Trans Women are not Women

[theprestige]

Quite likely, but I want to focus less on motives and more on the factual inaccuracy since discussion can be more dispassionate that way.

Fair enough.

 

[caveman1917]

They don't all differ across cultures. Certain differences are cross-cultural, such as in psychological traits like agreeableness or neuroticism.

Whether or not all cultures even recognize the differences, there are plenty of studies which observed them.

You are contradicting yourself, if many of the traits typically associated with one sex differ across cultures then there can't be plenty of studies which observed them to be invariant across cultures.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are contradicting yourself, if many of the traits typically associated with one sex differ across cultures then there can't be plenty of studies which observed them to be invariant across cultures.

You misunderstand, though I admit I didn't phrase it that clearly. Some of the differences between men and women are invariant across cultures. The differences I'm talking about are between men and women, not between one culture and another.

 

[caveman1917]

You misunderstand, though I admit I didn't phrase it that clearly. Some of the differences between men and women are invariant across cultures. The differences I'm talking about are between men and women, not between one culture and another.

Even if we accept that some behavioral, cultural or psychological traits typically associated with one sex are invariant across cultures then it still doesn't support Ron's contention that the association of such traits to one sex isn't a social construct. For there are many, many such traits which are clearly not invariant across cultures. Even the simplest example such as "boys like blue and girls like pink" was the other way around just 200 years ago in our own culture.

As for agreeableness and neuroticism being invariant across cultures, I'm assuming you're referring to the studies done on the "Big Five" model? Those studies, while purporting to be cross-cultural, are effectively mono-cultural - they study affluent university populations in urban centers in the developed world. Ever since the time of colonialism and the global victory of capitalism there has been a huge cultural convergence, especially in affluent urban populations around the world. When such studies are instead done on hunter-gatherer and other indigenous populations away from the "modern world" they fail to replicate, see for example here.

So to sum up, I disagree that there are such traits which are invariant across cultures, but even if we accept that there are some such invariant traits then Ron's contention still fails because almost all such traits which are typically associated with one sex (as per the definition of gender) fail to even be invariant across the almost-mono-cultural modern capitalist world.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm just gonna leave a gentle reminder that there's a big difference between Gender and Gender Roles.

Can anyone think of an example of someone doing "gender" that doesn't involve enacting gender roles?

 

[Puppycow]

Going back to some earlier discussion regarding transitioning kids, and the problems and dangers involved with that, I've been reading a bit about Desmond Napoles, a prepubescent "drag kid" who has become a minor celebrity. And it's disturbing. While Desmond may not be technically transgender, there seems to be a lot of similar dynamics at play.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/desmond-napoles-gender-identity-ideology/
One of the things that jumped out at me, although it was only mentioned in passing in the article, is that Desmond has been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum. The article doesn't explore the significance of that diagnosis, but I wasn't surprised by it because I think it's directly linked to the dysfunction going on.

That's alarming.

Desmond’s new career obviously keeps his mom very busy. She calls herself his “dragager” and runs his Instagram account, which has more than 150,000 followers. She also oversees his busy schedule of media appearances.

I wonder how much money the kid brings in for his parents.

 

[Ziggurat]

So to sum up, I disagree that there are such traits which are invariant across cultures

That would be absolutely shocking, if true. Seriously, think about the implications here. You're basically claiming that testosterone has no effect on behavior. And there is simply so much evidence that this is not true, that testosterone does affect behavior. And if testosterone affects behavior, then that will lead to invariant differences between men and women, because different cultures don't have different versions of testosterone.

 

[caveman1917]

That would be absolutely shocking, if true. Seriously, think about the implications here. You're basically claiming that testosterone has no effect on behavior. And there is simply so much evidence that this is not true, that testosterone does affect behavior. And if testosterone affects behavior, then that will lead to invariant differences between men and women, because different cultures don't have different versions of testosterone.

Just because testosterone (like many other things) affects behavior doesn't necessarily mean that it does this differently for men and women, nor that it does this in an invariant way across cultures, nor that the correlation is a one-sided causation.

For the first point, testosterone has been linked just as much to aggressive behavior in women as in men. See for example this study on female inmates which replicates similar studies on male inmates, and specifically note that having high testosterone for women is still less testosterone, in absolute levels, than having low testosterone for men. This suggests that it is not so much absolute levels of testosterone (which differ in men and women) that affects behavior but how much an individual's level is above the normal baseline level for their sex. High-testosterone women are more aggressive than low-testosterone men even though the former still have lower absolute testosterone levels than the latter, as such, even though testosterone affects behavior, it doesn't support the contention of a (cross-culturally invariant) gender difference in said behavior.

For the second point, testosterone affects behavior but that doesn't necessarily mean that it does this in the same way independent of the socio-cultural environment. The socio-cultural environment may play a significant role in which behaviors are affected and how they are affected. I don't know of any specific cross-cultural (as in hunter-gatherer or indigenous populations) studies done on the testosterone-behavior relation, but there are some studies that show that, for example, testosterone may cause either aggression or submission depending on the socio-cultural status of the individual in question.

For the third point, the socio-cultural context and associated behaviors may cause changes in testosterone levels. There doesn't seem to be much research into this, but preliminary studies have shown some support for this contention. The correlation testosterone-behavior isn't necessarily one-sided.

To sum up, in order for these hormonal effects to support the contention of an invariant gender difference it would have to be shown that 1) the correlation is a (mostly) one-sided causation, 2) the hormones affect behavior differently in men and women, and 3) they affect the same behavior in the same way across cultures.

 

[Puppycow]

I'm just gonna leave a gentle reminder that there's a big difference between Gender and Gender Roles. Only the later is a construct of human culture.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about gender:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3] Most cultures use a gender binary, having two genders (boys/men and girls/women);[4][5] those who exist outside these groups fall under the umbrella term non-binary or genderqueer. Some societies have specific genders besides "man" and "woman", such as the hijras of South Asia; these are often referred to as third genders (and fourth genders, etc).

Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences[6][7] and documents written by the World Health Organization (WHO).[3]

In other contexts, including some areas of the social sciences, gender includes sex or replaces it.[1][2] For instance, in non-human animal research, gender is commonly used to refer to the biological sex of the animals.[2] This change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s. In 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) started to use gender instead of sex.[8] Later, in 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using sex as the biological classification and gender as "a person's self representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation."[9]

The social sciences have a branch devoted to gender studies. Other sciences, such as sexology and neuroscience, are also interested in the subject. The social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly do, while research in the natural sciences investigates whether biological differences in males and females influence the development of gender in humans; both inform debate about how far biological differences influence the formation of gender identity. In some English literature, there is also a trichotomy between biological sex, psychological gender, and social gender role. This framework first appeared in a feminist paper on transsexualism in 1978.[2][10]

TL;DR: gender is a social construct; sex is a biological classification.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just because testosterone (like many other things) affects behavior doesn't necessarily mean that it does this differently for men and women, nor that it does this in an invariant way across cultures, nor that the correlation is a one-sided causation.

Women do not have the levels of testosterone that men have. So of course they won’t be affected the same. And culture doesn’t create hormone receptors in the body.

For the first point, testosterone has been linked just as much to aggressive behavior in women as in men. See for example this study on female inmates which replicates similar studies on male inmates, and specifically note that having high testosterone for women is still less testosterone, in absolute levels, than having low testosterone for men. This suggests that it is not so much absolute levels of testosterone (which differ in men and women) that affects behavior but how much an individual's level is above the normal baseline level for their sex.

It suggests nothing of the sort, since the effects of testosterone are far more extensive than just aggression. And even for aggression, the fact that the distributions overlap doesn’t mean that the distributions are the same. They aren’t. Your conclusion simply doesn’t follow.

For the second point, testosterone affects behavior but that doesn't necessarily mean that it does this in the same way independent of the socio-cultural environment. The socio-cultural environment may play a significant role in which behaviors are affected and how they are affected.

This is nonsense. Again, hormone receptors are not determined by culture. You don’t seem to understand the implications of your claim.

I don't know of any specific cross-cultural (as in hunter-gatherer or indigenous populations) studies done on the testosterone-behavior relation, but there are some studies that show that, for example, testosterone may cause either aggression or submission depending on the socio-cultural status of the individual in question.

The particulars of status may be influenced by culture, but the existence of social hierarchies is cross cultural, and in fact cross species even into other phyla. Adherence to a hierarchy (which explains the increase in either aggression or submission, depending on status) can thus indeed be cross cultural.

For the third point, the socio-cultural context and associated behaviors may cause changes in testosterone levels. There doesn't seem to be much research into this, but preliminary studies have shown some support for this contention. The correlation testosterone-behavior isn't necessarily one-sided.

It doesn’t need to be in order for there to be a difference between men and women.

To sum up, in order for these hormonal effects to support the contention of an invariant gender difference

There are invariant sex differences. Saying gender difference when you are talking about biological sex is a recipe for confusion.

 

[caveman1917]

Women do not have the levels of testosterone that men have. So of course they won’t be affected the same.

Then why do women with high testosterone show higher aggression than men with low testosterone even though the women with high testosterone still have lower absolute testosterone levels than the men with low testosterone?

It suggests nothing of the sort, since the effects of testosterone are far more extensive than just aggression. And even for aggression, the fact that the distributions overlap doesn’t mean that the distributions are the same. They aren’t. Your conclusion simply doesn’t follow.

I never said anything about distributions overlapping, let alone distributions being the same.

This is nonsense. Again, hormone receptors are not determined by culture. You don’t seem to understand the implications of your claim.

I never said that hormone receptors are determined by culture.

The particulars of status may be influenced by culture, but the existence of social hierarchies is cross cultural, and in fact cross species even into other phyla. Adherence to a hierarchy (which explains the increase in either aggression or submission, depending on status) can thus indeed be cross cultural.

Existence of social hierarchies is not cross-cultural and definitely not cross-species.

It doesn’t need to be in order for there to be a difference between men and women.

I never said it did.

There are invariant sex differences. Saying gender difference when you are talking about biological sex is a recipe for confusion.

Of course there are invariant sex differences, males produce sperm and females produce ova. However we're talking about behaviors that are associated with sex, the correct term for that is gender differences.

All in all we have three straw men, one observably false claim, and one wrong claim on terminology. Try again but do better this time.

 

[Belz...]

Because men have always covered each other's butts. If they cover a woman's with anything at all, it's only a skimpy transparent bikini.

Well, that's not a sweeping generalisation.

 

[Belz...]

theprestige objected to this comment as sexist, but I want to object to it on slightly different terms, namely inaccuracy. Advocacy for transgender rights to enter female-only spaces is not limited to men, plenty of women advocate for it. Nor is opposition to it limited to women, plenty of men object to it as well. It also gives short shrift to all the fathers who do so much to protect their daughters.

Pfft. The only reason why fathers protect their daughters is because they view them as their legitimate property.

 

[caveman1917]

The SKERFS are at it again.

 

[3point14]

If one takes many thousands of years and practically every civilisation (organised society) that left a mark as a guide, it's the men who defend, who fight for their people, territory (nation) and culture. Disable the men psychologically and everything is there for the taking. That's what I meant by "pathologising masculinity" - several generations of stealthily indoctrinating, brainwashing people into perceiving as self-evident truth that masculine traits are redundant, if not hateful, because we're "progressing", see?.

Most "progressives" would be rather surprised were they were to take the trouble to study the personalities of great male creative geniuses over the centuries, whether they were painters, sculptors, writers, composers, inventors, whatever - the majority were garrulous, mercurial alpha males, many outright fighting men. It's very hard to find any that were reported as the "sensitive" type.

"Woof!"

 

[Belz...]

Just because testosterone (like many other things) affects behavior doesn't necessarily mean that it does this differently for men and women, nor that it does this in an invariant way across cultures, nor that the correlation is a one-sided causation.

What are you talking about? Testosterone is a behaviour modifier, and men and women don't have it in the same quantity AT ALL. Obviously, to anyone who understands hormones, that will lead to differences in behaviour between the two sexes.

Before recently, "gender" and "sex" was essentially understood to be the same thing. The social construct isn't gender, it's how men and women are expected to behave and what roles they are expected to fill.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

I suppose the point I was trying to get people to see in an earlier ramble is this;

that the "trans-women" lobby is being uncritically endorsed in the corporate media to persuade people that there is something intrinsically admirable about a man wanting not only to be 'more like" a woman, but actually become one.

Because women are better than men, see? All smart and hence progressive people know this is self-evident. Anyone who still isn't 100% on-message is a misogynist, racist, homophobic, nazi bigot.

 

[Ziggurat]

Existence of social hierarchies is not cross-cultural and definitely not cross-species.

Are you seriously this clueless? There are no hierarchy-free human societies. None. And there are tons of animals with social hierarchies.

 

[caveman1917]

What are you talking about? Testosterone is a behaviour modifier, and men and women don't have it in the same quantity AT ALL. Obviously, to anyone who understands hormones, that will lead to differences in behaviour between the two sexes.

And obviously to anyone who understands basic reasoning that doesn't imply that at all. I'll ask you the same question I asked Zig: Why do women with high testosterone show more aggression than men with low testosterone even though the former still have lower absolute testosterone levels than the latter? Two standard deviations above the average level for women is still lower than two standard deviations below the average for men. The answer should be obvious: because the behavioral effects of testosterone aren't based on the absolute level of testosterone but on the individual's level relative to the normal baseline level for their sex.

 

[caveman1917]

Are you seriously this clueless? There are no hierarchy-free human societies. None. And there are tons of animals with social hierarchies.

If there are no hierarchy-free human societies then why are (or rather were) they so ubiquitous that recent research has started focusing on models to explain this phenomenon? You're the clueless one Zig.