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

[JoeMorgue]

As I said, I can't follow your argument, so I don't know where you stand. It's hard to address someone's points under those circumstances.

Because I have to stop every other post and restate because it immediately gets lost in the weeds.

For the 50th billionth time (I should just save this so I can copy and paste it.)

- I do not recognize a level of valid, meaningful, non-biological difference between the sexes (either as things that exist or things that we should be creating) that is required to make "identifying" as one sex or the other beyond the biological as meaningful in anyway.

- When (g)you say or "accept" (which I could phrase that better, something in that ballpark) a statement like "I'm biologically X, but I identify as Y" (g)you are reinforcing unnecessary at best, dangerous at worst stereotypes placed on the genders. When (g)you let a man who wants to wear a dress present himself as a woman, you are, whether you like it or not, saying that wearing a dress is associated or expected or some version of the same, for women.

- You can't have stereotypes, rules, expectations, etc that only work in the subversive. You can't champion subverting the rules without shoring the rules up.

 

[theprestige]

I'm sorry I'll take being called a transphobe by one side and a rape enabler by the other with my customary good humor.

Nobody is calling you either of those things. Except maybe ponderingturtle. I'm not sure. But ranting at the rest of us isn't really going to help you with that (assuming that's even happening).

 

[Belz...]

- I do not recognize a level of valid, meaningful, non-biological difference between the sexes (either as things that exist or things that we should be creating) that is required to make "identifying" as one sex or the other beyond the biological as meaningful in anyway.

What do you consider "biological"? Hormones can have quite a bit of influence on behaviour, and everything humans do, in a way, stem from the biological. So where do you draw the line?

- When (g)you say or "accept" (which I could phrase that better, something in that ballpark) a statement like "I'm biologically X, but I identify as Y" (g)you are reinforcing unnecessary at best, dangerous at worst stereotypes placed on the genders. When (g)you let a man who wants to wear a dress present himself as a woman, you are, whether you like it or not, saying that wearing a dress is associated or expected or some version of the same, for women.

Lots of things are unnecessary but it's another thing to say they should be done away with. Why are they dangerous stereotypes? In fact, how are they stereotypes at all, rather than, say, expected behaviours based on general sex-based behaviours?

- You can't have stereotypes, rules, expectations, etc that only work in the subversive. You can't champion subverting the rules without shoring the rules up.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what this means.

 

[theprestige]

- I do not recognize a level of valid, meaningful, non-biological difference between the sexes (either as things that exist or things that we should be creating) that is required to make "identifying" as one sex or the other beyond the biological as meaningful in anyway.

Society as a whole, however, does. It probably will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The solution to helping transpeople live healthy and fulfilling lives as first-class citizens is not to simply declare that gender norms and expectations are stupid and wrong. That doesn't help transpeople, and it doesn't help the rest of us. We all have to get by in the society we have, not the society we wish to have or plan to have at a later date.

- When (g)you say or "accept" (which I could phrase that better, something in that ballpark) a statement like "I'm biologically X, but I identify as Y" (g)you are reinforcing unnecessary at best, dangerous at worst stereotypes placed on the genders. When (g)you let a man who wants to wear a dress present himself as a woman, you are, whether you like it or not, saying that wearing a dress is associated or expected or some version of the same, for women.

Of course (g)you're saying that. It's true. That's the whole point. The transwoman is saying that she wants to express her interpretation of the norms and expectations for women in her society, and she wants that same society to honor her expression, even though it's at odds with what that society normally prescribes for her biological gender.

"I want to be seen as a woman."

"Then wear a dress."

Is a perfectly cromulent exchange, in a society where women normally wear dresses. You're not so much trying to solve for transgenders, as you are trying to solve for JoeMorgue.

- You can't have stereotypes, rules, expectations, etc that only work in the subversive. You can't champion subverting the rules without shoring the rules up.

Erasing the rules probably isn't the right answer here. Not for transpeople, and not for the rest of us.

 

[d4m10n]

Erasing the rules probably isn't the right answer here. Not for transpeople, and not for the rest of us.

At the local pride parade (day before yesterday) I saw plenty of people happily subverting everyday gender norms. I don't have those photos yet, but here is a link to a random drag queen lineup from a while ago and a world away. This sort of willful and joyful subversion would be lost in the process of degenderfication proposed above, not to mention any number of fun & useful sexual cues.

 

[The Atheist]

What are the more important aspects,being able to throw someone out of their apartment or job for being trans?

Yeah, I'd definitely say both of those are a bit more important than which bog to use.

"Then wear a dress."

Just all become Scots - or Pasifika - and everyone wears skirts.

Problem solved.

 

[theprestige]

At the local pride parade (day before yesterday) I saw plenty of people happily subverting everyday gender norms. I don't have those photos yet, but here is a link to a random drag queen lineup from a while ago and a world away. This sort of willful and joyful subversion would be lost in the process of degenderfication proposed above, not to mention any number of fun & useful sexual cues.

Exactly

 

[TomB]

Well, there's the problem. Not long ago the two were essentially the same. Then it was a set of behaviours associated with sex. Now it's whatever the **** we want, which as you said is akin to the soul debate.

Me, I'd rather avoid the third definition and stick to either the first or second. In both cases, however, it makes how you identify completely irrelevant.

The way I think of it is that there is a physical sex and a mental sex. Yes, I used the term "sex" for both. Deliberately.

Gender is your second definition: "a set of behaviours associated with sex."

Dysphoria occurs when the (external) physical sex does not match up with the (internal) mental sex. We can argue all day about why this happens.

In order to relieve their dysphoria, a person may express the gender that matches their mental sex. In many ways it's easier to manipulate external things than internal. So by acting and dressing like a woman they feel more at ease because it relives the tension between their internal image of their sex and their external. An analogy is painkillers. Morphine doesn't eliminate the cause of pain, but it numbs it so that you can function.

For the purposes of relieving dysphoria, those items that are most distinctly associated with gender will be most effective. This changes over time and between cultures. I don't think the drive is to wear a dress or play with Barbies. It's to be seen and see themselves as female. Currently, that includes wearing a dress. In the future it could mean shaving the left side of your head. Or tattooing a symbol on your forehead.

Of course, that's just the interpretation I have from reading and watching videos.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think men and women should have expectations put on them based on their biological sex unless their biological is the actual determining factor in it.

What if it’s an influencing factor, but not 100% determining? Are social expectations still wrong in such a case?

 

[theprestige]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what this means.

If your goal is to be granted an exception to a rule, you have to first acknowledge and uphold the rule itself. This is different from the goal of abolishing the rule and getting rid of any possibility of exceptions. Our current understanding of gender disphoria seems to be that transgenders function best when there is both a rule and an exception made in their case.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, I'd definitely say both of those are a bit more important than which bog to use.



Just all become Scots - or Pasifika - and everyone wears skirts.

Problem solved.

Not for transgenders in those societies, I bet.

 

[The Atheist]

Not for transgenders in those societies, I bet.

Scotland might be an issue - isn't Rolfe in Scotland?

However, MtF trans aren't just readily accepted in Pasifika culture - they're a part of their culture and always have been. The girls just see them as girls and they use the girls' toilets.

And let me tell you, 95% of the time, you do not need an ID card to spot the girls who still have the male bits.

There may be a case where one of them has attacked a woman, but I've certainly not heard about it, and I've heard of lots of cases of a big Pasifika trans knocking sevens bells of **** out of blokes.

 

[Darat]

I certainly have, which is why (as I've stated multiple times) that leaves me nowhere to go.



I don't put roles on men and women outside of what is literally required by pure biology, therefore "Man who identifies as a woman" has as much literal meaning to me as "Crankshaft that identifies as a meatloaf."



A man who wears a dress isn't a woman, or "a woman on the inside" and there's no scale or dial that tips just a little toward "woman" or anything else.



So there's nowhere for me to go, so I'm everyone's bad guy. Person with a vagina in my bathroom? Don't care. So Rolfe thinks I want her to get raped. But since I don't think the woman in my bathroom "identifying" as a man or a woman matters or indeed even makes sense, I'm the other side's badguy as well.



Can't win, can't lose, can't quit the game.



I'm not even gonna touch the whole "Getting rid of Gender Roles? Why (gasp) when did anyone ever suggest that?" revisionism because I don't feel like playing a rousing game of "Show me where someone said exactly that in those exact words before I'll admit the idea was ever even on the table."

But surely Joe you recognise that you are rather nonconformist in this regard? It's a fact that whether it is right or wrong our societies do compartmentalise certain behaviours, such as what we wear to one sex/gender. Therefore in the context of our actual society someone could consider themselves to be the gender that wears tights/pantyhose not the gender that doesn't. You can claim this is an arbitrary, non logical way of assigning gender, and I'd actually agree with you BUT it is how society actually is organised.

 

[Darat]

That's not a valid description of an experiment, you didn't specify which outcomes of this would entail which conclusions. Furthermore, even if it were, your proposal only concerns boys born with deformed genitalia who are a small minority of the population. So I ask you again: What experiment could be performed that allows one to determine someone's gender identity?

You ask people.

 

[Darat]

True, but then it isn't cross-culturally invariant and the claim for a neuroanatomical basis fails.

Not necessarily, it could simply mean it has different expressions depending on the environment.

 

[Darat]

I think there is a biological reason why men typically have more trouble presenting a baby smooth face to the world than women do.



As a consequentialist, I like to be able to point to some cognizable harm done whenever I say something is wrong.

You've got that the wrong way around. To use an example. Women with visble facial hair are considered less feminine, less beautiful, less attractive in a culture such as the USA because visible facial hair is considered a "masculine" trait. Yet in reality both women (albeit generally to a lesser amount) and men "biologically" have facial hair. This means a biological trait is suppressed in the societally/culturally defined female gender but can be expressed in the male gender. It is these types of gender differences that some of us think should be irrelevant and should really be relegated to history. A woman shouldn't be judged as less "womanly" because she allows her facial hair to grow and be seen.

The issue this view has is the one Joe is expressing, which is wanting to be identified as or even just self identify as a particular gender is really saying you want to use these *arbitrary* social markers to identify yourself but these are simply cultural and societal norms not objective differences that exist outwith society. (We know these are not objective in the sense that they appear the same in all human societies, the classic example is the swap of pink for boys to pink for girls.)

It does raise an interesting question and that is if there were not these socially created and reenforced differences between certain groups of humans what would wanting to be a particular gender actually mean?

 

[d4m10n]

The issue this view has is the one Joe is expressing, which is wanting to be identified as or even just self identify as a particular gender is really saying you want to use these *arbitrary* social markers to identify yourself but these are simply cultural and societal norms not objective differences that exist outwith society.

I wouldn't say that emphasizing observable average sex differences in body hair counts as entirely arbitrary, at least not in those tribes where men are noticeably more hirsute than women. Same goes for any attempt to emphasize other sex differences which would exist even in something approaching a state of nature, e.g. push-up bras. There remain plenty of differences which are entirely arbitrary, however, such as makeup, hair length, clothing color palettes, neckties, etc.

Like Joe, I believe we should avoid being heavy-handed in our enforcement of the above-mentioned gender norms, but unlike him, I don't think most of them are harmful enough to make total degenderfication a worthwhile social project. I try to argue these things on a case-by-case basis, weighing the relevant benefits and harms.

It does raise an interesting question and that is if there were not these socially created and reenforced differences between certain groups of humans what would wanting to be a particular gender actually mean?

I addressed this question (somewhat) in a previous instance of this thread.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, I'd definitely say both of those are a bit more important than which bog to use.

Depends if you are on a trans friendly employer and own a house then they are less of issues. Using bathrooms and being outed are constant issues for all trans people. These are certainly all issues, why do we have to deal with them in some specific sequence?

 

[caveman1917]

You ask people.

Do you then consider the existence of souls demonstrated because you can ask people and some will say "yes I have a soul"?

 

[Ziggurat]

You've got that the wrong way around. To use an example. Women with visble facial hair are considered less feminine, less beautiful, less attractive in a culture such as the USA because visible facial hair is considered a "masculine" trait. Yet in reality both women (albeit generally to a lesser amount) and men "biologically" have facial hair. This means a biological trait is suppressed in the societally/culturally defined female gender but can be expressed in the male gender. It is these types of gender differences that some of us think should be irrelevant and should really be relegated to history. A woman shouldn't be judged as less "womanly" because she allows her facial hair to grow and be seen.

Facial hair isn't irrelevant, and will probably never be irrelevant.

Excess facial hair on women is one of the signs of polycystic ovary syndrome. Another symptom is lowered fertility. So facial hair is negatively associated with fertility. That makes facial hair unattractive on women. This isn't fair, but it's not arbitrary, it has a biological basis, and you're never going to get rid of it simply by wishing it away.