Trans Women are not Women

[JoeMorgue]

Dude, this isn't rocket surgery.

I've attached a photo of an outfit intended to be worn by a young person at a wedding. Can you tell by looking at it what the sex of the person will be?

Yes. That's a socially implemented gender role. One of those things we're supposed to be trying to get rid of.

Look at it this way. Does not wearing a dress make a "woman" less of a "woman?"

No? Then wearing a dress doesn't make a man anymore of a woman.

Again we're stuck at and can't get away from "The standard exists when I subvert it, but doesn't exist when used as a standard."

A biological man can say wearing a dress is part of his identity as a woman, but society can't tell a biological woman that wearing a dress is expected of her as a woman.

I await another 50 pages of "No that's different because I want it to be."

I keep screaming into the goddamn heavens that every single thing you let a transgender person go "No I identify as the other gender because of X" you are reinforcing that exact same X as a gender stereotype.

You just told women they should wear dresses. You're gonna blunder and hem and haw but that's what you're doing. You can't accept it as a subversion of a standard and not as a standard.

 

[Belz...]

Trans-people are so rare if there is an issue just change in the bog

That's a bit of a sticky point, for me. We're talking about 0.3% of the population as if their issue, real as it may be, should change our entire perception and definition of gender and social interactions. Hell, left-handed people, who are over 30 times more numerous, don't have that effect.

 

[theprestige]

When even the dictionary defines a word as basically "whatever you want it to mean" what's the point?

What's the point of dictionaries?

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They don't tell you how the word should be used according to some rule. They tell you how the word is commonly used according to whatever rules its users happen to follow (the dictionary does not get into whatever those rules might be).

Gender is everything and nothing. Got it.

Gender is a fairly flexible term whose meaning depends heavily on local context and culture. Which makes sense. Human societies aren't systems of formal logic. There's no rule that explains why many workplaces tolerate women in skirts but frown on men in shorts. There's no rule that explains why it's many workplaces, but not all workplaces. These are highly variable, context-dependent social and professional norms. You'll never find a consistent principle you can safely and mindlessly apply. You just have to be aware of the local norms and either follow them or not.

---

One of the most obnoxious aspects of any "skeptical" debate is how quickly they devolve into purposeful rejection of any concept of humans as other than mindless robots.

 

[theprestige]

Yes. That's a socially implemented gender role. One of those things we're supposed to be trying to get rid of.

Please don't do this. You're begging a question to score a rhetorical point. Don't do this.

Some people are trying to get rid of social gender. Others are not. Others are on the fence. Others figure it's going to happen gradually over time and that's okay. Others figure it's happening too fast and needs to be stopped.

Some of us, like me, think there's probably good reasons not to get rid of it, even if we don't necessarily know what those reasons are; and it probably won't go away anyway, but will probably change in the details of its implementation over time, and that's probably okay.

So piss off with this disingenuous "but we're trying to get rid of it" crap. We're not. Talk about what you mean and what you're trying to do. Don't talk about what some rhetorical "we" mean and are trying to do.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Please don't do this. You're begging a question to score a rhetorical point. Don't do this.

Some people are trying to get rid of social gender. Others are not. Others are on the fence. Others figure it's going to happen gradually over time and that's okay. Others figure it's happening too fast and needs to be stopped.

Some of us, like me, think there's probably good reasons not to get rid of it, even if we don't necessarily know what those reasons are; and it probably won't go away anyway, but will probably change in the details of its implementation over time, and that's probably okay.

So piss off with this disingenuous "but we're trying to get rid of it" crap. We're not. Talk about what you mean and what you're trying to do. Don't talk about what some rhetorical "we" mean and are trying to do.

Jesus Christ dude it was a turn of phrase. Go back and amend to "It's a gender role I think we should get rid of it" in your head if it triggers you that much. Better yet imagine it a metaphor.

I don't have a copy of everybody's personal style guide handy, wouldn't read it if I did, and I wouldn't care to follow them if I did read it. I'm tired of 99% of discussions around here being style policing.

 

[d4m10n]

Yes. That's a socially implemented gender role. One of those things we're supposed to be trying to get rid of.

I already replied to this supposed supposition.

Supposed by whom? I don't foresee any human universals^WP going away any time soon.

If you're going to continue to insist this supposition is being made, you could at least quote someone who actually thinks this way. Probably there are example on this very website.

Look at it this way. Does not wearing a dress make a "woman" less of a "woman?"

Yes, if by “woman” you mean someone who is generally perceived as conforming to a feminine gender role.

No, if by “woman” you’re just talking about karyotype or primary sex characteristics.

Again we're stuck at and can't get away from "The standard exists when I subvert it, but doesn't exist when used as a standard."

When I put quotes around a sentence, it is usually because someone actually said it at some point.

A biological man can say wearing a dress is part of his identity as a woman, but society can't tell a biological woman that wearing a dress is expected of her as a woman.

Western society does, in fact, tell girls that dresses are appropriate attire for them, especially on formal occasions. Visit your local Kohl’s or Target for ample evidence.

I await another 50 pages of "No that's different because I want it to be."

Again, when I put quotes around a sentence, it is usually because someone actually said it at some point, but you do you, Joe.

You just told women they should wear dresses.

If you cannot see the difference between noticing what society is doing and normalizing it yourself, well, I cannot see it for you.

 

[Darat]

But used "minority" as the only criteria when it demonstrably isn't.

"There's not a lot of us" isn't an argument for why you are right.

________________

To the broader discussion we're so deep in the semantic weeds now with so many different meta-discussions about language we can't get anywhere.

You were talking about minorities shutting up, I showed that didn't work for some groups agitating for social changes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you cannot see the difference between noticing what society is doing and normalizing it yourself, well, I cannot see it for you.

Yeah. It's "noticing" when it works in your favor and "normalizing" when it doesn't.

It's not even two different things, it's the exact same thing ("Genders are expected to act a certain way") just applied in two different circumstances.

You've created a feedback loop of doublespeak and semantics to avoid this, but that's what this is.

But even beyond that the idea that broad social level acceptance of transgenderism is a perfectly cromulant goal to strive for but the removal of gender roles is some sort of pie in the sky fantasy is laughable.

 

[caveman1917]

Just making guesses about what the phrase "use the facility for the other sex" is supposed to mean.

Try "using the facility designated for the other sex." Examples would be "a male using the facility designated for females" or "a female using the facility designated for males."

For a post objecting to nuances of language in written law (which of course must refer to the body of previously existing law that it modifies, some of which is phrased in terms of sex), it's rather garbled.

I'm not objecting to "nuances of language" but to a direct logical contradiction.

Let P = "anyone is free to use the facility of their choice."
Let Q = "the facility is segregated by sex."
The legislation asserts the existence of facilities for which (Q & P) is true.
We have (P => ~Q)
From which we get that the legislation asserts the existence of facilities for which (Q & ~Q) is true.
Let R = "the moon is made of cheese."
By the principle of explosion we have ((Q & ~Q) => R)
From which we get that the legislation asserts R. The legislation asserts that the moon is made of cheese.

 

[d4m10n]

Yeah. It's "noticing" when it works in your favor and "normalizing" when it doesn't.

Which of my stated policy goals is furthered by gendered dress?

It's not even two different things, it's the exact same thing ("Genders are expected to act a certain way") just applied in two different circumstances.

Do you disagree that men and women are generally expected to act and dress in different ways?

You've created a feedback loop of doublespeak and semantics to avoid this...

By quoting the defintion of gender from a mainstream dictionary of common usage?

But even beyond that the idea that broad social level acceptance of transgenderism is a perfectly cromulant goal to strive for but the removal of gender roles is some sort of pie in the sky fantasy is laughable.

Even the most modern egalitarian societies have some degree of gender roles which go beyond the purely utilitarian (e.g. urinals).

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you say X=Y in one breath but then X doesn't equal Y in the next, that's not nuance. It's just contradictory.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Even the most modern egalitarian societies have some degree of gender roles which go beyond the purely utilitarian (e.g. urinals).

*Shrugs* And I don't get how that's somehow an argument that transgender acceptance is somehow going to be easier.

At this point you're arguing "We have to have transgenderism because gender roles are never going away" which is... off.

So all the gender roles placed on genders aren't worth fighting to change, but gender roles place on the genders being used subversively* by transgender people are.

*For full clarification I don't mean "subversive" in a... sinister way just as in "against the grain" or "outside the norm."

 

[d4m10n]

If you say X=Y in one breath but then X doesn't equal Y in the next, that's not nuance. It's just contradictory.

Agreed. Now quote where I did so.

 

[Belz...]

Er... guys, I can't really follow here. What's the disagreement?

 

[theprestige]

Er... guys, I can't really follow here. What's the disagreement?

Damion is making an argument that assumes it's possible to have meaning, comprehension, and communication even though natural languages are not systems of formal logic, and depend heavily on social norms and context for understanding.

Joe counters that he can't understand or respond to Damion's argument because Damion isn't defining his terms according to a rigid system of formal logic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Er... guys, I can't really follow here. What's the disagreement?

Okay as close to brass tacks as I can make it.

We have a group of people who feels that their various wants, needs, desires, etc are not being met by our current definitions/standards of gender. I believe these people's complaints to be valid and worthy of consideration. I think most of us are at least somewhere vaguely on this page.

One suggestion is to retain the gender roles but allow to people to pick and choose which ones apply to them and where.

I feel this is untenable and inconsistent and that fighting to remove non-essential gender roles is a better option.

The counter-argument that the gender roles are too ingrained in society or otherwise not worth the effort to try and remove rings hollow to me since integrating transgenderism into society is much more of an abrupt and drastic change.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Joe counters that he can't understand or respond to Damion's argument because Damion isn't defining his terms according to a rigid system of formal logic.

Have we really reached point where expecting any level of internal consistency in arguments is akin to some Vulcan Android "Demand for a rigid system of formal logic?"

 

[d4m10n]

At this point you're arguing "We have to have transgenderism because gender roles are never going away" which is... off.

It sure is, not least because you've put a sentence in quotations which I've never seen uttered anywhere, by anyone.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It sure is, not least because you've put a sentence in quotations which I've never seen uttered anywhere, by anyone.

Jesus Christ then just imagine the quotes aren't there.

Look in that dictionary you think creates reality and find the word "paraphrase."

 

[JoeMorgue]

"What's your opinion on X?"
"Well it's 2+2, 1+3, 6-2, 8/2..."
"So.... 4?"
"SHOW ME WHERE I SAID 4!"