Trans Women are not Women

[TragicMonkey]

To me it seems more like a problem of conflicting ideologies attempting to assert the right to strictly define what has always hitherto been a nebulous concept, for the purpose of using it as justification for public policy change (or to retain the status quo). Since the concept is so nebulous and nobody has the authority to define or redefine it this seems to be a waste of time. Personally I think it would therefore make more sense to ignore the deep philosophical questions and concentrate on what do people actually want to happen, and can they reach agreement on what to do. What to think is always a private internal matter anyway.

 

[JoeMorgue]

To me it seems more like a problem of conflicting ideologies attempting to assert the right to strictly define what has always hitherto been a nebulous concept, for the purpose of using it as justification for public policy change (or to retain the status quo). Since the concept is so nebulous and nobody has the authority to define or redefine it this seems to be a waste of time. Personally I think it would therefore make more sense to ignore the deep philosophical questions and concentrate on what do people actually want to happen, and can they reach agreement on what to do. What to think is always a private internal matter anyway.

Problem is the practical applications aren't any less contradictory then the philosophical ones.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Problem is the practical applications aren't any less contradictory then the philosophical ones.

Not all of them. "Here's a bathroom anybody can use" seems pretty straightforward to me. It doesn't require any stance on any theory about anything, and demands no declaration of any state of being or acceptance of any ideology.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Not all of them. "Here's a bathroom anybody can use" seems pretty straightforward to me. It doesn't require any stance on any theory about anything, and demands no declaration of any state of being or acceptance of any ideology.

Well without rehashing the whole thing "acknowledgement of their chosen gender" is a factor for at least some people.

In some cases the motive is the practical part. You can't always separate them.

 

[d4m10n]

"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!"

J: What's your opinion on gender?

D: I'm fine with the usual dictionary definition.

J: WHY ARE YOU SO CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTORY!?

 

[JoeMorgue]

J: What's your opinion on gender?

D: I'm fine with the usual dictionary definition.

J: WHY ARE YOU SO CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTORY!?

*Sighs* Listen all I'm saying is can we please, please argue each other points and not grade them against our own personal style guides?


It might have got lost in the shuffle but a few posts up I honestly did try, in as neutral language as possible, to lay out the disagreement. (The "Brass Tacks" post)

Do you think that's at least in the ballpark?

 

[Belz...]

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.

So according to you they're both right and also essentially saying the same thing while disagreeing.

 

[Belz...]

Vulcan Android

Best concept ever.

 

[theprestige]

So according to you they're both right and also essentially saying the same thing while disagreeing.

No. According to me, Joe is wrong. According to me, transgenderism depends on maintaining an established social construct of binary gender. As I understand it, Joe - and Damion, I think - basically agree with me on this. Where Joe goes wrong (according to me) is in the sharp left turn into doctrinaire "rigidly define your terms" hell.

 

[Myriad]

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."

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

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.

And yet, the legislators (who passed the Act in the first place), judiciary, and bar of Massachusetts, thousands and thousands of trained professionals whose primary skill set is the dissecting and arguing of words and phrases as they apply to particular real-world cases, have been caused no difficulty whatsoever by this egregious contradiction you're perceiving.

(Interestingly, as well, if you walk up to one of them and tell them "everything I say is a lie," they do not go into comas, nor emit sparks and then explode. I've tried.)

Either they (and the many politicians and organizations that further publicly endorsed the Act during the subsequent referendum, including LGBT+ organizations, women's rights organizations, anti sexual assault and domestic violence organizations, the ACLU, the state Attorney General, bar associations, law enforcement organizations, and labor unions) are all missing something obvious, or you are.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Where Joe goes wrong (according to me) is in the sharp left turn into doctrinaire "rigidly define your terms" hell.

And my argument is that transgenderism as a concept requires us to keep the classic, rigid gender definitions in place.

Again without the standards, people subverting them makes no sense.

I'm the one arguing there's base biology you can't change and a bunch of made up socially applied nonsense that shouldn't be there to subvert against in the first place.

In my world a biological male who decides to wear a dress or make up is... a biological male who decides to wear a dress or make up. He doesn't become a woman, some new subcategory of woman, or have some "gender slider" that moves toward the "woman side."

 

[JoeMorgue]

And yet, the legislators (who passed the Act in the first place), judiciary, and bar of Massachusetts, thousands and thousands of trained professionals whose primary skill set is the dissecting and arguing of words and phrases as they apply to particular real-world cases, have been caused no difficulty whatsoever by this egregious contradiction you're perceiving.

This is worse then "Well the dictionary says...."

By that logic African Americans were literally and undeniably 3/5ths of a person between the years of 1787 to 1868 because... what are you going to argue with a bunch of lawmakers who are experts are the usages of words and phrases?

(And cue... "Well that's different because...")

 

[Ziggurat]

In my world a biological male who decides to wear a dress or make up is... a biological male who decides to wear a dress or make up. He doesn't become a woman, some new subcategory of woman, or have some "gender slider" that moves toward the "woman side."

Where does a biological male who decides to have sex reassignment surgery fit in? Whether or not you consider them a female, that's still well beyond just transgressing "socially applied nonsense".

 

[JoeMorgue]

Where does a biological male who decides to have sex reassignment surgery fit in? Whether or not you consider them a female, that's still well beyond just transgressing "socially applied nonsense".

I don't know. I don't have an exact at the finger tips ready answer for every possible scenario.

Broadly speaking since biology is the only thing that is an actual objective difference, I see no logical contradiction with the idea of male to female (or vice versa) transition.

 

[Myriad]

This is worse then "Well the dictionary says...."

By that logic African Americans were literally and undeniably 3/5ths of a person between the years of 1787 to 1868 because... what are you going to argue with a bunch of lawmakers who are experts are the usages of words and phrases?

(And cue... "Well that's different because...")

I think you've lost track of what I and caveman were disagreeing on. I'll give you a chance to review, because I doubt you really intend your line of argument being that Massachsetts's progressive trans rights law is oppressive to trans people.

 

[d4m10n]

Listen all I'm saying is can we please, please argue each other points and not grade them against our own personal style guides?

Okay, I'll give it a go, but I really think it would help to drill down to specifics instead of making broad generalizations like this:

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

Of the rather many gendered forms of self-expression in our society, can you name just a few which we should be "fighting to remove," in your view?

My view is basically to let people do as they will, so long as they do no harm.

If someone who is 46 X,Y wants to wear high heels and call themselves "Sheila," I don't care.

If someone who is 46 X,X wants to wear combat boots and call themselves "Bruce," I still don't care.

I also don't care which bathrooms they use, so long as they aren't waving their junk around, which is considered impolite in almost any setting.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know. I don't have an exact at the finger tips ready answer for every possible scenario.

Broadly speaking since biology is the only thing that is an actual objective difference, I see no logical contradiction with the idea of male to female (or vice versa) transition.

Transition surgery changes biology, but transition is never complete. A male that has undergone transition surgery to female is still not actually female. They don't get functioning ovaries or a uturus, they don't have XX genes, if it happens post-puberty they still have a male skeletal structure. But their biology is undeniably changed from what it was prior to surgery. Their genital morphology is altered to be closer to female, they no longer have testes, their hormone profiles are female-like. It is not inconceivable that one day true sex change procedures might exist, but we're nowhere close to that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I also don't care which bathrooms they use, so long as they aren't waving their junk around, which is considered impolite in almost any setting.

The old guys at the Y don't seem to care.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My view is basically to let people do as they will, so long as they do no harm.

Of course I agree with this.

If someone who is 46 X,Y wants to wear high heels and call themselves "Sheila," I don't care.

If someone who is 46 X,X wants to wear combat boots and call themselves "Bruce," I still don't care.

I also don't care which bathrooms they use, so long as they aren't waving their junk around, which is considered impolite in almost any setting.

Then I literally have no idea what we're arguing about because this was my proposal 80 pages ago and had half a dozen people scream "Transphobe" in one ear and "I want to let men rape women in the bathroom by sneaking in by wearing a dress" in the other for 30 pages.

I'm in the bathroom. In the stall next to me is a human being who has a vagina. I literally couldn't care less.

The disagreement I thought we were having was whether or not that human being with a vagina identified as a man or a woman made a difference.

Anybody is welcome in my bathroom, but the difference is whether or not (g)you thinks that they "identity" as the same gender as me is a prerequisite or not.

1. "My" bathroom is for people who are the same biological sex as me.
2. "My" bathroom is for people who identify as the same gender as me.
3. "My" bathroom is for whoever.

It seems neither of us are landing on #1.

It seems (and no snark correct me and clarify if I'm reading it wrong) we both fall closer to #3 then to #2.

But if that's the case where does transgenderism even come into the discussion?

 

[d4m10n]

The old guys at the Y don't seem to care.

Those guys are the worst.