Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
And I'm still of the mind that's how we got to where we are now.

The stupid, arbitrary at best, damaging at worst "rules" placed on the two biological sexes just weren't go away fast enough, so some people decided to square the circle they would just declare who they were by fiat.

"Oh so you say I can't do X and be a 'real man?' Fine, then I'm a woman."

My only problem has been that lives nowhere to fight those stupid rolls since now they sort of have to stay in place in order to have something to subvert so people who don't put useless roles on people based on their genital structure come across as the bad guys because we're not properly acknowledging their subversion of standards we don't think exist in the way we're told we have to.
Click to expand...
Of course, your beliefs are pure hogwash. There is very strong evidence for a biological basis behind transexuality; a presence in the historical record dating back thousands of years in diverse cultures; and gender identity amongst the transgendered tends to be quite stable, and manifest itself early in life.
 
Shadowdweller said:
There is very strong evidence for a biological basis behind transexuality; a presence in the historical record dating back thousands of years in diverse cultures; and gender identity amongst the transgendered tends to be quite stable, and manifest itself early in life.
Click to expand...

If there's a strong evidence for transexuality there is strong evidence between the sexes, period.

People want to have one and not the other.
 
Ziggurat said:
Several girls are suing on the basis that including biological males in their competitions denies them title IX protections.
Click to expand...

Well obviously these girls are transphobic.

Or the transwomen are sexist.

Spin the wheel of bigotry and win a prize. No you can't quit the game.
 
Belz... said:
Sex is not a belief system. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Sex isn’t but gender, language, and belief systems, seems to me, share the quality of meaning different things to different people rather than being anything particularly to do with facts. They all just sort of live alongside humans and can evolve, change, drift, etc.

I don’t see how one could argue that gender doesn’t mean different things to someone in Canada vs someone in India, or someone in 1965 vs someone in 1750.
 
Shadowdweller said:
Of course, your beliefs are pure hogwash. There is very strong evidence for a biological basis behind transexuality; a presence in the historical record dating back thousands of years in diverse cultures; and gender identity amongst the transgendered tends to be quite stable, and manifest itself early in life.
Click to expand...

And?

So what if there's a biological basis for it? There's a biological basis for every human behaviour. It doesn't mean that the feelings it results in overturn whatever other reality may exist independant from it.
 
Belz... said:
And?

So what if there's a biological basis for it? There's a biological basis for every human behaviour. It doesn't mean that the feelings it results in overturn whatever other reality may exist independant from it.
Click to expand...
It contradicts conceptions such as:
JoeMorgue said:
The stupid, arbitrary at best, damaging at worst "rules" placed on the two biological sexes just weren't go away fast enough, so some people decided to square the circle they would just declare who they were by fiat.

"Oh so you say I can't do X and be a 'real man?' Fine, then I'm a woman."
Click to expand...
 
Shadowdweller said:
I'm afraid I've no idea what you mean by strong evidence "between the sexes".
Click to expand...

*Very, very slowly*

Person A is a biological female who identifies as woman. In the common parlance both her gender and her sex are female (semantics of how widely and inconsistently those terms are used aside.)

Person B is a biological female but identifies as man.We're months into this discussion and people are still arguing for qualities that can turn a woman into a man but isn't required to just be a man.

Now we have to stop and make sure we are all on the same page before we continue.

There has to be a meaningful, objective difference that actually exists independent of these two people's thoughts. If there isn't this whole thing collapses into the biggest nothingburger in history.

I don't care what you think the difference is, but you have to admit you think there is a difference. A difference, not a copout. No "Well it's complicated (and then never actually expand on that)," no "Well they think...," nothing but an actual, objective difference that exists in reality.

Again what that difference is I don't care at this point, I'm beyond that. But there is a difference. A sex-female who is a gender-woman has to be somehow distinct from a sex-female who is a gender-man or this whole thing is pointless.

Okay. So take whatever that difference is. Again don't care what it is at this this point. But just take what ever it is.

That difference. That exact same difference. Again no copouts where people just repeat "it's complicated" over and over with no intentions of ever going beyond that. That difference between a female who's a man and female who's a woman... has to also be a difference between a (for lack of a better term, I'll grant it's not perfect) traditional man and woman.

I'm sick of this... semi-permeable membrane of gender/sex identity that can somehow turn a woman into a man but doesn't exist as difference between male and female.

You, you, you, not me, you are the one arguing for meaningful, non-biological differences between the sexes.
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Very, very slowly*
Click to expand...
Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I HAVE been (incompletely) skimming.

JoeMorgue said:
You, you, you, not me, you are the one arguing for meaningful, non-biological differences between the sexes.
Click to expand...
I'm reasonably certain that I haven't made any arguments in this thread, other than a claim that one set of statements you made was inconsistent with known facts.

(Certainly, I would tend to say that there are biological differences between a genetic female that identifies as a female and a genetic female that identifies as male; or at least there usually are. For example if theories about pre-natal hormone exposure are correct regarding transexuality....that doesn't necessarily prevent some small subset of the population from choosing to change gender based on whim rather than the more standard hormone exposure).
 
d4m10n said:
I think we need to leave some conceptual elbow room for individuals who have atypical sexual development, e.g. Semenya.
Click to expand...


Semenya is a male with partial androgen insensitivity. She was mistakenly believed to be female when she was born because her ambiguous genitalia bore a closer resemblance to female genitalia than to male. Society in general and the sports authorities in particular are still trying to figure out what to do about all this.

However she has testicles, not ovaries, she went through male puberty and she has circulating androgens in the (lower part of the) male range. Finding a way to accommodate the original mistake and the profound effect it has had on her in such a way that her life isn't ruined doesn't alter in the slightest the fact that she's a biological male.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm sick of this... semi-permeable membrane of gender/sex identity that can somehow turn a woman into a man but doesn't exist as difference between male and female.
Click to expand...
About this though - I can't speak on behalf of whoever you've been talking to or arguing with. But are you familiar with the concept of a continuum? There exist multiple occurrences in life/science/what have you where there are not clear-cut distinctions between traits. Speciation is sometimes one of these. Color is another - what constitutes green versus blue in some cases is a matter of arbitrary decision. (Greenish blue vs Bluish Green). Unless you have some official body declaring a precise cut-off point between wavelengths of light. And it gets a lot more complicated when we are talking about traits that are multivariate.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
And, and I think this keeps getting lost in the shuffle, is that functionally I treat transgender people exactly as they claim they want to be treated but I'm a "bad guy" because I'm not getting there via the "right" way.

I treat a "man who identifies as a woman" like a woman... but that's because I don't treat men and women differently (in the ways and on the scale we're discussing here anyway.)

But that's not good enough. I have to treat men and women differently so that I can treat the man who identifies as a woman like a man.

Again you strip out B.S. manufactured gender differences and we're left with biological objective facts and... pronouns.
Click to expand...

First, I want to say that I agree with you. Gender roles are BS. Someone should be able to act or dress however they like regardless of their sex. That extends to employment/family roles as well. Everyone should have the choice to pursue whatever career they wish. Or to be a stay at home spouse\parent. Other than the obvious biological ability to give birth, sex shouldn't matter.

But even if we all act the same, dress the same, use the same locker rooms, etc, dysphoria will still exist.

To my limited understanding, it's not the gender role that is at issue, it's the perceived mismatch between their mental image and their physical body. I doubt there is a gene that makes someone want to wear frilly dresses, makeup and high heels. The differing gender presentations, I think, serve to minimize the disparity between mental image and their physical body, which reduces the anxiety caused by the dysphoria.
 
Shadowdweller said:
About this though - I can't speak on behalf of whoever you've been talking to or arguing with. But are you familiar with the concept of a continuum? There exist multiple occurrences in life/science/what have you where there are not clear-cut distinctions between traits. Speciation is sometimes one of these. Color is another - what constitutes green versus blue in some cases is a matter of arbitrary decision. (Greenish blue vs Bluish Green). Unless you have some official body declaring a precise cut-off point between wavelengths of light. And it gets a lot more complicated when we are talking about traits that are multivariate.
Click to expand...

Like I said "It's complicated" isn't the answer to everything.

Here's the real world truth.

If I'm okay with the biological male who identifies as a female in the women's room... Rolf screams at me that I'm anti-woman because I want her to get raped.

If I'm not okay with the biological male who identifies as a woman in the women's room (g)you are going to scream at me that I'm transphobic.

I want to make both of you of happy and that is 100% sincere but you have to give me a way to do that that isn't "Just pick which side you want to scream 'bigot!' at you."
 
Rolfe said:
Semenya is a male with partial androgen insensitivity. She was mistakenly believed to be female when she was born because her ambiguous genitalia bore a closer resemblance to female genitalia than to male. Society in general and the sports authorities in particular are still trying to figure out what to do about all this.

However she has testicles, not ovaries, she went through male puberty and she has circulating androgens in the (lower part of the) male range. Finding a way to accommodate the original mistake and the profound effect it has had on her in such a way that her life isn't ruined doesn't alter in the slightest the fact that she's a biological male.
Click to expand...
That all seems right to me; it explains (rather than contradicts) what I wrote about the need to put in a bit of wiggle room when inferring karyotype from phenotype.
 
Rolfe said:
Semenya is a male with partial androgen insensitivity. She was mistakenly believed to be female when she was born because her ambiguous genitalia bore a closer resemblance to female genitalia than to male. Society in general and the sports authorities in particular are still trying to figure out what to do about all this.

However she has testicles, not ovaries, she went through male puberty and she has circulating androgens in the (lower part of the) male range. Finding a way to accommodate the original mistake and the profound effect it has had on her in such a way that her life isn't ruined doesn't alter in the slightest the fact that she's a biological male.
Click to expand...

Just for clarity, do we actually know what condition Semenya has or is it conjecture?

Does your judgement of her being male apply equally to people with Swyer syndrome?
Swyer syndrome is a rare disorder characterized by the failure of the sex glands (i.e., testicles or ovaries) to develop. Swyer syndrome is classified as a disorder of sex development (DSD), which encompasses any disorder in which chromosomal, gonadal or anatomic sex development is abnormal. Girls with Swyer syndrome have an XY chromosomal makeup (as boys normally do) instead of an XX chromosomal makeup (as girls normally do). Despite having the XY chromosomal makeup, girls with Swyer syndrome look female and have functional female genitalia and structures including a vagina, uterus and fallopian tubes.

Girls with Swyer syndrome lack sex glands (ovaries). Instead of sex glands, women with Swyer syndrome have "gonadal streaks", in which the ovaries do not develop properly (aplasia) and are replaced by functionless scar (fibrous) tissue. Because they lack ovaries, girls with Swyer syndrome do not produce sex hormones and will not undergo puberty (unless treated with hormone replacement therapy). Mutations in several different genes are known to cause Swyer syndrome. This condition can occur as the result of a new gene mutation or can be inherited in an autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, X-linked or Y-linked manner.
Click to expand...
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/

Women with Swyer syndrome have neither testes nor ovaries. They do have a uterus, however, and can become pregnant through implantation of donor eggs.

Which sports team should they be on?
Which bathroom should they use?
 
TomB said:
To my limited understanding, it's not the gender role that is at issue, it's the perceived mismatch between their mental image and their physical body. I doubt there is a gene that makes someone want to wear frilly dresses, makeup and high heels. The differing gender presentations, I think, serve to minimize the disparity between mental image and their physical body, which reduces the anxiety caused by the dysphoria.
Click to expand...

In my mental image I'm 6"4, have 1% body fat, and a much stronger jawline. I'm not asking, demanding, or expecting anyone to literally think that's what I look like.

"Mental image" isn't magically different when its about sex. It's functionally no different from "I would like to be."
 
JoeMorgue said:
And, and I think this keeps getting lost in the shuffle, is that functionally I treat transgender people exactly as they claim they want to be treated but I'm a "bad guy" because I'm not getting there via the "right" way.

I treat a "man who identifies as a woman" like a woman... but that's because I don't treat men and women differently (in the ways and on the scale we're discussing here anyway.)

But that's not good enough. I have to treat men and women differently so that I can treat the man who identifies as a woman like a man.

Again you strip out B.S. manufactured gender differences and we're left with biological objective facts and... pronouns.
Click to expand...
This.
Especially the highlighted.

Why do girls get the princess pink fluffy wuffy stuff, why can't boys play with dolls and fluffy wuffy stuff too?
etc etc etc.

Gender is what we are pressured to do as we grow up, I would like to see what would happen if we weren't.

This whole gender self focus thing might just disappear as no one would care anymore, be yourself... the stereotypes have gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom