Trans Women are not Women

[JoeMorgue]

You all are saying that being labeled something that you don't identify as is causing painful dysphoria.

Maybe people should care about that.

That comparison would work if I was somehow arguing that I had all the defining characteristics of a bigot but just wanted to not be one because I didn't identify as it.

I think most trans-people neither need nor care about your positive affirmations. They most likely just want to pee.

That's insane. I mean literally functionally insane. This is progressivisms "Just do whatever the properly labeled victim groups says, for that is the only path to salvation" taken to absurd levels.

You can't play the "We don't care what people think about us" card for a movement that is literally defined as "We care what people think of us as"

Of course they care about (g)my "positive affirmations." That's literally all they care about. That's literally the defining quality of the whole goddamn discussion. They care what they are perceived as. That IS caring what people think about them on a complete, basic level.

I await the hairsplitting between "They care what we think about them" and "They care what we perceive them as," that is if I get the courtesy of anything beyond yet another "Just shut up and agree with the poor downtrodden group."

 

[Belz...]

That comparison would work if I was somehow arguing that I had all the defining characteristics of a bigot but just wanted to not be one because I didn't identify as it.

Ah, but you do have all the definint characteristics of a bigot, see? You disagree with some members here about who should be considered a woman. That's all that's needed, apparently

 

[Rolfe]

I know! Let's just completely redefine what the words "man" and "woman" mean, then we'll get all offended when some people don't agree, and write passive-aggressive posts essentially accusing them of moral turpitude. That'll solve everything.

 

[Rolfe]

The idea that you can't let trans-women into women's bathrooms and changing rooms because they might be sexually assaulted cis-women is pure fear mongering.

FIFY.

 

[Meadmaker]

So if none of these things are 100% accurate predictors of gender, maybe it shouldn’t be so hard to just add having a penis or a vagina to that list? If someone can, have a beard and still be a woman, then maybe having a penis shouldn’t be a disqualifier either. Is that so hard?

It isn't "hard" to declare that something is true, even if it is not true, but the declaration doesn't make it true. If a woman is capable of impregnating another woman, then what does the word "woman" mean, and what word do we use to call people whose primary sex characteristics are the same as the people who can have babies?

 

[Meadmaker]

Anti-intellectual clap-trap.

Not anti-intellectual. Anti pseudo-intellectual. Unfortunately, American universities are crawling with pseudointellectualism.

The difference between intellectualism and pseudointellectualism is exactly the same as the difference between science and pseudoscience. In the "pseudo" versions, the claims are not tested or critically analyzed. They have a superficial resemblance to the thing they mimic, but they omit the most important part, which is the testing and support of claims. Whether in science or philosophy, a claim must be examined, analyzed, and critiqued for value.

So we come to the claim "Terry Miller is a girl." (Terry Miller is one of the two transgirls who won at the Connecticut state track championships last year.) Well, to evaluate that claim I guess we had better start by defining our terms.

Oops. Problem. Terry Miller doesn't meet any non-circular definition of "girl". We're off to a bad start.

And yet, I am certain I can find quite a few scholarly articles that describe why Terry and people like her are really and truly girls. That's pseudointellectalism. It's assertion of a claim while surrounding that claim with lofty sounding prose, without ever even taking the first, most basic, step, of defining the term.

And, going back to a point you made elsewhere, I think that real harm occurred when Terry was allowed to compete and declared the winner. I'm willing to go along with "self-identification" when there is no harm, but there was harm.

(Not that it matters, but I don't remember whether Terry Miller as the first place finisher or the second place finisher. The top two were both transgirls.)

 

[Puppycow]

It isn't "hard" to declare that something is true, even if it is not true, but the declaration doesn't make it true. If a woman is capable of impregnating another woman, then what does the word "woman" mean, and what word do we use to call people whose primary sex characteristics are the same as the people who can have babies?

I noticed in the podcast I linked to a couple pages back (part 2 of same) that a certain academic on the pro-trans side studiously avoided using the words man or woman altogether. Instead it was "female-assigned persons" or "male-assigned persons". Also, a penis was not a penis, but "male-coded genitalia" to this person. So get ready to start using a lot more words to express concepts that used to be expressed with a single word.

 

[Belz...]

I noticed in the podcast I linked to a couple pages back (part 2 of same) that a certain academic on the pro-trans side studiously avoided using the words man or woman altogether. Instead it was "female-assigned persons" or "male-assigned persons". Also, a penis was not a penis, but "male-coded genitalia" to this person. So get ready to start using a lot more words to express concepts that used to be expressed with a single word.

There's something rather pernicious about the "X-assigned" terms. It implies that the doctor or person who objectively determined the sex of the baby can't know that sex as well as the person themselves. It is an implicit rejection of objectivity in favour of subjectivity.

 

[d4m10n]

You make up horror scenarios about cis-men who just claim to be women so they can have access to women's bathrooms and changing rooms for vague nefarious purposes.

I believe the "vague nefarious purposes" were basically spelled out upthread.

That study doesn't address trans-people.

No, it addresses the specific nefarious purposes that the aforementioned cis men might well have in mind when given the opportunity to mix freely with women in changing rooms.

The idea that you can't let trans-women into women's bathrooms and changing rooms because they might sexually assault cis-women is pure fear mongering.

We were talking about what will most likely happen if cis men are henceforth allowed unfettered free entry into spaces previously segregated by sex and set aside for women. If the aforementioned study reveals an actual underlying trend, then it is not remotely fear-mongering to say that risks of sexual voyeurism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault will be increased by a universal switch to subjective self-i.d. as the standard for previously sex-segregated spaces.

It’s saying, ”Hey, they’re not really women they’re MEN! And since men are inherently sexually aggressive, watch out!”

Are you skeptical about sex differences in sexual aggression?

...cis-man with a full on beard who’s gonna sneak in to the women’s room by just claiming to feel like a woman that day.

It’s not at all sneaking if the new social standard is subjective self-identification.

I'm not taking the position that any cis-man should be able to just self-identify as a woman to compete in women's sports or to use the women's bathroom, I think that's a silly straw-man that doesn't have very much to do with the real world.

Tell it to Selina Soule.

 

[d4m10n]

There's something rather pernicious about the "X-assigned" terms. It implies that the doctor or person who objectively determined the sex of the baby can't know that sex as well as the person themselves. It is an implicit rejection of objectivity in favour of subjectivity.

Prepare for the subtext to become text.

 

[Lithrael]

Are you skeptical about sex differences in sexual aggression?

In the aggregate no. But I’m an outlier type of person, and so I’m naturally interested more in every group’s outliers. The 5,000 people who make up 1% of the half a million people in a big city. If something holds true for practically everyone I’m still more interested in what’s going on with the ones where it doesn’t. I don’t like rules meant for ‘everybody’ that end up causing hardship for ‘somebody.’ Of course resources aren’t infinite and we all gotta figure out which hills we want to die on.

Safety is only one piece of why people want to use this bathroom instead of that one. It’s also stuff like, not outing yourself in public, or just plain wanting to go where you feel like you belong. I understand that we’ve got dueling comfort levels here but I can’t speak to that because I don’t sympathize with it at all. I don’t worry about apparent gender mismatches in the bathroom; I worry about people who leer or act weird, and I don’t understand what’s wrong with the idea of case-by-case-ing all this. Kick the heavy-breathing-fantasizing-leering people out and ignore everybody else. If society drops all the judgement then the heavy breathers won’t have any legs to stand on when they claim you called the manager just cause you’re a bigot.

Because it seems like one of the teething problems we’ve got right now is that a few people who are acting like weirdos and exhibitionists get away with it by claiming people are unreasonably oppressing their group in general instead of having a reasonable problem with their behavior in particular.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, that was uncalled for. At the same time, so is the suggestion that trans-people should feel responsible for the baby being stillborn because they want recognition and rights.

I think trans people need to be responsible for sorting out the implications of the recognition and rights they want.

Like the doctor said, the man was "correctly classified" - according to trans people.

And like the doctor also said, that "correct" classification led to confused medical staff and a stillborn child.

Trans people need to figure out what "correctly classified" actually means in practice.

 

[theprestige]

You don't have their experience. You don't know the challenges and thought processes of someone who grows up believing they should be a different gender from what they were born to. You only have your own experience of being born the gender you are, and presumably being comfortable with that, and that's just not enough for you to judge these people.



So instead you deny their experiences. You deny their gender identity, you call trans-women men and trans-men women. You make up horror scenarios about cis-men who just claim to be women so they can have access to women's bathrooms and changing rooms for vague nefarious purposes. You claim that a trans-woman's gender dysphoria is really autogynephilia, a sexual perversion, as if what someone's sex fantasies were about were relevent in any way.



Then you turn around and act like you were just minding your own business when trans-people came along and pushed your comfort-zone too hard, but the reality is you're the one attacking them, their sense of identity and their rights to get along in society.



You're not a passive victim here.

I don't have a paranoid schizophrenic's experience, either, but I still know it's counter productive to validate their paranoia.

 

[Ziggurat]

Cells don't have a sex.

I think classifying human cells based on their chromosomes is entirely reasonable. You may prefer a different definition based more on morphology (or some other criteria) which isn't defined on that level, but a purely genetic definition still works, and can be applied on the cellular level rather directly.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against here. I'm not taking the position that any cis-man should be able to just self-identify as a woman to compete in women's sports or to use the women's bathroom, I think that's a silly straw-man that doesn't have very much to do with the real world.

I do think that trans-women should be considered a sub set of women, and trans-men should be considered a sub set of men. So when the issue is who should be considered trans, I can't think of a better indicator than what is going on in their minds, but I also assume that what is going on in their minds will also be reflected in what they do and how they behave.

Look at what you are saying here. You're trying to play the "No True Scotsman" card in discussion which you are demanding we accept "Self Identification" as holy writ.

So what the "You must believe this, only this, and exactly this lest you be a bigot" rule now is a person who self identifies as a gender is always that gender and you must never question it... except when they are doing it for bad or self-serving reasons because obviously those don't count.

 

[theprestige]

A metaphor:

Gender is a social construct founded on a biological fact.*

Trans people wish to occupy the structure while undermining the foundation. This is ultimately self-defeating.
---

*There are biological edge cases, but these are sufficiently rare and free of activism as to be handled charitably and pragmatically on a case by case basis.

 

[Belz...]

A metaphor:

That's way too much like an analogy, mate.

Gender is a social construct founded on a biological fact.

I'm not even sure there's much of a difference between sex and gender, historically. In French we generally don't distinguish between the two, for instance.

 

[theprestige]

I think classifying human cells based on their chromosomes is entirely reasonable. You may prefer a different definition based more on morphology (or some other criteria) which isn't defined on that level, but a purely genetic definition still works, and can be applied on the cellular level rather directly.

I think that Belz... agrees, and is simply working through a necessary "Shapiro is technically correct, but it's important that I not undermine my posture of dismissal towards everything he says" process.

 

[8enotto]

No. Just because I declared myself a mighty oak does not make me a tree. It does not give me rights and protection a tree gets.

It makes me a nutcase. An obvious human male body cannot convert to a tree at my will.

If a person has a birth defect demands a bit of respect. It's not their fault. They also have the responsibility of finding a place in society without re-writing the entire of society.

LeRoy wants to be Leah he can try. No one has rights to stop him. But nobody else is required to respect or accept that choice. Much less support it.
If jobs are refused or other opportunities closed there are reasons belonging to whom refused that.
If like here Leah better find a small business he can own and hope folks aren't creeped out by the odd nature of something. I have seen that happen in a largely religious area. Leah may make good burgers or be skilled at hairdressing but he didn't get business enough to pay rent.

That is a choice that makes life more difficult. Is it worth it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

In French we generally don't distinguish between the two, for instance.

This is actually an angle I wanted to bring into this at some point.

How much of this is a distinction that other languages can really even make?