would suggest that a male certainly does have "an advantage" in athletics, and to some extent that is borne out by marked differences between male and female record performances in various forms of athletics.  However, it's a much more complicated discussion when we start talking about transgender athletes.